[Pages S11541-S11569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Resumed

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1585, which the clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2008 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Nelson of Nebraska (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the
nature of a substitute.
Levin amendment No. 2087 (to amendment No. 2011), to
provide for a reduction and transition of United States
forces in Iraq.
Reed amendment No. 2088 (to amendment No. 2087), to change
the enactment date.
Dodd (for Levin) amendment No. 2274 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2011), to provide
for a reduction and transition of United States forces in
Iraq.
Levin amendment No. 2275 (to amendment No. 2274), to
provide for a reduction and transition of United States
forces in Iraq.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today returns to
the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2008. This bill contains important benefits for our men and women
in uniform, including pay raises, targeted bonuses and special pays,
and benefits. It also includes funding and authorities needed to
provide our troops the equipment and support they will need.
Prompt Senate action on this bill will send an important message.
Regardless of our position on the war in Iraq, we all support our men
and women in uniform. The bill was approved by the Armed Services
Committee on a unanimous 25-to-0 vote, and it is my hope it will
receive a similarly strong endorsement from the full Senate.
We have a lot of hard work ahead of us before that can happen. As of
today,

[[Page S11542]]

more than 300 amendments have been filed. We are working hard to clear
as many of these amendments as possible, but some amendments will
inevitably require votes. Where that is the case, I hope my colleagues
will work with us to develop appropriate time agreements that protect
the interests of everybody involved while expediting consideration of
the bill.
Congress has enacted a Defense Authorization Act every year for more
than 40 years. I hope we will build on that record and show our strong
support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by working
together to pass this bill.
On a procedural note, I understand the President signed the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 into law on Friday. In
accordance with the new rules, I am placing into the Record a
certification that each congressionally directed item in this bill and
the accompanying report has been identified through lists identifying
the names of the Senator or Senators requesting the item and that this
information has been available on the committee's Web site for more
than 48 hours.
In addition, the committee is in the process of collecting a
certification from each such Senator that neither the Senator nor the
Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, and,
again, that is consistent with the requirements of the Senate rules
now. In accordance with the requirements of the new rules, we will make
these certifications available for public inspection on our Web site as
soon as practicable.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
my certification of compliance with the requirements of the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Certification of Compliance With the Requirements of the Honest
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007

September 17, 2007.
I hereby certify that--
(1) each congressionally directed spending item, limited
tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as
reported by the Committee on Armed Services, has been
identified through lists, charts, or other similar means
including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to
the committee for each item so identified; and
(2) the information described in paragraph (1) has been
available on the website of the Committee on Armed Services
in a searchable format for more than 48 hours.
Carl Levin,
Chairman.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are open to amendments. If Senators want
to come to the floor now and offer amendments, it will be required we
set aside a pending amendment. We are hoping to get unanimous consent
to do that. We expect we will be able to get unanimous consent to do
that. So Senators who have amendments, if they will come to the floor
and discuss and describe their amendments, we will be able to hopefully
make some progress, and then at a later time this afternoon hopefully
make those amendments in order by a unanimous consent agreement to
withdraw the pending second-degree amendment.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')

Amendment No. 2022

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize it is not possible, because
agreement has not yet been reached, to set aside the pending
legislation to bring up the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an
amendment. As the managers of the bill are not on the floor, I
certainly will not take advantage of that and do it. So let me speak
about it.
I now am speaking on the National Defense Authorization Act. At an
appropriate time, I will bring up amendment No. 2022. I will tell you
why I will do this.
Last year, Congress committed an historic mistake by suspending the
Great Writ of habeas corpus--not just for those confined at Guantanamo
Bay but for millions of legal residents in the United States. The
Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing in May on this bill illustrated
the broad agreement among representatives from diverse political
beliefs and backgrounds that the mistake committed in the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 must be corrected. The Habeas Corpus
Restoration Act of 2007, S.185, the bill on which this amendment is
based, has 30 cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported it on
a bipartisan basis. I hope Senators will review the committee report on
this measure.
Habeas corpus was recklessly undermined in last year's Military
Commissions Act. Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World
War II, the elimination of habeas rights was an action driven by fear,
and it was a stain on America's reputation in the world. This is a time
of testing. Future generations will look back to examine the choices we
made during a time when security was too often invoked as a watchword
to convince us to slacken our defense of liberty and the rule of law.
The Great Writ of habeas corpus is the legal process that guarantees
an opportunity to go to court and challenge the abuse of power by the
Government. The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections
by eliminating that right, permanently, for any noncitizen labeled an
enemy combatant. In fact, a detainee does not have to be found to be an
enemy combatant; it is enough for the Government to say someone is
``awaiting'' determination of that status--something detainees cannot
even contest when they are held in jail.
The sweep of this habeas provision goes far beyond the few hundred
detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, and it includes an
estimated 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States
today. These are people who work and pay taxes, people who abide by our
laws and should be entitled to fair treatment. It is, after all, the
American way. It is what we brag about when we go to their countries.
But under this law, any of these people can be detained, forever,
without any ability to challenge their detention in court.
This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.
Top conservative thinkers, evangelical activists, and prominent
members of the Latino community have all spoken out on the need to
restore these basic American rights. GEN Colin Powell, like many
leading former military and diplomatic officials, has spoken of the
importance of these habeas rights. He asked, ``Isn't that what our
system's all about?''
Perhaps most powerful for me was the testimony of RADM Donald Guter,
who was working in his office in the Pentagon as Judge Advocate General
of the Navy on September 11, 2001, and saw firsthand the effects of
terrorism. His credibility is unimpeachable when he says that denying
habeas rights to detainees endangers our troops and undermines our
military efforts.
Admiral Guter testified:

As we limit the rights of human beings, even those of the
enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us weaker
and imperils our valiant troops, serving not just in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but around the globe.

He was right. Whether you are an individual soldier, or a great
nation, it is difficult to defend the higher ground by taking the lower
road. The world knows what our enemies stand for. The world also knows
what this country has tried to stand for and live up to in--the best of
times, and the worst of times.
Now, as we work to reauthorize the many programs that compose our
valiant armed forces, it is the right time to heed the advice of so
many of our top military lawyers who tell us that eliminating basic
legal rights undermines our fighting men and women; it does not make
them stronger.
I especially want to thank Senator Specter and acknowledge his strong
and consistent leadership on this issue. Senator Specter and I came to
this

[[Page S11543]]

floor to offer this amendment back on July 10, when this bill was
initially being considered, and thereafter. I hope all Senators will
now join with us in restoring basic American values and the rule of
law, while making our Nation stronger.
It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way
of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms, our Constitution, and
the rule of law that we shall prevail. I hope all in the Senate,
Republicans and Democrats, will join us in standing up for a stronger
America, for the America we believe in, and support the Habeas Corpus
Restoration Act of 2007.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2174, as Modified; 2175; 2168; 2108; 2015; 2050; 2120;
2056; 2147; 2047; 2117; 2190; 2199; 2203; 2201; 2200; 2112; 2099; 2212;
2222; 2230, as Modified; 2234, as Modified; 2272; 2220; 2276; 2257;
2281; 2250; 2254; 2268; 2292; 2305; 2216; 2309; 2308; 2310; 2617; 2313;
2863; 2282; 2210; 2291; 2096; 2315; 2176; 2326; 2263; 2294; 2277, as
Modified; and 2862 to Amendment No. 2011

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk
which have been cleared by myself and Senator Warner. I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the
amendments be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid
on the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have any statements
relating to any of these individual amendments printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. No objection. As a matter of fact, we have worked out in
a very satisfactory way each of these amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand there are 50 amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

Amendment No. 2174, as Modified

At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following:

SEC. 115. GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM.

(a) Additional Amount.--
(1) In general.--The amount authorized to be appropriated
by section 201(1) for research, development, test and
evaluation for the Army is hereby increased by $59,041,000.
(2) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development test
and evaluation for the Army, as increased by paragraph (1),
$59,041,000 may be available for the General Fund Enterprise
Business System of the Army.
(3) Supplement not supplant.--The amount available under
paragraph (2) for the purpose specified in that paragraph is
in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for
that purpose.
(b) Offset.--
(1) RDTE, army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated
by section 101(5) for other procurement for the Army is
hereby reduced by $29,219,000, with the amount of the
reduction to be allocated to amounts available for the
General Fund Enterprise Business System.
(2) O&M, army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army is
hereby reduced by $29,822,000, with the amount of the
reduction to be allocated to amounts available for the
General Fund Enterprise Business System.

Amendment No. 2175

(Purpose: To modify the requirements on the Defense Science Board
Review of Department of Defense policies and procedures for the
acquisition of information technology)

On page 246, strike lines 4 through 6 and insert the
following:
(G) the information officers of the Defense Agencies; and
(H) the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and the
heads of the operational test organizations of the military
departments and the Defense Agencies.

On page 247, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
(9) The adequacy of operational and development test
resources (including infrastructure and personnel), policies,
and procedures to ensure appropriate testing of information
technology systems both during development and before
operational use.
(10) The appropriate policies and procedures for technology
assessment, development, and operational testing for purposes
of the adoption of commercial technologies into information
technology systems.

Amendment No. 2168

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the procurement program
for the KC-X tanker aircraft)

At the end of subtitle D at title I, add the following:

SEC. 143. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROCUREMENT PROGRAM FOR
THE KC-X TANKER AIRCRAFT.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Aerial refueling is a critically important force
multiplier for the Air Force.
(2) The KC-X tanker aircraft procurement program is the
number one acquisition and recapitalization priority of the
Air Force.
(3) Given the competing budgetary requirements of the other
Armed Forces and other sectors of the Federal Government, the
Air Force needs to modernize at the most cost effective
price.
(4) Competition in defense procurement provides the Armed
Forces with the best products at the best price.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Air Force should--
(1) hold a full and open competition to choose the best
possible joint aerial refueling capability at the most
reasonable price; and
(2) be discouraged from taking any actions that would limit
the ability of either of the teams seeking the contract for
the procurement of KC-X tanker aircraft from competing for
that contract.

Amendment No. 2108

(Purpose: To require a report on the planning and implementation of the
policy of the United States toward Darfur)

At the end of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1205. REPORT ON PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED
STATES ENGAGEMENT AND POLICY TOWARD DARFUR.

(a) Requirement for Reports.--Not later than 120 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the policy
of the United States to address the crisis in Darfur, in
eastern Chad, and in north-eastern Central African Republic,
and on the contributions of the Department of Defense and the
Department of State to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the United Nations, and the African Union in support
of the current African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) or any
covered United Nations mission.
(b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An assessment of the extent to which the Government of
Sudan is in compliance with its obligations under
international law and as a member of the United Nations,
including under United Nations Security Council Resolutions
1706 (2006) and 1591 (2005), and a description of any
violations of such obligations, including violations relating
to the denial of or delay in facilitating access by AMIS and
United Nations peacekeepers to conflict areas, failure to
implement responsibilities to demobilize and disarm the
Janjaweed militias, obstruction of the voluntary safe return
of internally displaced persons and refugees, and degradation
of security of and access to humanitarian supply routes.
(2) A comprehensive explanation of the policy of the United
States to address the crisis in Darfur, including the
activities of the Department of Defense and the Department of
State.
(3) A comprehensive assessment of the impact of a no-fly
zone for Darfur, including an assessment of the impact of
such a no-fly zone on humanitarian efforts in Darfur and the
region and a plan to minimize any negative impact on such
humanitarian efforts during the implementation of such a no-
fly zone.
(4) A description of contributions made by the Department
of Defense and the Department of State in support of NATO
assistance to AMIS and any covered United Nations mission.
(5) An assessment of the extent to which additional
resources are necessary to meet the obligations of the United
States to AMIS and any covered United Nations mission.
(c) Form and Availability of Reports.--
(1) Form.--Each report submitted under this section shall
be in an unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
(2) Availability.--The unclassified portion of any report
submitted under this section shall be made available to the
public.
(d) Repeal of Superseded Report Requirement.--Section 1227
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2426) is
repealed.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
(2) Covered united nations mission.--The term ``covered
United Nations mission'' means any United Nations-African
Union hybrid peacekeeping operation in Darfur, and any United
Nations peacekeeping operating in Darfur, eastern Chad, or
northern Central

[[Page S11544]]

African Republic, that is deployed on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 2015

(Purpose: To provide for additional members on the Department of
Defense Military Family Readiness Council)

On page 107, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(D) In addition to the members appointed under
subparagraphs (B) and (C), eight individuals appointed by the
Secretary of Defense, of whom--
``(i) one shall be a commissioned officer of the Army or
spouse of a commissioned officer of the Army, and one shall
be an enlisted member of the Army or spouse of an enlisted
member of the Army, except that of the individuals appointed
under this clause at any particular time, one shall be a
member of the Army and the other shall be a spouse of a
member of the Army;
``(ii) one shall be a commissioned officer of the Navy or
spouse of a commissioned officer of the Navy, and one shall
be an enlisted member of the Navy or spouse of an enlisted
member of the Navy, except that of the individuals appointed
under this clause at any particular time, one shall be a
member of the Navy and the other shall be a spouse of a
member of the Navy;
``(iii) one shall be a commissioned officer of the Marine
Corps or spouse of a commissioned officer of the Marine
Corps, and one shall be an enlisted member of the Marine
Corps or spouse of an enlisted member of the Marine Corps,
except that of the individuals appointed under this clause at
any particular time, one shall be a member of the Marine
Corps and the other shall be a spouse of a member of the
Marine Corps; and
``(iv) one shall be a commissioned officer of the Air Force
or spouse of a commissioned officer of the Air Force, and one
shall be an enlisted member of the Air Force or spouse of an
enlisted member of the Air Force, except that of the
individuals appointed under this clause at any particular
time, one shall be a member of the Air Force and the other
shall be a spouse of a member of the Air Force.''.

amendment no. 2050

(Purpose: To require a report on surveys of patient satisfaction at
military treatment facilities)

At the end of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 703. REPORT ON PATIENT SATISFACTION SURVEYS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than March 1, 2008, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the ongoing patient
satisfaction surveys taking place in Department of Defense
inpatient and outpatient settings at military treatment
facilities.
(b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) The types of survey questions asked.
(2) How frequently the surveying is conducted.
(3) How often the results are analyzed and reported back to
the treatment facilities.
(4) To whom survey feedback is made available.
(5) How best practices are incorporated for quality
improvement.
(6) An analysis of the impact and effect of inpatient and
outpatient surveys quality improvement and a comparison of
patient satisfaction survey programs with patient
satisfaction survey programs used by other public and private
health care systems and organizations.
(c) Use of Report Information.--The Secretary shall use
information in the report as the basis for a plan for
improvements in patient satisfaction surveys at health care
at military treatment facilities in order to ensure the
provision of high quality healthcare and hospital services in
such facilities.

amendment no. 2120

(Purpose: To require an additional element in the management plan for
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund)

On page 415, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(C) activities for the coordination of research technology
development and concepts of operations on improvised
explosive defeat with the military departments, the Defense
Agencies, the combatant commands, the Department of Homeland
Security, and other appropriate departments and agencies of
the Federal Government.

amendment no. 2056

(Purpose: To provide support and assistance for families of members of
the Armed Forces who are undergoing deployment)

At the end of subtitle G of title V, add the following:

SEC. 583. FAMILY SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES UNDERGOING DEPLOYMENT, INCLUDING
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL.

(a) Family Support.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall enhance and
improve current programs of the Department of Defense to
provide family support for families of deployed members of
the Armed Forces, including deployed members of the National
Guard and Reserve, in order to improve the assistance
available for families of such members before, during, and
after their deployment cycle.
(2) Specific enhancements.--In enhancing and improving
programs under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall enhance and
improve the availability of assistance to families of members
of the Armed Forces, including members of the National Guard
and Reserve, including assistance in--
(A) preparing and updating family care plans;
(B) securing information on health care and mental health
care benefits and services and on other community resources;
(C) providing referrals for--
(i) crisis services; and
(ii) marriage counseling and family counseling; and
(D) financial counseling.
(b) Post-Deployment Assistance for Spouses and Parents of
Returning Members.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
spouses and parents of members of the Armed Forces, including
members of the National Guard and Reserve, who are returning
from deployment assistance in--
(A) understanding issues that arise in the readjustment of
such members--
(i) for members of the National Guard and Reserve, to
civilian life; and
(ii) for members of the regular components of the Armed
Forces, to military life in a non-combat environment;
(B) identifying signs and symptoms of mental health
conditions; and
(C) encouraging such members and their families in seeking
assistance for such conditions.
(2) Information on available resources.--In providing
assistance under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide
information on local resources for mental health services,
family counseling services, or other appropriate services,
including services available from both military providers of
such services and community-based providers of such services.
(3) Timing.--The Secretary shall provide resources under
paragraph (1) to a member of the Armed Forces approximately
six months after the date of the return of such member from
deployment.

SEC. 584. SUPPORT SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INFANTS, AND
TODDLERS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
UNDERGOING DEPLOYMENT, INCLUDING NATIONAL GUARD
AND RESERVE PERSONNEL.

(a) Enhancement of Support Services for Children.--The
Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) provide information to parents and other caretakers of
children, including infants and toddlers, who are deployed
members of the Armed Forces to assist such parents and
caretakers in responding to the adverse implications of such
deployment (and the death or injury of such members during
such deployment) for such children, including the role such
parents and caretakers can play in addressing and mitigating
such implications;
(2) develop programs and activities to increase awareness
throughout the military and civilian communities of the
potential adverse implications of such deployment (including
the death or injury of such members during such deployment)
for such children and their families and to increase
collaboration within such communities to address and mitigate
such implications;
(3) develop training for early childhood education, child
care, mental health, health care, and family support
professionals to enhance the awareness of such professionals
of their role in assisting families in addressing and
mitigating the potential adverse implications of such
deployment (including the death or injury of such members
during such deployment) for such children; and
(4) conduct or sponsor research on best practices for
building psychological and emotional resiliency in such
children in coping with the deployment of such members.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Reports required.--At the end of the 18-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, and at
the end of the 36-month period beginning on that date, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the
services provided under subsection (a).
(2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) An assessment of the extent to which outreach to
parents and other caretakers of children, or infants and
toddlers, as applicable, of members of the Armed Forces was
effective in reaching such parents and caretakers and in
mitigating any adverse effects of the deployment of such
members on such children or infants and toddlers.
(B) An assessment of the effectiveness of training
materials for education, mental health, health, and family
support professionals in increasing awareness of their role
in assisting families in addressing and mitigating the
adverse effects on children, or infants and toddlers, of the
deployment of deployed members of the Armed Forces, including
National Guard and Reserve personnel.
(C) A description of best practices identified for building
psychological and emotional resiliency in children, or
infants and toddlers, in coping with the deployment of
deployed members of the Armed Forces, including National
Guard and Reserve personnel.
(D) A plan for dissemination throughout the military
departments of the most effective practices for outreach,
training, and building psychological and emotional resiliency
in the children of deployed members.

[[Page S11545]]

AMENDMENT NO. 2147

(Purpose: To authorize the Air University to confer additional academic
degrees)

At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:

SEC. 555. AUTHORITY OF THE AIR UNIVERSITY TO CONFER
ADDITIONAL ACADEMIC DEGREES.

Section 9317(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) The degree of doctor of philosophy in strategic
studies upon graduates of the School of Advanced Airpower
Studies who fulfill the requirements for that degree in
manner consistent with the guidelines of the Department of
Education and the principles of the regional accrediting body
for Air University.
``(6) The degree of master of air, space, and cyberspace
studies upon graduates of Air University who fulfill the
requirements for that degree in a manner consistent with the
recommendations of the Department of Education and the
principles of the regional accrediting body for Air
University.
``(7) The degree of master of flight test engineering
science upon graduates of the Air Force Test Pilot School who
fulfill the requirements for that degree in a manner
consistent with the recommendations of the Department of
Education and the principles of the regional accrediting body
for Air University.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2047

(Purpose: To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation
for survivors of deceased members)

At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 656. ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR TRANSPORTATION
FOR SURVIVORS OF DECEASED MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE
MEMBER'S BURIAL CEREMONIES.

Section 411f(c) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraphs:
``(D) Any child of the parent or parents of the deceased
member who is under the age of 18 years if such child is
attending the burial ceremony of the memorial service with
the parent or parents and would otherwise be left
unaccompanied by the parent or parents.
``(E) The person who directs the disposition of the remains
of the deceased member under section 1482(c) of title 10, or,
in the case of a deceased member whose remains are commingled
and buried in a common grave in a national cemetery, the
person who have been designated under such section to direct
the disposition of the remains if individual identification
had been made.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``may be provided to--''
and all that follows through the end and inserting ``may be
provided to up to two additional persons closely related to
the deceased member who are selected by the person referred
to in paragraph (1)(E).''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2117

(Purpose: To revise the authorized variances on end strengths
authorized for Selected reserve personnel)

At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following:

SEC. 416. REVISION OF AUTHORIZED VARIANCES IN END STRENGTHS
FOR SELECTED RESERVE PERSONNEL.

(a) Increase.--Section 115(f)(3) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``2 percent'' and inserting ``3
percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2007, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning on or after that date.

AMENDMENT NO. 2190

(Purpose: To designate the positions of Principal Military Deputy to
the Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for acquisition
matters as critical acquisition positions)

On page 269, line 20, insert after ``management.'' the
following: ``The position of Principal Deputy shall be
designated as a critical acquisition position under section
1733 of this title.''.
On page 270, line 10, insert after ``management.'' the
following: ``The position of Principal Deputy shall be
designated as a critical acquisition position under section
1733 of this title.''.
On page 270, line 23, insert after ``management.'' the
following: ``The position of Principal Deputy shall be
designated as a critical acquisition position under section
1733 of this title.''.

amendment no. 2199

(Purpose: To require a Comptroller General assessment of the Defense
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research)

At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:

SEC. 256. COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DEFENSE
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE
RESEARCH.

(a) Review.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives an assessment of
the effectiveness of the Defense Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research.
(b) Assessment.--The report under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description and assessment of the tangible results
and progress toward the objectives of the program,
including--
(A) an identification of any past program activities that
led to, or were fundamental to, applications used by, or
supportive of, operational users; and
(B) an assessment of whether the program has expanded the
national research infrastructure.
(2) An assessment whether the activities undertaken under
the program are consistent with the statute authorizing the
program.
(3) An assessment whether the various elements of the
program, such as structure, funding, staffing, project
solicitation and selection, and administration, are working
effectively and efficiently to support the effective
execution of the program.
(4) A description and assessment of past and ongoing
activities of State planning committees under the program in
supporting the achievement of the objectives of the program.
(5) An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of
having an institution-based formula for qualification to
participate in the program when compared with the advantages
and disadvantages of having a State-based formula for
qualification to participate in supporting defense missions
and the objective of expanding the Nation's defense research
infrastructure.
(6) An identification of mechanisms for improving the
management and implementation of the program, including
modification of the statute authorizing the program,
Department regulations, program structure, funding levels,
funding strategy, or the activities of the State committees.
(7) Any other matters the Comptroller General considers
appropriate.

amendment no. 2203

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on family care plans and the
deployment of members of the Armed Forces who have minor dependents)

At the end of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FAMILY CARE PLANS AND THE
DEPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO
HAVE MINOR DEPENDENTS.

(a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) single parents who are members of the Armed Forces with
minor dependents, and dual-military couples with minor
dependents, should develop and maintain effective family care
plans that--
(A) address all reasonably foreseeable situations that
would result in the absence of the single parent or dual-
military couple in order to provide for the efficient
transfer of responsibility for the minor dependents to an
alternative caregiver; and
(B) are consistent with Department of Defense Instruction
1342.19, dated July 13, 1992, and any applicable regulations
of the military department concerned; and
(2) the Secretary of Defense should establish procedures to
ensure that if a single parent and both spouses in a dual-
military couple are required to deploy to a covered area--
(A) requests by the single parent or dual-military couple
for deferments of deployment due to unforeseen circumstances
are evaluated rapidly; and
(B) appropriate steps are taken to ensure adequate care for
minor dependents of the single parent or dual-military
couple.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered area.--The term ``covered area'' means an area
for which special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or
imminent danger is authorized under section 310 of title 37,
United States Code.
(2) Dual-military couple.--The term ``dual-military
couple'' means a married couple in which both spouses are
members of the Armed Forces.

amendment no. 2201

(Purpose: To amend the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002
to repeal the limitations on providing United States military
assistance to parties to the International Criminal Court)

At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1205. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE UNDER
THE AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS' PROTECTION ACT OF
2002.

(a) Repeal of Limitations.--Section 2007 of the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7426) is
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Such Act is further amended--
(1) in section 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7422)--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``Sections 5 and 7'' and
inserting ``Section 2005''; and
(ii) by striking ``sections 2005 and 2007'' and inserting
``section 2005'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``Sections 5 and 7'' and
inserting ``Section 2005''; and
(ii) by striking ``sections 2005 and 2007'' and inserting
``section 2005'';
(C) in subsection (c)(2)(A), by striking ``sections 2005
and 2007'' and inserting ``section 2005'';
(D) in subsection (d), by striking ``sections 2005 and
2007'' and inserting ``section 2005''; and
(E) in subsection (e), by striking ``2006, and 2007'' and
inserting ``and 2006''; and
(2) in section 2013 (22 U.S.C. 7432), by striking paragraph
(13).

[[Page S11546]]

amendment no. 2200

(Purpose: To prescribe that members of the Armed Forces and veterans
out of uniform may render the military salute during hoisting,
lowering, or passing of flag)

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. CONDUCT BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
VETERANS OUT OF UNIFORM DURING HOISTING,
LOWERING, OR PASSING OF FLAG.

Section 9 of title 4, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``all persons present'' and all that follows through
the end and inserting ``those present in uniform should
render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and
veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the
military salute. All other persons present should face the
flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the
heart, or if applicable, remove their headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being
over the heart. Citizens of other countries should stand at
attention. All such conduct toward the flag in a moving
column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2112

(Purpose: To require studies on support services for families of
members of the Active and Reserve components who are undergoing
deployment)

At the end of subtitle G of title V, add the following:

SEC. 583. STUDY ON IMPROVING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR CHILDREN,
INFANTS, AND TODDLERS OF MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE
AND RESERVE COMPONENTS UNDERGOING DEPLOYMENT.

(a) Study Required.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study
to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of entering into
a contract or other agreement with a private sector entity
having expertise in the health and well-being of families and
children, infants, and toddlers in order to enhance and
develop support services for children of members of the
Active and Reserve components who are deployed.
(2) Types of support services.--In conducting the study,
the Secretary shall consider the need--
(A) to develop materials for parents and other caretakers
of children of members of the Active and Reserve components
who are deployed to assist such parents and caretakers in
responding to the adverse implications of such deployment
(and the death or injury of such members during such
deployment) for such children, including the role such
parents and caretakers can play in addressing and mitigating
such implications;
(B) to develop programs and activities to increase
awareness throughout the military and civilian communities of
the adverse implications of such deployment (and the death or
injury of such members during such deployment) for such
children and their families and to increase collaboration
within such communities to address and mitigate such
implications;
(C) to develop training for early child care and education,
mental health, health care, and family support professionals
to enhance the awareness of such professionals of their role
in assisting families in addressing and mitigating the
adverse implications of such deployment (and the death or
injury of such members during such deployment) for such
children; and
(D) to conduct research on best practices for building
psychological and emotional resiliency in such children in
coping with the deployment of such members.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report containing the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 584. STUDY ON ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT PROGRAM ON FAMILY-
TO-FAMILY SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES OF DEPLOYED
MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS
AND RESERVE.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a
study to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of
establishing a pilot program on family-to-family support for
families of deployed members of the Active and Reserve
components. The study shall include an assessment of the
following:
(1) The effectiveness of family-to-family support programs
in--
(A) providing peer support for families of deployed members
of the Active and Reserve components;
(B) identifying and preventing family problems in such
families;
(C) reducing adverse outcomes for children of such
families, including poor academic performance, behavioral
problems, stress, and anxiety; and
(D) improving family readiness and post-deployment
transition for such families.
(2) The feasibility and advisability of utilizing spouses
of members of the Armed Forces as counselors for families of
deployed members of the Active and Reserve components, in
order to assist such families in coping throughout the
deployment cycle.
(3) Best practices for training spouses of members of the
Armed Forces to act as counselors for families of deployed
members of the Active and Reserve components.
(b) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report containing the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a) not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 2099

(Purpose: To extend the date on which the National Security Personnel
System will first apply to certain defense laboratories)

On page 354, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 1070. EXTENSION OF DATE OF APPLICATION OF NATIONAL
SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM TO DEFENSE
LABORATORIES.

Section 9902(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``October 1, 2008'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``October 1, 2011'' in each such place.

amendment no. 2212

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide for the
protection of certain individuals)

At the end of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.

(a) Protection for Department Leadership.--The Secretary of
Defense, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary and in
accordance with guidelines approved by the Secretary and the
Attorney General, may authorize qualified members of the
Armed Forces and qualified civilian employees of the
Department of Defense to provide physical protection and
security within the United States to the following persons
who, by nature of their positions, require continuous
security and protection:
(1) Secretary of Defense.
(2) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(3) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(4) Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(5) Secretaries of the military departments.
(6) Chiefs of the Services.
(7) Commanders of combatant commands.
(b) Protection for Additional Personnel.--
(1) Authority to provide.--The Secretary of Defense, under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary and in accordance
with guidelines approved by the Secretary and the Attorney
General, may authorize qualified members of the Armed Forces
and qualified civilian employees of the Department of Defense
to provide physical protection and security within the United
States to individuals other than individuals described in
paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a) if the Secretary
determines that such protection is necessary because--
(A) there is an imminent and credible threat to the safety
of the individual for whom protection is to be provided; or
(B) compelling operational considerations make such
protection essential to the conduct of official Department of
Defense business.
(2) Personnel.--Individuals authorized to receive physical
protection and security under this subsection include the
following:
(A) Any official, military member, or employee of the
Department of Defense, including such a former or retired
official who faces serious and credible threats arising from
duties performed while employed by the Department.
(B) Any distinguished foreign visitor to the United States
who is conducting official business with the Department of
Defense.
(C) Any member of the immediate family of a person
authorized to receive physical protection and security under
this section.
(3) Limitation on delegation.--The authority of the
Secretary of Defense to authorize the provision of physical
protection and security under this subsection may be
delegated only to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(4) Requirement for written determination.--A determination
of the Secretary of Defense to provide physical protection
and security under this subsection shall be in writing, shall
be based on a threat assessment by an appropriate law
enforcement, security or intelligence organization, and shall
include the name and title of the officer, employee, or other
individual affected, the reason for such determination, and
the duration of the authorized protection and security for
such officer, employee, or individual.
(5) Duration of protection.--
(A) Initial period of protection.--After making a written
determination under paragraph (4), the Secretary of Defense
may provide protection and security to an individual under
this subsection for an initial period of not more than 90
calendar days.
(B) Subsequent period.--If, at the end of the 90-day period
that protection and security is provided to an individual
under subsection (A), the Secretary determines that a
condition described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph
(1) continues to exist with respect to the individual, the
Secretary may extend the period that such protection and
security is provided for additional 60-day periods. The
Secretary shall review such a determination at the end of
each 60-day period to determine whether to continue to
provide such protection and security.
(C) Requirement for compliance with regulations.--
Protection and security provided under subparagraph (B) shall
be provided in accordance with the regulations and guidelines
referred to in paragraph (1).
(6) Submission to congress.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the congressional defense committees a report of each
determination made under paragraph (4) to provide protection
and security to an individual and of each determination under
paragraph (5)(B) to

[[Page S11547]]

extend such protection and security, together with the
justification for such determination, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the determination is made.
(B) Form of report.--A report submitted under subparagraph
(A) may be made in classified form.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Congressional defense committees.--The term
``congressional defense committees'' means the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(2) Qualified members of the armed forces and qualified
civilian employees of the department of defense.--The terms
``qualified members of the Armed Forces and qualified
civilian employees of the Department of Defense'' refer
collectively to members or employees who are assigned to
investigative, law enforcement, or security duties of any of
the following:
(A) The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.
(B) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
(C) The U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
(D) The Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
(E) The Pentagon Force Protection Agency.
(d) Construction.--
(1) No additional law enforcement or arrest authority.--
Other than the authority to provide security and protection
under this section, nothing in this section may be construed
to bestow any additional law enforcement or arrest authority
upon the qualified members of the Armed Forces and qualified
civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
(2) Authorities of other departments.--Nothing in this
section may be construed to preclude or limit, in any way,
the express or implied powers of the Secretary of Defense or
other Department of Defense officials, or the duties and
authorities of the Secretary of State, the Director of the
United States Secret Service, the Director of the United
States Marshals Service, or any other Federal law enforcement
agency.

AMENDMENT NO. 2222

(Purpose: To prevent nuclear terrorism, and for other purposes)

At the end of title XXXI, add the following:

Subtitle D--Nuclear Terrorism Prevention

SEC. 3131. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) The term ``Convention on the Physical Protection of
Nuclear Material'' means the Convention on the Physical
Protection of Nuclear Material, signed at New York and Vienna
March 3, 1980.
(2) The term ``formula quantities of strategic special
nuclear material'' means uranium-235 (contained in uranium
enriched to 20 percent or more in the U-235 isotope),
uranium-233, or plutonium in any combination in a total
quantity of 5,000 grams or more computed by the formula,
grams = (grams contained U-235) + 2.5 (grams U-233 + grams
plutonium), as set forth in the definitions of ``formula
quantity'' and ``strategic special nuclear material'' in
section 73.2 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) The term ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'' means the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at
Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into
force March 5, 1970 (21 UST 483).
(4) The term ``nuclear weapon'' means any device utilizing
atomic energy, exclusive of the means for transporting or
propelling the device (where such means is a separable and
divisible part of the device), the principal purpose of which
is for use as, or for the development of, a weapon, a weapon
prototype, or a weapon test device.

SEC. 3132. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The possibility that terrorists may acquire and use a
nuclear weapon against the United States is the most horrific
threat that our Nation faces.
(2) The September 2006 ``National Strategy for Combating
Terrorism'' issued by the White House states, ``Weapons of
mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is one of the
gravest threats we face.''
(3) Former Senator and cofounder of the Nuclear Threat
Initiative Sam Nunn has stated, ``Stockpiles of loosely
guarded nuclear weapons material are scattered around the
world, offering inviting targets for theft or sale. We are
working on this, but I believe that the threat is outrunning
our response.''.
(4) Existing programs intended to secure, monitor, and
reduce nuclear stockpiles, redirect nuclear scientists, and
interdict nuclear smuggling have made substantial progress,
but additional efforts are needed to reduce the threat of
nuclear terrorism as much as possible.
(5) Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has
said that a nuclear terror attack ``would not only cause
widespread death and destruction, but would stagger the world
economy and thrust tens of millions of people into dire
poverty''.
(6) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004)
reaffirms the need to combat by all means, in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international
peace and security caused by terrorist acts, and directs all
countries, in accordance with their national procedures, to
adopt and enforce effective laws that prohibit any non-state
actor from manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, developing,
transporting, transferring, or using nuclear, chemical, or
biological weapons and their means of delivery, in particular
for terrorist purposes, and to prohibit attempts to engage in
any of the foregoing activities, participate in them as an
accomplice, or assist or finance them.
(7) The Director General of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, has said that it is a ``race
against time'' to prevent a terrorist attack using a nuclear
weapon.
(8) The International Atomic Energy Agency plays a vital
role in coordinating efforts to protect nuclear materials and
to combat nuclear smuggling.
(9) Legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Lugar, Senator
Pete Domenici, and former Senator Sam Nunn has resulted in
groundbreaking programs to secure nuclear weapons and
materials and to help ensure that such weapons and materials
do not fall into the hands of terrorists.

SEC. 3133. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR
TERRORISM.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President should make the prevention of a nuclear
terrorist attack on the United States of the highest
priority;
(2) the President should accelerate programs, requesting
additional funding as appropriate, to prevent nuclear
terrorism, including combating nuclear smuggling, securing
and accounting for nuclear weapons, and eliminating,
removing, or securing and accounting for formula quantities
of strategic special nuclear material wherever such
quantities may be;
(3) the United States, together with the international
community, should take a comprehensive approach to reducing
the danger of nuclear terrorism, including by making
additional efforts to identify and eliminate terrorist groups
that aim to acquire nuclear weapons, to ensure that nuclear
weapons worldwide are secure and accounted for and that
formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material
worldwide are eliminated, removed, or secure and accounted
for to a degree sufficient to defeat the threat that
terrorists and criminals have shown they can pose, and to
increase the ability to find and stop terrorist efforts to
manufacture nuclear explosives or to transport nuclear
explosives and materials anywhere in the world;
(4) within such a comprehensive approach, a high priority
must be placed on ensuring that all nuclear weapons worldwide
are secure and accounted for and that all formula quantities
of strategic special nuclear material worldwide are
eliminated, removed, or secure and accounted for; and
(5) the International Atomic Energy Agency should be funded
appropriately to fulfill its role in coordinating
international efforts to protect nuclear material and to
combat nuclear smuggling.

SEC. 3134. MINIMUM SECURITY STANDARD FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND
FORMULA QUANTITIES OF STRATEGIC SPECIAL NUCLEAR
MATERIAL.

(a) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to work
with the international community to take all possible steps
to ensure that all nuclear weapons around the world are
secure and accounted for and that all formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material are eliminated, removed,
or secure and accounted for to a level sufficient to defeat
the threats posed by terrorists and criminals.
(b) International Nuclear Security Standard.--In
furtherance of the policy described in subsection (a), and
consistent with the requirement for ``appropriate effective''
physical protection contained in United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1540 (2004), as well as the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty and the Convention on the Physical
Protection of Nuclear Material, the President, in
consultation with relevant Federal departments and agencies,
shall seek the broadest possible international agreement on a
global standard for nuclear security that--
(1) ensures that nuclear weapons and formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material are secure and accounted
for to a sufficient level to defeat the threats posed by
terrorists and criminals;
(2) takes into account the limitations of equipment and
human performance; and
(3) includes steps to provide confidence that the needed
measures have in fact been implemented.
(c) International Efforts.--In furtherance of the policy
described in subsection (a), the President, in consultation
with relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall--
(1) work with other countries and the International Atomic
Energy Agency to assist as appropriate, and if necessary,
work to convince, the governments of any and all countries in
possession of nuclear weapons or formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material to ensure that security is
upgraded to meet the standard described in subsection (b) as
rapidly as possible and in a manner that--
(A) accounts for the nature of the terrorist and criminal
threat in each such country; and
(B) ensures that any measures to which the United States
and any such country agree are sustained after United States
and other international assistance ends;

[[Page S11548]]

(2) ensure that United States financial and technical
assistance is available as appropriate to countries for which
the provision of such assistance would accelerate the
implementation of, or improve the effectiveness of, such
security upgrades; and
(3) work with the governments of other countries to ensure
that effective nuclear security rules, accompanied by
effective regulation and enforcement, are put in place to
govern all nuclear weapons and formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material around the world.

SEC. 3135. ANNUAL REPORT.

(a) In General.--Not later than September 1 of each year,
the President, in consultation with relevant Federal
departments and agencies, shall submit to Congress a report
on the security of nuclear weapons, formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material, radiological materials,
and related equipment worldwide.
(b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) A section on the programs for the security and
accounting of nuclear weapons and the elimination, removal,
and security and accounting of formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material and radiological
materials, established under section 3132(b) of the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 (50 U.S.C. 2569(b)), which shall include the following:
(A) A survey of the facilities and sites worldwide that
contain nuclear weapons or related equipment, formula
quantities of strategic special nuclear material, or
radiological materials.
(B) A list of such facilities and sites determined to be of
the highest priority for security and accounting of nuclear
weapons and related equipment, or the elimination, removal,
or security and accounting of formula quantities of strategic
special nuclear material and radiological materials, taking
into account risk of theft from such facilities and sites,
and organized by level of priority.
(C) A prioritized diplomatic and technical plan, including
measurable milestones, metrics, estimated timetables, and
estimated costs of implementation, on the following:
(i) The security and accounting of nuclear weapons and
related equipment and the elimination, removal, or security
and accounting of formula quantities of strategic special
nuclear material and radiological materials at such
facilities and sites worldwide.
(ii) Ensuring that security upgrades and accounting reforms
implemented at such facilities and sites worldwide using the
financial and technical assistance of the United States are
effectively sustained after such assistance ends.
(iii) The role that international agencies and the
international community have committed to play, together with
a plan for securing contributions.
(D) An assessment of the progress made in implementing the
plan described in subparagraph (C), including a description
of the efforts of foreign governments to secure and account
for nuclear weapons and related equipment and to eliminate,
remove, or secure and account for formula quantities of
strategic special nuclear material and radiological
materials.
(2) A section on efforts to establish and implement the
international nuclear security standard described in section
3134(b) and related policies.
(c) Form.--The report may be submitted in classified form
but shall include a detailed unclassified summary.

amendment no. 2230, as modified

Strike section 1215 and insert the following:

SEC. 1215. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
THAILAND.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Thailand is an important strategic ally and economic
partner of the United States.
(2) The United States strongly supports the prompt
restoration of democratic rule in Thailand.
(3) While it is in the interest of the United States to
have a robust defense relationship with Thailand, it is
appropriate that the United States has curtailed certain
military-to-military cooperation and assistance programs
until democratic rule has been restored in Thailand.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Thailand should continue on the path to restore
democratic rule as quickly as possible, and should hold free
and fair national elections as soon as possible and no later
than December 2007; and
(2) once Thailand has fully reestablished democratic rule,
it will be both possible and desirable for the United States
to reinstate a full program of military assistance to the
Government of Thailand, including programs such as
International Military Education and Training (IMET) and
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) that were appropriately
suspended following the military coup in Thailand in
September 2006.
(c) Limitation.--No funds authorized to be appropriated by
this Act may be obligated or expended to provide direct
assistance to the Government of Thailand to initiate new
military assistance activities until 15 days after the
Secretary of Defense notifies the Committees on Armed
Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives of the intent of the Secretary to carry
out such new types of military assistance activities with
Thailand.
(d) Exception.--The limitation in subsection (c) shall not
apply with respect to funds as follows:
(1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated for Overseas
Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid.
(2) Amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this
Act and available for humanitarian or emergency assistance
for other nations.
(e) New Military Assistance Activities Defined.--In this
section, the term ``new military assistance activities''
means military assistance activities that have not been
undertaken between the United States and Thailand during
fiscal year 2007.

amendment no. 2234, as modified

At the end of subtitle E of title III, the following:

SEC. 358. AUTHORITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO PROVIDE
SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN SPORTING EVENTS.

(a) Provision of Support.--Section 2564 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following
new paragraphs:
``(4) A sporting event sanctioned by the United States
Olympic Committee through the Paralympic Military Program.
``(5) Any national or international paralympic sporting
event (other than a sporting event described in paragraphs
(1) through (4))--
``(A) that--
``(i) is held in the United States or any of its
territories or commonwealths;
``(ii) is governed by the International Paralympic
Committee; and
``(iii) is sanctioned by the United States Olympic
Committee;
``(B) for which participation exceeds 100 amateur athletes;
and
``(C) in which at least 10 percent of the athletes
participating in the sporting event are members or former
members of the armed forces who are participating in the
sporting event based upon an injury or wound incurred in the
line of duty in the armed force and veterans who are
participating in the sporting event based upon a service-
connected disability.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Funding for Support of Certain Events.--(1) Amounts
for the provision of support for a sporting event described
in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (c) may be derived from
the Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense
account established by section 5802 of the Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (10 U.S.C. 2564 note),
notwithstanding any limitation under that section relating to
the availability of funds in such account for the provision
of support for international sporting competitions.
``(2) The total amount expended for any fiscal year to
provide support for sporting events described in subsection
(c)(5) may not exceed $1,000,000.''.
(b) Source of Funds.--Section 5802 of the Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (10 U.S.C. 2564 note)
is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``international sporting
competitions'' the following: ``and for support of sporting
competitions authorized under section 2564(c)(4) and (5), of
title 10, United States Code,''; and
(2) by striking ``45 days'' and inserting ``15 days''.

amendment no. 2272

(Purpose: To extend and modify the authorities on Commission to Assess
the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack)

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON COMMISSION TO
ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES FROM
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ATTACK.

(a) Extension of Date of Submittal of Final Report.--
Section 1403(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law
by Public Law 106-398; 50 U.S.C. 2301 note) is amended by
striking ``June 30, 2007'' and inserting ``November 30,
2008''.
(b) Coordination of Work With Department of Homeland
Security.--Section 1404 of such Act is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Coordination With Department of Homeland Security.--
The Commission and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
jointly ensure that the work of the Commission with respect
to electromagnetic pulse attack on electricity
infrastructure, and protection against such attack, is
coordinated with Department of Homeland Security efforts on
such matters.''.
(c) Limitation on Department of Defense Funding.--The
aggregate amount of funds provided by the Department of
Defense to the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United
States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack for purposes of the
preparation and submittal of the final report required by
section 1403(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as amended by
subsection (a)), whether by transfer or otherwise and
including funds provided the Commission before the date of
the enactment of this Act, shall not exceed $5,600,000.

[[Page S11549]]

amendment no. 2220

(Purpose: To authorize the payment of inactive duty training travel
costs for certain Selected Reserve members)

At the end of subtitle A of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 604. PAYMENT OF INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING TRAVEL COSTS FOR
CERTAIN SELECTED RESERVE MEMBERS.

(a) Payment of Travel Costs Authorized.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 408 the following new
section:

``Sec. 408a. Travel and transportation allowances: inactive
duty training

``(a) Allowance Authorized.--Under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary concerned may
reimburse a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve described in subsection (b) for travel expenses for
travel to an inactive duty training location to perform
inactive duty training.
``(b) Eligible Members.--A member of the Selected Reserve
of the Ready Reserve described in this subsection is a member
who--
``(1) is--
``(A) qualified in a skill designated as critically short
by the Secretary concerned;
``(B) assigned to a unit of the Selected Reserve with a
critical manpower shortage, or is in a pay grade in the
member's reserve component with a critical manpower shortage;
or
``(C) assigned to a unit or position that is disestablished
or relocated as a result of defense base closure or
realignment or another force structure reallocation; and
``(2) commutes a distance from the member's permanent
residence to the member's inactive duty training location
that is outside the normal commuting distance (as determined
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense) for
that commute.
``(c) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of reimbursement
provided a member under subsection (a) for each round trip to
a training location shall be $300.
``(d) Termination.--No reimbursement may be provided under
this section for travel that occurs after December 31,
2010.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 408 the following new
item:

``408a. Travel and transportation allowances: inactive duty
training.''.

(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2007. No reimbursement may be
provided under section 408a of title 37, United States Code
(as added by subsection (a)), for travel costs incurred
before October 1, 2007.

AMENDMENT NO. 2276

(Purpose: To require a report on the implementation of the green
procurement policy of the Department of Defense)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 876. GREEN PROCUREMENT POLICY.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) On September 1, 2004, the Department of Defense issued
its green procurement policy. The policy affirms a goal of
100 percent compliance with Federal laws and executive orders
requiring purchase of environmentally friendly, or green,
products and services. The policy also outlines a strategy
for meeting those requirements along with metrics for
measuring progress.
(2) On September 13, 2006, the Department of Defense hosted
a biobased product showcase and educational event which
underscores the importance and seriousness with which the
Department is implementing its green procurement program.
(3) On January 24, 2007, President Bush signed Executive
Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management, which contains the requirement
that Federal agencies procure biobased and environmentally
preferable products and services.
(4) Although the Department of Defense continues to work to
become a leading advocate of green procurement, there is
concern that there is not a procurement application or
process in place at the Department that supports compliance
analysis.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Department of Defense should establish a system to
document and track the use of environmentally preferable
products and services.
(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report on its plan to increase the usage of
environmentally friendly products that minimize potential
impacts to human health and the environment at all Department
of Defense facilities inside and outside the United States,
including through the direct purchase of products and the
purchase of products by facility maintenance contractors.

AMENDMENT NO. 2257

(Purpose: To provide that the study on the national security
interagency system shall focus on improving interagency cooperation in
post-conflict contingency relief and reconstruction operations)

At the end of section 1043, insert the following:
(f) Focus on Improving Interagency Cooperation in Post-
Conflict Contingency Relief and Reconstruction Operations.--
(1) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(A) The interagency coordination and integration of the
United States Government for the planning and execution of
overseas post-conflict contingency relief and reconstruction
operations requires reform.
(B) Recent operations, most notably in Iraq, lacked the
necessary consistent and effective interagency coordination
and integration in planning and execution.
(C) Although the unique circumstances associated with the
Iraq reconstruction effort are partly responsible for this
weak coordination, existing structural weaknesses within the
planning and execution processes for such operations indicate
that the problems encountered in the Iraq program could recur
in future operations unless action is taken to reform and
improve interdepartmental integration in planning and
execution.
(D) The agencies involved in the Iraq program have
attempted to adapt to the relentless demands of the
reconstruction effort, but more substantive and permanent
reforms are required for the United States Government to be
optimally prepared for future operations.
(E) The fresh body of evidence developed from the Iraq
relief and reconstruction experience provides a good basis
and timely opportunity to pursue meaningful improvements
within and among the departments charged with managing the
planning and execution of such operations.
(F) The success achieved in departmental integration of
overseas conflict management through the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law
99-433; 100 Stat. 992) provides precedent for Congress to
consider legislation designed to promote increased
cooperation and integration among the primary Federal
departments and agencies charged with managing post-conflict
contingency reconstruction and relief operations.
(2) Inclusion in study.--The study conducted under
subsection (a) shall include the following elements:
(A) A synthesis of past studies evaluating the successes
and failures of previous interagency efforts at planning and
executing post-conflict contingency relief and reconstruction
operations, including relief and reconstruction operations in
Iraq.
(B) An analysis of the division of duties,
responsibilities, and functions among executive branch
agencies for such operations and recommendations for
administrative and regulatory changes to enhance integration.
(C) Recommendations for legislation that would improve
interagency cooperation and integration and the efficiency of
the United States Government in the planning and execution of
such operations.
(D) Recommendations for improvements in congressional,
executive, and other oversight structures and procedures that
would enhance accountability within such operations.

amendment no. 2281

(Purpose: To require a report on the control of the brown tree snake)

At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following:

SEC. 314. REPORT ON CONTROL OF THE BROWN TREE SNAKE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis), an invasive
species, is found in significant numbers on military
installations and in other areas on Guam, and constitutes a
serious threat to the ecology of Guam.
(2) If introduced into Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, or the continental United States,
the brown tree snake would pose an immediate and serious
economic and ecological threat.
(3) The most probable vector for the introduction of the
brown tree snake into Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, or the continental United States is
the movement from Guam of military aircraft, personnel, and
cargo, including the household goods of military personnel.
(4) It is probable that the movement of military aircraft,
personnel, and cargo, including the household goods of
military personnel, from Guam to Hawaii, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, or the continental United
States will increase significantly coincident with the
increase in the number of military units and personnel
stationed on Guam,
(5) Current policies, programs, procedures, and dedicated
resources of the Department of Defense and of other
departments and agencies of the United States may not be
sufficient to adequately address the increasing threat of the
introduction of the brown tree snake from Guam into Hawaii,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the
continental United States.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report on the
following:
(1) The actions currently being taken (including the
resources being made available) by the Department of Defense
to control, and to develop new or existing techniques to
control, the brown tree snake on Guam and to ensure that the
brown tree snake is not introduced into Hawaii, the
Commonwealth of

[[Page S11550]]

the Northern Mariana Island, or the continental United States
as a result of the movement from Guam of military aircraft,
personnel, and cargo, including the household goods of
military personnel.
(2) Current plans for enhanced future actions, policies,
and procedures and increased levels of resources in order to
ensure that the projected increase of military personnel
stationed on Guam does not increase the threat of
introduction of the brown tree snake from Guam into Hawaii,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the
continental United States.

AMENDMENT NO. 2250

(Purpose: To provide for a review of licensed mental health counselors,
social workers, and marriage and family therapists under the TRICARE
program)

At the end of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 703. REVIEW OF LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELORS, SOCIAL
WORKERS, AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS
UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM.

(a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall enter
into a contract with the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences, or another similarly qualified
independent academic medical organization, for the purpose
of--
(1) conducting an independent study of the comparability of
credentials, preparation, and training of individuals
practicing as licensed mental health counselors, social
workers, and marriage and family therapists under the TRICARE
program to provide mental health services; and
(2) making recommendations for permitting such
professionals to practice independently under the TRICARE
program.
(b) Elements.--The study required by subsection (a) shall
provide for each of the health care professions referred to
in subsection (a)(1) the following:
(1) An assessment of the educational requirements and
curriculums relevant to mental health practice for members of
such profession, including types of degrees recognized,
certification standards for graduate programs for such
profession, and recognition of undergraduate coursework for
completion of graduate degree requirements.
(2) An assessment of State licensing requirements for
members of such profession, including for each level of
licensure if a State issues more than one type of license for
the profession. The assessment shall examine requirements in
the areas of education, training, examination, continuing
education, and ethical standards, and shall include an
evaluation of the extent to which States, through their scope
of practice, either implicitly or explicitly authorize
members of such profession to diagnose and treat mental
illnesses.
(3) An analysis of the requirements for clinical experience
in such profession to be recognized under regulations for the
TRICARE program, and recommendations, if any, for
standardization or adjustment of such requirements with those
of the other professions.
(4) An assessment of the extent to which practitioners
under such profession are authorized to practice
independently under other Federal programs (such as the
Medicare program, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
Indian Health Service, Head Start, and the Federal Employee
Health Benefits Program), and a review the relationship, if
any, between recognition of such profession under the
Medicare program and independent practice authority for such
profession under the TRICARE program.
(5) An assessment of the extent to which practitioners
under such profession are authorized to practice
independently under private insurance plans. The assessment
shall identify the States having laws requiring private
insurers to cover, or offer coverage of, the services of
members of such profession, and shall identify the
conditions, if any, that are placed on coverage of
practitioners under such profession by insurance plans and
how frequently these types of conditions are used by
insurers.
(6) An historical review of the regulations issued by the
Department of Defense regarding which members of such
profession are recognized as providers under the TRICARE
program as independent practitioners, and an examination of
the recognition by the Department of third party
certification for members of such profession.
(c) Providers Studied.--It the sense of Congress that the
study required by subsection (a) should focus only on those
practitioners of each health care profession referred to in
subsection (a)(1) who are permitted to practice under
regulations for the TRICARE program as specified in section
119.6 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations.
(d) Clinical Capabilities Studies.--The study required by
subsection (a) shall include a review of outcome studies and
of the literature regarding the comparative quality and
effectiveness of care provided by practitioners within each
of the health care professions referred to in subsection
(a)(1), and provide an independent review of the findings.
(e) Recommendations for TRICARE Independent Practice
Authority.--The recommendations provided under subsection
(a)(2) shall include specific recommendation (whether
positive or negative) regarding modifications of current
policy for the TRICARE program with respect to allowing
members of each of the health care professions referred to in
subsection (a)(1) to practice independently under the TRICARE
program, including recommendations regarding possible
revision of requirements for recognition of practitioners
under each such profession.
(f) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report on the review required by subsection
(a).

AMENDMENT NO. 2254

(Purpose: To require a Department of Defense Inspector General report
on physical security of Department of Defense installations)

At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following:

SEC. 358. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON
PHYSICAL SECURITY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
INSTALLATIONS.

(a) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on
the physical security of Department of Defense installations
and resources.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An analysis of the progress in implementing
requirements under the Physical Security Program as set forth
in the Department of Defense Instruction 5200.08-R, Chapter 2
(C.2) and Chapter 3, Section 3: Installation Access (C3.3),
which mandates the policies and minimum standards for the
physical security of Department of Defense installations and
resources.
(2) Recommendations based on the findings of the
Comptroller General of the United States in the report
required by section 344 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-366;
120 Stat. 2155).
(3) Recommendations based on the lessons learned from the
thwarted plot to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey, in 2007.

AMENDMENT NO. 2268

(Purpose: To provide for an increase in the number of nurses and
faculty)

At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:

SEC. 555. NURSE MATTERS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may provide for
the carrying out of each of the programs described in
subsections (b) through (f).
(b) Service of Nurse Officers as Faculty in Exchange for
Commitment to Additional Service in the Armed Forces.--
(1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may
be a program in which covered commissioned officers with a
graduate degree in nursing or a related field who are in the
nurse corps of the Armed Force concerned serve a tour of duty
of two years as a full-time faculty member of an accredited
school of nursing.
(2) Covered officers.--A commissioned officer of the nurse
corps of the Armed Forces described in this paragraph is a
nurse officer on active duty who has served for more than
nine years on active duty in the Armed Forces as an officer
of the nurse corps at the time of the commencement of the
tour of duty described in paragraph (1).
(3) Benefits and privileges.--An officer serving on the
faculty of an accredited school or nursing under this
subsection shall be accorded all the benefits, privileges,
and responsibilities (other than compensation and
compensation-related benefits) of any other comparably
situated individual serving a full-time faculty member of
such school.
(4) Agreement for additional service.--Each officer who
serves a tour of duty on the faculty of a school of nursing
under this subsection shall enter into an agreement with the
Secretary to serve upon the completion of such tour of duty
for a period of four years for such tour of duty as a member
of the nurse corps of the Armed Force concerned. Any service
agreed to by an officer under this paragraph is in addition
to any other service required of the officer under law.
(c) Service of Nurse Officers as Faculty in Exchange for
Scholarships for Nurse Officer Candidates.--
(1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may
be a program in which commissioned officers with a graduate
degree in nursing or a related field who are in the nurse
corps of the Armed Force concerned serve while on active duty
a tour of duty of two years as a full-time faculty member of
an accredited school of nursing.
(2) Benefits and privileges.--An officer serving on the
faculty of an accredited school of nursing under this
subsection shall be accorded all the benefits, privileges,
and responsibilities (other than compensation and
compensation-related benefits) of any other comparably
situated individual serving as a full-time faculty member of
such school.
(3) Scholarships for nurse officer candidates.--(A) Each
accredited school of nursing at which an officer serves on
the faculty under this subsection shall provide scholarships
to individuals undertaking an educational program at such
school leading to a degree in nursing who agree, upon
completion of such program, to accept a commission as an
officer in the nurse corps of the Armed Forces.
(B) The total amount of funds made available for
scholarships by an accredited school of nursing under
subparagraph (A) for each officer serving on the faculty of
that school under this subsection shall be not less than the
amount equal to an entry-level full-time faculty member of
that school for each year

[[Page S11551]]

that such officer so serves on the faculty of that school.
(C) The total number of scholarships provided by an
accredited school of nursing under subparagraph (A) for each
officer serving on the faculty of that school under this
subsection shall be such number as the Secretary of Defense
shall specify for purposes of this subsection.
(d) Scholarships for Certain Nurse Officers for Education
as Nurses.--
(1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may
be a program in which the Secretary provides scholarships to
commissioned officers of the nurse corps of the Armed Force
concerned described in paragraph (2) who enter into an
agreement described in paragraph (4) for the participation of
such officers in an educational program of an accredited
school of nursing leading to a graduate degree in nursing.
(2) Covered nurse officers.--A commissioned officer of the
nurse corps of the Armed Forces described in this paragraph
is a nurse officer who has served not less than 20 years on
active duty in the Armed Forces and is otherwise eligible for
retirement from the Armed Forces.
(3) Scope of scholarships.--Amounts in a scholarship
provided a nurse officer under this subsection may be
utilized by the officer to pay the costs of tuition, fees,
and other educational expenses of the officer in
participating in an educational program described in
paragraph (1).
(4) Agreement.--An agreement of a nurse officer described
in this paragraph is the agreement of the officer--
(A) to participate in an educational program described in
paragraph (1); and
(B) upon graduation from such educational program--
(i) to serve not less than two years as a full-time faculty
member of an accredited school of nursing; and
(ii) to undertake such activities as the Secretary
considers appropriate to encourage current and prospective
nurses to pursue service in the nurse corps of the Armed
Forces.
(e) Transition Assistance for Retiring Nurse Officers
Qualified as Faculty.--
(1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may
be a program in which the Secretary provides to commissioned
officers of the nurse corps of the Armed Force concerned
described in paragraph (2) the assistance described in
paragraph (3) to assist such officers in obtaining and
fulfilling positions as full-time faculty members of an
accredited school of nursing after retirement from the Armed
Forces.
(2) Covered nurse officers.--A commissioned officer of the
nurse corps of the Armed Forces described in this paragraph
is a nurse officer who--
(A) has served an aggregate of at least 20 years on active
duty or in reserve active status in the Armed Forces;
(B) is eligible for retirement from the Armed Forces; and
(C) possesses a doctoral or master degree in nursing or a
related field which qualifies the nurse officer to discharge
the position of nurse instructor at an accredited school of
nursing.
(3) Assistance.--The assistance described in this paragraph
is assistance as follows:
(A) Career placement assistance.
(B) Continuing education.
(C) Stipends (in an amount specified by the Secretary).
(4) Agreement.--A nurse officer provided assistance under
this subsection shall enter into an agreement with the
Secretary to serve as a full-time faculty member of an
accredited school of nursing for such period as the Secretary
shall provide in the agreement.
(f) Benefits for Retired Nurse Officers Accepting
Appointment as Faculty.--
(1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may
be a program in which the Secretary provides to any
individual described in paragraph (2) the benefits specified
in paragraph (3).
(2) Covered individuals.--An individual described in this
paragraph is an individual who--
(A) is retired from the Armed Forces after service as a
commissioned officer in the nurse corps of the Armed Forces;
(B) holds a graduate degree in nursing; and
(C) serves as a full-time faculty member of an accredited
school of nursing.
(3) Benefits.--The benefits specified in this paragraph
shall include the following:
(A) Payment of retired or retirement pay without reduction
based on receipt of pay or other compensation from the
institution of higher education concerned.
(B) Payment by the institution of higher education
concerned of a salary and other compensation to which other
similarly situated faculty members of the institution of
higher education would be entitled.
(C) If the amount of pay and other compensation payable by
the institution of higher education concerned for service as
an associate full-time faculty member is less than the basic
pay to which the individual was entitled immediately before
retirement from the Armed Forces, payment of an amount equal
to the difference between such basic pay and such payment and
other compensation.
(g) Administration and Duration of Programs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish requirements
and procedures for the administration of the programs
authorized by this section. Such requirements and procedures
shall include procedures for selecting participating schools
of nursing.
(2) Duration.--Any program carried out under this section
shall continue for not less than two years.
(3) Assessment.--Not later than two years after commencing
any program under this section, the Secretary shall assess
the results of such program and determine whether or not to
continue such program. The assessment of any program shall be
based on measurable criteria, information concerning results,
and such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(4) Continuation.--The Secretary may continue carrying out
any program under this section that the Secretary determines,
pursuant to an assessment under paragraph (3), to continue to
carry out. In continuing to carry out a program, the
Secretary may modify the terms of the program within the
scope of this section. The continuation of any program may
include its expansion to include additional participating
schools of nursing.
(h) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``school of
nursing'' and ``accredited'' have the meaning given those
terms in section 801 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 296).

AMENDMENT NO. 2292

(Purpose: To provide for continuity and efficiency of the depot
operations of the Department of Defense to reset combat equipment and
vehicles in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 358. CONTINUITY OF DEPOT OPERATIONS TO RESET COMBAT
EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES IN SUPPORT OF WARS IN
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States Armed Forces, particularly the Army
and the Marine Corps, are currently engaged in a tremendous
effort to reset equipment that was damaged and worn in combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(2) The implementing guidance from the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics related to
the decisions of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission (BRAC) to transfer depot functions
appears not to differentiate between external supply
functions and in-process storage functions related to the
performance of depot maintenance.
(3) Given the fact that up to 80 percent of the parts
involved in the vehicle reset process are reclaimed and
refurbished, the transfer of this inherently internal depot
maintenance function to the Defense Logistics Agency could
severely disrupt production throughput, generate increased
costs, and negatively impact Army and Marine Corps equipment
reset efforts.
(4) The goal of the Department of Defense, the Defense
Logistics Agency, and the 2005 Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission is the reengineering of businesses
processes in order to achieve higher efficiency and cost
savings.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2008, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the challenges of implementing the
transfer of depot functions and the impacts on production,
including parts reclamation and refurbishment.
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
describe--
(A) the sufficiency of the business plan to transfer depot
functions to accommodate a timely and efficient transfer
without the disruption of depot production;
(B) a description of the completeness of the business plan
in addressing part reclamation and refurbishment;
(C) the estimated cost of the implementation and what
savings are likely be achieved;
(D) the impact of the transfer on the Defense Logistics
Agency and depot hourly rates due to the loss of budgetary
control of the depot commander over overtime pay for in-
process parts supply personnel, and any other relevant rate-
related factors;
(E) the number of personnel positions affected;
(F) the sufficiency of the business plan to ensure the
responsiveness and availability of Defense Logistics supply
personnel to meet depot throughput needs, including potential
impact on depot turnaround time; and
(G) the impact of Defense Logistics personnel being outside
the chain of command of the depot commander in terms of
overtime scheduling and meeting surge requirements.
(3) Government accountability office assessment.--Not later
than September 30, 2008, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall review the report submitted under
paragraph (1) and submit to the congressional defense
committees an independent assessment of the matters addressed
in such report, as requested by the Chairman of the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.

AMENDMENT NO. 2305

(Purpose: To require a report on counternarcotics assistance for the
Government of Haiti)

At the end of subtitle B of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1012. REPORT ON COUNTERNARCOTICS ASSISTANCE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OF HAITI.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this

[[Page S11552]]

Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report on
counternarcotics assistance for the Government of Haiti.
(b) Matters to Be Included.--The report required by
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A description and assessment of the counternarcotics
assistance provided to the Government of Haiti by each of the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of
Justice.
(2) A description and assessment of any impediments to
increasing counternarcotics assistance to the Government of
Haiti, including corruption and lack of entities available to
partner with in Haiti.
(3) An assessment of the feasability and advisability of
providing additional counternarcotics assistance to the
Government of Haiti, including an extension and expansion to
the Government of Haiti of Department of Defense authority to
provide support for counter-drug activities of certain
foreign governments.
(4) An assessment of the potential for counternarcotics
assistance for the Government of Haiti through the United
Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti.
(c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.

AMENDMENT NO. 2216

(Purpose: Relating to satisfaction by members of the National Guard and
Reserve on active duty of applicable professional licensure and
certification requirements)

At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:

SEC. 536. SATISFACTION OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE AND
CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY.

(a) Additional Period Before Re-Training of Nurse Aides Is
Required Under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.--For
purposes of subparagraph (D) of sections 1819(b)(5) and
1919(b)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-
3(b)(5), 1396r(b)(5)), if, since an individual's most recent
completion of a training and competency evaluation program
described in subparagraph (A) of such sections, the
individual was ordered to active duty in the Armed Forces for
a period of at least 12 months, and the individual completes
such active duty service during the period beginning on July
1, 2007, and ending on September 30, 2008, the 24-
consecutive-month period described subparagraph (D) of such
sections with respect to the individual shall begin on the
date on which the individual completes such active duty
service. The preceding sentence shall not apply to an
individual who had already reached such 24-consecutive-month
period on the date on which such individual was ordered to
such active duty service.
(b) Report on Relief From Requirements for National Guard
and Reserve on Long-Term Active Duty.--Not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
setting forth recommendations for such legislative action as
the Secretary considers appropriate (including amendments to
the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 501 et
seq.)) to provide for the exemption or tolling of
professional or other licensure or certification requirements
for the conduct or practice of a profession, trade, or
occupation with respect to members of the National Guard and
Reserve who are on active duty in the Armed Forces for an
extended period of time.

AMENDMENT NO. 2309

(Purpose: To require a report on the airfield in Abeche, Chad, and
other resources needed to provide stability in the Darfur region)

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1234. REPORT ON THE AIRFIELD IN ABECHE, CHAD, AND OTHER
RESOURCES NEEDED TO PROVIDE STABILITY IN THE
DARFUR REGION.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the airfield located in Abeche, Republic of Chad, could
play a significant role in potential United Nations, African
Union, or North Atlantic Treaty Organization humanitarian,
peacekeeping, or other military operations in Darfur, Sudan,
or the surrounding region; and
(2) the capacity of that airfield to serve as a substantial
link in such operations should be assessed, along with the
projected costs and specific upgrades that would be necessary
for its expanded use, should the Government of Chad agree to
its improvement and use for such purposes.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report on the matters as
follows:
(1) The current capacity of the existing airfield in
Abeche, Republic of Chad, including the scope of its current
use by the international community in response to the crisis
in the Darfur region.
(2) The upgrades, and their associated costs, necessary to
enable the airfield in Abeche, Republic of Chad, to be
improved to be fully capable of accommodating a humanitarian,
peacekeeping, or other force deployment of the size foreseen
by the recent United Nations resolutions calling for a United
Nations deployment to Chad and a hybrid force of the United
Nations and African Union operating under Chapter VII of the
United Nations Charter for Sudan.
(3) The force size and composition of an international
effort estimated to be necessary to provide protection to
those Darfur civilian populations currently displaced in the
Darfur region.
(4) The force size and composition of an international
effort estimated to be necessary to provide broader stability
within the Darfur region.

AMENDMENT NO. 2308

(Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $162,800,000 for
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide, to combat
the growth of popies in Afghanistan, to eliminate the production and
trade of opium and heroin, and to prevent terrorists from using the
proceeds for terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere)

On page 395, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 1405A. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR DRUG INTERDICTION AND
COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO
AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Additional Amount for Drug Interdiction and Counter-
Drug Activities, Defense-Wide.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 1405 for Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by
$162,800,000.
(b) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 1405 for Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide, as increased by
subsection (a), $162,800,000 may be available for drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities with respect to
Afghanistan.
(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under
subsection (b) for the purpose specified in that paragraph is
in addition to any other amounts available under this Act for
that purpose.
(d) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 1509 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-wide, for Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom is hereby decreased by
$162,800,000.

amendment no 2310

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding Department of
Defense actions, to address the encroachment of military installations)
At the end of title XXVIII, add the following:

SEC. 2864. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTIONS
TO ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT OF MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS.

(a) Findings.--In light of the initial report of the
Department of Defense submitted pursuant to section 2684a(g)
of title 10, United States Code, and of the RAND Corporation
report entitled ``The Thin Green Line: An Assessment of DoD's
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative to Buffer
Installation Encroachment'', Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) Development and loss of habitat in the vicinity of, or
in areas ecologically related to, military installations,
ranges, and airspace pose a continuing and significant threat
to the readiness of the Armed Forces.
(2) The Range Sustainability Program (RSP) of the
Department of Defense, and in particular the Readiness and
Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) involving
agreements pursuant to section 2684a of title 10, United
States Code, have been effective in addressing this threat to
readiness with regard to a number of important installations,
ranges, and airspace.
(3) The opportunities to take effective action to protect
installations, ranges, and airspace from encroachment is in
many cases transient, and delay in taking action will result
in either higher costs or permanent loss of the opportunity
effectively to address encroachment.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Department of Defense should--
(1) develop additional policy guidance on the further
implementation of the Range and Environmental Protection
Initiative (REPI), to include additional emphasis on
protecting biodiversity and on further refining procedures;
(2) give greater emphasis to effective cooperation and
collaboration on matters of mutual concern with other Federal
agencies charged with managing Federal land;
(3) ensure that each military department takes full
advantage of the authorities provided by section 2684a of
title 10, United States Code, in addressing encroachment
adversely affecting, or threatening to adversely affect, the
installations, ranges, and military airspace of the
department; and
(4) provide significant additional resources to the
program, to include dedicated staffing at the installation
level and additional emphasis on outreach programs at all
levels.
(c) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall review Chapter 6 of the initial report
submitted to Congress under section 2684a(g) of title 10,
United States Code, and report to the congressional defense
committees on the specific steps, if any, that the Secretary
plans to take, or recommends that Congress take, to address
the issues raised in such chapter.

[[Page S11553]]

AMENDMENT NO. 2617

(Purpose: To provide further protection for contractor employees from
reprisal for disclosure of certain information)

Beginning on page 223, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 227, line 19, and insert the following:
(2) by striking ``information relating to a substantial
violation of law related to a contract (including the
competition for or negotiation of a contract)'' and inserting
``information that the employee reasonably believes is
evidence of gross mismanagement of a Department of Defense
contract, grant, or direct payment if the United States
Government provides any portion of the money or property
which is requested or demanded, a gross waste of Department
of Defense funds, a substantial and specific danger to public
health or safety, or a violation of law related to a
Department of Defense contract (including the competition for
or negotiation of a contract), grant, or direct payment if
the United States Government provides any portion of the
money or property which is requested or demanded''.
(b) Acceleration of Schedule for Denying Relief or
Providing Remedy.--Subsection (c) of such section is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting after ``(1)'' the following: ``Not later
than 90 days after receiving an Inspector General report
pursuant to subsection (b), the head of the agency concerned
shall determine whether the contractor concerned has
subjected the complainant to a reprisal prohibited under
subsection (a).''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(D) In the event the disclosure relates to a cost-plus
contract, prohibit the contractor from receiving one or more
award fee payments to which the contractor would otherwise be
eligible until such time as the contractor takes the actions
ordered by the head of the agency pursuant to subparagraphs
(A) through (C).
``(E) Take the reprisal into consideration in any past
performance evaluation of the contractor for the purpose of a
contract award.'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3)(A) In the case of a contract covered by subsection
(f), an employee of a contractor who has been discharged,
demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for
a disclosure covered by subsection (a) or who is aggrieved by
the determination made pursuant to paragraph (1) or by an
action that the agency head has taken or failed to take
pursuant to such determination may, after exhausting his or
her administrative remedies, bring a de novo action at law or
equity against the contractor to seek compensatory damages
and other relief available under this section in the
appropriate district court of the United States, which shall
have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the
amount in controversy. Such an action shall, at the request
of either party to the action, be tried by the court with a
jury.
``(B) An employee shall be deemed to have exhausted his or
her administrative remedies for the purpose of this
paragraph--
``(i) 90 days after the receipt of a written determination
under paragraph (1); or
``(ii) 15 months after a complaint is submitted under
subsection (b), if a determination by an agency head has not
been made by that time and such delay is not shown to be due
to the bad faith of the complainant.''.
(c) Legal Burden of Proof.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Legal Burden of Proof.--The legal burdens of proof
specified in section 1221(e) of title 5 shall be controlling
for the purposes of any investigation conducted by an
inspector general, decision by the head of an agency, or
hearing to determine whether discrimination prohibited under
this section has occurred.''.
(d) Requirement To Notify Employees of Rights Related to
Protection From Reprisal.--Such section, as amended by
subsection (c), is further amended by inserting after
subsection (e) the following new subsection:
``(f) Notice of Rights Related to Protection From
Reprisal.--
``(1) In general.--Each Department of Defense contract in
excess of $5,000,000, other than a contract for the purchase
of commercial items, shall include a clause requiring the
contractor to ensure that all employees of the contractor who
are working on Department of Defense contracts are notified
of--
``(A) their rights under this section;
``(B) the fact that the restrictions imposed by any
employee contract, employee agreement, or non-disclosure
agreement may not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise
alter the employee rights provided for under this section;
and
``(C) the telephone number for the whistleblower hotline of
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
``(2) Form of notice.--The notice required by paragraph (1)
shall be made by posting the required information at a
prominent place in each workplace where employees working on
the contract regularly work.''.
(e) Definitions.--Subsection (g) of such section, as
redesignated by subsection (c)(1), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``an agency'' the
following: ``and includes any person receiving funds covered
by the prohibition against reprisals in subsection (a)'';
(2) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``1978'' the
following: ``and any Inspector General that receives funding
from or is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Defense''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) The term `employee' means an individual (as defined
by section 2105 of title 5) or any individual or organization
performing services for a contractor, grantee, or other
recipient if the United States Government provides any
portion of the money or property which is requested or
demanded (including as an employee of an organization).
``(7) The term `Department of Defense funds' includes funds
controlled by the Department of Defense and funds for which
the Department of Defense may be reasonably regarded as
responsible to a third party.''.

Amendment no. 2313

(Purpose: To commend the founder and members of Project Compassion)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON PROJECT COMPASSION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) It is the responsibility of every citizen of the United
States to honor the service and sacrifice of the veterans of
the United States, especially those who have made the
ultimate sacrifice.
(2) In the finest tradition of this sacred responsibility,
Kaziah M. Hancock, an artist from central Utah, founded a
nonprofit organization called Project Compassion, which
endeavors to provide, without charge, to the family of a
member of the Armed Forces who has fallen in active duty
since the events of September 11, 2001, a museum-quality
original oil portrait of that member.
(3) To date, Kaziah M. Hancock, four volunteer professional
portrait artists, and those who have donated their time to
support Project Compassion have presented over 700 paintings
to the families of the fallen heroes of the United States.
(4) Kaziah M. Hancock and Project Compassion have been
honored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion,
the Disabled American Veterans, and other organizations with
the highest public service awards on behalf of fallen members
of the Armed Forces and their families.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) Kaziah M. Hancock and the members of Project Compassion
have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, extraordinary
patriotism and support for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and
Marines who have given their lives for the United States in
Iraq and Afghanistan and have done so without any expectation
of financial gain or recognition for these efforts;
(2) the people of the United States owe the deepest
gratitude to Kaziah M. Hancock and the members of Project
Compassion; and
(3) the Senate, on the behalf of the people of the United
States, commends Kaziah M. Hancock, the four other Project
Compassion volunteer professional portrait artists, and the
entire Project Compassion organization for their tireless
work in paying tribute to those members of the Armed Forces
who have fallen in the service of the United States.

Amendment no. 2863

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on collaborations between
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs on
health care for wounded warriors)

At the end of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 703. SENSE OF SENATE ON COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS ON HEALTH CARE FOR WOUNDED
WARRIORS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) There have been recent collaborations between the
Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and the civilian medical community for purposes of providing
high quality medical care to America's wounded warriors. One
such collaboration is occurring in Augusta, Georgia, between
the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon,
the Augusta Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
the Medical College of Georgia, and local health care
providers under the TRICARE program.
(2) Medical staff from the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army
Medical Center and the Augusta Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Center have been meeting weekly to discuss future
patient cases for the Active Duty Rehabilitation Unit (ADRU)
within the Uptown Department of Veterans Affairs facility.
The Active Duty Rehabilitation Unit, along with the
Polytrauma Centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs,
provide rehabilitation for members of the Armed Forces on
active duty.
(3) Since 2004, 1,037 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines have received rehabilitation services at the Active
Duty Rehabilitation Unit, 32 percent of whom served in
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.

[[Page S11554]]

(4) The Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center and the
Augusta Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center have
combined their neurosurgery programs and have coordinated on
critical brain injury and psychiatric care.
(5) The Department of Defense, the Army, and the Army
Medical Command have recognized the need for expanded
behavioral health care services for members of the Armed
Forces returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom. These services are currently being provided
by the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the Department of Defense should encourage continuing
collaboration between the Army and the Department of Veterans
Affairs in treating America's wounded warriors and, when
appropriate and available, provide additional support and
resources for the development of such collaborations,
including the current collaboration between the Active Duty
Rehabilitation Unit at the Augusta Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center, Georgia, and the behavioral health
care services program at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army
Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Amendment no. 2282

(Purpose: To establish a National Guard yellow ribbon reintegration
program)

At the end of subtitle F of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 683. NATIONAL GUARD YELLOW RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense, shall
establish a national combat veteran reintegration program to
provide National Guard and Reserve members and their families
with sufficient information, services, referral, and
proactive outreach opportunities throughout the entire
deployment cycle. This program shall be known as the Yellow
Ribbon Reintegration Program.
(b) Purpose.--The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program shall
consist of informational events and activities for Reserve
Component members, their families, and community members to
facilitate access to services supporting their health and
well-being through the four phases of the deployment cycle:
(1) Pre-Deployment.
(2) Deployment.
(3) Demobilization.
(4) Post-Deployment-Reconstitution.
(d) Organization.--
(1) Executive agent.--The Secretary shall designate the OSD
(P&R) as the Department of Defense executive agent for the
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.
(2) Establishment of the office for reintegration
programs.--
(A) In general.--The OSD (P&R) shall establish the Office
for Reintegration Programs within the OSD. The office shall
administer all reintegration programs in coordination with
State National Guard organizations. The office shall be
responsible for coordination with existing National Guard and
Reserve family and support programs. The Directors of the
Army National Guard and Air National Guard and the Chiefs of
the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Navy Reserves and Air
Force Reserves may appoint liaison officers to coordinate
with the permanent office staff. The Center may also enter
into partnerships with other public entities, including, but
not limited to, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, for access to necessary substance abuse and
mental health treatment services from local State-licensed
service providers.
(B) Establishment of a center for excellence in
reintegration.--The Office for Reintegration Programs shall
establish a Center for Excellence in Reintegration within the
office. The Center shall collect and analyze ``lessons
learned'' and suggestions from State National Guard and
Reserve organizations with existing or developing
reintegration programs. The Center shall also assist in
developing training aids and briefing materials and training
representatives from State National Guard and Reserve
organizations.
(3) Advisory board.--
(A) Appointment.--The Secretary of Defense shall appoint an
advisory board to analyze and report areas of success and
areas for necessary improvements. The advisory board shall
include, but is not limited to, the Director of the Army
National Guard, the Director of the Air National Guard,
Chiefs of the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Navy
Reserve, and Air Force Reserve. The Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs, an Adjutant General on a
rotational basis as determined by the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau, and any other Department of Defense, Federal
Government agency, or outside organization as determined by
the Secretary of Defense. The members of the advisory board
may designate representatives in their stead.
(B) Schedule.--The advisory board shall meet on a schedule
as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
(C) Initial reporting requirement.--The advisory board
shall issue internal reports as necessary and shall submit an
initial report to the Committees on Armed Services not later
than 180 days after the end of a one-year period from
establishment of the Office for Reintegration Programs. This
report shall contain--
(i) an evaluation of the reintegration program's
implementation by State National Guard and Reserve
organizations;
(ii) an assessment of any unmet resource requirements;
(iii) recommendations regarding closer coordination between
the Office of Reintegration Programs and State National Guard
and Reserve organizations.
(D) Annual reports.--The advisory board shall submit annual
reports to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives following the initial report by
the first week in March of subsequent years following the
initial report.
(e) Program.--
(1) In general.--The Office for Reintegration Programs
shall analyze the demographics, placement of State Family
Assistance Centers (FAC), and FAC resources before a
mobilization alert is issued to affected State National Guard
and Reserve organizations. The Office of Reintegration
Programs shall consult with affected State National Guard and
Reserve organizations following the issuance of a
mobilization alert and implement the reintegration events in
accordance with the Reintegration Program phase model.
(2) Pre-deployment phase.--The Pre-Deployment Phase shall
constitute the time from first notification of mobilization
until deployment of the mobilized National Guard or Reserve
unit. Events and activities shall focus on providing
education and ensuring the readiness of service members,
families, and communities for the rigors of a combat
deployment.
(3) Deployment phase.--The Deployment Phase shall
constitute the period from deployment of the mobilized
National Guard or Reserve unit until the unit arrives at a
demobilization station inside the continental United States.
Events and services provided shall focus on the challenges
and stress associated with separation and having a member in
a combat zone. Information sessions shall utilize State
National Guard and Reserve resources in coordination with the
Employer Support of Guard and Reserve Office, Transition
Assistance Advisors, and the State Family Programs Director.
(4) Demobilization phase.--
(A) In general.--The Demobilization Phase shall constitute
the period from arrival of the National Guard or Reserve unit
at the demobilization station until its departure for home
station. In the interest of returning members as soon as
possible to their home stations, reintegration briefings
during the Demobilization Phase shall be minimized. State
Deployment Cycle Support Teams are encouraged, however, to
assist demobilizing members in enrolling in the Department of
Veterans Affairs system using Form 1010EZ during the
Demobilization Phase. State Deployment Cycle Support Teams
may provide other events from the Initial Reintegration
Activity as determined by the State National Guard or Reserve
organizations. Remaining events shall be conducted during the
Post-Deployment-Reconstitution Phase.
(B) Initial reintegration activity.--The purpose of this
reintegration program is to educate service members about the
resources that are available to them and to connect members
to service providers who can assist them in overcoming the
challenges of reintegration.
(5) Post-deployment-reconstitution phase.--
(A) In general.--The Post-Deployment-Reconstitution Phase
shall constitute the period from arrival at home station
until 180 days following demobilization. Activities and
services provided shall focus on reconnecting service members
with their families and communities and providing resources
and information necessary for successful reintegration.
Reintegration events shall begin with elements of the Initial
Reintegration Activity program that were not completed during
the Demobilization Phase.
(B) 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day reintegration activities.--
The State National Guard and Reserve organizations shall hold
reintegration activities at the 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day
interval following demobilization. These activities shall
focus on reconnecting service members and family members with
the service providers from Initial Reintegration Activity to
ensure service members and their families understand what
benefits they are entitled to and what resources are
available to help them overcome the challenges of
reintegration. The Reintegration Activities shall also
provide a forum for service members and families to address
negative behaviors related to combat stress and transition.
(C) Service member pay.--Service members shall receive
appropriate pay for days spent attending the Reintegration
Activities at the 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day intervals.
(D) Monthly individual reintegration program.--The Office
for Reintegration Programs, in coordination with State
National Guard and Reserve organizations, shall offer a
monthly reintegration program for individual service members
released from active duty or formerly in a medical hold
status. The program shall focus on the special needs of this
service member subset and the Office for Reintegration
Programs shall develop an appropriate program of services and
information.

amendment no. 2210

(Purpose: To modify a reporting requirement)

At the end of title XXXI, add the following:

[[Page S11555]]

SEC. 3126. MODIFICATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

Section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3539) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``March 1, 2007'' and
inserting ``March 1 of 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection (c):
``(c) Form.--The report required by subsection (b) to be
submitted not later than March 1 of 2009, 2011, or 2013,
shall be submitted in classified form, and shall include a
detailed unclassified summary.''; and
(4) in subsection (e), as redesignated, by striking ``(c)''
and inserting ``(d)''.

amendment no. 2291

(Purpose: To require a report on the search and rescue capabilities of
the Air Force in the northwestern United States)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 358. REPORT ON SEARCH AND RESCUE CAPABILITIES OF AIR
FORCE IN NORTHWESTERN UNITED STATES.

(a) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2008, the Secretary of
the Air Force shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on the search and rescue capabilities of
the Air Force in the northwestern United States.
(b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the search and rescue capabilities
required to support Air Force operations and training.
(2) A description of the compliance of the Air Force with
the 1999 United States National Search and Rescue Plan (NSRP)
for Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana.
(3) An inventory and description of search and rescue
assets of the Air Force that are available to meet such
requirements.
(4) A description of the utilization during the previous
three years of such search and rescue assets.
(5) The plans of the Air Force to meet current and future
search and rescue requirements in the northwestern United
States, including with respect to risk assessment services
for Air Force missions and compliance with the NSRP.
(c) Use of Report for Purposes of Certification Regarding
Search and Rescue Capabilities.--Section 1085 of the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 (Public Law 108-375; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) is amended by
striking ``unless the Secretary first certifies'' and
inserting ``unless the Secretary, after reviewing the search
and rescue capabilities report prepared by the Secretary of
the Air Force under section 358 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, first certifies''.
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Homeland Security, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

amendment no. 2096

(Purpose: To require a comprehensive accounting of the funding required
to ensure that the plan for implementing for final recommendations of
the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission remains on
schedule)

On page 501, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 2842. COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTING OF FUNDING REQUIRED TO
ENSURE TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION OF 2005 DEFENSE
BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress with the
budget materials for fiscal year 2009 a comprehensive
accounting of the funding required to ensure that the plan
for implementing the final recommendations of the 2005
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission remains on
schedule.

amendment no. 2315

(Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance at the Lewis and Clark United
States Army Reserve Center, Bismarck, North Dakota)

At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the
following:

SEC. 2854. LAND CONVEYANCE, LEWIS AND CLARK UNITED STATES
ARMY RESERVE CENTER, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the United Tribes Technical
College all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to a parcel of real property, including improvements
thereon, consisting of approximately 2 acres located at the
Lewis and Clark United States Army Reserve Center, 3319
University Drive, Bismarck, North Dakota, for the purpose of
supporting Native American education and training.
(b) Reversionary Interest.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the Secretary
determines at any time that the real property conveyed under
subsection (a) is not being used in accordance with the
purposes of the conveyance specified in such subsection, all
right, title, and interest in and to the property shall
revert, at the option of the Secretary, to the United States,
and the United States shall have the right of immediate entry
onto the property. Any determination of the Secretary under
this subsection shall be made on the record after an
opportunity for a hearing.
(2) Expiration.--The reversionary interest under paragraph
(1) shall expire upon satisfaction of the following
conditions:
(A) The real property conveyed under subsection (a) is used
in accordance with the purposes of the conveyance specified
in such subsection for a period of not less than 30 years
following the date of the conveyance.
(B) The United Tribes Technical College applies to the
Secretary for the release of the reversionary interest.
(C) The Secretary certifies, in a manner that can be filed
with the appropriate land recordation office, that the
condition under subparagraph (A) has been satisfied.
(c) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--
(1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall require the
United Tribes Technical College to cover costs to be incurred
by the Secretary, or to reimburse the Secretary for costs
incurred by the Secretary, to carry out the conveyance under
subsection (a), including survey costs, costs related to
environmental documentation, and other administrative costs
related to the conveyance. If amounts are collected from the
United Tribes Technical College in advance of the Secretary
incurring the actual costs, and the amount collected exceeds
the costs actually incurred by the Secretary to carry out the
conveyance, the Secretary shall refund the excess amount to
the United Tribes Technical College.
(2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as
reimbursements under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the
fund or account that was used to cover the costs incurred by
the Secretary in carrying out the conveyance. Amounts so
credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or account
and shall be available for the same purposes, and subject to
the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in such fund
or account.
(d) Description of Real Property.--The exact acreage and
legal description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

AMENDMENT NO. 2176

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to
review the application of certain authorities under the Defense
Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. GAO REVIEW OF USE OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE DEFENSE
PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950.

(a) Thorough Review Required.--The Comptroller General of
the United States (in this section referred to as the
``Comptroller'') shall conduct a thorough review of the
application of the Defense Production Act of 1950, since the
date of enactment of the Defense Production Act
Reauthorization of 2003 (Public Law 108-195), in light of
amendments made by that Act.
(b) Considerations.--In conducting the review required by
this section, the Comptroller shall examine--
(1) existing authorities under the Defense Production Act
of 1950;
(2) whether and how such authorities should be statutorily
modified to ensure preparedness of the United States and
United States industry--
(A) to meet security challenges;
(B) to meet current and future defense requirements;
(C) to meet current and future energy requirements;
(D) to meet current and future domestic emergency and
disaster response and recovery requirements;
(E) to reduce the interruption of critical infrastructure
operations during a terrorist attack, natural catastrophe, or
other similar national emergency; and
(F) to safeguard critical components of the United States
industrial base, including American aerospace and
shipbuilding industries;
(3) the effectiveness of amendments made by the Defense
Production Act Reauthorization of 2003, and the
implementation of such amendments;
(4) advantages and limitations of Defense Production Act of
1950-related capabilities, to ensure adaptation of the law to
meet the security challenges of the 21st Century;
(5) the economic impact of foreign offset contracts and the
efficacy of existing authority in mitigating such impact;
(6) the relative merit of developing rapid and standardized
systems for use of the authority provided under the Defense
Production Act of 1950, by any Federal agency; and
(7) such other issues as the Comptroller determines
relevant.

[[Page S11556]]

(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller shall submit a
report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate on the results of the review conducted
under this section, together with any legislative
recommendations.
(d) Rules of Construction on Protection of Information.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) the provisions of section 705(d) of the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2155(d)) shall not
apply to information sought or obtained by the Comptroller
for purposes of the review required by this section; and
(2) provisions of law pertaining to the protection of
classified information or proprietary information otherwise
applicable to information sought or obtained by the
Comptroller in carrying out this section shall not be
affected by any provision of this section.

AMENDMENT NO. 2326

(Purpose: To grant a Federal charter to Korean War Veterans
Association, Incorporated)

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. GRANT OF FEDERAL CHARTER TO KOREAN WAR VETERANS
ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED.

(a) Grant of Charter.--Part B of subtitle II of title 36,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the following:

``CHAPTER 1201--[RESERVED]'';

and
(2) by inserting after chapter 1103 the following new
chapter:

``CHAPTER 1201--KOREAN WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED

``Sec.
``120101. Organization.
``120102. Purposes.
``120103. Membership.
``120104. Governing body.
``120105. Powers.
``120106. Restrictions.
``120107. Tax-exempt status required as condition of charter.
``120108. Records and inspection.
``120109. Service of process.
``120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents.
``120111. Annual report.
``120112. Definition.

``Sec. 120101. Organization

``(a) Federal Charter.--Korean War Veterans Association,
Incorporated (in this chapter, the `corporation'), a
nonprofit organization that meets the requirements for a
veterans service organization under section 501(c)(19) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that is organized under the
laws of the State of New York, is a federally chartered
corporation.
``(b) Expiration of Charter.--If the corporation does not
comply with the provisions of this chapter, the charter
granted by subsection (a) shall expire.

``Sec. 120102. Purposes

``The purposes of the corporation are those provided in the
articles of incorporation of the corporation and shall
include the following:
``(1) To organize as a veterans service organization in
order to maintain a continuing interest in the welfare of
veterans of the Korean War, and rehabilitation of the
disabled veterans of the Korean War to include all that
served during active hostilities and subsequently in defense
of the Republic of Korea, and their families.
``(2) To establish facilities for the assistance of all
veterans and to represent them in their claims before the
Department of Veterans Affairs and other organizations
without charge.
``(3) To perpetuate and preserve the comradeship and
friendships born on the field of battle and nurtured by the
common experience of service to the United States during the
time of war and peace.
``(4) To honor the memory of the men and women who gave
their lives so that the United States and the world might be
free and live by the creation of living memorial, monuments,
and other forms of additional educational, cultural, and
recreational facilities.
``(5) To preserve for the people of the United States and
posterity of such people the great and basic truths and
enduring principles upon which the United States was founded.

``Sec. 120103. Membership

``Eligibility for membership in the corporation, and the
rights and privileges of members of the corporation, are as
provided in the bylaws of the corporation.

``Sec. 120104. Governing body

``(a) Board of Directors.--The composition of the board of
directors of the corporation, and the responsibilities of the
board, are as provided in the articles of incorporation of
the corporation.
``(b) Officers.--The positions of officers of the
corporation, and the election of the officers, are as
provided in the articles of incorporation.

``Sec. 120105. Powers

``The corporation has only those powers provided in its
bylaws and articles of incorporation filed in each State in
which it is incorporated.

``Sec. 120106. Restrictions

``(a) Stock and Dividends.--The corporation may not issue
stock or declare or pay a dividend.
``(b) Political Activities.--The corporation, or a director
or officer of the corporation as such, may not contribute to,
support, or participate in any political activity or in any
manner attempt to influence legislation.
``(c) Loan.--The corporation may not make a loan to a
director, officer, or employee of the corporation.
``(d) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authority.--The
corporation may not claim congressional approval, or the
authority of the United States, for any activity of the
corporation.
``(e) Corporate Status.--The corporation shall maintain its
status as a corporation incorporated under the laws of the
State of New York.

``Sec. 120107. Tax-exempt status required as condition of
charter

``If the corporation fails to maintain its status as an
organization exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, the charter granted under this chapter shall
terminate.

``Sec. 120108. Records and inspection

``(a) Records.--The corporation shall keep--
``(1) correct and complete records of account;
``(2) minutes of the proceedings of the members, board of
directors, and committees of the corporation having any of
the authority of the board of directors of the corporation;
and
``(3) at the principal office of the corporation, a record
of the names and addresses of the members of the corporation
entitled to vote on matters relating to the corporation.
``(b) Inspection.--A member entitled to vote on any matter
relating to the corporation, or an agent or attorney of the
member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any
proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

``Sec. 120109. Service of process

``The corporation shall have a designated agent in the
District of Columbia to receive service of process for the
corporation. Notice to or service on the agent is notice to
or service on the corporation.

``Sec. 120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents

``The corporation is liable for any act of any officer or
agent of the corporation acting within the scope of the
authority of the corporation.

``Sec. 120111. Annual report

``The corporation shall submit to Congress an annual report
on the activities of the corporation during the preceding
fiscal year. The report shall be submitted at the same time
as the report of the audit required by section 10101(b) of
this title. The report may not be printed as a public
document.

``Sec. 120112. Definition

``For purposes of this chapter, the term `State' includes
the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions
of the United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to chapter 1201
in the table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle II of
title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1201. Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated..................
120101''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2263

(Purpose: To inhance the availability of rest and recuperation leave)

At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:

SEC. 594. ENHANCEMENT OF REST AND RECUPERATION LEAVE.

Section 705(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``for members whose qualifying tour of
duty is 12 months or less, or for not more than 20 days for
members whose qualifying tour of duty is longer than 12
months,'' after ``for not more than 15 days''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2294

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to
ensure the appropriate size of the Department of Defense acquisition
workforce)

At the end of section 844, insert the following:
(h) Acquisition Workforce Assessment and Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
develop an assessment and plan for addressing gaps in the
acquisition workforce of the Department of Defense.
(2) Content of assessment.--The assessment developed under
paragraph (1) shall identify--
(A) the skills and competencies needed in the military and
civilian workforce of the Department of Defense to
effectively manage the acquisition programs and activities of
the Department over the next decade;
(B) the skills and competencies of the existing military
and civilian acquisition workforce of the Department and
projected trends in that workforce based on expected losses
due to retirement and other attrition; and
(C) gaps in the existing or projected military and civilian
acquisition workforce that should be addressed to ensure that
the Department has access to the skills and competencies
identified pursuant to subparagraph (A).

[[Page S11557]]

(3) Content of plan.--The plan developed under paragraph
(1) shall establish specific objectives for developing and
reshaping the military and civilian acquisition workforce of
the Department of Defense to address the gaps in skills and
competencies identified under paragraph (2). The plan shall
include--
(A) specific recruiting and retention goals; and
(B) specific strategies for developing, training,
deploying, compensating, and motivating the military and
civilian acquisition workforce of the Department to achieve
such goals.
(4) Annual updates.--Not later than March 1 of each year
from 2009 through 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall update
the assessment and plan required by paragraph (1). Each
update shall include the assessment of the Secretary of the
progress the Department has made to date in implementing the
plan.
(5) Spending of amounts in fund in accordance with plan.--
Beginning on October 1, 2008, amounts in the Fund shall be
expended in accordance with the plan required under paragraph
(1) and the annual updates required under paragraph (4).
(6) Reports.--Not later than 30 days after developing the
assessment and plan required under paragraph (1) or preparing
an annual update required under paragraph (4), the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the assessment and plan or annual
update, as the case may be.

AMENDMENT NO. 2277, AS MODIFIED

At the end of title XXVIII, add the following:

SEC. 2864. REPORT ON WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than April 1, 2008, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the funding and effectiveness
of water conservation projects at Department of Defense
facilities.
(b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include--
(1) a description, by type, of the amounts invested or
budgeted for water conservation projects by the Department of
Defense in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008;
(2) an assessment of the investment levels required to meet
the water conservation requirements of the Department of
Defense under Executive Order No. 13423 (January 24, 2007);
(3) an assessment of whether water conservation projects
should continue to be funded within the Energy Conservation
Investment Program or whether the water conservation efforts
of the Department would be more effective if a separate water
conservation investment program were established;
(4) an assessment of the demonstrated or potential
reductions in water usage and return on investment of various
types of water conservation projects, including the use of
metering or control systems, xeriscaping, waterless urinals,
utility system upgrades, and water efficiency standards for
appliances used in Department of Defense facilities; and
(5) recommendations for any legislation, including any
changes to the authority provided under section 2866 of title
10, United States Code, that would facilitate the water
conservation goals of the Department, including the water
conservation requirements of Executive Order No. 13423 and
DoD Instruction 4170.11.

AMENDMENT NO. 2862

(Purpose: To authorize to be increased by up to $49,300,000 the amount
authorized to be appropriated for the construction of munitions
demilitarization facilities at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, and
Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and to ensure the timely destruction
of lethal chemical agents and munitions)

On page 470, after the table following line 22, add the
following:

SEC. 2406. MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION FACILITIES, BLUE GRASS
ARMY DEPOT, KENTUCKY, AND PUEBLO CHEMICAL
ACTIVITY, COLORADO.

(a) Authority to Increase Amount for Construction of
Munitions Demilitarization Facility, Blue Grass Army Depot,
Kentucky.--Pursuant to the authority granted for this project
by section 2401(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-65;
113 Stat. 836), as amended by section 2405 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division
B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1298) and section 2405 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 (division B of Public Law 107-314; 116 Stat. 2698), the
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 2403(14) of
this Act for the construction of increment 8 of a munitions
demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky,
may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, be
increased by up to $17,300,000 using funds from the amounts
authorized to be appropriated by section 2403(1) of this Act.
(b) Authority to Increase Amount for Construction of
Munitions Demilitarization Facility, Pueblo Chemical
Activity, Colorado.--Pursuant to the authority granted for
this project by section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201;
110 Stat. 2775), as amended by section 2406 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division
B of Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 839) and section 2407 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 (division B of Public Law 107-314; 116 Stat. 2698), the
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 2403(14) of
this Act for the construction of increment 9 of a munitions
demilitarization facility at Pueblo Chemical Activity,
Colorado may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Defense, be increased by up to $32,000,000 using funds from
the amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 2403(1)
of this Act.
(c) Certification Requirement.--Prior to exercising the
authority provided in subsection (a) or (b), the Secretary of
Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees
the following:
(1) Certification that the increase in the amount
authorized to be appropriated--
(A) is in the best interest of national security; and
(B) will facilitate compliance with the deadline set forth
in subsection (d)(1).
(2) A statement that the increased amount authorized to be
appropriated will be used to carry out authorized military
construction activities.
(3) A notification of the action in accordance with section
2811.
(d) Deadline for Destruction of Chemical Agents and
Munitions Stockpile.--
(1) Deadline.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Department of Defense shall complete work on the
destruction of the entire United States stockpile of lethal
chemical agents and munitions, including those stored at Blue
Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, and Pueblo Chemical Depot,
Colorado, by the deadline established by the Chemical Weapons
Convention, and in no circumstances later than December 31,
2017.
(2) Report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2007, and
every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the parties described in paragraph (2) a report on
the progress of the Department of Defense toward compliance
with this subsection.
(B) Parties receiving report.--The parties referred to in
paragraph (1) are the Speaker of the House of the
Representatives, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the
House of Representatives, the Majority and Minority Leaders
of the Senate, and the congressional defense committees.
(C) Content.--Each report submitted under subparagraph (A)
shall include the updated and projected annual funding levels
necessary to achieve full compliance with this subsection.
The projected funding levels for each report shall include a
detailed accounting of the complete life-cycle costs for each
of the chemical disposal projects.
(3) Chemical weapons convention defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``Chemical Weapons Convention'' means
the Convention on the Prohibition of Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction, with annexes, done at Paris, January 13, 1993,
and entered into force April 29, 1997 (T. Doc. 103-21).
(4) Applicability; rule of construction.--This subsection
shall apply to fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year
thereafter, and shall not be modified or repealed by
implication.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the
package of amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Admendment No. 2268

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are engaged in one of the longest
conflicts in American history, and the need for qualified nurses in
military medical facilities is increasing. Tragic stories of injured
veterans returning from war and heart-wrenching images on television
remind us that the military needs qualified nurses. Unfortunately, the
military faces the same difficulty recruiting and retaining nurses that
civilian medical facilities are facing.
Neither the Army nor the Air Force has met nurse recruitment goals
since the 1990s. In 2004, the Navy Nurse Corps fell 32 percent below
its recruitment target, while the Air Force missed its nurse
recruitment target by 30 percent. At a Senate appropriations hearing
earlier this year, Nurse Corps leaders pointed to a serious shortage of
military nurses. The Army, Navy, and Air Force each have a 10-percent
shortage of nurses, with shortages reaching nearly 40 percent in some
critical specialties.
Civilian hospitals face similar challenges. According to the American
College of Healthcare Executives, 72 percent of hospitals experienced a
nursing shortage in 2004. The shortage is growing. The U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, HHS, found that in 2000 this country was
110,000 nurses short of the number, both civilian and

[[Page S11558]]

military, necessary to adequately provide quality health care. By 2005,
the shortage had doubled to 219,000. By 2020, we will be more than 1
million nurses short of what we need for quality health care. This will
create a problem for military health care as well as the Nation at
large.
To avoid the vast shortage HHS is projecting, we have to improve the
number of nurses graduating and entering the workforce each year. If we
only were to replace the nurses who are retiring, we would need to
increase student enrollment at nursing schools by 40 percent. But the
baseline demand for nurses, however, continues to rise, while the
supply falls. If we increased the number of graduates from nursing
school by 90 percent by 2020, we would still fall short of the number
needed for quality care.
One of the major factors contributing to the nursing shortage is the
shortage of teachers at schools of nursing. Last year, nursing colleges
across the Nation denied admission to over 40,000 qualified applicants
because there were not enough faculty members to teach the students.
Last year, approximately 2,000 qualified student applicants were
rejected from Illinois nursing schools because there were not enough
teachers.
And the shortage does not discriminate between rural or urban areas,
city or countryside, large or small schools. For example, in 2006, the
University of Illinois at Chicago, consistently recognized as one of
the top ten nursing programs in the United States, was sixth in total
NIH research and research training dollars, and in 2004, it was ranked
eighth out of 142 schools of nursing by U.S. News & World Report.
However, despite the nationwide prestige, the school turned away more
than 500 qualified applicants last year. Northern Illinois University,
a smaller school in DeKalb, IL, was forced to reject 233 qualified
applicants as a result of a shortage of teachers and financial
resources.
The American Association of Colleges of Nursing surveyed more than
400 schools of nursing last year. Seventy-one percent of the schools
reported vacancies on their faculty. An additional 15 percent said they
were fully staffed but still needed more faculty to handle the number
of students who want to be trained.
Statistics paint a bleak picture for the availability of nursing
faculty now and into the future. The median age of a doctorally
prepared nursing faculty member is 52 years old. The average age of
retirement for faculty at schools of nursing is 62.5 years. It is
expected that 200 to 300 doctorally prepared faculty will be eligible
for retirement each year from 2005 through 2012 , drastically reducing
the number of available faculty--even though more than 1 million
replacement nurses will be needed. The military recruits nurses from
the same source as doctors and hospitals: civilian nursing schools.
Unless we address the lack of faculty, the shortage of nurses will only
worsen.
In 1994, the Department of Defense established a program called
Troops to Teachers, which serves the dual purpose of helping relieve
the shortages of math, science, and special education teachers in high-
poverty schools while assisting military personnel in making successful
transitions to second careers in teaching. As of January 2004, more
than 6,000 former soldiers have been hired as teachers through the
Troops to Teachers Program, and an additional 6,700 are now qualified
teachers and looking for placements.
My amendment will set up a pilot program called Troops to Nurse
Teachers to make it easier for military nurses, retiring nurses, or
those leaving the military to pursue a career teaching the future nurse
workforce. I am proud to have the support of my colleagues: Senators
Inouye, Inhofe, Obama, Menendez, Biden, Mikulski, Dole, Reed,
Lieberman, and Collins. I thank the leadership of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, for their support
and willingness to accept the amendment.
The Troops to Nurse Teachers Program seeks to address the nursing
shortage in the different branches of the military while tapping into
the existing wealth of knowledge and expertise of military nurses to
help address the nationwide shortage of nurses.
The goals of the Troops to Nurse Teachers program are two fold.
First, the program intends to increase the number of nurse faculty
members so nursing schools can expand enrollment and alleviate the
ongoing shortage both in the civilian and military sectors. Second, the
Troops to Nurse Teachers Program is meant to help military personnel
make successful transitions to second careers in teaching, similar to
Troops to Teachers. The program would achieve these goals by offering
incentives to nurses transi-
tioning from the military to become full-time nurse faculty members,
while providing the military a new recruitment tool and advertising
agent.
The Troops to Nurse Teachers Program will provide transitional
assistance for servicemembers who already hold a master's or Ph.D. in
nursing or a related field and are qualified to teach. Eligible
servicemembers can receive career placement assistance, transitional
stipends, and educational training from accredited schools of nursing
to expedite their transition. Troops to Nurse Teachers will also
establish a pilot scholarship program for officers of the Armed Forces
who have been involved in nursing during their military service to help
them obtain the education needed to become nurse educators. Tuition,
stipends, and financing for other educational expenses would be
provided. Recipients of scholarships must commit to teaching at an
accredited school of nursing for 3 years in exchange for the
educational support they receive.
In addition, the Troops to Nurse Teachers Program will provide active
military nurses the opportunity to complete a 2-year tour of duty at a
civilian nursing school to train the next generation of nurses. In
exchange, the nurse officer will commit to additional time in the
military or the College of Nursing will provide scholarships for
nursing students that commit to enlisting in the military.
We have the support of over 20 nursing organizations, including the
following: American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American
Organization of Nurse Executives, American Nurses Association, Academy
of Medical-Surgical Nurses, American Academy of Ambulatory Care
Nursing, American College of Nurse Practitioners, American Association
of Nurse Anesthetists, American Health Care Association, American
Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses, Association of Women's Health,
Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses, American Association of Occupational
Health Nurses, Inc., American Radiological Nurses Association,
Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses, Emergency Nurses
Association, National Black Nurses Association, National Council of
State Boards of Nursing, National Gerontological Nursing Association,
National League for Nursing, National Nursing Centers Consortium,
National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties, Oncology Nursing
Society, Society of Urologic Nurses & Associates.
In addition, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, both Personnel
and Recruitment and Health Affairs, are in support of the amendment. We
have also worked hard to secure the support and incorporate important
feedback from the Nurse Corps of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force.
We must increase the number of teachers preparing tomorrow's nursing
workforce. With the aging of the baby boom generation and the long-term
needs of our growing number of wounded veterans, the military and
civilian health care systems will need qualified nurses more than ever.
The Troops to Nurse Teachers Program will help to alleviate the
shortage of nurse faculty and ultimately help make more nurses
available for both civilian and military medical facilities.

Amendments Nos. 2087, 2088, 2274, and 2275 Withdrawn

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that all
pending amendments be withdrawn, with the exception of the Levin
substitute amendment; that Senator Leahy or his designee be recognized
to offer a first-degree amendment on the subject of habeas corpus; that
after the Leahy amendment is offered, Senator Graham or his designee be
recognized to offer a first-degree amendment to strike section 1023;
that the offering of these amendments does not preclude further
amendments on the subject matter of these amendments.

[[Page S11559]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2022 to Amendment No. 2011

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I call up
amendment No. 2022.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Specter and
Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 2022.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with. No. 2022 is the amendment, and it is indeed the
Specter-Leahy amendment. That is the amendment which was referred to in
the unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2022) is as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2022

(Purpose: To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United
States)

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY
THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (e).
(b) Title 10.--Section 950j of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and
Actions.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in
section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus
provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or
consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including
any action pending on or filed after the date of the
enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating
to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military
commission under this chapter, including challenges to the
lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this
chapter.''.
(c) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made
by this section shall--
(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
and
(2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date
of enactment of this Act.

Amendment No. 2064 to Amendment No. 2011

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2064 on behalf of
Senator Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Graham,
proposes an amendment numbered 2064.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2064) is as follows:

Amendment No. 2064

(Purpose: To strike section 1023, relating to the granting of civil
rights to terror suspects)

Strike section 1023.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we do have
these two first-degree amendments side by side for purposes of the
debate, and at this time there are no time agreements.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Leahy has already debated this
amendment. I assume he would want to debate this further, but that
would, of course, be up to him. But this was the amendment Senator
Leahy was debating earlier this afternoon. Now that it is pending, it
is open to debate.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the Senator
from Arizona, who is here on the floor for purposes of that debate. I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Warner. Let
me read a portion of a letter from the Department of Justice first, and
I will include it for the Record at the conclusion of its reading. This
letter is addressed to Chairman Pat Leahy of the Judiciary Committee.
It begins by saying--it is dated June 6 of this year.

This letter presents the views of the Department of Justice
on S. 185, the ``Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007,'' as
introduced in the U.S. Senate. If enacted, S. 185 would
remove the habeas corpus restrictions included in the
``Military Commissions Act of 2006.''

After a full and open debate, a bipartisan majority of Congress
passed the MCA just last fall. The MCA's restrictions on habeas corpus
codified important and constitutional limits on captured enemies'
access to our courts. The DC Circuit upheld MCA's habeas restrictions
in--the name of the case is Boumediene v. Bush--I will omit the
citation--decided in 2007.

The provision of S. 185 that seeks to remove these
important limits ignores their history and their role in
protecting our Nation's security. As the Supreme Court
recognized in Johnson v. Eisentrager, a 1950 case, the
extension of habeas corpus to alien combatants captured
abroad ``would hamper the war effort and bring aid and
comfort to the enemy,'' and the Constitution requires no such
thing. The United States already provides alien enemy
combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with an
unprecedented degree of process, which includes judicial
review of decisions regarding their detention before the
Federal appeals court in Washington, DC. Repealing the MCA's
limitations on habeas would simply burden our courts with
duplicative and unnecessary litigation. For this reason, and
because repeal of the MCA's habeas provisions would delay and
disrupt the vital work of bringing enemy combatants to
justice, the President's senior advisors would recommend that
he veto S. 185 if the bill is presented to him for signature.

There is more of the letter, but I will submit it for the Record at
this point.
I note that the amendment offered by Senator Leahy is virtually the
same, if not the same, as the bill introduced. I am presuming that the
President's senior advisers would, as a result, also recommend a veto
of the bill if it included this provision.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 6, 2007.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the
Department of Justice on S. 185, the ``Habeas Corpus
Restoration Act of 2007,'' as introduced in the United States
Senate. If enacted, S. 185 would remove the habeas corpus
restrictions included in the ``Military Commissions Act of
2006'' (``MCA'').
After a full and open debate, a bipartisan majority of
Congress passed the MCA just last fall. The MCA's
restrictions on habeas corpus codified important and
constitutional limits on captured enemies' access to our
courts. The D.C. Circuit upheld the MCA's habeas restrictions
in Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert.
denied, 127 S. Ct. 1478 (2007). The provision of S. 185 that
seeks to remove these important limits ignores their history
and their role in protecting our Nation's security. As the
Supreme Court recognized in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S.
763 (1950), the extension of habeas corpus to alien
combatants captured abroad ``would hamper the war effort and
bring aid and comfort to the enemy,'' id. at 779, and the
Constitution requires no such thing, see id. at 780-81. The
United States already provides alien enemy combatants
detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with an unprecedented
degree of process, which includes judicial review of
decisions regarding their detention before the Federal
appeals court in Washington, D.C. Repealing the MCA's
limitations on habeas would simply burden our courts with
duplicative and unnecessary litigation. For this reason, and
because repeal of the MCA's habeas provisions would delay and
disrupt the vital work of bringing enemy combatants to
justice, the President's senior advisors would recommend that
he veto S. 185 if the bill is presented to him for signature.
Thank you for your consideration of our views. If we may be
of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that there
is no objection to this letter from the perspective of the
Administration's program and that enactment of S. 185 would
not be in accord with the President's program.
Sincerely,
Alberto R. Gonzales,
Attorney General.
Mr. KYL. Now, the Defense authorization bill is extraordinarily
important to our troops. To add a totally extraneous provision amending
a different bill to the Defense authorization bill, especially one
which carries the suggestion of a Presidential veto, would be the
height of irresponsibility on the part of the Senate. The substantive
arguments of the Department of Justice with respect to habeas are
correct, and the Senate should not, therefore, seek to amend another
statute in the Defense authorization bill, thus inviting a veto of the
bill.
Related to the habeas corpus provision is the amendment that is now
pending offered by Senator Graham of

[[Page S11560]]

South Carolina. That amendment would strike a provision of the Defense
authorization bill--section 1023--that also relates to the subject of
treatment of detainees. Unfortunately, the way the committee bill was
written, the bill that is before us right now, if we retain that
language and we don't strike it, as the Graham amendment would do, we
would essentially be returning to a law enforcement approach to
terrorists that, frankly, failed us before 9/11 and obviously does not
work in the post-9/11 context. We can't deal with all of the enemy
combatants as criminal defendants. These people who are picked up on
the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be dealt with in the
same way as criminal defendants in our court system. Senator Graham's
amendment would strike these harmful provisions of the bill.
I wish to begin by reminding my colleagues of the evil nature of
these terrorists and then go through the three particular parts of this
provision that require removal.
First, a requirement that al-Qaida terrorists held in Iraq and
Afghanistan be given lawyers--I mean, just imagine that; second, the
authorization to demand discovery and compel testimony from
servicemembers; and third, the requirement that al-Qaida and Taliban
detainees be provided access to classified evidence. To state these
three provisions of the bill is to recognize immediately why it is so
harmful that they be included in this bill and why they need to be
stricken, but focus for just a moment on the people we are talking
about held at Guantanamo Bay and picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least 30 of the detainees released already from Guantanamo Bay
have since returned to waging war against the United States and our
allies. Of course, the provisions of section 21 are all designed to
effectuate the release of some of these prisoners--some of these
detainees. So 30 have already been released because we no longer deemed
them to be a threat to the United States or our forces, but after their
release, 12 of the released detainees have been killed in battle by
U.S. forces or--well, by U.S. forces; others have been captured. In
other words, we released them, they went right back to the battlefield,
12 of them have been killed in battle, others have been recaptured, 2
released detainees became regional commanders for Taliban forces, and 1
attacked U.S. and allies' soldiers in Afghanistan, killing 3 Afghan
soldiers.
One released detainee killed an Afghan judge. One released detainee
led a terrorist attack on a hotel in Pakistan and a kidnapping raid
that resulted in the death of a Chinese civilian, and this former
detainee recently told Pakistani journalists that he planned to ``fight
America and its allies until the very end.''
Even under the procedures today, which give due process to these
detainees and allow them to be released if we can no longer demonstrate
they are a threat to U.S. forces--even under these provisions, at least
30 of the detainees have gone right back to the battlefield and are
attacking us and our forces.
The provisions of section 1023 would make it very difficult, if not
impossible, for the United States to detain committed terrorists such
as this, people who have been captured while waging war against us. No
nation in the history of armed conflict has imposed the kinds of limits
this bill would impose on its ability to detain enemy war prisoners.
War prisoners released in the middle of an ongoing conflict, such as
members of al-Qaida, will return to waging war. That is the whole point
of prisoners of war. In the war you capture people and hold them so
they cannot return to the battlefield to kill your troops. We have
already seen this happen 30 times with the detainees released from
Guantanamo, as I said.
If section 1023 were to be enacted, we could expect more civilians
and Afghans and Iraqis will be killed, and it may be inevitable that
even our own soldiers will be killed by such released terrorists. This
is a price our Nation should not be forced to bear.
I mentioned three specific general problems with section 1023. The
first has to do with a requirement of the bill that al-Qaida terrorists
who are held in Iraq and Afghanistan must be provided with lawyers. I
cannot imagine that the details of this were known to the members of
the committee when they put it into the bill. This could never be
executed. It would require the release of the detainees; either they
get lawyers or they have to be released. And here is why. The Defense
bill requires that counsel be provided and trials be conducted for all
unlawful enemy combatants held by the United States, including, for
example, al-Qaida members captured and detained in Iraq and
Afghanistan, if they are held for 2 years. We hold approximately 800
prisoners in Afghanistan and tens of thousands in Iraq. None are lawful
combatants; all would arguably be entitled to a lawyer and a trial
under this bill. This procedure would at least require a military
judge, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney, as well as other legal
professionals.
This scheme is totally unrealistic. The entire Army JAG Corps only
consists of about 1,500 officers, and each is busy with their current
duties. Moreover, under the bill, each detainee would be permitted to
retain private or volunteer counsel. Our agreements with the Iraqi
Government bar the United States from transferring Iraqi detainees out
of Iraq. As a result, the bill would require the United States to
train, transport, house, and protect potentially thousands, or tens of
thousands, of private lawyers in the middle of a war zone during
ongoing hostilities. That is impossible.
Think about this in the context of other conflicts, not just in Iraq
or Afghanistan. In the context of World War II, anybody hearing this
would think it is nuts. But the bill before us literally requires us to
provide attorneys to these captured detainees in Iraq--tens of
thousands of them. This proposal would likely force the United States
to release thousands of these enemy combatants in Iraq, as I said,
because there is no way you could provide all of the lawyers to them.
Obviously, that would further jeopardize our military. By requiring a
trial for each detainee, this provision would also require U.S.
soldiers to offer statements to criminal investigators, needing later
to prove their case after they captured someone. In other words, unlike
today, when you are on the battlefield and you capture somebody and you
hold them because they are a threat, but you are not putting them on
trial, now you are going to put them on trial and you have to have the
kind of evidence that would stand up in court. You have watched the TV
shows with the clever defense lawyers. You know about, ``I object, Your
Honor; that is not relevant,'' or ``that is hearsay.'' On the
battlefield, who walks around with lawyers making sure Miranda rights
are read and evidence is collected and statements are taken that will
hold up in court when they are later tried? And they would need to
carry evidence kits and cameras, means of identifying the person later
on. Two years after you capture someone, the defense lawyer could say:
Is that the person you captured? And if he says, ``Well, those guys all
kind of looked alike to me when they were shooting at me, so I cannot
be sure,'' well, the case will get thrown out of court. Or was there a
chain of custody of the evidence? You would have to do that with the
evidence taken on the battlefield or it would be thrown out in court.
They would need to spend hours after each trial writing after-action
reports, which would need to be reviewed by commanders. Valuable time,
in other words, would be taken from combat operations and soldiers'
rest whenever they capture somebody on the battlefield.
A horrible precedent would be set for the future. Aside from the war
in Iraq, this provision would make fighting a major war in the future
simply impossible. In World War II, we detained over 2 million enemy
prisoners of war. It would have been impossible for the United States
to have conducted a trial and provided counsel to 2 million captured
enemy combatants. The bottom line, with respect to this provision,
section 1023, the requirement of counsel for these detainees held in
Iraq and Afghanistan, is that it would be impossible to implement. It
is patently absurd and, as a result, it should be stricken.
The second point is authorizing al-Qaida detainees to demand
discovery and compel testimony from American soldiers. I alluded to
that a second ago. The underlying bill would actually authorize
unlawful enemy combatants, including al-Qaida detainees in Iraq and
Afghanistan, to demand discovery

[[Page S11561]]

and compel testimony from witnesses, just as we do in our criminal
courts in the United States. These witnesses would all be the U.S.
soldiers who captured the prisoner. Under the bill, an American soldier
could literally be recalled from his unit at the whim of an al-Qaida
terrorist in order to be cross-examined by him, or his lawyer, or a
judge.

Newspaper columnist Stuart Taylor describes the questions such a
right would raise:

Should a Marine sergeant be pulled out of combat in
Afghanistan to testify at a detention hearing about when,
where, how, and why he had captured the detainee? What if the
northern alliance or some other ally made the capture? Should
the military be ordered to deliver high-level al-Qaida
prisoners to be cross-examined by other detainees and their
lawyers?

It goes on and on. The questions abound. As the Supreme Court itself
observed in Johnson v. Eisenstrager, which is the law on this subject:

It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering
of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is
ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his
own civil court and divert his efforts and attention from the
military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

This is the U.S. Supreme Court talking not long after World War II,
when a question similar to this arose, and a Justice of the Supreme
Court says it ``would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering
of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to
reduce to submission to call him into account in his own civil court
and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad
to the legal defensive at home.''
It would be difficult to conceive of a process that would be more
insulting to our soldiers.
In addition, many al-Qaida members captured in Afghanistan were
captured by special operators whose identities are kept secret for
obvious reasons. This would force them to reveal themselves to al-Qaida
members and expose themselves, or simply forgo the prosecution of the
individual, which is obviously more likely to happen. You simply could
not do all of this, so you would have to forgo the prosecution and
release the prisoner.
Clearly, Americans should not be subject to subpoena by al-Qaida.
Think about that. That brings me to the last point--the requirement
that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees be provided with access to
classified evidence. You would have to give the enemy your classified
evidence, the sources and methods of your intelligence operations, in
order to prosecute them, which is what would be required by the bill.
Here is the exact language. The bill requires that detainees be
provided with ``a sufficiently specific substitute of classified
evidence'' and that detainees' private lawyers be given access to all
relevant classified evidence.
When this bill was brought up in the Senate, some Members questioned
whether this bill requires us to share classified information with al-
Qaida detainees and their lawyers. I will direct this to specific pages
and lines of the bill to show what it does.
On page 305, lines 16 through 21, the bill expressly provides that
``the detainee'' must be provided--I am quoting now--access to a
``sufficiently specific'' summary of ``the classified evidence that is
submitted against the detainee.'' This language appears to mirror the
Classified Information Procedures Act rules that apply to the use of
classified information in Federal courts. Like CIPA, these procedures
give a detainee a right to the substance of classified evidence. The
Government might be able to redact some names or other information, but
only if it still gives the detainee the substance of the evidence. And
if the United States is not willing to compromise the evidence in this
way, it cannot use the evidence.
Similarly, at page 305, line 5, the bill expressly requires that
under its provisions, ``counsel for the detainee is provided access to
the relevant classified evidence.'' I don't know how you can be any
more specific than that. His lawyer gets to see relevant classified
evidence.
Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies are already very hesitant
to divulge classified evidence to the CSRT hearings we already conduct.
These are part of the internal and nonadversarial military process
today. Intelligence agencies will inevitably refuse to provide
sensitive evidence to detainees and their lawyers. They will not risk
compromising such information for the sake of detaining one individual
terrorist.
In addition, the United States already has tenuous relations with
some of the foreign governments, particularly in the Middle East, that
have been our best sources of information about groups such as al-
Qaida. If we give detainees a legal right to access such information,
these foreign governments would simply, I presume, shut off all further
supply of information to the United States. Why would they do
otherwise? They don't want to expose their own sources, compromise
their evidence, or expose even the fact that they have cooperated with
the United States. By exposing our cooperation with these governments,
the bill perversely applies a sort of ``stop snitching'' policy toward
our Middle Eastern allies, which is likely to be as ruthlessly
effective as when applied to criminal street gangs to potential
witnesses to a crime in the United States.
Some of our best information is gained from foreign intelligence
services who, like us, are trying to find out everything they can about
these terrorists. Once they know we have to turn the information they
gave us over to the terrorists, they are going to stop cooperating with
us.

The argument I presented--that sharing classified evidence with al-
Qaida detainees and their lawyers would badly damage America's efforts
in the war with al-Qaida--was recently reinforced by several
declarations that were recently introduced in the ongoing Bismullah
litigation. These declarations were filed by the Director of National
Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, and by the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, our three top intelligence agencies.
Together, these statements confirm that sharing classified information
with detainees and their lawyers would not only inevitably lead to
leaks of sensitive information, but that it would violate American
intelligence agencies' agreements with foreign governments and with
confidential human sources--violations that would inevitably undermine
these organizations and individuals' willingness to cooperate with the
United States in the future.
The final point is that we already know, from hard experience, that
providing classified and other sensitive information to al-Qaida
members is a bad idea. During the 1995 Federal prosecution in New York
of the ``blind sheikh,'' Omar Rahman, prosecutors turned over the names
of 200 unindicted coconspirators to the defense. They were required to
do so under the civilian criminal justice system of discovery rules,
which require that large amounts of evidence be turned over to the
defense. The judge warned the defense that the information could only
be used to prepare for trial and not for other purposes. Nevertheless,
within 10 days of being turned over to the defense, the information
found its way to Sudan and into the hands of Osama bin Laden. As the
district judge who presided over the case said, ``That list was in
downtown Khartoum within 10 days, and bin Laden was aware within 10
days that the Government was on his trail.''
That is what happens when you provide classified information in this
context.
In another case tried in the civilian criminal justice system,
testimony about the use of cell phones tipped off terrorists as to how
the Government was monitoring their networks. According to the judge,
``There was a piece of innocuous testimony about the delivery of a
battery for a cell phone.'' This testimony alerted terrorists to the
Government surveillance and, as a result, their communication network
shut down within days and intelligence was lost to the Government
forever--intelligence that might have prevented who knows what.

This particular section of the bill, 1023, repeats the mistakes of
the past. Treating the war with al-Qaida similar to a criminal justice
investigation would force the United States to choose between
compromising information that could be used to prevent further
terrorist attacks on one hand and on the other letting captured
terrorists go free. As I said before, this is not a choice our Nation
should be required to make.
Let me read a couple of the quotations I alluded to earlier from the

[[Page S11562]]

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, GEN Michael Hayden,
relative to the damage that would be caused by requiring this
classified information to be turned over to the defendant or his
lawyers:

. . . [M]uch of the information that is potentially
discoverable was provided to the CIA by foreign intelligence
services or discloses the specific assistance provided by the
CIA's global partners in the global war on terror. If the CIA
is compelled to comply with the Court's decision, the CIA
will be obligated to inform its foreign liaison partners that
a court order requires that the CIA provide this information
to the Court and detainee counsel. There is a high
probability that certainly liaison services will decrease
their cooperation with the CIA because of the extent that
their information has become enmeshed in U.S. legal
proceedings. . . .

He goes on:

[S]ome information discoverable under the Court's decision
originated with, or pertains to, clandestine human
intelligence sources. These individuals provide information
or assistance to the CIA only upon the condition of absolute
and lasting secrecy. Revealing this information--even to the
Court or to cleared counsel--would expressly violate these
agreements, and would irreparably harm the CIA's ability to
utilize current sources and to recruit sources in the future.
. . .

Let me read one other comment from General Hayden, the Director of
the CIA:

. . . With over 300 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it
appears that compliance with the Court's decision will
require disclosure to several hundred--perhaps more than one
thousand--private attorneys who are not employees of the U.S.
Government and who are not trained in handling classified
information. With so many untrained individuals allowed
access to such sensitive information, I believe that
unauthorized disclosures, even if inadvertent, are not only
probable, but inevitable. The regulations controlling access
to classified information recognize that limiting the number
of people with access is a necessary step in safeguarding
sensitive information. The Court's decision would eviscerate
the U.S. Government's carefully conceived plan to keep its
most highly sensitive information compartmentalized and would
increase the likelihood of public disclosure.

I quote a comment from Robert Mueller, the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, in his affidavit to the court in the case I
mentioned:

Disseminating human source information could reasonably
lead to the disclosure of their identities because often the
information provided by human sources is singular in nature.

In other words, he is the only person who knows about it, so when the
information is divulged, then the other side knows exactly where it
came from.
Back to Director Mueller:

The disclosure of singular information could endanger the
life of the source or his/her family or friends, or cause the
source to suffer physical or economic harm or ostracism
within the community. These consequences, and the inability
of the FBI to protect the identities of its human sources,
would make it exceptionally more difficult for the FBI and
other U.S. intelligence agencies to recruit human sources in
the future.

These are the kinds of irreparable harm that would result if the
language of section 1023 remains in the bill. Not my words, but
Director Mueller of the FBI, General Hayden, the Director of the CIA,
and now I quote from the Director of National Intelligence, Michael
McConnell. Admiral McConnell had this to say:

. . . [T]he Intelligence Community has many sources of
information that must be protected. For example, much of the
information at issue was provided by foreign intelligence
services or would reveal the specific assistance provided by
foreign partners in the global war on terror. Certain liaison
services will likely decrease their cooperation with the U.S.
Government if their information is caught up in U.S. court
proceedings.

One final comment.

. . . Human sources also provide the Intelligence
Community with critical information, but only upon the
condition of absolute secrecy. Revealing this information
would violate the sources of confidentiality we provide these
sources and would likely result in their minimizing or
ceasing altogether their cooperation. Such a disclosure would
harm the Intelligence Community's ability to retain current
sources and recruit new ones, and if we cannot recruit and
retain sources, the Intelligence Community simply cannot
conduct its business.

That is the point of Senator Graham's amendment to strike these
provisions from the bill. They would irreparably harm our intelligence
collection capability, which is the first defense against these
terrorists. That is why the Graham amendment striking section 1023
should be adopted.
We have already bent over backward to provide the detainees at
Guantanamo the ability to contest their detention and to have their
detention reviewed and eventually even have it reviewed in the U.S.
Supreme Court, and before that the Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is a very fair system, more fair than has ever been provided by
any other nation in any other circumstance and more than our
Constitution requires. So we are treating the people we capture in a
very fair way.
What we cannot do is to take those same kinds of protections and
apply them anywhere we capture someone in the foreign theater. And as I
said before, never in the history of warfare have they been subjected
to the criminal justice system of our country. To take that system and
try to transport it to the fields of Afghanistan and Iraq would
obviously not only be breaking precedent but is a horrible idea for all
the reasons I indicated.
I ask my colleagues to give careful attention to the dangerous return
to the pre-9/11 notion that these terrorists are, after all, only
common criminals and we have to treat them that way. They have made no
secret that they are actually at war with us, and we ignore this point
at our peril.
I remind my colleagues that the Statement of Administration Policy on
this bill says the President will be advised to veto the bill if
section 1023 remains in the bill and refer again to a similar statement
from the Department of Justice with respect to the habeas corpus
provisions that would be added to the bill in the amendment of Senator
Leahy.
I hope my colleagues will take all of this information into account
when they consider voting on these amendments in this very important
Defense authorization bill which we need to pass and the President will
want to sign so we can do what is necessary to support our troops whom
we have sent into harm's way.
I urge my colleagues to support the Graham amendment to strike
section 1023 and not to support the additional habeas corpus rights to
terrorists who attack our troops.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The distinguished Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, first, I want to commend Senator Levin and
Senator Warner for their leadership on this legislation. It is not news
that they do a good job. They do it consistently year in and year out.
This may be one of the last Defense authorization bills in which
Senator Warner is involved, having made his announcement about his
decision to retire from the Senate. He has another year, next year, on
the Defense authorization bill. I already sense the notion of missing
him here. While he is not in the Chamber this evening, I commend
Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the fine work they do year in and
year out on this very important issue.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Specter-
Leahy-Dodd amendment to restore the writ of habeas corpus for
individuals held in U.S. custody. I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor of this amendment and a cosponsor of the underlying bill from
which it draws its strength, S. 185, the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act,
also introduced by Senators Specter and Leahy.
For over 700 years, the legal system has recognized the importance of
habeas corpus, the right of an individual to question the legality of
his or her detention.
The Military Commissions Act is perhaps the most disappointing and
dangerous piece of legislation passed in the more than quarter-century
I have been a Member of this body. Among its many troublesome
provisions, the act eliminated habeas corpus for those individuals held
by our Government as enemy combatants. By stripping these individuals
of the right to petition the Government, we have undermined our
Nation's longstanding commitment to the rule of law and human rights.
Advocates of this provision argued that stripping away this fundamental
right was necessary to protect our Nation's security. That is totally
false, in my view. We can both effectively prosecute terrorists and
remain true to our values. In fact, if we do otherwise, I strongly
suggest that we jeopardize our security.

[[Page S11563]]

I stand on the floor of the Senate seeking to undo what Congress did
last year when it summarily stripped habeas corpus rights with the
enactment of the Military Commissions Act. Were our Founding Fathers
alive today, I believe they would be seriously dismayed to realize how
far our country has strayed from the values enshrined in our
Constitution with the adoption of this measure.
Stripping of habeas corpus rights is just one of a number of
egregious provisions included in the Military Commissions Act. That is
why earlier this year I introduced S. 576, the Restoring the
Constitution Act, to address these errors.
In addition to restoring habeas corpus rights, S. 576 would also
require the United States to live up to its Geneva Convention
obligations, provide detainees access to attorneys for trials, make
inadmissible trial evidence gained through torture or coercion, empower
military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable,
and provide for the expedited judicial review of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of all of
its provisions.
The Restoring the Constitution Act would undo the most damaging and
unconstitutional aspects of the Military Commissions Act while
providing the U.S. military a greater ability to bring our enemies to
justice through military commissions.
I take a back seat to no one when it comes to defending our Nation's
security. Let me be clear, I believe military commissions in very
limited circumstances may be very effective in bringing combatants to
justice. However, I see no reason why procedures based on the well-
established, Uniform Military Code of Justice should be abandoned.
But there is a right way and a wrong way to win the fight we are in.
Procedures that adhere to immediate bedrock legal principles, such as
habeas corpus, abide by the Geneva Conventions, and exclude hearsay
evidence or evidence obtained through torture, to name but a few, do
not make us weaker. Quite the contrary. They demonstrate that no
terrorist can destroy our way of life and our fundamental values that
have guided our Nation for over two centuries.
During the debate on the Military Commissions Act last year, Senator
Specter, Senator Leahy, and I offered an amendment that would have
retained the writ of habeas corpus. Unfortunately, our amendment was
rejected by this body.
On September 28, 2006, I voted against the Military Commissions Act.
Sadly, I was in the minority in doing so. I was and remain deeply
disappointed that the Senate passed this misguided legislation. That
day was a dark day in the history of this body. On that day, we
abandoned our commitment not only to human rights, but also to the rule
of law, commitments that separate us from our enemies, commitments that
have been fundamental to American leadership since the end of World War
II.
This issue has special resonance with me because of my father, Thomas
Dodd, who sat in this very body at this very desk, as a member of the
Senate from Connecticut. Years before, in 1945 and 1946, before
becoming a Member of Congress, my father was a prosecutor working
alongside Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg war crimes trials in
Germany. There the United States demonstrated to the world its profound
commitment to the rule of law, due process, and human rights. Many of
our allies did not see the need for trials for Nazis held by allied
forces. Indeed, many of them called for summary executions. The Soviet
Union wanted a show trial and then to shoot the defendants at
Nuremberg. Winston Churchill, the former British Prime Minister, also
advocated summary execution for the defendants at Nuremberg.
The United States, Judge Robert Jackson, Henry Stimson, the
Republican Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt, Ben Rosen, Robert
Jackson and my father argued, that, no, we were different. The United
States was going to demonstrate to the world that civility and the rule
of law was what was at stake in the war with Germany and Japan and that
we would not succumb to the same kind of treatment they gave to their
victims.
The opening statement made by Robert Jackson at Nuremberg, a
statement which I put to memory a long time ago, indicates the
difference we brought to this issue. Robert Jackson, speaking of the
Soviet Union, the British, the French, and the United States, said on
that occasion:

That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung
with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit
their captive enemies to the judgment of the rule of law is
one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid
to reason.

Instead, we gave the Nazis--members of the world's most barbaric
regime--the protections and the rights of the rule of law.
The Nuremberg trials not only brought many of the Nazi war criminals
to justice--most were executed--but helped to demonstrate to the world
the importance of providing even the most heinous of criminals the
protections of the rule of law. Doing so makes our Nation incalculably
stronger, not weaker at all.
But I fear Congress has allowed the President to diminish our
Nation's commitment to human rights and the rule of law. We have failed
to stand up for our most cherished values. We let fear--the fear of
being seen as weak--override our duty to protect the Constitution and
the values of our Nation.
It is not too late to right the wrong of last year. We will have that
opportunity in the next day or so. While I am hopeful the Federal
courts will strike down many of the provisions of the Military
Commissions Act, I believe a decision earlier this year by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia demonstrates the need for
the amendment before us today by Senators Leahy, Specter, myself, and
others.
On February 20, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia upheld the provisions of the Military Commissions Act
eliminating the writ of habeas corpus for enemy combatants. Despite two
recent Supreme Court decisions suggesting that habeas rights cannot
legislatively be stripped away, the split decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia underlines the need for this body
to proactively act now to unambiguously restore habeas rights.
For more than 60 years, the United States has helped to lead the
world through its commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule
of law. Last year, our Nation lost the moral high ground. This year,
Congress must reassert to the Nation, the President, and the courts
that we recognize the vital role of habeas corpus in our legal system.
I believe the Specter-Leahy-Dodd amendment is the first step in
undoing the terrible damage the Military Commissions Act has done to
our legal system and our international reputation. I implore my
colleagues to begin today to undo the harm done to our Nation's
reputation by voting to restore habeas rights, which have always been a
core element of our jurisprudence, and once again restore the moral
authority we captured more than 60 years ago at a place called
Nuremberg. This generation bears no less a responsibility to protect
those basic rights that are the foundation of our great Nation.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was absent from the floor when my
distinguished colleague was thoughtful enough to make a few comments
about his old friend, but it is deeply appreciated, and I thank my dear
colleague very much. We have done many things together, and I have more
to go.
Mr. DODD. You bet.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I, too, wanted to echo the comments of the
distinguished Senator from Connecticut. I am sure Senator Warner will
be recognized many times between now and the time he finally takes his
last vote in this Chamber, and as he pointed out, he has a long way to
go before that time comes over the course of the next several months.
But so many of us respect what he has done over the years as ranking
member and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and his work will,
in fact, be greatly recognized.

[[Page S11564]]

Madam President, I wish to make one quick point in response to what
the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, recalling his very famous
father, somebody who served in this body and served our Nation well in
other capacities, including at Nuremberg, and his friend, Justice
Jackson, the same Justice Jackson whom I quoted.
The Senator wasn't on the floor, but I quoted Justice Jackson in the
Eisentrager case to point out that nothing could fetter our commanders
more than to require habeas corpus rights for the German prisoners of
war or the prisoners who were at issue in the Johnson v. Eisentrager
case. Justice Jackson himself recognized that the procedures that were
awarded to the 50-some war criminals at Nuremberg were not the same
kinds of procedures that were being sought in the Eisentrager case. And
the habeas corpus rights that would be granted under the Leahy
amendment are far different from the rights that were granted to the
Nuremberg war crimes defendants.
I think one question that would be interesting to ask of the
proponents of the legislation is, if we simply took the rights that
were granted to the war criminals tried at Nuremberg and gave those
rights to the detainees at issue here, would that be a satisfactory
result? I suspect the answer would be no because they are nowhere near
the rights that would be included in the amendment that is pending.
So to cite Justice Jackson is to refer back to what he said in
Eisentrager and recognize that nothing, according to him--and I agree--
would more fetter our commanders and our troops than granting habeas
rights to prisoners or enemy detainees.
Madam President, I might make one further point. I am trying to
recall how many defendants there were at Nuremberg. My recollection of
the number tried for war crimes is that there were approximately 50. I
may be off by a few on that number, but I think my point would still
remain, which is that it is one thing to try 50 war criminals out of
over 2 million POWs, and it is quite another to grant all 2 million the
rights of war criminals. We have tried some of the detainees as the
equivalent of war criminals in our courts--Padilla is one of them--but
that is not to say we should hold the same criminal trials for all of
the tens of thousands of detainees being held in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. I will yield, yes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I had the distinct pleasure of visiting Carrollton, AL,
in Pickens County, where they have a museum to maintain the history of
a large German prisoner of war camp in the United States. The Senator
mentioned that certain legal rights were accorded 50 or so prisoners.
But those were prisoners tried in Nuremberg after the war--after the
war--for war crimes.
Now, is the Senator aware of any instance in either the German camps
or other prisoners who may have been held in the United States during
wartime being provided habeas rights?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, that is a great question, and the answer is
that there have never been, in the history of the world, habeas rights
granted to enemy detainees or prisoners of war in order to challenge
the fact of their detention by either the United States or by the other
country from which the great writ came--England. They have never been
granted. So the answer is there is no precedent whatsoever. That is
why, when colleagues say we want to restore habeas rights, that is an
incorrect characterization. Enemy combatants and POWs have never had
habeas rights to challenge their detention as a matter of being
provided by our Constitution. Never has our Constitution been
interpreted as requiring those rights.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to thank Senator Kyl for his
hard work on these important issues. He is a superb lawyer who is a
senior member of the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, and he has
been a member of the Intelligence Committee. He understands these
issues and, thanklessly, he devotes hours of his time to try to
research and study Supreme Court cases to try to make sure we do the
right thing here.
The most important thing for us to remember is this, and Senator Kyl
just said it, that the refrain we are hearing about restoring habeas
rights to prisoners of war, even unlawful combatant detainees, is not
so. We have not done that, and it is a matter that is quite clear.
The origin of the great writ--the writ of habeas corpus--can be
traced back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century. It is truly a great
writ. It is truly a powerful tool for any person who is being detained
to demand that someone, somewhere come forward and tell the world why
they are being detained. That is what totalitarian and Communist
governments do all the time. These kinds of dictators and Communists
and Nazis go out and grab people and put them in jail and never charge
them, never announce where they are, even. So that is not what we want
to do here. However, never in the history of the writ's existence has
an English or American court granted habeas to enemy combatants held
during a time of war. As early as 1793, the American courts--1793--
recognized that foreign prisoners held by the military during armed
conflict have no inherent right to judicial review of their detention.
They have no inherent right to that. You do have an inherent right by
writ of habeas corpus if you qualify and meet the criteria.
So that year, in 1793, a district court in Pennsylvania said:

Courts will not grant a habeas corpus in the case of a
prisoner of war because such a decision on this question is
in another place being a part of the rights of sovereignty.

In other words, national power.
The Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed that position in
1950 in a case called Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, the Supreme
Court made expressly clear that U.S. constitutional protections do not
apply to aliens who are detained outside the borders. It was the first
case to deal with a habeas petition of enemy combatants detained
outside the borders of the United States since the statute was
originally enacted as part or the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is now
codified as 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.
In that case, German nationals living in China during World War II,
having never lived in the United States, were accused of violating the
laws of war. They were tried by a U.S. military tribunal in China,
convicted, and sent to Landsberg Prison in Germany, then an occupied
sector of Germany, to serve their sentences. Some of the convicts,
including Eisentrager, questioned the legality of their trials and
filed for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, right here in DC, stating that the
military's actions violated their rights as guaranteed by several
portions of the U.S. Constitution, including article III of the fifth
amendment. In denying habeas to these German nationals, the court
expressly rejected the argument that enemy combatants detained overseas
have a constitutional right to petition U.S. courts for habeas relief,
noting that:

Nothing in the text of our constitution extends such a
right.

It rejected the view that the U.S. Constitution applies to enemy war
prisoners held abroad. The court claimed:

No decision of this court supports such a view. None of the
learned commentators on our Constitution has ever hinted at
it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it.
Where do we keep coming up with this idea that habeas is applicable
to prisoners of war? I am baffled. The Court explained emphatically
that such a constitutional entitlement would hamper the war effort and
bring aid and comfort to the enemy.

Habeas proceedings would diminish the prestige of our
commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals.
It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of
a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is
ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his
own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from
the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

That is a pretty clear statement. How could it be otherwise? Congress
authorizes a state of hostilities. We fund it. The President, as the
Commander in Chief, the military commanders execute it, and now we have
it in our heads somehow that the persons

[[Page S11565]]

our commanders are charged with reducing to submission have a right to
sue us.
The Court further held--this is in 1950--that the fifth amendment is
inapplicable to aliens abroad and, in reasoning fully applicable to the
suspension clause, explained ``extraterritorial application of organic
law'' to aliens would be inconceivable.
Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson, who was referred to by
Senator Dodd and Senator Kyl--a great Justice on the Court--stated:

The Constitution does not confer a right of personal
security or an immunity from military trial and punishment
upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a
government at war with the United States.

That is pretty plain language, wouldn't you say? I think that is the
plain language of the Constitution. It does not give them immunity from
military trial.
Even if, as opponents mistakenly argue, this amendment restores a
statutory right to habeas, the Supreme Court has also held that
Congress may freely repeal habeas jurisdiction if it affords an
adequate and effective substitute or remedy. Essentially, if
legislation strips habeas, according to the Supreme Court, the
substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor
ineffective to test the legality of a person's detention, does not
constitute a suspension of the right of habeas corpus. In other words,
if they provide some fair procedure for even prisoners of war that we
decide is consistent with our military efforts and consistent with our
sense of fairness, that does not confer and give a guaranteed right to
a habeas corpus review.
The Military Commission Act of 2006 was drafted with these important
Supreme Court precedents in mind. After careful negotiation among our
Members and careful analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan
v. Rumsfeld, Congress went above and beyond what was required by the
Constitution and the Geneva Conventions to ensure detainees, even
terrorists, at Guantanamo Bay, had an adequate and effective substitute
method to test the legality of their detention.
So we did that. We did not fail to respond. We did that. The MCA
provides alien enemy combatants far more legal process than has ever
been afforded by any country in the history of armed conflict.
I am not aware of a single country in the history of armed conflict
that has provided more rights than our procedures that we have
established under the Military Act that we passed and the President
signed into law last October.
The Combatant Status Review Tribunal for detainees is more robust
than those to which lawful combatants, honorable soldiers in organized
militaries of a foreign nation, are entitled to under the Geneva
Conventions.
Let me repeat that and drive home the importance of that concept. The
Geneva Conventions were decided upon by a group of nations that came
together and thought that during the course of military conflicts, too
many things happened that are not justified and are not necessary and
are damaging to people in ways that could not be justified. We wrote
the conventions, the nations did, to try to ameliorate some of the
problems in warfare. We said that if you have a lawful combatant, as
part of the Geneva Conventions, a person who has signed up for his or
her country, fighting for the country, who wears a uniform, who carries
his weapons openly and does not act in a surreptitious manner, does not
act in a terroristic manner but fight battles according to the laws of
war--if captured, must be treated and afforded the protections of the
Geneva Conventions.
That is a good standard of review and protection. Congress passed a
law to provide for the people at Guantanamo, who are not lawful
combatants but are unlawful enemy combatants and who have not
historically been considered to have been covered by the Geneva
Convention. We afforded them privileges that are not required even
under the Geneva Conventions on how you handle detainees.
Let's talk about our present conflict, the war on terrorism. Former
Attorney General John Ashcroft has made this point. If you think about
it, it is worthy of our consideration. John Ashcroft is a great
believer in American liberty, the rights of liberty, a key
characteristic of the American people. But he points out we ought not
to think about restraints that occur as some sort of a balancing test
between liberty and control and domination. He says, when you engage in
an action that is designed to protect us, the test should be not a
balancing test, but the test should be: Does it improve liberty? In
other words, if you go to the airport and have to go through one of
those checking stations as I did today, the question is: Do you feel
more free to fly, having had that inspection occur? Is your liberty to
travel, is your liberty to fly safely and securely in an aircraft in
America, enhanced because you take a couple of minutes to go through
that line? Or not?
If it is, then that is a protection of liberty. We are indeed in a
different world than we used to be, when threats fundamentally came
from foreign nations. Now, even a few people with dedicated, malicious
intent, with modern weapons of mass destruction and death can have
tremendous impact on us. So what we are trying to do is execute lawful
actions that improve our liberty, not deny liberty but to enhance
liberty for all peace-loving and law-abiding American citizens.

I want to talk about Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. As part of the Judiciary Act
of 1789, Congress conferred on the Federal courts jurisdiction to hear
petitions for habeas corpus. Though the language has gone through minor
changes since 1789, current law, now codified at 28 U.S.C. section
2241, is essentially the same grant of habeas corpus as originally
enacted. The statutory language has never referred specifically to
enemy combatants because such a grant was understood not to apply to
those individuals detained during a time of war. Congress understood
that detention of enemy combatants during time of war is strictly a
military decision, since we do not allow enemy combatants to continue
their war against us through the judiciary, through litigation.
Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that habeas corpus does
not extend to alien enemy combatants detained outside the United
States, some argue that Justice O'Connor's plurality decision in Hamdi
v. Rumsfeld changed this precedent. In that decision, Justice O'Connor
said:

All agree that, absent suspension, habeas corpus remains
available to every individual within the United States.

Proponents of this amendment that we are debating cite this statement
by Justice O'Connor as proof that habeas relief is available to all
those detained within the United States, regardless of whether they are
an alien enemy combatant. Let me note that during World War II, there
were 425,000 enemy combatants held within the United States, none of
who were allowed relief through habeas petitions. Furthermore, reliance
on that statement by Justice O'Connor is wrong, since the question in
Hamdi was whether the executive had the authority to detain a U.S.
citizen as an enemy combatant and whether that citizen detainee had
habeas rights. Focusing on that narrow issue, the plurality referred
specifically to the rights, in their opinion, the plurality opinion, of
citizens, eight times in the opinion; and in the holding of the case--
and the holding of the case is limited to the circumstances of the
cases itself--Hamdi was, after all, a U.S. citizen.
Regardless, some advocates maintain that Justice O'Connor's otherwise
inconsequential statement, too tenuous to constitute dicta, reversed
years of settled precedent and for the first time granted habeas rights
to illegal enemy combatants detained overseas. That proposition flies
in the face of the commonsense interpretive rule that one does not hide
elephants in mouseholes. Had the Hamdi Court intended to extend habeas
rights to all individuals in the United States, not just citizens,
including suspected foreign terrorists detained outside U.S. territory,
it most assuredly would have articulated such a consequential ruling
with more clarity. But Hamdi did not present that question and the
Court did not resolve it. Moreover, as the Court aptly noted, quoting
Eisentrager:

Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have
been so significant an innovation in the practice of
government that, if intended or apprehended, it could
scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment.

[[Page S11566]]

Accordingly, had such a consequential holding been made in
Eisentrager, it would have been met with prolific commentary from the
legal community, from other Justices. It would have been an event, but
that event did not occur--because it had no such meaning, of course, as
evidenced by the lack of contemporary discussion. No decision
subsequent to Eisentrager has reversed its holding that alien enemy
combatants have no right to habeas protections guaranteed to American
citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, its holding remains governing law. Moreover, the issue
now, if it ever could have been considered ambiguous, has been
definitively resolved by the same judge who earlier granted Salim Ahmed
Hamdan's habeas petition. Judge James Robertson, of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, issued an opinion on December 13 in
which he relied, in large part, on Eisentrager to justify his ruling
that enemy alien combatants have no constitutional right to habeas
corpus.
Judge Robertson, appointed to the bench by President Clinton,
dismissed Hamdan's petition for habeas relief on the grounds that the
MCA effectively denied his court's jurisdiction to hear the case;
recognizing that Congress had removed Hamdan's statutory right to
petition the D.C. Circuit Court for habeas relief.
Judge Robertson also held:

Hamdan's connection to the United States lacked the
geographical and volitional predicates necessary to claim a
Constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Well, then, the Rasul case came along. Proponents of this amendment
argue that they seek only to restore the right to habeas corpus as
found by the Supreme Court in the 2004 case of Rasul v. Bush. Rasul
took great pains to emphasize that its extension of habeas to
Guantanamo Bay was based not on the Constitution, which clearly is a
historic right we talked about on habeas, but it was based on some
statute passed by Congress.
Some Justices may have wanted to make Rasul a constitutional holding,
but there clearly was no majority for such a position. Supreme Court
cases such as Eisentrager are still the governing law on the
constitutional reach of habeas and the Congress's ability to limit its
statutory application.
These precedents hold that aliens who are either held abroad or held
here but who have no substantial connection to this country are not
entitled to invoke the U.S. Constitution.
Rasul was an unprecedented decision which effectively and truthfully
seemed to fly in the face of all previous Supreme Court and English
case law. Several Justices in this case engaged in what I would submit
to my colleagues is activism.
The Court extended the reach of the Federal habeas statute to
Guantanamo Bay detainees. To my knowledge, this decision was the first
time in recorded history that any court of any nation at war held that
those whom its military had determined to be enemies had a right of
access to its domestic courts and could sue the Commander in Chief to
challenge their detention.
The Court based its analysis on the phrase, ``within their respective
jurisdictions,'' as used in the Federal habeas statute and various
decisions construing that particular provision.
Moreover, the Court expressly distinguished between the statutory and
suspension clause holdings of Eisentrager and limited its analysis to
only the statutory grant of habeas. The Court determined that the
measure of the Guantanamo lease agreement between the United States and
Cuba allows for the jurisdiction of habeas claims since the United
States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction over the land on
which the naval base is situated, although it does not have ``ultimate
authority.''
Furthermore, the majority, I think and others think, mischaracterized
the congressional statute as meaning that the writ of habeas corpus
could be issued if ``the custodian can be reached by service of
process'' and not the detainee.
As Justice Scalia accurately pointed out in his dissent, the
majority:

springs a trap on the executive, subjecting Guantanamo Bay to
the oversight of the Federal courts even though it has never
before been thought to be within their jurisdictions and thus
making it a foolish place to have housed alien wartime
detainees.''

Furthermore, the decision opens a veritable Pandora's Box since it
``permits an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to
bring a section 2241 petition against the Secretary of Defense.''
This case was a clear-cut example of, I believe, Supreme Court
overreach. They seemed determined to do something about this. They
wanted to do something about it. Apparently, they did not like it. So
in straining to grant U.S. courts jurisdiction over terrorists held
outside the United States, the Supreme Court determined, for the first
time in history, that a simple lease agreement brought Guantanamo Bay
within the jurisdiction of the court.
Read broadly, the majority opinion could be used to bring U.S.
military bases and detention facilities across the world within the
jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. Fortunately, in that opinion, Justice
Kennedy did limit the application of the holding to Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.
Congress, however, addressed the issue because, remember, this was
based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of a statute Congress
passed and which Congress changed, not on the Constitution ratified by
the American people.
So less than a year ago, Congress addressed the issue when it passed
the Military Commissions Act, which precluded detainees from
challenging their detention through habeas petitions.
Now, if the Court relied on the statute as we wrote it before, we can
change that statute, and we did. In doing so, Congress adhered to
Supreme Court precedent and created an effective and adequate
substitute in the form of a Combatant Status Review Tribunals and
allowing detainees an opportunity to challenge the determinations made
by the tribunals, even in the district court in the District of
Columbia.
So it set up a Combatant Status Review Tribunal so they can bring and
make their argument, and if they do not like the military's
determination on that, they can get to a Federal court. That is not
habeas, but it is a pretty good procedure, more than ever has been
given before to prisoners of war. So it seems we finally worked this
thing out.

On February 20 of this year, the DC Circuit Court dismissed all
pending habeas cases from the Guantanamo Bay detainees for lack of
jurisdiction. Furthermore, on April 2 of this year, the Supreme Court
denied a certiorari petition from the petitioners in Boumediene v. Bush
and Al Odah v. United States, refusing to review their claims that the
Military Commissions Act--that last year we passed--does not deprive
courts of jurisdiction to hear their habeas corpus claims and that it
would be unconstitutional to do so, for Congress to pass it. They
rejected that.
The Court did not find it was unconstitutional, what Congress passed,
and, in fact, found that Congress did what Congress intended to do,
creating a substitute appellate process so prisoners could have a
review of their detention but not give them the full panoply of habeas
corpus rights provided to American citizens.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed itself on June 29 of this year
and agreed to review both the Boumediene and Al Odah cases. This review
could very well address the constitutionality of the habeas bars in the
Military Commissions Act, and, much like this amendment, further
undermine the executive's constitutional authority to detain enemy
combatants in a time of war.
I hope the Supreme Court will not do that, but they have agreed to
hear that case and give it one more final review. Certainly, as of this
date, the case authority is clear, that the Constitution does not
provide habeas protection to noncitizen enemy combatants on foreign
territory not part of the United States.
I say that because people have come in on several points along the
way and accused President Bush or the Attorney General or others of
taking improper positions.
In most instances, the courts have ruled in favor of the executive in
these cases, on a few cases they found those procedures not to be
statutory or pass muster. But what I will say to you is, in these
cases, in almost each instance

[[Page S11567]]

they have reversed previous law. So the executive branch and our
military was operating under what they had every right to consider to
be the settled law of the land.
So the Court comes in and changes that law. I do not believe our
military should be condemned or criticized for taking action they felt,
and had every right to believe, was legitimate when they took it.
Now, it is important to remember that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay
are the most dangerous people who we have captured on the battlefield
pursuant to executive war-making power. They have been determined to be
``alien enemy combatants'' and the courts have absolutely no role to
play, in my view, in trying to second-guess the wartime decisions made
by the executive branch, especially where Congress has given their
stamp of approval to the process. It is not the Supreme Court's role to
micromanage this war by making decisions that fall outside the scope of
congressional authority.
The decisions made by the Supreme Court have long-lasting effect and
are not easily undone. If we are unhappy with present foreign policy,
Congress can cut off funds for the war or people can vote the President
out of office. I would note President Bush was reelected on a promise
to continue to pursue with vigor the war against terrorism and the war
in Iraq.
Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and are supposed to
adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, not to
legislate from the bench or to set foreign policy. This setting of
foreign policy and conducting military operations are powers squarely
within the purview of the executive branch not nine individuals with
lifetime appointments sitting on a Court with black robes.
It is not within the court's jurisdiction to decide on war-making
decisions but simply the constitutional power. It is important to note
the Justices lack the knowledge, in many cases, to address the matter,
or have any experience to make these decisions. Have any of them ever
served on the frontlines during war, or if they have, have they ever
served in a war on terrorism or been a JAG officer or been a company
commander, someone who captured enemy prisoners?
A Court's opinion or personal views about this are not a matter that
is impressive to me. We expect them to rule and to find Congress's
statutes--we expect them to enforce the Constitution. But just to flip-
flop around and try to decide that they do not like the way something
is done at Guantanamo, and to issue an opinion, would be troubling to
me. Hopefully, we will not get to that.
It has to be clear, as I have shown, that if we apprehend enemy
combatants in the theater of war, it is within the executive branch's
power to detain them until the hostilities are over. This is a
separation of powers issue, and the courts should recognize that.
Congress has already addressed what should be done with those detained
at Guantanamo Bay. Last October, we granted those detainees
unprecedented rights that have never before been provided to prisoners
detained during war.
Under the current system that we have provided them, detainees have
essentially five layers of protection when challenging detention or
determinations made by the Government. All of this is already covered
by current law. It was never the intent of Congress, however, to endow
the statutory guarantee of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants held
during a time of war.
So if we proceed with the amendment that is before us, we are not
restoring the right of habeas corpus; we are effectively overturning
800 years of legal authority and precedent in this area. To quote the
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I submit that
800 years of American and English court history certainly constitutes
``super duper'' precedent.
Allowing terrorists to challenge their detention through habeas
petitions filed in the DC Circuit courts would undermine military
decisions made by the Executive and essentially put wartime decisions
regarding the detention of those apprehended while engaged in
hostilities toward this country in the hands of judges who are not
qualified to make the decisions. They are not empowered to make the
decisions. This is exactly why the Founders vested the Executive with
this type of decisionmaking authority--decisiveness and ability to act
quickly--and to undermine this power would be to trample on the
Constitution we are sworn to defend.
Voting in favor of this amendment would be undermining the Executive
authority in times of war by making it virtually impossible for the
military to detain dangerous terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida and
with the Taliban during the war on terror and allowing Federal judges
to force the release of detainees whom the military have determined to
be extremely dangerous. It is just that simple.
I am disappointed the Senate is proceeding forward with this
amendment. I do not believe it is the right thing. It would result in
an unprecedented grant of constitutional protection to those suspected
of being terrorists.
This further indicates to me that our Congress is not in full
comprehension of the seriousness of the war we are engaged in and the
determination of those who are determined to kill us. It shows this
body is, frankly, often unable to execute a military operation. We
cannot get 535 people to execute a military operation and decide who
ought to be detained and who ought not to.
The military could go out and conduct a raid, and a firefight could
break out, and eight people be killed and eight people captured. Thirty
seconds before, they could have killed all 16. Now, if we detain them,
we have to bring soldiers from the war field, present evidence of some
kind, gather evidence to try to justify the detention. We all know
quite a large number of those who have been released from Guantanamo
have reappeared and been captured again on the battlefield trying to
kill us. That is a fact. We are not making that up.
I wish these people in Guantanamo were the kind of people who would
not go back to the battle. I wish they were all wrongly held so we
could let them go home. But what if their determination is to continue
to attack American soldiers, and it is your son out there, your
daughter out there on the battlefield, and somebody says in the U.S.
Congress, ``We don't think you have enough evidence to hold them''?
What do we know about what happened?
We have given that power to the executive branch to conduct the war.
That is who is supposed to be making those decisions. That is who is
required to preserve and protect the security of the American people. I
do not think that makes sense. It is not a little matter. It will set a
precedent for future times. We are eroding the ability of the
leadership of this country to execute and carry out a military
operation, which by its very nature involves death and destruction of
an enemy.
So I have to say to my colleagues, we need to think this issue
through. This may be a political deal now that we can use to beat up
President Bush, but let me say to my colleagues, you had your victory
in the last election, if not in 2004. We will have a new President
soon. We need to get away from this personal and political perspective.
We need to be thinking about the long-term history of the United
States. We need to be thinking about other wars we may be involved in
in the future. We need to be asking ourselves: Are we creating a
circumstance in which a devious, skillful, malicious enemy can utilize
our very laws to destroy us, place at risk our own soldiers, place at
risk American citizens, place at risk our people serving in military
bases around the world?
Let's be careful about that. We have provided them, by statute last
year, a procedure to contest their detention. Large numbers of those
who have been detained have already been released, and quite a number
of those have been recaptured on the battlefield attempting to destroy
America and what we stand for, attacking our own sons and daughters.
I urge my colleagues to be careful. To say we need to restore the
right of habeas corpus is not correct. We have never provided habeas
corpus to enemies of the United States, for heaven's sake. I share
again the overall concept that we are in a difficult new world. The
Constitution provides for reasonable searches and seizures and such
things as that.

[[Page S11568]]

Our country is threatened, and our people's liberties are threatened.
Liberty is important. Freedom is important. We in Congress do not need
to be curtailing significantly liberty in America. We certainly do not
need to be eroding constitutional protections that are provided to
American citizens. We are not doing that. The Supreme Court has never
held the Constitution provides protection in this fashion to enemy
combatants. So we are not eroding the Constitution.
What we have come up with is a realistic process that will, in the
end, provide more liberty, more freedom to American citizens than if we
were subjected to a system by which we are releasing terrorists again
and again who are out to kill and destroy us. That is all I would say
on the fundamental question of liberty and freedom and law.
Let's get our thinking straight. Let's look at this issue carefully.
Let's be sure we know that no country has ever provided such
protections to enemy combatants. The fact that 50 out of 400,000 German
prisoners who were tried after the war in Nuremberg had certain legal
provisions and rights provided them in no way whatsoever should be
construed to say we provided habeas rights to other prisoners during
the course of a war. They were not provided to the 400,000 German
prisoners held in the United States, that is for sure.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand some effort is being made
to pursue the amendment offered by Senator Specter, which is very
troubling to me because if it were to pass, it would reverse the
Military Commissions Act of 2006 that we passed last September on final
passage, 65 to 34. Passage of this amendment would result in a veto of
the Defense authorization bill by the President of the United States.
The first amendment we have up that is being pushed to a vote against
the pleas of people on this side would result in a veto of the Defense
authorization bill. The second amendment may well raise the same issue,
I understand. Not only that, we have very controversial amendments that
are being made filed to this bill and that have been offered for a vote
on this bill which are very controversial and are not related to the
defense of America--for example, the hate crimes amendment. People have
differing views on that. They have offered an amendment on hate crimes
on this bill. There is also the amendment on the DREAM Act, which is an
immigration amendment that would provide citizenship to people who come
here in our education system at a certain age, and even though they are
illegally in the country, they would be provided in-state tuition and
student loans subsidized by the Federal Government. That is a very
controversial matter too. So that is all going to be put on this piece
of legislation, apparently.
It raises questions in my mind whether there is any serious desire on
the part of the Democratic leadership to see the Defense authorization
bill passed. The bill came out of the Armed Services Committee, of
which I am a member, and it didn't have the reversal of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 and the grant of habeas corpus to illegal enemy
combatants, noncitizens on foreign soil. It didn't have that or hate
crimes or the DREAM Act.
I just say to my colleagues that we need to do the right thing for
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardsmen who are serving
our Nation now. They are in the field this very moment. They are out
walking the streets somewhere in Iraq--160,000 of them--executing this
very complex and very important and, so far, effective
counterinsurgency strategy that was devised by General Petraeus. They
are living with Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi police and doing the things
they were asked to do. This bill has a pay raise for them and wounded
warrior language that provides additional care for those who are
wounded while serving our country. We owe them every single benefit we
have to give them. We have military construction to make sure we are
able to carry through on the BRAC process. It has acquisition reform.
We need to do a better job with the money we spend in acquiring new
weapons systems and aircraft and ships and all the things that go with
it.
I just say to my colleagues, let's remember now that everything is
not required to be placed on this bill. If we pass this amendment to
provide habeas corpus protection to illegal enemy combatants, not
citizens, not on American soil, not required by the Constitution of the
United States, according to decided case authority of Federal courts,
that is going to result in a Presidential veto even if it passes.
Hopefully, we won't pass that. Why do we want to do that? We need to be
spending our time thinking about how we can help those whom we have
sent into harm's way to execute a policy that has been decided upon by
the Congress of the United States. That is what we need to be doing--
not creating more and more lawsuits, not engaging in more and more
political flapdoodle and emotional arguments about restoring habeas
corpus, when we have never provided habeas to prisoners of war in the
history of the Republic, nor has any other advanced nation provided
those kinds of rights.
I urge my colleagues to push back from this brink. Let's don't take
action that could result in the failure of a defense authorization
bill. It would be the first time we have failed to pass a defense
authorization bill since 1961, 46 years ago. Let's don't break that
record while we have soldiers in harm's way serving our national
interests, attempting to execute the policies and assignments we have
given to them. Let's don't do that. Let's don't pass a bill that is
going to come back like a ball off of the wall because it will be
vetoed by the President. What good is that? Why are we obsessed with
this? It wasn't passed in the Armed Services Committee, and it doesn't
need to be pushed now.
I urge my colleagues to become fully aware of the dangerous territory
which we are entering. We are entering a circumstance in which, if we
continue to pursue issues unrelated to the core responsibilities of the
Congress to deal with the war we are confronting, we will have failed
in our responsibilities and actually fail to pass this important
legislation.
In addition, we need to finish up with the Defense bill and go on to
the Defense appropriations bill. The fiscal year ends September 30. We
need to pass the Defense authorization bill so that we can get to the
Defense appropriations bill by next week. That needs to move. We do not
need to still be arguing over the DREAM Act, arguing over hate crimes,
arguing over providing habeas corpus rights to illegal enemy combatants
held somewhere around the world by the American military, a privilege
that has never been provided by any nation to people it captures on the
battlefield. That is not the right way for us to go. This Congress, if
it is a responsible Congress, should move forward this week on the
authorization bill and do the appropriations bill next week.

What are the core issues? We have some core issues we ought to debate
about the defense of America and our military. Let's stay on those
issues, not on extraneous issues.
There is no doubt that we have heard the report of GEN Jimmy Jones's
commission, the Government Accountability Office report the week before
last, and then last week we heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador
Crocker. We need to have time to discuss seriously--and this side has
certainly agreed to that and it is contemplated that we will have a
generous time to discuss our commitment in Iraq, what it is, what our
goals are, how we can achieve those goals, what the troop levels should
be, how they are going to be drawn down, are they being drawn down fast
enough, and what other issues are relevant. Those are legitimate issues
on which we should spend time.
I am very concerned these other issues will be distracting us from
those issues, that we will be utilizing time that ought to be on the
core issues of

[[Page S11569]]

defense of this country, and I hope those leaders, particularly our
Democratic leadership, are not going to put us in a position where we
will not meet our responsibilities.
For the past 46 years, we have passed a Defense authorization bill.
At the rate we are headed, even if we pass it, it is going to be vetoed
because of amendments wholly unrelated to the Defense of this country.
We need to pass a Defense appropriations bill, and we need to get on
that quickly because the fiscal year is ending. For my colleagues'
information, we are going to have to do something to continue to fund
defense because if we do not pass a Defense authorization bill, the
fact is that no money can be spent in the whole Department of Defense
unless we are being attacked. It is very troubling, and it could have
tremendous disruptive impacts throughout the entirety of our defense
establishment.
Under the Antideficiency Act, if Congress does not appropriate money,
the executive branch cannot spend it. It cannot spend what has not been
appropriated. That is the Constitution, and that is what the
Antideficiency Act says. The budget and last year's appropriations end
September 30. We need to pass a new bill so we can go forward into next
year.
We have a pretty good bill that came out of committee. There will be
some disagreement here, there, and on a few other matters. We will
bring those up, and good people will disagree. I certainly understand
that point. We need to be working on those issues, not being distracted
on matters unrelated to the core of defending America in this time of
terrorism.
I share those thoughts and hopefully our colleagues in the leadership
can continue to work and some way we can avoid the end toward which it
appears we are heading.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I heard one of my friends on the other side
of the aisle come here this afternoon and talk about why we aren't
getting more things done here; why are we doing the Defense
authorization bill now; when are we going to do the Defense
appropriations bill. Maybe they should have thought of that before they
did 45 different filibusters here in the Senate. The Republican
minority has stopped the work of this country. We have fought back with
the very slim majority we have.
I will remind everyone within the sound of my voice that Senator
Johnson has been ill. He is back now, thank goodness. He is back. He
overcame a tremendous illness, and he is back with us. My majority was
50 to 49--that is, the Democratic majority--and we have had to fight,
that little majority has had to fight everything that we have done.
Everything. We had to file cloture on things they agreed with us on,
just eating up valuable time here in the Senate. I am going to have to
file cloture again tonight on another matter. This will be the third
time we have worked on the Defense authorization bill. I am not going
to belabor the point except to say this is the wrong thing to be
talking about here: Why aren't we moving more quickly?
In spite of all the obstacles--procedural in nature--they have thrown
up against us, we have done some remarkable things.
We passed an increase in the minimum wage for the first time in 10
years.
The President was forced to sign, even though he didn't like it--and
he said so--the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in the history
of this country.
We passed the 9/11 Commission recommendations that the President held
up for years. And those he tried to implement, he got D's and F's on,
but they are now law. We have done that.
Disaster relief for farmers and ranchers--we have done that for them.
They waited years to get that done. Our slim majority was able to get
that done.
We forced upon the President money to fight the wildfires which swept
the West, fires caused by global warming.
A budget. We passed a balanced budget. Our majority was 50 to 49, and
we passed a budget. The Republicans, with the huge majority they had,
couldn't get a budget done. We got one done.
So, Mr. President, we have done some really good things here in spite
of all these obstacles. I haven't mentioned all of them but just given
an idea of what we have done working really hard. So I repeat: Don't
come to the floor and lecture us on not getting things done here.
Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to the Specter-
Leahy amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.

cloture motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 2022,
regarding restoration of habeas corpus, top H.R. 1585, the
Department of Defense Authorization bill.
Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Christopher Dodd,
Jeff Bingaman, Barack Obama, Robert C. Byrd, Ken
Salazar, Debbie Stabenow, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick
Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Daniel K. Akaka, Russell D.
Feingold, Amy Klobuchar, Bill Nelson.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would also add to the remarks I just made.
In addition to what I outlined earlier, look at what we have done on
Iraq. We forced the President to debate this issue, to talk to us about
this issue. The Republicans had to debate us. This war went on for
years, and there wasn't even a congressional oversight hearing held. We
have held hearings, and they have been opened up to this country. We
helped uncover the scandal of Walter Reed, just to mention a few of the
things we have done on Iraq, plus forcing on the President money to get
body armor for the troops so the parents no longer had to buy them and
up-armoring of vehicles we have forced upon the President.

____________________