competition fair and square. they did it as senator chambliss said with an engine that has had been enormous amount of experience, that is the air force had experience with it in the f-22, and it worked extraordinarily well. secretary gates in his letter to us today say that's the current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 tests hours. so there has been a competition. general electric, which manufactures the second engine, which lost the competition, is trying, in my opinion, i love this company, i respect them. they're headquartered in connecticut, but they're driving to achieve through legislation what they could not achieve through competition, and it is costly. and it delays the joint strike fighter program. earlier this week we terminated the f-22 technical air fighter

program. that means we're all in the joint strike fighter program. this is our single hope and -- and specific program to take us to the future for american tactical air war combat. and this second engine, the money for it, will cost. it will cost by testimony before our armed services committee of the air force between $50 -- 50 and 83 fewer joint strike air fighters for the marines for the next five years. that's a lot to pay for. so there has been competition. it's over. and this engine that has been selected is a good one. and we'll -- we'll continue to perform well -- and will continue to perform well and not delay the program. i want to say a few other things about what's been said. there has been some citing of a

g.a.o. report issued in may of this year that suggested that in the long term the second engine might result in savings. i think it's important to say that the opinion of g.a.o. is -- is not really documented in their report on that matter. and it is not shared by other authorities who have done independent analysis. the institute for defense analysis says flat-out that g.a.o. underestimated the required government investment to develop an alternate engine by nearly $4 billion. one of the supporters of the second engine earlier said that we've already spent over $2 billion on it. there's only a need to spend another $1.5 billion or $1.8 billion. of course, any dollar we spend on an engine that i suggest, believe deem we don't need, should go -- deeply we don't

need, should go to other programs in the department of defense is a wasted dollar. but in the g.a.o. report that itself is cited by proponents of the second engine, it's quite clear that they say that an additional investment of $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion in development and production costs may be required for this program. so that means an additional $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion in the coming years totally over $6 billion, some say even more, for a second engine which, well, it would be nice to have, like it would be nice to have a lot of things, but we can't afford it. and the very fact that we can't afford it is demonstrated by -- by the amendments that have been introduced by the proponents of the second engine who have to cannibalize, have to take from marine huey helicopters, arise too much opposition from the

senate, now take from the c-130's that are now used by the army operations and in battle today. now, let me go to this g.a.o. argument. my friend from massachusetts cited an institute of defense analysis statement offered in testimony before the house in march of this year, but there's another line in that, that really makes a very powerful point on the question of savings from -- from the second engine. to break even financially, according to the institute for defense analysis, or in other words -- i'm quoting here from that institute -- "to offset fully the estimated $8.8 billion investment to establish the alternative j.s.f. engine would require a savings rate during the production phase of 40% on a net present value basis. " that's the key here.

and here's the key from the independent defense institute analysis -- and i quote -- "savings of this magnitude are implausible considering the 11% to 18% savings realized in other competition." so it's way beyond what we have seen before. i want to quote from testimony received in our committee, a very interesting exchange between senator begich, a member of our subcommittee, and a representative of the navy and the air force. senator begich -- this is in reference to the g.a.o. report that's been cited -- indicated that the f-136, the second engine, had better efficiency and opportunity. that's the g.a.o. report. but you seem to disagree with that, senator begich says to the witnesses, and believe that the current joint strike fighter engine is the course you're taking. vice admiral archisell of the navy says -- and i quote --

"while we generally support competition, the cost of continuing to develop a second engine versus being able to use that in procurement dollars for aircraft or in the cost also to maintain the two engines, the navy supports the department of defense in just having this one f-135 engine." lieutenant general shac shackled from the office of acquisition of the air force says -- very important quote regarding the g.a.o. report that's been cited by proponents of the second engine -- "in this particular case, the analysis that the office of secretary of defense did to look at the costs associated with a second engine yielded a different result from that -- from what the g.a.o. reported, which basically says the costs associated with development of the second engine would be something that we would consider unaffordable in the

current time frame while we would be doing the development. and that benefit down the road in terms of comparative cost would be more of a wash than the more optimistic version of what the g.a.o. report said." so when we look at that, balancing the risk of having one engine versus the costs associated with paying for the second engine, be it with costs within the program, which would be taken out of production aircraft with a negative effect on it in terms of unit costs, or even having to source these dollars someplace else within the air force, we don't consider that th, the purchase of a secod engine, to be an affordable solution. so, again, competition has occurred. it's over. we've got to really go forward with the joint strike fighter program, not delay it, not waste money on it, not take money from other programs to fund this one. i want to indicate -- an and i'l

introduce for the record and ask unanimous consent, madam president, two lerdz, one from mill -- letters, one from military familie united and another for the vets -- from the vets for freedom. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: and very briefly, i'd say from brian wise, executive director of military families united, "i'm writing today in support of funding to procure additional uh-'s and hc-130's." that is the hc-130's that the amendment introduced by my friend from indiana would defund. "providing the necessary funds for the procurement and recapitalization of both the uh-1 and the hc-130 will afford our armed forces the ability to successfully execute our military engagements overseas. military families united aggressively supports this effort to restore funding for the procurement and recapitalization of these vital weapons systems. we must never forget the sacrifices the brave men and women of our armed forces make every day in the service of our

nation and for the cause of freedom." second letter from the vets for freedom, signed by pete hexseth, distinguished and decorated veteran, chairman of the vets for freedom, says, "the vets for freedom always fought for the success of the mission and fielding the needs of war fighters serving our country in harm's way. recently, we've seen attempts made in congress to strip funding from the marine corps h-is hugh wee helicopter program and from the special operation command c-130 fleet. both pieces of equipment play a key role in making both our troops more effective and leathal on the battlefield by both transporting marines into the fight and allowing our special operations forces to take the fight to the taliban and al qaeda around the country. both of these programs are mission-critical assets for the fight we are in today and tomorrow, and the secretary of defense and commandant of the u.s. marine corps agree." i appreciate these letters very

much. she speak volumes -- they speak volumes and i think -- i hope will urge and lead my colleagues to oppose the bayh amendment and support the one that -- the bipartisan amendment that senator mccain and i and many others have introduced. i thank the chair, and i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: could i just ask for the time before -- time remaining on both sides. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut has 26 minutes. the senator from indiana has 14 minutes. who yields time? mr. inhofe: madam president, i would just take a very short period of time. the presiding officer: who yield time to the senator from oklahoma? [inaudible] the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: how much time? mr. inhofe: i don't need -- just a couple of minutes. mr. lieberman: i would yield to the senator from oklahoma if my time up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. inhofe: okay. i appreciate that very much. i look at this issue and i think about the not just hours and days and months but years we've been talking about this thing, and a lot of people have changed their mind, have gone back and forth on it. i -- i think at the time that senator warner was here that he actually took a couple of positions on this. but i look at it very simply. i've been concerned about the funding, about some of the things that we need to have. i know that we all have different ideas on the additional f-22's. but i look at this and i see that the only current u.s. military aircraft with dual-engine sources is the f-16. all the rest of them have single-engine sources and it's worked well. and there's no military requirement for the alternate engine. i would say that and i've come to the conclusion that it would cost over $5 billion to fund the alternate engine over the -- the next years, costing the program

some -- i've seen estimates all the way from 50 to 80 aircraft. that came from the program manager. so congress has directed study. we've gone over these studies in our senate armed services committee. some three studies of the alternate engine. two out of the three stated there would never be any cost savings associated with -- with the competition. and there's never been any factual data, only anecdotal, that proves there was ever any cost savings brought about by the -- what they call -- some call the great engine wars on the f-16's. so it just seems to me this is a savings -- this is a savings without the alternate engine that will allow us to have more capability, more aircraft, and i strongly support the lieberman-mccain amendment. i yield the floor.

mr. bayh: madam president, how much time is remaining on our side? 14 minutes? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut, 23 minutes; the senator from indiana, 14 minutes. mr. mccain: madam president, then -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i would like to just add some additional comments about the $438 million that would be taken from the hcm c-130 recapitalization program to fund development of the alternate engine. i don't think there's any doubt that given the conflict in afghanistan as well as iraq, but particularly now in afghanistan as we move into the southern part of the country, the hcmc-130's are -- are really critical weapons systems. they're platforms that are

designed to specifically support our special operations warriors, which is the kind of fight that we are in. it's an irregular fight and puts increasing demands on our special forces. and as we know, these aircraft are specialized c-130's that are specifically designed for that fight. they have capabilities such as air quail refueling and gunship -- aerial refueling and gunship weaponry that meets the requirements of the special operations command. so i -- i would be very reluctant, in fact, strongly opposed, to take funding away from special operations and use it to fund the second motor for the joint strike fighter. and it's a time, obviously, when we're fighting two irregular wars and it's not the time to take this funding away. according to the defense department, the current military requirement for the hcmc-130 judge's is 6j'sis 60.

the department recently recognized that the needs to modernize aging, worn-out special operations and combat search-and-rescue fleets is urgent. according to office of the secretary of defense that -- and i quote -- "the cut to these aircraft would slow down deliveries to the war tpaoeurgt of the hc-130 and the mc-130. according to the air force -- and i quote -- "based on the jroc validated requirements for 78 mc-130's, the air force, including the air combat command, would benefit from an even greater acceleration of the recapitalization rate of all nine aircraft that remain in the president's budget. so, taking money out of this program would delay the delivery

of new aircraft to the war fighter. so, i think that if general mcchrystal were here and our other leaders, i think it would make it very clear that in the very difficult situation we face in afghanistan, large areas of geography that need to be traveled and controlled, that these aircraft are very much needed. so, i hope my colleagues will also take that into consideration as we consider this vote. and may i congratulate the senator from indiana for a very eloquent argument on behalf of his position. again, my appreciation for the very important role that he plays as a member of the armed services committee. this is one of the few times that we disagree, but i think he's presented his side of the argument with eloquence.

i yield the floor. a senator: madam chair? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. bayh: perhaps i should quit while i'm ahead following those very generous remarks by my friend and colleague from arizona. i am compelled, however, i'm going to save a few minutes of my time from senator levin who is the chairman of the armed services committee and is supportive of our amendment, for him to come and offer additional observations about this. i do want to close with a few closing remarks. first, i'd like to thank senator kennedy who could not be with us today but is a strong supporter of our amendment. senators kerry, voinovich r-rbgs brown and senator levin have all spoken in support of this amendment. i'd like to thank them. i do want to address a couple of points that have been raised. first, with regard to the issue of the marine corps helicopters, for those who care about the

helicopters, the marine corps helicopters will be fully funded. that is off the table. for the assertions made about the reduction in the number of joint strike fighters that will be procured, we have funded the administration's request. there will be no reduction in the number of planes purchased because of my amendment. we have taken care of that issue. that is no longer relevant. the president's staff recommending a veto was premised upon the presumption that there would be a reduction in the number of planes purchased. since that has been taken care of, the veto threat is no longer relevant. that's been taken care of. there have been comments made about the c130 procurement. i too support the c-130 procurement. we have fully funded, fully funded the administration's request. it was passed in the supplemental. the money is there. in recognition of that, that's why the house of representatives fully eliminated the account that we are using to fund the second engine. for those who care about the c-130, as do i, and i thought senator mccain's comments were

very appropriate about the need for that important plane, that has been fully funded. in fact, what has been proposed in our authorization is a duplicate funding, a double funding. and so for those of us who care about duplication and that sort of thing, this in fact would save the taxpayers' money, which i understand is one of the premises underlying the lieberman amendment. accepting their premise, this is a fully appropriate funding source. the final thing i'd like to say, madam chair, is to address this issue of competition once again. it has been asserted and alleged over and over and over again that there was a competition, that the competition was run by pratt&whitney. that there was competition, competition, competition. i hold in my hand copies of the contracts given to pratt and whitney. hold them right here, the cover page. january 23, 1997. pratt & whitney, $804 million, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. in bold type. this contract was not

competitively procured. let me repeat that. this contract was not competitively procured. the second contract for the engine dated october 26, 2001, pratt ant whitney, in this case $4.8 billion. once again bold type so people could understand. this contract was not competitively procured. it couldn't be any plainer than that for those of us who can read these documents. there is not a competition with regard to this engine. it is a sole-source contract. therein lies the issue. it is not about the helicopters, not about the number of planes procured, not about the c-130. all those have been taken care of. it is about your belief whether competition is in the best interest of the taxpayers and quality. if you believe that, you will support this amendment. it maintains competition. if you believe that single-source, noncompetitively bid contracts like these are in the best interest of quality and

protecting the taxpayers, then you will support senator lieberman's amendment. that's what this is all about. since i don't have much time left -- how much time do i have left, madam president? the presiding officer: the senator has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. bayh: i quoted at length in my previous comments from the general accounting office. it was asserted g.a.o. didn't offer much reasoning for their comments. i will just point out once again that they state very clearly that the savings from this competition, the second engine, has the potential to be equal to or exceeding its cost. prior experience, they indicate, points to this, and they are confident the competitive pressures could yield these kind of savings. so the g.a.o. as well on record. i understand there is a dispute from other entities and other studies, but that is the g.a.o.'s opinion. so, this all comes down to

competition, madam chairwoman, whether you emembrace it, in which case you support our amendment, or if you don't, you will support the other amendment. having said that, i'll yield the floor. mr. levin: would the senator yield me three minutes? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, let me just affirm what the senator from indiana has said. this issue does not involve 130's. we have put all the money -- congress has put all the money in for 130's that the president requested. the reason this money for 130's was in our committee report is because we did not know at the time that the supplemental appropriations bill would put money in for the 130's. so we do not need this money for the 130's in order to fully finance the request of the president of the united states for 130's. and i want to just reiterate one point that i made earlier. this is not an issue of whether

or not we insert a new engine. whether we start down the road with a second engine. that issue was resolved years ago by congress when we started to fund a second engine for the purpose of competition. we have already put $2.5 billion into this second engine, roughly $1.8 billion more is needed. so our sunk cost are approximately two-thirds of the cost of this second engine. we have consistently supported it in the armed services committee. this is not new. we feel that the value of competition here will more than make up for all of the costs, and surely far more than make up for the final costs which we need in order to complete the development of this second engine. so i do support the bayh amendment. i think it makes sense in terms

of the fundamental point of competition. it makes sense fiscally. and it makes good sense in terms of the quantity that we're buying. it is a huge buy, 2,500 planes, engines, and perhaps 500 more in terms of the export market. it's a huge buy. and with this size buy and given the precedent of other planes, at least three that have had two engines available for them, with that precedent and with these savings, i hope the bayh amendment is accepted. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. madam president, first i want to ask unanimous consent that the senator from new hampshire, senator shaheen, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment that senator mccain and i and others have introduced. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair, and i thank my friend from new hampshire for joining us in this. we have a dispute about whether

or not there was competition. i guess it depends on what you define as competition. but there clearly was a competition for the j.s.f., joint strike fighter, and the engine in the 1990's. 1996. pratt, whitney and general electric each submitted proposals to the three manufacturers, airframe manufacturers that were competing for the joint strike fighter contract. lockheed, boeing, mcdonnell douglas. two of the three select thed the appellate whitney engine -- selected the pratt whitney engine, and it happened those two were down selected for the final competition. ultimately 2001, lockheed was selected to start design and development with the pratt & whitney engine. so i believe there was a competition.

pratt & whitney won. general electric lost. it's gone the other way on other occasions. this is a legislative attempt to achieve by legislation what could not be achieved through competition. secondly, my dear friend, senator levin, the chairman and i may have a disagreement on how much more the, going for the second engine will cost. eblts it will be $1.-- he believes it will be $1.8 billion. i have cited statistics that show it will be between $4.5 billion and $5.5 billion. that is not the main point. $1.8 billion is a lot more to spend on an engine i have submited to my colleagues we do not need. not only do we not need it, the air force testified if we spend this money on the second engine, we're going to get by general shackleford's testimony, 53

fewer in the next five years. won't be able to afford them. that's a serious consequence. what about this engine that's been selected, the f-135 engine has flown over 11,000 test hours and delivered 12 flight test engines. the f-135 uses a core that has been delivered and is being used in the f-22. it will have close to 1 million flight hours by the time this selected engine, the pratt whitney f-135 enters operational service in 2012. that's quite a remarkable record and one that justifies what secretary gates has said to us. in the letter he sent to us this morning, that the current

engine -- i quote the secretary -- "is p-fplg well with more than -- is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours. so i think the record here is a clear one. i again, respectfully, i thank my friend from indiana. senator mccain said he's argued well. he's a dear friend. we'd rather be on the same side on issues, but we both feel strongly about this. therefore, i respectfully urge my colleagues to vote against the bayh amendment and for our amendment which would end funding for a second unnecessary engine. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. bayh: unless my friend and colleague from arizona has something new and shocking to say, i'm going to yield back the balance of my time. first i want to thank both of my colleagues for the tenor of the debate. we have some honest differences of opinion.

i find myself much more comfortable working with my colleagues senator lieberman in a variety of capacities. only one of the few who come to the floor in agreement to oppose wasteful measures. i look forward to resuming that partnership in the future even if we have a respectful difference of opinion today. i only wish that all of our debates here could be as focused and collegial as this one has been. having said that, i thank my colleagues. i yield back unless chairman levin has something additional to say, i will yield back the balance of my time. mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, i would -- has all the time been yielded back? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. madam president, i ask my friend from arizona if there's anything more he'd like to say? mr. mccain: i think we're prepared to vote. mr. lieberman: very briefly,

to wind up, this bayh amendment does remove the 130's from the air force. it's true they got money in the supplemental, but by statements that we got this morning from the air force, any office of -- in the office of the secretary of defense, the 130's that they got in the supplemental which were critically needed, leave open tens -- in other words, they are nowhere near the requirements for that plane, which is critically important to the air force and particularly to our special operations forces in afghanistan, iraq and throughout the world in the war on terror. i would just close by reading a statement from president obama when he introduced his defense budget on may 15th. i quote -- "we're going to save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that were -- that do nothing to keep us safe, but rather prevent us from

spending money on what does keep us safe. one example is a $465 million program to build an alternative engine for the joint strike fighter. the pentagon does not want and does not plan to use the alternative version. that is why the pentagon stopped requesting this program funding two years ago." end of quote. then, from secretary gates, right today, it is my belief that the joint strike fighter presented in the president's budget request is in the best interest of national security. if a final bill is presented to the president containing provisions that would seriously disrupt the -- the f-35, joint strike fighter, the president's senior advisors will recommend that the president veto the bill. he end of quote from secretary

gates. we have shown that the second-engine funding will disrupt the joint strike fighter program. i ask respectfully to oppose the amendment from my good friend from indiana and support the amendment that we have offer. i thank the chair. if there is no one else who wants to speak, i will yield back the rest of the time given to our side. mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that at 12:35 that all time remaining for debate with respect to these amendments, 1627 and 176 having -- 1767, that the senate proceed to vote to the amendments in the order previously ordered, with the second vote 10 minutes in duration and all of the orders in the remaining provisions remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, i modify that quack reques that ut request and ask that the vote

begin immediately. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on amendment 1767. offered by the senator from indiana. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change your vote? seeing none, amendment number 240, the ayes -- i'm sorry. amendment number 1767, the ayes are 38. the nays are 59. the amendment is not agreed to. without objection. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 1627 offered by the senator from connecticut. mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrence of the opponents and proponents

that the two minutes be yielded back and this be voice voted. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection? without objection, so ordered. all time is yielded back. the question is on amendment number 1627. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all those against signify by saying no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. without objection.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: mr. president, we are not in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kyl: mr. president, let me take a moment to indicate to colleagues where we are at the moment. the pending business is my amendment, amendment number 1760 dealing with start treaty and the need to have our nuclear weapon program modernized, consistent with the start treaty. what we are thinking of doing, mr. president, is to start the debate with about two minutes of conversation here. and then if we're able to work out an agreement with the chairman of the armed services committee and other members that have an interest in this, we can avoid long, protracted debate and potentially a lot of votes on alternatives as well as this amendment. in the meantime, other business on the bill could be conducted, and i think that the next business the chairman intends would be for senator schumer to

speak. so, what i would suggest is that we move forward to try to work out an agreement. the essence, mr. president, is simply this, for my colleagues that are interested in this start treaty. we know there's a treaty -- or at least we hope there's a treaty that's going to be submitted to the senate late this year. we would be reducing the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems in an agreement with the russians. that makes it even more necessary to put some money into our current nuclear program. the infrastructure and our nuclear stockpile to, bring it up to snuff, to modernize it and ensure that it meets the test for safety and security and credibility. we need to have a plan for doing that that is at least no later than the point at which the treaty would be submitted to the senate, so we know what we are going to be able to support. and so hopefully what we would do is convey to the

administration jointly, democrats and republicans, our desire to have that submittal to the senate to have a study that we can put into law as a part of this bill that would call for bringing that modernization program and thereby avoid voting specifically on the amendment number 1760 that i proposed. trying to work out the details of that. if we can do that, we can probably save quite a bit of time. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, let me thank my friend from arizona, first of all. we are trying to work out an approach which would be satisfactory to the issue. it will save out a lot of time if we can work it out. if we can't we would go to vote. his amendment in regular order would be to go back to the kyl amendment, as i understand it. at this point we're going to ask unanimous consent that the senator from new york be recognized to introduce an

amendment, that it be in order for him to do so. and that after 15 minutes and a vote on his -- i would ask unanimous consent then that after 15 minutes of debate no amendments be in order to his amendment, that we then proceed to a vote on his amendment. it's intended that it be a voice vote, although it can't be ordered. and then the regular order would be restored, which is the kyl amendment. the presiding officer: is there any objection? mr. mccain: in addition -- mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: if the senator would agree, the senator from montana wants to take some time just to talk about his amendment which is germane, but he wants to talk about it. we haven't had a real good chance to examine it.

and then could we go back to the kyl amendment pending the, hopefully, an agreement between you and senator kyl? mr. levin: mr. president, i would modify my unanimous consent amendment that after the disposition of the schumer amendment, that then senator tester be recognized in ten minutes to talk about his amendment but without the intent to offer it at this time. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. chambliss: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i'm sorry, i missed was there an agreement -- the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. chambliss: was there a time agreement on the schumer amendment? mr. levin: 15 minutes was what i specified. mr. chambliss: thank you. i do not object. the presiding officer: is there any further objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so we can call up amendment 1764. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the

amendment. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 1764. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask that i be yielded 5 minutes of the 15 minutes, senator bennett, the ranking member of the rules committee, be given 5 minutes and senator chambliss be given 5 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: i rise about 1764, the move act of 2009. i want to thank my colleague, senator bennett, for his hard work on this. indispensable in getting this done were senator chambliss and senator nelson, ben nelson of nebraska, and senator cornyn, who had previous legislation that was similar. i also want to thank you, mr. president, senator levin, as well as senator mccain for helping us. the "move" act is a bipartisan solution to a serious yet

all-too-familiar problem. the bottom line is our soldiers overseas have a very difficult time in voting. with the "move" act, with 58 cosponsors we can tackle this problem head on and make voting overseas for our military men and women easier. we chaired a hearing in the rules committee. the bottom line is very simple, mr. president. if you're in the military, it's very difficult to comply with state registration laws. you have to go through two post offices, military mail, and then the regular post office. there is no availability of notaries. many states require notaries. there is also a problem, of course, that you have to do everything by many state laws by mail, and the mail takes forever when you're overseas. couple that with the fact that for absentee voting, which by definition, these voters have to use, there are serious

deadlines. all too often our soldiers get their absentee ballot after the deadline is passed to send them in. all too often even more frequently, the voting ballot doesn't arrive by the deadline that the state has set. so these are serious problems, and the bottom line is with technology, they could all be overcome. we have faxes. we have e-mail. we have computers. and we don't use them for our soldiers overseas. now, if they can risk their lives for us, we can at least allow them to vote. they take orders from the commander in chief. they are the first people who ought to be allowed to elect and vote for a commander in chief. and if we can deploy tanks and high-tech equipment and food to the front lines, we can figure out a way to deliver ballots to our troops so they can be

returned and counted. and that, mr. president, is what the "move" act does, correcting the many flaws that riddle the absentee ballot for overseas voting. the numbers are very, very troubling. more than a quarter of all ballots either come in too late or are not counted, and that is a serious, serious problem. when our soldiers who have so much else on their minds go out of their way to get the absentee ballot, cast the absentee ballot, and then it is not counted, that's frustrating. that's wrong. that's not american. and so our bill and the details are available in the record, deals with that issue. one letter one soldier sent to the overseas vote foundation a letter which said -- quote -- "i hate that because of my military service from overseas i was precluded from voting." that soldier continued, "of all people, deployed service members should have a guaranteed ability

to vote." that sums it up. that sums it up. and the "move" act will ensure this. the "move" act will ensure it by allowing ballots to be sent electronically dealing with the time gaps and all the other problems we face. it is bipartisan. both senator bennett and i on the rules committee support it. senator chambliss and senator ben nelson who have done such a good george w. bush are cosponsors of this legislation. we can finally solve this problem which is unacceptable by moving this legislation. i ask my colleagues, how can a marine in fallujah find a notary? why are we making things so hard? how can anyone who goes out of his way to cast a ballot have that ballot not counted? this legislation solve that's problem in a fair way that is

cocognizant of the rights of the states. i hope that we have unanimous support for it. with that, mr. president, i yield the remaining time to my colleagues. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. a senator: i'm happy to cosponsor the bill that senator schumer has just discussed, the overseas voters act. i want to commend senator schumer for his decision to make this a priority and move it through the committee. our military personnel make tremendous sacrifices for this country and we need to make sure they're able to exercise their right to vote. now, i want to thank senator schumer's staff as well for the coopive way to move it -- coopive way to move this --

cooperative way to move this forward. now, when the legislation was introduced in its original form, i raised concerns with senator schumer about some of its provisions. he worked with me and my staff to address those concerns and the amendment that we have before us today effectively does so. that's why i'm pleased to now be a cosponsor of the bill. the difficulties our service personnel face in voting and the senator from new york has described them and i believe this amendment deals with them in a proper fashion. i want to clarify several things for the record. we recognize that election administration is carried out at the local level and we have no intention of transferring those functions to state in this legislation. the amendment makes clear that states may comply with the obligations imposed on them here under by delegating their responsibilities to other

jurisdictions in the state just as they have for so many years in complying with the uniform and overseas citizens absentee voting act. the amendment requires states seeking federal funds to meet the requirements imposed by this amendment to update their state plans. that's been previously submitted pursuant to the help america vote act. the amendment clarifies only the states seeking fund authorized by an appropriate pursuant to this amendment are obligated to update their state plans. mr. bennett: i want to thank my colleagues who worked so hard on this legislation. the two i mentioned, senators chambliss an nelson and senator cornyn. i appreciate their bringing the issue before the senate. i'm proud to support it and look forward to its unanimous passage.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise to express my strong support for amendment 1764 offered by the senator from new york, senator schumer. we have crafted what i consider to be one of the substantive and comprehensive voting overseas reforms that we've seen in years. this amendment tackles some very tough issues while taking states' rights into account. in play oin may of this year ser bennett was consumed with another issue and asked me to co-chair a hearing with senator schumer on overseas voting. we heard testimony regarding difficulty of military and overseas voting. this amendment addresses some of those concerns and is a significant step toward ensuring that military an overseas' voters are not disenfranchised. the amendment establishes uniform standards for the request and delivery of blank

balloting material that takes into account all available technologies. it makes sure all overseas voters have time to vote by requiring states to send out ballots to military an overseas voters at least 45 days before election day. it utilizes expedited mail delivery services for our uniformed members serving overseas ensuring a timely delivery of completed ballots. it establishes a requirement for service secretaries to designate voter registration agencies at military installations to assist with voter registration and aid avoting assistance officers. it lays the groundwork, together the needed information to continue to improve the overseas absentee voting process. and will help our existing voting oversight organizations gather key voting metric the to help make key decisions ahead of future elections. mr. president, not since the passage of the uniform and overseas voting act in 1986 have

we proposed such significant legislation designed to help the men and women of the military who time and time again are called upon to defend the rights and freedoms that we americans hold so sacred. unfortunately our military's one of the most disenfranchised voting blocks we have and today we have the opportunity to correct this. i'm extremely pleased with this legislation and proud to have been a part of this team that put this amendmenting together. there are 57 other cosponsors which is representative of the strong support for this amendment and significant concern around the country regarding this issue. i want to thank senator schumer and his staff for leading this effort and helping makin makings legislation become a reality. i thank senator ben nelson, my good friend and colleague, on the senate armed services committee, for his efforts on this matter. it would not have happened without his strong leadership. i also want to thank senator

bennett and his staff for their strong efforts in putting this -- this bill into proper perspective and making sure all issues were properly addressed. and i also want to thank senator cornyn for his leadership over the years on this issue. senator cornyn is not a member of the rules committee, but he has been very engaged on this issue over the last several years. his input was valuable. there's no question that his support for the amendment and contribution he and his staff made to the amendment have made a good amendment a much better one. i want to thank my secretary of state, of the state of georgia, karen handle, also a very valuable asset to us as we went through the process of putting this bill together, she and her staff responded very timely and were very honest in the feed tbhac we got from them. -- feedback that they got from them. they contributed sensible

changes. their contribution will move us in the right direction to ensure that every overseas voter wishing to vote will be able to do so. again, mr. president, to my colleague from new york, it's been a pleasure to work on this. and it's one other asset that we can give to our men and women in uniform, and that is to make sure that they have the ability to participate in what we all take for granted, but a very precious right, that being the right to vote. with that, mr. president, i would yield back. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i would just note that this amendment passed unanimously out of the rules committee, which has joint jurisdiction last week. i think i yield back all remaining time. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. although opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it, the

ayes do have it, the amendment is adopted. a senator: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to say a few words about amendment 1564, an amendment that i am seeking agreement on and hopefully we will achieve that agreement between the majority and the minority. this amendment will allow, but not require, the secretary of each service branch to allow family members of fallen service members to attend one memorial service as a way to helping to honor those who give their lives to our nation. although the defense department's current regulations permit the services to provide transportation to family members to a burial service of a -- of a service member killed in active duty, the regulations do not

allow travel to memorial services. this can be particularly painful when a parent or sibling of one of our fallen heroes cannot afford to travel to a memorial unit held by a unit or other family members. although some charity groups have been able to help families attend memorial service for their fallen loved ones when a service member dies in service to their country, it is our obligation to help the family in every way. it is not an abstract family. it is all too real to some families. a year ago on, a soldier to a family from montana and arizona was seriously wounded while serving in iraq. four days later, he was frferred an army hospital in germany to walter reed. while en route the soldier's injuries worsened and the plane was diverted to nova scotia.

it was there he passed away. this soldier grew up with divorced parents. his father is a constituent of mine. his mother is a constituent of the distinguished ranking republican on the armed service committee. when his family and friends in phoenix organized a memorial service for him, his father asked the casualty affairs officer assigned to him if the army would pay for him to attend the memorial service. he was told, no, it not an authorized expense. the army cannot pay for such a plane ticket. my officer was contacted and we were able to work out a plane ticket for the father to attend the memorial service. but only after considerable frustration and pain. this amendment would make travel to a single memorial service an authorized support it is supported by the gold star mothers. mr. president, our troops and veterans have earned every benefit and every paycheck they

get from our country. every single member of the senate has been steadfast in that support. but the families and folks who serve this country have earned our nation's support and respect as well. i think that sometimes we do not do enough to recognize the sacrifice that comes along with having a loved one in the armed forces. this amendment provides the families of our service members one small measure of support an appreciation. i would also like to thank senators levin and mccain for the work they've done on this bill and hopefully the work they will do to get this amendment accepted. mr. president, i also want to take some time out this afternoon to speak about a dire situation in columbus, montana. at this moment there are 1,300 employees of the stillwater mining country who are going to work worrying about future of their company and future of their jobs. yesterday a bankruptcy court in new york nullified a contract between stillwater mine, the only platinum producer in the

united states, and general motors. general motors petitioned the bankruptcy court to drop the precious metals contract with the montana mining country so it can instead use foreign, cheaper suppliers outside of this country, specifically in russia and south africa. i would have a problem in any circumstances to choose foreign suppliers over a viable american option much when we consider that general motors only exists today due to the direct assistance of the american taxpayer, this decision is appalling and weakens our american manufacturing base. as a member of the senate banking committee, i attended the marathon hearings where the domestic automakers pleaded for government assistance. on november 18th of last year, i relayed to the executives of ford, chrysler, and, yes, g.m., the importance of spending

taxpayer funds in the united states. i said: where is the money going to be spent? who will it be spent on and what country is going to get -- is it going to be spent in? because those are all critically important questions. if we're using tax-pair dollars from my perspective, it ought to be spent here in the u.s. in response i was assured that the taxpayer funds would be spent domestically to rebuild the auto manufacturers. by kne negating the stillwaters contract, g.m. is not investing domestically. they're not investing in american jobs. they're not investing in this country and it goes against the grain when we see a viable company that has recently got in trouble like g.m. go against what they told me in committee. when general motors came pleading to the senate late last year, they he spoke to the fate

of their employees and also the fate of small parts manfacturer, miners and dealerships that are dependent on g.m. i voted ag -- i voted against giving it to the auto manufacturers. the auto manufacturers didn't convince me they would spend the money wisely and that they would spend it in the united states. i wish i was wrong. but they are not spending the taxpayer dollars wisely in my opinion, and they are not spending it in the united states. it is the folks in still water like other dealerships in montana and across rural montana who are hurting. with $50 billion in taxpayer funds, general motors emerged out of bankruptcy and with it its first repayment on the $50 billion owed to the american taxpayer, the new g.m. has decided to dump its only domestic supplier, and they have failed to meet a significant need to do business with foreign suppliers when they could

contract with a company here in america that employs 1,300 hard-working americans. for the past they have supplied us with palladium. the sales to the auto companies accounted for 42.8% of stillwater's revenue last year. general motors' rejection of the contract with still water resulted in company losses of about $500,000 per month and almost certainly means losing countless good-paying american jobs, and those american jobs in this case happen to be in montana. stillwater is one of montana's largest employers. the economic well-being of 1,300 montanans at stillwater who work at the mines is no doubt in serious trouble. g.m.'s actions threaten the well-being of families, numerous small communities, dozens of interconnected montana

businesses. immediately after the court ruled against stillwater's employees, i joined with the senior senator from montana, max baucus, in urging general motors to reconsider their decision, to choose foreign suppliers over a proven domestic partner. i still hope that they make the right decision and realize that the new g.m. only exists today because of the american taxpayer. taxpayers like the montanans who work for the stillwater mine. maybe they don't care about placing american jobs att risk, but the fact is, i do, and we do, and they should. mr. president, i cannot express adequately today the disappointment that i've had and that i have with g.m.'s decision to negate the contract with stillwater. it is part of that manufacturing base that i think is so critically important to this country, and they're turning their back on it. with that, i yield the floor, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the qoarl call be dispensed with.

-- qoarl call be dispensed -- quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: i would like to engage in colloquy for just a minute with the distinguished chairman. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. chairman, i understand that we're close, hopefully, to an agreement on the kyl amendment and we could set up, following that agreement, if that is agreed to, a burr amendment followed by an akaka amendment and that our staff will work on further amendments so that our colleagues will know? mr. levin: we're trying to work out an agreement with senator kyl. the staffs are trying to work out a time agreement. the order, though, would hopefully be senator burr and senator akaka, but we have to make sure that the proper committees are notified that are involved in those amendments. and then we could, i think, have a unanimous consent agreement. that's our goal. mr. mccain: i thank our chairman. i hope for the benefit of our colleague, i hope if the chairman agrees that we could

finish up tonight if we have expeditious handling of the amendments, but may be required to finish by tomorrow. mr. levin: i am very pleased to hear the optimistism. i can't share that i -- say that i share that optimism. but i would be delighted. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business while we await the outcome of the negotiation that's i just had a equal we can with the chairman about. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i have long spoken about the long, broken appropriations problem. i remained concerned over the damage done to our country and this institution by its continued abuse. how many more scandals will it take before we enact comprehensively and meaningful

earmark reform? look at the scandals over the last five years alone. former u.s. representatives randy cunningham sits in a prison for selling earmarks. among the bribes cunningham admitted receiving was the sell of his house at an inflated price, the use of a yacht, a used rolls-royce, jewelry in a $2,000 contribution for his daughter's college graduation party. in return, he earmarked untold millions of dollars and pressured the department of defense to award contracts to his co-conspirators. of course, senator dorgan and i spent nearly two years investigating the indian lobbying practices of jack abramoff who reportedly dubbed the appropriations committees and i quote him, "a favor factory." one former staffer pled guilty

to accepting gifts in exchange for helping mr. abramoff's team on appropriation matters. an ex-official in the department of justice pled guilty to accepting bribes for helping mr. abramoff's client to secure millions of dollars to build a jail. 20 people, including an ex-congressman, administration officials, congressional staffers an lobbyists have been indicted, convicted, or pled guilty. the department of justice's investigation into this matter still continues to this day. now we have, today, multiple pay to play scandals unfolding before our eyes. we read weekly, almost daily, news articles after news article about numerous criminal investigations revolving around earmarks. take for example the

investigation into the p.m. a. group. most americans have probably never heard of the p.m. a. group. the p.m. a.group has deep ties to capitol hill and a reputation for securing lucrative earmarks for its clients, especially defense earmarks. as i've said many times, it is the willie sutton syndrome, when he was asked why he robbed banks, he said, that's where the money is. the reason why a lot of these corrupting earmarks came out of defense is because that's where the money is. so the p.m. a. group boasted more than $15 million in revenue last year. the p.m. a. group clients reportedly received $300 million in defense earmarks for fiscal year 2008 and $317 million for fiscal year 2009. the p.m. a. group spread around

a lot of campaign contributions in an attempt to curry favor with lawmakers. the p.m. a. offices were raided and the home of its founder paul magliachetti. according to news reports, prosecutors were wondering if mr. maglichetti used -- to funneling illegal donations to lawmakers. "the washington post" examined campaign contributions reportedly given by employees of the p.m. a. group and found listed -- quote -- "several people who were not registered lobbyists and did not work for the lobbying firm. including a 75-year-old california man who had never even heard of the firm." since then the department of justice has raided the offices of a number of p.m. a. clients.

a federal grand jury reportedly subpoenaed records from one congressional office and the f.b.i. is interviewing his staffers. last week we read about yet another stand involving people and firms in p.m. a.'s orbit. according to a july 15th associated press news article, the former head of the defense contractor, coherent systems international, pled guilty in federal court to defrauding the u.s. government and accepting kickbacks. two former p.m. a. clients are reportedly caught up in the scandal. according to court documents in october 2005, the air force research lab awarded coherent an .1 million contract to deliver -- $8.1 million contract to deliver gateway mobile systems. an $8.4 million earmark funded the contract.

get that. it was for a ground mobile gateway systems included in a tsunmai relief bill. not surprisingly coherent had lobbied for that earmark at the time coherent was represented by a firm called k.s.a. consulting. coherent submitted to the government at least $1.8 million in purchase orders outside the scope of the air force contract. what did the government get for its $1.8 million? coherent paid two sub-contractors, which were also represented by k.s.a. consulting almost $600,000 for software that was not called for under the air force contract. what did coherent do with the software? it literally threw the software in a closet where it sat collecting dust. coherent paid another

sub-contractor $650,000 for the delivery of five prototypes, also not part of the prime contract. some reports suggest that this is the same sub-contractor that allegedly bribed coherent's president and whose offices the f.b.i. raided early this year. coherent also paid shaler engineering, a former p.m. a. client, $200,000 for technology that was never delivered. we now know where the money went. in july 21st, 2009 roll call reported on the mobile data link gateway program pled guilty to -- quote -- "skimming money from an earmark that was provided to a pennsylvania defense contractor." unquote. in his plea agreement, the official admits to approving invoices that were not part of

the contract and then taking the kickback from the defense contractor. this is outrageous. but i also believe it's only the tip of the iceberg. we will undoubtedly see the continued march of news reports about further indictments and guilty pleas. earmarks breed corruption, pure and simple. and the current earmarking process doesn't stop it or adequately guard against it. so i ask my colleagues: how many more scandals must we suffer before we enact meaningful remark reform? -- earmark reform? how low must congress's approval rating sink before we act to repair this institution's reputation? how many more lawmakers, staffers, government officials and contractors have to go to jail before we actually fix this process? unfortunately congress's earmarking practices have grown

worse, not better. just about every year i served in the senate. this year promises to be the worst. we began the year by passing a $400 billion omnibus appropriation bill with almost 9,000 earmarks in it. contrary to his prom to the american people to stem the tide of earmarks, the president refused to veto that pork claim bill. he signed it in a quiet room far from the public eye. and i might add that using the rationale that it was -- quote -- "last year's business" even though it was passed this year. two weeks ago the senate approved a $44 billion department of homeland security appropriations bill. it was over $200 million more than last year's bill and almo almost $100 million more than the presidedent's budget reques. it too was laden with numerous, unrequested unauthorized earmarks added at the direction

of the members of the appropriations committee and the senate. rest assured, we will see more earmarks and other appropriation bill that's come to the floor this year. even in the year 2010, the national authorization bill is not insulated from the practice. americans all over the country are hurting. people are losing their jobs, their savings, third and homes. so what do we do? we continue this disgraceful earmarking process elevating parochialism and patrio patriotg process. the president pledged during his campaign to eliminate earmarks. the speaker of the house promised to drain the swamp. given given the dismal look at the economy, americans can no longer wait. earmark reform is needed and it is need now. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following articles be included in the

record: one of july 21st, 2009. "ex-air force employee pleads guilty in case tied to martha earmark." "the hill," july 21, 2009, "second contractor pleads guilty in earmark probe." july 21, 2009, "inquiries focus on subcommittee ties. article 15 july, 2009, "ex-defense contractor c.e.o. enters fraud guilty plea." "washington post", july -- february 14, 2009, "despite listing donors don't work for firm being probed." mr. president -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: so i want to tell my colleagues, i'll be coming to the floor a lot and talking

about this sometimes with charts and this practice has got to stop. we cannot afford not only the earmarking because of the cost, but we can't afford to have the continued corruption that's associated with this. i know some of my colleagues are oive offended -- are offended when i use the word corruption much when members of congress are in prison and their aides and others are indicted and convicted in federal court, i don't know how you can describe it as anything else. so we'll be talking a lot more in the days and weeks ahead. the american people are sick and tired of it. and so am i. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. casey: mr. president, i rise to speak -- the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. casey: i thank you, mr. president, for that reminder. i rise simply to speak about an amendment that i filed. i would ask consent that i be recognized for 12 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i appreciate the time to speak about this amendment to the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010 to implement a number of essential reforms to cost-comparison

studies at the department of defense. there's an old expression principally in the legal community where they, in our system of justice where they say justice delayed is justice denied. and that theme -- not the same concept necessarily -- but that theme is part of what i'm talking about here. when we're studying about how government agencies are delivering their services to taxpayers, sometimes we study too long, especially in the context of what i'm about to speak of. i do want to thank the cosponsors of this amendment. several senators: senators brown, schumer, mikulski, kennedy, murray, gillibrand and feingold. and the reforms included in this amendment will achieve two very important goals. first, will save taxpayer dollars. and, second, enhance protections for workers across the department of defense. i had the great honor to serve the people of pennsylvania for

eight years, two terms, as auditor general of the state where you were a fiscal watchdog after money is spent in state government to audit and examine and sometimes investigate how money was spent. and then two years as state treasurer. so i have a sense of what government studies and government reviews entail. sometimes they take too long. sometimes they defeat the purpose because of the length of them. sometimes they tie people up who should be doing their job every day instead of responding to an endless study. some of the language is a little arcane, but when you talk about competitive sourcing, which is known as a lot of these things are in government -- and i hate to use these acronyms or short phrases -- but competitive sourcing in this context is known as the a-76 process. but basically here's what it is. you don't need to know the numbers.

we really need to know what we're talking about here. a government-wide initiative that subjects functions performed by government employees to public-private competition. we're all for competition, and we always have been. but i believe that many of my colleagues know that in this context, we've got some real problems. this privatization process has been marked by controversy at great cost to taxpayers. so many workers in the federal government bring years of experience dealing with problems, dealing with particular programs, and they also, because of that experience, bring a particular kind of expertise and skill to that work. we all know what happened just two years ago at walter reed army medical center. the list, we could go on and on, but just a couple of examples. appalling conditions for those who served our country.

run-down facilities, inadequate care for our returning veterans. all of this uncovered back then. and i know improvements have been made. but part of the problem rested with a six-year -- a six-year review, cost-comparison review which had an impact on the center's staffing. in 2006, the garrison commander who is responsible for managing base operation support activities at walter reed wrote that -- quote -- "as a direct" result of the an 76 study -- quote -- "we face the critical issues of retaining skilled clinical personnel for the hospital and diverse professionals for the garrison while confronted with increasing difficulties in hiring." continuing with the quotation from an army official, "do the uncertainties associated with this issue -- this issue meaning

the review that was underway -- quote -- "walter reed continues to lose other highly qualified personnel." that was then. that was at the time that -- he wrote that a few years ago. the point is that even something as grave and as serious as the problems we experience at walter reed, part of the reason for that can be traced to the problems with these kind of studies. despite heroic efforts by senator mikulski, from the state of maryland, the study continued and the problems persisted at the facility. in 2008, g.a.o. -- the general accountability office, conducted reviews of the cost-comparison process at the department of labor and the forest service, finding it impossible to verify -- impossible to verify cost savings -- and concluding at that time that the an 76 process -- the a-76 problems

were systemic. today the department of defense is the only agency with a-76 studies in process. according to the department of defense, there are almost 30 a-76 studies still in process involving 3,600 employees. by next month, three-quarters of these studies will be at least two years old. two years old. a couple of examples bring this issue into clear light. currently the defense logistics agency is reviewing 279 employees who perform installation management serviceness my home state of pennsylvania and also virginia and ohio. prior to this study, the managing agency said the a-76 study would be disruptive. however, as is the common practice, the savings for this study have already been counted, and the people pwho ran the a-76

program refused a request from the agency management to scrap the study, as they should have *fplt if it's not saving money and it's not helping taxpayers, it should be scrapped. 279 employees, some of whom worked in pennsylvania, are uncertain of their future and have been forced to put off major life decisions. a similar situation is ongoing at west point, where two studies continue despite the requests to terminate them. these decisions to proceed with studies in the face of unyielding and reasonable opposition and alternatives are troubling. the amendment before the senate addresses these issues in a number of ways. first, the amendment establishes a department of defense specific one-year suspicion of the a-76 studies consistent with government-wide suspension included by senator durbin in

the financial services appropriations bill. secondly, the -- my amendment closes the loophole which currently allows certain department of defense functions to be given to contractors by converting smaller contracts to contractors. third, our amendment establishes a 24-a-month time limit. a time limit for how long studies can last. from the beginning of preliminary planning to the final award decision. currently there are no established time limits -- no established time limits -- on a-76 studies which only increases the cost. fourth, the amendment addresses issues pending with a-76 studies and directs d.o.d. to suspend these studies and determine based on several criteria whether their completion is justifiable. fifth, the amendment improves the process for workers by adding briefings to affected employees about contracting out decisions. and finally, the amendment makes

technical corrections to ensure that federal employees have bid protest rights, building on previous efforts by members of the senate. the a-76 process is about cost-comparison. do the ambiguity around the time lines in the process, these lengthy studies often fail to create promised long-term savings. the amendment addresses these issues by lending necessary clarity to the projects. in addition, the reforms will improve conditions for workers. lengthy studies have been shown to compromise the capacity of agencies to perform their missions, by playing both the critical -- by placing both the critical functions of the agency and the employees who perform these functions in limbo. finally, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment for this reason: it will promote fiscal

responsibility, save money for taxpayers while ensuring that those who have the experience, expertise and skill are able to carry out their task in the department of defense. and i thank the chair, and i yield the floor and would note the absence of a quorum. a senator: would the senator withhold his request? mr. levin: the senator from arizona, if i could have his attention for a moment. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i thank the presiding officer. i ask unanimous consent that senator burr be next recognized to offer an amendment. i understand that there's not going to be opposition on this side and that he would accept a voice vote on that. and that then senator akaka be recognized to offer his amendment that he talked about last night. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: what's the pending amendment? the presiding officer: the pending amendment is the kyl amendment. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. burr: mr. president, i would ask to call upl amendment 1554, the military spouse's residency relief act. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from north carolina, mr. burr, for himself and others proposes an amendment numbered 1554. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. burr: mr. president and my colleagues, this is a very simple amendment. it's called the military spouse's residency relief act. under current law our military

men and women, about every three years are repositioned in the country or out of the country. their orders change. and when they make that change, it's beneficial to them and, i believe, to society that their spouses and their children go with them. years ago we made accommodations for those military personnel, they could pick a state of residency even though they moved frequently. they could choose the state they grew up in. they could choose the state they thought they might retire in. they could choose the state they visited in where they thought was the best for them to claim their residency. what in a provided the military service member was every state they got to they didn't have to change their drivers license, they didn't have to change their voter registration. they didn't have to basically change everything in their life. now with the size of our military, with the constant

deployments that we're in, but this continuation of every three years getting reassigned to a different post, what we realize is from a quality-of-life standpoint for our military personnel, we've forgotten about spouses as it relates to the accommodation of a new surrounding. when we think about it, spouses who leave and go with the service member, they go into a community unemployed. they've got to look for a job. they've got to go to the d.m.v., the motor vehicles, they've got to get a new drivers license. they've got to find out where to go when we register tow vote. their husband could claim residency or their wife could claim residency somewhere. and they might not be on the title of the house they own or the property they own. the fact that they can't claim -- the spouse -- a state of residency consistent with the

service member seems they are at a tremendous disadvantage from the standpoint of what they own because it is easier to put it in the service member's name because they are protected regardless of where their orders send them. very simply, what this amendment does is it extends the same privilege tpo a spouse that it -- to a spouse that it does to a service member. that they can claim that state of residency, that they can keep that one constant drivers license, that they pay joint taxes in a state versus they're forced to file separate taxes where there may be tax implications that cause those military families to pay more taxes than they would if they could file jointly. it means that, yeah, they've still got the challenge of walking into a community unemployed, that they might leave a business behind because they believe the fabric of their family is that important. that's what we ask all of our military families tpo deal with.

this is a simple way to make life a little bit easier on the spouse of our service members and to make sure that they don't have to change tphefrg their life just because -- everything in their life just because their spouse has been reassigned, but only certain things that they will have to deal with. mr. president, i would remind my colleagues that there is a stand alone bill, s. 475, it had a hearing in the veterans' affairs committee. it was passed unanimously out of the veterans' affairs committee. it is identical to my amendment today. i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with the chair's agreement i would ask for a voice vote. the presiding officer: is there further dear bait? -- is there further debate? if not, the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes appear to have it, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: under the previous order, the senator from hawaii is now to be recognized to call up his amendment. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. levin: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senators from hawaii is recognize recognized. mr. akaka: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. mr. akaka: mr. president, i ask to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 1522 to enhance the retirement security of federal employees. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: proposed amendment 1522. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. akaka: as chairman of the government management, a the federal workforce and the district of columbia, i'm proud to join with senators collins, lieberman, voinovich, murkowski, begich, kohl, mikulski, cardin, webb and warner in this bipartisan effort to correct certain inequities in the

federal government retirement system. this amendment very familiar to an amendment that was included in the house-passed fy 2010 national defense authorization bill. each of these provisions is much needed and has been thoroughly tee baitd by the appropriate committees in the house and the senate. many of the changes were requested by the administrators of the retirement plans and are strongly supported by many organizations. the list of supporters is too long to read here, but it includes every major federal employee union, postal unions, supervisors, and post masters, the federal law enforcement officers association, and several government managers groups. i spoke in more detail last

evening about the substance of the amendment and i call up the amendment at this time. i strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, the federal retirement reform provisions and the bill as well. i yield the time, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: mr. president, this amendment by the distinguished chairman of the veterans affairs committee is, i would imagine, has some very good and helpful provisions associated with it. it also applies to federal employees and perhaps some department of defense employees are included in that but it's a

very large amendment composed of six retirement-related provisions and some expenditure of funds. as i understand the bill there's not a provision for paying for it. i may be wrong. but let me point out that the chair and ranking member of the homeland security committee have looked at these issues, as well. i am wondering why it was not included, then, on homeland security? we just finished doing the homeland security appropriations. but it would reduce mandatory spending by $36 million over 10 years. it has significant costs that will have to be appropriated, at least $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. so because they would be added

on this bill it would add to the cost of the national defense authorization act and would exceed our budget allocation. properly it would be subject to a budget point of order which i would be -- which the senate would then speak on whether it is appropriate budget point of order or not. there's been no strong opposition from the administration which -- and these costs were not included in the administration's budget requests. i understand that a lot of these provisions, because of the large number of employees, fall under the department of defense but i don't think that this is a good idea to have a bill of this magnitude under -- although

certainly it is in order -- but i'm not sure it is appropriate a bill of this magnitude should be tacked on to the defense authorization bill i say that fully aware we're tacking on a hate crimes bill which has a lot less to do with the department of defense. so i say to my friend, i'd be glad to have a vote on this. perhaps there is going to be a budget point of order raised on this amendment but hopefully we can alert our colleagues and give them the opportunity in the next few minutes to raise a budget point of order or ask for a recorded vote or if there's no objection, then, we would have a voice vote. i would like to point out to my colleagues, this is a fairly

large legislation which does fall under the proper authority of the homeland security committee. so with that, mr. president, yield the floor. mr. akaka: mr. president, may i further comment that these provisions, without question, are much needed in hawaii, alaska, and the territories. because of the cola rates. with them the pay of federal employees. it is slated to go down later this year if we do not act. this is the reason we're trying to move it at this time. most of these employees in hawaii are defense employees as in these other states and territories, as well. the provisions on this issue are nearly identical to the bill

passed the senate by unanimous consent last year. most of the provisions are in the house defense authorization bill. again, hawaii, alaska, and the territories received untaxed cost of living allowances that do not count toward retirement instead of locality pay that other federal employees receive. this bill grew out of a bush administration role in response to repeated litigation over the different systems. this transition will cost a substantial amount of money for the several reasons the budget implications are better than they appear. a large portion of the appropriated costs for the cola provisions are intergovernmental transfers from federal employers to either the annuity or social

security trust fund. according to the c.b.o. report employer contributions intragovernmental transactions that do not affect the deficit must determine for many employees in hawaii and alaska and the territories, of course, are looking at this as something that's necessary, as they continue to work in federal government in this area. again, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would like to ask consent we set aside the consideration of the burr amendment and that i be able to

call up amendment number 1657. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. levin: reserving the right to object, we are working through unanimous consent agreements with amendments lined up by both sides and we have not reached that point yet. there are other amendments which i think would have to come first from your side but i'm not sure and that is up to senator mccain so i have to object at this time. obviously, we will try to accommodate the senator getting up the amendment but senator mccain would need to consider what the senator is proposing. i have to object. mr. sessions: mr. president, i understand the difficulties. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: i understand the difficulties senator levin has but we are moving to final passage and cloture has been filed and it's important this amendment be considered. i get a little nervous when things are not moving along in a way that i think they should or

at least in a way that could cause this amendment not to be considered. i would like to speak a little bit about it to be clear what it is we're talking about. the amendment before -- that i sought to bring up would preempt any federal executive -- that is, presidential requirement -- that our troops in the field, in afghanistan and iraq, read miranda warnings to al qaeda terrorists whom they capture. the amendment would also clarify that nothing in federal law requires our soldiers read miranda warnings or give any other kind of warning to capture terrorists and it preempts any efforts to enforce such a requirement through an exclusionary rule. that is, denying admissibility of evidence if it does not occur. miranda is the warning as most watchers of television detective programs know, in which the

individual who is detained by a police officer in the united states on suspicion of some crime is told they have a right to remain silent and they have a right to have a lawyer. even one appointed for them. so the question is, have we got to the point that we're now having soldiers in the field be asked to give miranda warnings? one person i think would agree with me, although the recent activities cause me concern, is our commander in chief, president obama. in a recent interview on "60 minutes," he was asked about the terrorist detainees and this is what president obama said: "do these folks deserve miranda

rights? do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the blocks? of course not." i couldn't have inside wit saidh more clarity myself. we should not give miranda warnings to captured terrorists on the battlefield. unfortunately, not all those in the current administration seem to understand this message. a recent article in the magazine, "weekly standard" describes why the amendment is necessary. as this article explains, the current administration appears to be requiring our soldiers to read miranda warnings to terrorists whom they capture in the field in afghanistan. and the article further notes, according to four c.i.a. director george tenet who serve -- was appointed originally by politi president n and then appointed by president

bush, we would not have obtained the valuable information we did from sheikh mohammed, the planner of the september 11th if he was given miranda rights or been given miranda rights -- not "his" because we have never given miranda rights to captured soldiers in any conflict. the following is from the "weekly standard." "when the help help mastermind was captured on march 1, 2003, he would not cooperate." "i'll talk to you guys when i get to new york and see my lawyer." he says according to c.i.a. director george tenet. of course, sheikh mohammed did not get a lawyer. he wasn't intielted t entitled l after the interrogation was complete. and tenet says that the information the c.i.a. obtained

from him disrupted plots and saved lives. "i believe none of these successes would have happened if we had to treat ksm as a whitcollar criminal, read the miranda rights and get him a lawyer who would insist the client simply shut up." that's mr. tenet's view and what he wrote i in his book a couplef years ago before all this happened. if mr. tenet is right, it's a good thing ksm was captured before president obama became president because the justice department ordered f.b.i. agents to read miranda rights to high-valued detainees captured and held at detention facilities in afghanistan according to a senior republican on the house intelligence committee. "the administration decided to

change the focus to law enforcement. here's the problems you have foreign fighters who are targeting u.s. troops today, foreign fighter who go to another country to kill americans, we capture them and they're reading them their rights, miles an hou mirandaizi" the former f.b.i. special agent and a united states army officer says the obama administration has not briefed congress on the new policy. "i was a little surprised to find it taking place when i showed up because we had not been briefed. i didn't know about it. we are trying to get to the bottom of it but it is clearly part of the new global justice initiative."

quote-"the first thing they do is warn them that they he have the right to remain silent. says representative pete hoekstra. quote-"it would seem is the last thing that we want is any al qaeda terrorist to remain silent. our focus to be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists another tactic to resist inte interrogation, lawyering up." that's what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. the international red cross when they go into detention facilities have now started telling people, take the option, you want a lawyer, close quote. rogers adds that the problem is

you take that guy at 3:00 in the morning off a compound right outside kabul where he's building a bomb to kill u.s. soldiers and read him his rights and the red cross is saying, take the lawyer. you've now created quite a confusion amongst the f.b.i., the c.i.a., and the united states military and confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone. close quote. said mr. rogers, congressman rogers, a former f.b.i. agent and a former army officer. so one thing is clear, a detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks. had k kalid sheikh mohammed hada lawyer said, quote, i'm confident that he would have not obtained the information he had

in his head about the imminent threat against the american people. close quote. well, mr. president, one thing we have to get straight in our minds, and that is that we are in a state of war against al qaeda types and others around the world. and that calls forth an entirely different approach to dealing with the people you capture. in fact, before you capture them, you have the authority to shoot them and kill them. we have the ability to drop bombs on them that result in death. you don't do that in a law enforcement situation against a drug dealer or a white collar criminal because they're not criminals. they are unlawful enemy combatants. they're not lawful because they don't operate according to the rules of war. the geneva convention requires that a lawful combatant, a -- an

enemy soldier of any kind -- or any kind of soldier of any country wear their uniform, so you know their uniform. that they don't target civilian personnel and they -- in a -- gratuitously in their war efforts. among the other requirements are the rules of war, and they've never been given the rights of a common criminal. so i just feel strongly about this. i would just note pai parren threaticly, that mir randa is not a constitutional requirement. they passed to help police officers do a better job, the court thought, in doing their work. and it's just not a requirement. so it's a big, big mistake. it's something i think we should not go down the road of to require these warnings. and if we do it is an absolute

clear signal that we are confused about the nature of the deadly enterprise we're engaged in which is defending this country and our allies from attack by violent, determined enemy. i thought after 9/11 there was a consensus in this body that terrorists and enemy combatants were different from criminals. i thought the 9/11 commission went into that. and i thought that was a bipartisan consensus on that. so i'm concerned about it. it just suggests to me that we'reused about the nature of -- confused about the nature of this life and death struggle we're in. we're confused about the risk our soldiers are -- are being subjected to every day on the battlefield. and they ought not to be placed

in a situation where an additional burden is -- is put on them that is not justified by law or common sense. so i hope we get a vote on this. i hope we are able to send a message that this is not the right policy and make sure we stop it and nip it in the bud. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. and note the absence of year. -a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, if i could just have senator mccain's attention for a minute, because i will propound a unanimous consent agreement that the pending -- has the akaka amendment be disposed of? the presiding officer: it has not. mr. levin: i ask that that amendment be temporarily set

aside. that we move then to an amendment on european missile defense, which has -- senator lieberman amendment with many cosponsors, which we worked very, very hard on which is ready to be propounded. there's at least one other speaker on it, senator sessions, i believe, who wants to speak on it as well. but i would ask unanimous consent that senator lieberman be recognized to introduce that amendment and that after he speaks, that senator sessions be recognized, and that then i be recognized and then senator mccain, if he wishes, be recognized, and then the intention here, i believe, is that we may be able to adopt this by a voice vote. is that correct? that's the hope in any event. i'll leave that part open. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. lieberman: i ask then that the clerk, please, call up amendment 1744. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from connecticut, mr. lieberman, proposes amendment number 1744. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered he. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. levin: i would ask the senator from connecticut to yield. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to amendment that. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and the chairman of the committee. mr. president, i rise to introduce this amendment, along with the senator from alabama, senator sessions, in a broad -- and a broad bipartisan group of cosponsors. this amendment concerns the deployment of missile defenses in europe. i'm very pleased to say as

chairman levin suggested, there has been a lot of work done on this by a lot of people, including chairman levin, ranking member mccain, their staffs, our staffs, and i think that we have reached a very important agreement here which really holds up some standards of what is most important to our national security regarding the deployment of missile defenses to europe. if i may, mr. president, the administration, as we know, is now evaluating alternatives to the planned european deployment after ground-based midcourse defense -- or g.m.d. -- system to poland and the czech republic. in the context of that policy review, this amendment would state that any alternative to the g.m.d. deployment to poland an the czech republic must be as effective as affordable as the current plan. we think this is a reasonable standard by which to judge any

alternative, and i'm hopeful and grateful that my colleagues seem to agree. mr. president, let me now go forward to explain why senator sessions and i and others think that it was so important to set a standard for the alternatives that are now under consideration and why the growing iranian threat requires us to deploy an effective missile defense in europe. last year the united states reached a pair of groundbreaking agreements with two of our closest european allies on the deployment of elements of a ground-based midcourse defense -- g.m.d. -- system to protect europe and the united states from iran's growing ballistic missile threat. when i say "and the united states," they don't have the ability now with a ballistic missile to reach the united states. but they are clearly investing

in a ballistic missile program whose range they hope will grow and grow to a point where they will be able to reach the united states. specifically, on july 8, 2008, the united states and the czech republic agreed on establishing an american ballistic missile defense radar site on czech territory. two months later, on august 20, the u.s. and the government of poland reached a similar agreement under which we would deploy 10 ground-based interceptors to poland, just less than a year after these agreements at a june 16 hearing of our senate armed services committee, deputy secretary of defense bill lynn told the members of the committee -- and i quote -- "we think there are a number of ways to address the iranian threat and one of the options is to deploy the missiles in poland and the radar in the czech republic and we're certainly evaluating that option as well as other possible

options." end quote. we heard other testimony before our committee, including from the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs, general cartwright, along the same lines that though the agreements were entered into with poland and the czech republic, the administration is evaluating other options. to help place the other options that are under consideration into perspective and to explain why senator sessions and i and the others who've joined us as cosponsors introduce this amendment today, i want to go to a congressional budget office study that was released earlier this year in february. and it's titled "options for deploying missile defenses in europe." mr. president, this study was requested by then-congresswoman ellen tauscher in her capacity as chair of the house armed services strategic forces

subcommittee. it examined the potential cost and defense capability of the european ground-based midcourse defense system in poland and the czech republic as well as alternatives to it. these include -- what are the alternatives -- deploying sea-based interceptors on navy ships around europe or using mobile land-based interceptors in europe. the study also considered the possible benefits of closer collaboration on missile defense with the russian federation. the findings of this report clearly demonstrate that the ground-based midcourse deployment in poland and the czech republic is the most effective and affordable option that is before us today. i am particularly struck by the report's conclusion that the alternatives to the g.m.d. system in poland and the czech republic would significantly

reduce america's ability to provide a layered defense for our american homeland against the eventual threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles launched by iran or anyone else in that region against the united states of america. i want to be clear about this, mr. president. and what it means. whereas the g.m.d. deployment to poland and the czech republic would provide, according to the report, a so-called shoot-look capability for the entire continental united states, the alternatives that the congressional budget office considered would lead most of our country without such a layered defense. now, let me explain. shoot-look-shoot is an operational concept that is actually the cornerstone of our increasingly successful missile defense program. it is the idea that we should be

able to take -- shoot at an inexamininincoming missile, assr that shot was successful, and then shoot again. this shoot-look-shoot capability dramatically increases the effectiveness of our missile defense system. you might says it's redundant. most of our military systems are redundant because what's on the line? i can't think of a place where i'd rather have redundancy than the situation we're dealing with with an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile, presumably containing a nuclear weapon, perhaps chemical or biological. i know people watching this debate may think this is far off, but -- and unrealistic -- but these are the realities that we do have to deal with in our world because we know that a country like iran, whose leaders regularly lead tens of thousands of their citizens in shouting 'death to america' is in fact

investing in a growing intercontinental ballistic missile system. what does shoot-look-shoot mean with regard to this amendment? if you have a g.m.d. system in europe and a missile is fired from iran, we have a first opportunity to take a shot at that missile. we then have a chance to look at see whether we hit it. if we did not, we have a second opportunity, utilizing the ground-based missile defense system that we have now installed in california and alaska. that's an important redundancy in the god-awful circumstance that a rogue nation, an anti-america nation, is actually firing missiles at the u.s. i want to drought attention of my colleagues to a pair of maps -- i want to draw the attention

of my colleagues to a pair of maps that i think indicate that as c.b.o. found, the proposed land-based sma-2 land-based system is a favored alternative, a possible alternative -- i don't mean it's selected but one that is being looked at with great interest by the defense department. these maps were prepared by the congressional budget office and included in the study that i just mentioned, which i would commend to my colleagues to read in full. on the first map here, we can see that the planned g.m.d. system in poland and the czech republic would provide a layered defense for the entire continental united states. in other words, this is the area that would be defended. most of europe, if a missile was fired from iran, and all of the united states would be covered.

that means that the concept of shoot-look-shoot would be in effect for the defense of our entire population. the second map shows the capabilities of a prospective land-based sm-3 two-way block system, which is really quite different because you can see that this one, as the c.b.o. estimated it, only covers a portion of the united states. i note that it does cover connecticut, but i -- there's a lot of the rest of the united states, even though there are those of us who love this small state, a lot of the rest of the united states we don't want to leave unprotected by this redundancy. in fact, on a population basis, because there's a concentration of population, of course, on the east quoaft, almost 08% o 80% oe population of the u.s. would be left uncovered. mississippi would not be defended by this system.

in terms of operational capability, it's also important to note that the component innocents of the system are much further along in their development and much closer to being proven to work than the proposed sm-3 interceptor which may not be available until close to 2020. so the consequences of pulling away from the poland and czech republic system are serious in the near term. as for the question of cost, the congressional budget office in this study estimates that the two alternate systems would cost nearly the same to develop, deploy, and operate. in other words, if we opt for an alternative to ground missile defense, c.b.o. is telling us that we would be paying the same amount of money but for less -- a less capable defense and a dramatically less comprehensive coverage of the population and territory of the united states.

mr. president, another question under consideration i know by the administration is the possibility -- and it was with the last administration, too -- the possibility of partnership between the u.s. and russia through the joint use of two russian radar stations as well as the sharing of information and data. i support very much the exploration of this opportunity, but i believe -- of cooperating with the russians on missile defense. but i believe that we've got have a clear understanding of its potential benefits and limitations. let me begin with some of the benefits. obviously, closer cooperation with russian on missile defense could increase our early warning detection capability for missile launches from the middle east, based on their radar. with this capability, we could send a clear message to iran that not just the united states but the world, including russia, is opposed to its weapons of mass destruction and

intercontinental or continental ballistic missile systems. so i support the objective of negotiating or discussing this with the russians. but i want to say that there are also limitations that are in this proposal. the russian radar stations that are most discussed as part of a joint u.s.-russian ballistic missile system as a technical matter cannot be a substitute for a european-based g.m.d. system. although these radars would give us additional early-warning capability, as i have eight indicated, they would not provide any additional targeting capability, which of course is a critical component to reducing threats. the radar helps to target, sends the message to the interceptors in poland and to the other system, and that facilitates an accurate shootdown. as the c.b.o. pointed in its february report, the radars fadge face south and any missiles face south and any

missiles targeted toward europe or the united states would, according to the report, tend to fly through and out of the russian radar's field of regard very early in their trajectory. though the system would provide us with early warning, it's also very important -- really critical -- to have targeting capability. the amendment that senator sessions and i and the others have proposed would not in any way prohibit the possibility of cooperation or even deter the possibility of cooperation with the russian federation, certainly not with regard to sharing radar data, and i hope that we can all agree that we should not seek an agreement with moscow that leaves the united states more vulnerable to the threat from iran. very briefly, what about that threat? somebody asked, why do we still need to be investing so much in missile defense? the answer, simply put, is

because of our most unpredictable anniversaries, in particular rogue states like iran, investing in ballistic missiles. the investments we make in missile defense will quite literally provide greater personal security to the coming generations of americans, our children and their grandchildren and beyond. as lieutenant general maples testified before our senate armed services committee earlier this year, and i quote, "the threat posed by ballistic missile delivery systems is likely to increase over the next decade. ballistic missile defenses with advanced liquid or solid propellant propulsion systems are becoming more mobile, survivable, reliable, accurate rs and possess greater range." end of quote from former head of the defense intelligence agency.

and in just the last few months, we have seen graphic reminders of the progress that our enemies are making toward fielding intercontinental ballistic missiles. in february, iran launched its first satellite into orbit using the same technologies that tehran can draw upon to develop the capacity to build an intercontinental ballistic missile that can strike the continental united states. in may, iran carried out its first successful test tphraoeuft a two-staged solid-fuel ballistic missile, a development that the white house coordinator for arms control and w.m.d. terrorism gary seymour said was a significant step forward in terms of iran's capability to develop weapons." iran's growing ballistic missile capabilities are more threatening when coupled with its nuclear weapons development

program. of course we all hope that the u.s. and the rest of the international community can persuade iran through diplomacy and economic sanctions to abandon both its nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions and programs. missile defense is, i think, an important component of that effort on the premise that we may be able to convince iran that it's not worth spending those countless millions of dollars on perfecting these weapons if its leaders come to realize that we in the west are determined to stay one step ahead of them in neutralizing their strategic impact with a missile defense system. mr. president, as the department of defense now undertakes its review of the planned g.m.d. deployment to poland and the czech republic and possible alternatives, this amendment would express the senate's opinion of what we expect our missile defenses in europe to

deliver to the -- to deliver generally. it would state that the u.s. expects those missile defenses to be the most capable and affordable and give a defense in the short term not just to our allies in europe, but to our fellow citizens throughout the united states of america. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i want to join my colleague, senator lieberman, in introducing amendment number 1744 concerning the deployment of missile defenses in europe, and also thank him for his leadership on this issue over many years. he's clearly one of the most effective spokesmen for clear

and strategic thinking and has helped us for many years establish a good defense policy for our nation. as senator lieberman has explained, this amendment would state that it is a sense of the congress that the administration should continue to develop the planned and missile defense deployments to poland and the czech republic even as it considers other alternatives. further, it would state that any alternatives to the current plan would be -- must be as effective and affordable and, most important, must be able to defend the united states as well as europe against a long-range ballistic missiles. this amendment is important at this time because the administration is now considering alternatives to the plan long pursued by the bush administration to station ten

ground-based interceptors in poland and in missile-tracking radar system in the czech republic. both poland and the czech republic have signed agreements to host these missile defense assets after being told by the united states that we believe the plan is important to protect europe and the united states from rogue states. more specifically, iran's developing missile capability. that's what we told them. we asked them to participate in this. after much effort and political capital has been expended both in the united states and by our polish and czech republic allies and friends, now the project has been put in a somewhat of limbo, i'm afraid. russia and the european left opposed this plan from the beginning. they lobbied the people and

members of congress in poland and the czech republic to not do it, but they've gone forward with it to date. if the united states objections for -- to this system arises from economic reasons, then i would refer my colleagues to a february 2009 c.b.o. study that senator lieberman cited, options for deploying missile defense in europe, which came to the conclusion that a ground-based interceptor deployment in poland and the czech republic is the most effective and affordable option available for the forseeable future. mr. president, i see senator levin. i would be pleased to yield if he had anything to -- okay. so, they concluded, as c.b.o.

did, this is the most effective and affordable option for the forseeable future. other options apparently now under consideration include the deployment of a land- or sea-based version of the standard missile 3, sm-3, which is now deployed on aegis ships of the united states. the c.b.o. found out that this option, the sm-3, not available until late in the next decade, is no less expensive than the g.b.i. option and does not provide protection for the united states against long-range iranian missiles. in other words, while the deployment of a land- or sea-based version of sm-3 may be suitable to protect europe against medium-range missile defenses it would not contribute to the protection of the united states which would occur from the launch of an

intercontinental missile which would travel at a much higher altitude. likewise, admiral stradidas, the new commander of the u.s. european command testified before the senate armed services committee during his hearing last month -- quote -- "sea-based and transportable land-based assets are integral components of a comprehensive ballistic missile defense system but cannot defeat the entire range of threats by themselves. sophisticated sensors are required for early acquisition and target discrimination and ground-based interceptors are needed to defeat longer-range missiles." the missiles iran seeks to develop and are moving forward to develop would be capable of hitting the united states. they're seeking to develop icbm's and they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons, as we all know.

why, i would ask my colleagues, would we want to consider an alternative to the proposed g.b. guide deployment in europe that would not save any money and would not provide additional protection for the united states? i just would recall a comment, former secretary of state henry kissinger made a few years ago about missile defense and whether or not we should deploy. his comment was, "i've never heard of a nation whose policy it is to keep itself vulnerable to attack." well, we don't need to be kept vulnerable to attack. we have the capability to defend ourselves and protect against incoming missiles. some have suggested that such additional protection is not needed, that the current ground-based interceptors deployed at our missile defense site in fort greely, alaska, can

provide for complete protection against iranian threats. that argument doesn't tell the complete story. the truth is deploying g.b.i.'s in europe would provide an early taoubt to intercept iranian missiles, providing the united states an extra layer of protection. just ten missiles could provide additional protection for the united states. and that is what is needed. an integrated layer of ballistic missile defense shield that effectively protects america and her allies from rogue attack. now, most americans -- i think that we are adequately protected. i do remember a town hall meeting, and i asked the people there what would happen if a missile was launched at the united states, and they said we would shoot it down. well, that was before our system was up and running in alaska and

it was accurate. people think we do, but we only have a few of those missiles up in alaska, and we need this additional shield, i believe, in europe. without the site in poland, the united states would have only one opportunity to engage missiles headed for certain portions of our country. why should we take that risk? mr. president, although the search for alternatives may please the russians, it would perversely send the wrong message to our nato allies and in particular to our friends in poland and the czech republic who despite pressure and threats from russia have agreed and stood firm and expressed their willingness to host these missile defense assets on their territory. i would remind my colleagues that nato, the north atlantic treaty organization, the most successful such defense treaty in the history of the world, endorsed the current plan at the april 2008 bucharest summit, and noted in their declaration, we

therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the protection of allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of european based united states missile defense assets. close quote. i also understand that the polish and czech parliaments have yet to ratify the agreements. and the ambivalence presented by our administration now to what was a firm policy of the united states means, frankly, it's unlikely they will do so until our administration completes its consideration of alternatives. this has placed the situation in limbo. i am not happy with that. i think it was a mistake. after all, why should those parliaments take up an agreement that had united states may pull off the table? this unfortunate event was

obvious from the beginning, when we backed away from our plans and started showing uncertainty. it was obvious that the political support in central europe may erode. so i'm going to have to conclude that the reason the administration is pursuing alternatives in -- to this current plan is it hopes it will address russian objections about the proposed deployments as part of a grand strategy to reset relations with russia and conclude a follow-on to the start nuclear reductions agreements. and this, i get to say i am not confident in. in fact, it seems to have, instead of moving our relations forward, have moved them backwards. let me quote some things that have happened recently. just days after the united

states and russia reached a broad agreement on arms reductions and missile defense cooperation at the july 6 moscow summit, reuters news agency reported on 10 july, four days later, that the russian president medvedev threatened the united states. that if it did not reach agreement with russia on our joint nato polish-czech plans for missile defense systems, moscow would deploy rockets in an enclave around poland. typical russian bluster. threats. likewise, russian foreign minister lavrov has threatened to end arms control talks with the united states if we pursue cooperation with our allies on missile defense, a system that in no way threatens russia's

massive nuclear capability. and they know it. ten u.s. interceptors in europe are going to somehow have the capability to stop the thousands of russian missiles and nuclear weapons that they have? russia knows that, as reported by the associated press just one day after the summit, lavrov stated -- quote -- "if our partners make a decision to create an american missile defense system with global reach, then that will doubtless place a big question mark over the prospects for further reductions in strategic, offensive weapons." again, this is, unfortunately, a retro grade approach by russia on issues that i don't think is justified. they just seem to be falling back into a darker and darker approach to world affairs with

threats instead of working together to build a more peaceful and prosperous, harmonious world. if in fact there were technical arguments in favor of alternative deployments, which there are not, russian belligerence would indeed be an argument for proceeding nevertheless. the former prime minister of the czech republic topolonik put the issue in its proper perspective when he stated -- quote -- "the moral challenge is clear and simple. if we are not willing to accept in the interest of the defense of europe and the atlantic area, such a trifle as the elements of a missile defense system then how shall we be able to face more difficult challenges that may come?" that's an important statement.

are we hraougs confidence in ourselves? he's not alone in that view. last week 22 prominent easter than european political figures of important, historic importance including poland's lech walesa and czech republic's vaclev havel published an open letter to president obama expressing their uneasiness over u.s.'s maneuvers with russia. i believe this letter was sent to address their concerns in light of what appears to them to be russia's attempt to reassert its influence over russia's former easter than european satellites. these are independent nations. they have been freed from soviet domination. it is not their desire to to cow

cow -- to kowtow to russia. they are sovereign nations. these leaders noted that american's plan to missile installations have become -- quote -- "a symbol of americans' credibility and commitment in the region." they further warn that -- and i quote -- "the alliance should not allow --" talking about the nato, american and easter than europe and western europe alliance -- "should not allow the issues to be determined by unfounded russian opposition. abandoning the program entirely or involving russia too deeply in it without consulting poland or the czech republic can undermine the credibility of the united states across the whole region. i don't think that's a little bitty matter. these are historic figures in

easter than europe who suffered under the communist boot who do not want to go back. they are great american allies. they believe in freedom and democracy. this is an academic matter to them. it's very real. i ask unanimous consent that this letter be inserted into the record after my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, on march 5, secretary of state hillary clinton -- quote -- "applauded the decisions of the people of the czech republic and their government as well as the government of poland for proceeding with missile defense on their soil." that was just in march of this year. the united states should honor this commitment by proceeding with the missile defense deployment as planned and not be affected by russia's unfounded objections. i remain baffled by the objections, other than perhaps

it's some way they think they can extract concessions from the united states as a bargaining chip. the c.b.o. study referenced above makes clear only the polish and czech deployments can protect the united states and europe. any other option costs more and defends the united states less if at all. so i would ask my colleagues to support this message. i think it will be good for our country to be clear on this question and congress to speak up. and i would just briefly express a concern about what's happened in this budget on national missile defense. it is a major reduction in spending for missile defense. we intended to deploy 44 missiles in alaska. the budget proposes, i believe, now just 30. it was proposed and part of the agenda for the last number of years to place a multikill

vehicle on top of these interceptors so you could take out dummies and decoys and mul multiple missiles. for a number of years we've been funding research and development of the kinetic energy interceptor. that is a hay-speed system that could take out -- that is a high-speed system that could take out missiles in the phase. there was an airborne laser which has a capability of shooting down missiles launched in their launch phase when they have so much heat coming out of them. and it's complete -- it's funded for one moreee and it will be ended apparently. and of course now the interceptors in europe is in question. so i just got to say, we need to be sure we understand how seriously we're impacting the long-term strategy of the united

states. we've spent $20 billion to develop a system that will actually work -- actually work -- at this incredible rate of speed to hit-to-kill technology to knock down incoming missiles. and after all the investments and all the years for $1 billion, we could complete the program and we're saving, i think, about $150 million or $200 million this year would keep us on track. maybe we can keep the system going forward. i hope so. with this resolution. and some other things. but the american people need to know that we're not talking about a minor entrenchment of national missile defense on the budget come forward out of our committee. it represents the biggest reduction of missile defense funding since my time in the

senate in over 12 years and i hope as the months go along we'll be able to reevaluate what we're doing and make sure we don't abandon the progress we made and take full advantage of our decades of research and development that has produced a system that will work to protect us. i thank the chair. i yield the floor.. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i very much support the pending amendment. it is the product of a lot of work by a lot of people. senator lieberman in particular was considering offering an amendment during our markup of the armed sftses committee, and he agreed that he would -- services committee, and he agreed that he would hold off until we got to the floor to try to get a broad bipartisan agreement on a very important subject. he did that. we're very grateful to him.

this amendment is consistent with the administration's policies for missile defense in europe, including its consideration of a variety of options in arc tech fiewrs for defending europe, including the so-called third site in poland and the czech republic. the purpose -- the main purpose of these efforts in europe are to act against an iranian missile threat, should it materialize. it is very important that we do so. earlier this month general cartwright, the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs testified that the department of defense is considering a number of missile defense options in europe. this amendment is also consistent -- it is also consistent that the administration's efforts to pursue missile defense cooperation with russia is part of our efforts to address the iranian missile threat and those

missiles of course potentially could be armed with nuclear warheads. this potential iranian missile threat is a threat that confronts not just europe, as nato, but also russia. as well obviously as a number of other countries. it is a real threat, and everything that we can do to deter are that, everything we can do to defend should it ever materialize, is something that we must do. it is a major threat. and in one of its findings, nato recognizes this iranian threat, and this is the way they did it. this is the way nato recognized this iranian threat and the importance of trying to work together to deter, to try to prevent it from happening, and then should it happen, to defend against it. and to make it useless. here's what nato said: in

april: "we support support increased missile defense cooperation between russia and nato including maximum transparency and reciprocal confidence-building measures to allay any fears. we reaffirm our readiness to explore the potential for linking the united states, nato, and russia missile defense systems at an appropriate time and we encourage the russian federation to take advantage of u.s. missile defense cooperation proposals." now, back in april i led a delegation with senator collins and bill nelson to visit russia, poland and the czech republic to discuss missile defense, and the potential for a cooperative approach. what we found is that there appears to be real potential for a cooperative approach and for having missile defense to be a

uniting issue against a common threat instead of a dividing issue. if we can find a way to cooperate with russia on missile defense, if we can do that, it would send an extraordinarily powerful message to iran that we are united against their continued development of nuclear technology and long-range ballistic missiles. that is the point of missile defense in europe, to address the iranian missile and nuclear program in order to enhance their security and our security. so this amendment will authorize prior years' funds for a variety of cost-effective and operationally inequityive missile defense options that -- operationally effective missile defense options. it has been designed, this amendment, to command and hopefully attract strong

bipartisan support. and i hope that it does just that. i believe that a voice vote amendment -- a voice vote may be possible after senator mccain speaks, and i hope that is the case, given our schedule. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i rise in support of the lieberman amendment expressing the sense of the senate that the united states government should continue developing and planning for the proposed deployments of elements of a ground-based midcourse defense system. i want to thank the senator from connecticut for this amendment, his willingness to work with all parties, which will then allow us to voice vote this very important amendment. and, obviously, we -- there's a lot of strong feelings on the issue of missile defense in europe, and i think that this amendment addresses and expresses our concerns and our

goals, including a midcourse radar in the czech republic and ground-based interceptors in poland, as well as the reservation of funds for the development and deployment of missile defense systems in europe. as rogue nations, including north korea and in, push the ing north korea and iran, push the envelope in developing weapons capable of reaching america and its allies, we must develop the systems to counter such efforts. inhancing -- enhancing missile defense systems in europe is an essential component to addressing rogue state and in-theater threats we face and expect to face in the future. as iran works to develop ballistic missiles' capabilities of all ranges, the united states must reaffirm its commitments to its allies and develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. the iranian missile threat is

real and growing. during the nato summit in bucharest, in april of 2008, the allies cited the threat of ballistic missile proliferation as one of great concern to their forces, territory and populations. missile defense in europe, according to nato, quote, "forms part of a broader-based account to this threat, the substantial contribution to the protection of allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of european-based united states missile defense assets. uncertainty about the future of missile defense in europe, some stemming from perceptions, whether warranted or not, that russia will have a say or veto power over the disposition of our missile defense architectu architecture, has caused concerns both here in the senate and among some of our closest european allies. i urge the administration to

provide some clarity on how it plans to honor the commitments the united states has made to poland and the czech republic. the last administration, recognizing the importance and need for a european component to our missile defense system, reached out to the governments of poland ant czech republic -- and the czech republic and asked that they make what many at the time perceived as an unpopular agreement. despite unwarranted threats from russia, both governments recognize the importance of such a capability would provide to their citizens and europe as a whole and agreed to allow the united states to place ground-based interceptors in poland and a midcourse radar site in the czech republic. given the perception, one that has been strengthened by the testimony of administration officials before the armed services committee that the united states is preparing to back away from its commitment to

our polish and czech allies, this amendment comes at an important moment. it was only a year ago after all that the united states and the czech republic affirmed that within the context of and consistent with both the north atlantic treaty and the czech republic, the united states is committed to the security of the czech republic and the czech republic and the united states will work together to counter merging military or nonmilitary threats posed by third parties or to minimize the effects of such threats. similarly, on august 20, 2008, the united states signed an agreement with poland stating that -- quote -- "the united states is committed to the security of poland and of any u.s. facilities located on the territory of the republic of poland." the united states and poland intend to expand air and missile defense cooperation. in this regard, we have agreed on an important new area of such

cooperation involving the deployment of u.s. army patriot air and missile defense battery in poland. our polish friends are clearly uneasecy and have been quite vocal. during a forum in brussels earlier, polish prime minister said, "i hope we don't regret a trust in the united states." i urge the administration and my colleagues in the senate to join me in reiterating our commitment to the security and freedom of these nations as well as deterring and defending them against any threats to their security. with respect to russia and the ongoing start negotiations, i urge the president to continue to reject any russian attempt to link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear weapons with defensive capabilities such as missile defense. russia, too, must recognize that the current iranian path is

unsettling to the global interests of all peace-seeking nations. missile defense in europe is not and should not be viewed in moscow as some new form of post-cold war aggression. it is, rather, a reasonable and prudent response to the very real threats the iranian regime continues to pose to the united states, europe, and the world. again, i want to thank my good friend from connecticut for offering this amendment, and i urge my colleagues to support its adoption and, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, very briefly, i want to thank senator levin, senator mccain for their very thoughtful statements in support of this amendment. i want to thank their staffs for the work that has been done with my staff, senator sessions' and others to reach this agreement. it is an important statement of policy about our national security in the years ahead. and i appreciate all that has

been done by everyone here in the spirit of unity. i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on the amendment. all knows in favor, say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. levin: move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings --

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator dorgan be recognized for up to 15 minutes and then we return to regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, let me thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, senator levin and senator mccain for their work on this bill. we're talking about a lot of things on this bill. jet fighters, bombers, tankers, submarines, unmanned aerial vehicles. lots and lots of subjects. the subjects are in defense of our country. what provides national security for our country. and so these are all very important. i wanted to speak, however, about one piece of this legislation that probably isn't mentioned much but i think is very, very important, and that is the reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons. there is something over $400 million in this bill that deals with the efforts to try to

reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. i've had in my desk in the senate for a long, long while some piece of equipment. i'd ask consent to show it. mr. president, this is ao piece of the wing -- the piece of a wing of a soviet backfire bomber. we didn't shoot this plane down. this is sawed off of a wing of a back-fire bomber that would have carried nuclear weapons presumably to threaten our country. but under something called the cooperative threat reduction effort that we engaged in with then the soviet union, bombers were destroyed. not by bullets, but they were sawed in half and the wings were taken off and so on. this is a tube of copper from the electrical wiring of a submarine that carried nuclear weapons targeting this country. this was ground up. the submarine wasn't steroid by american bullets. this is part of the cooperative

threat reduction effort. this is a hinge from a nuclear weapon on top of a missile in the ukraine, presumably aimed at an american target. where this missile once sat now grows sunflowers in the ukraine. the cooperative threat reduction program. now why is that important? mr. president, we have a lot of threats to this country, but none is as great as the threat of a nuclear warhead being exploded in a major american city or any metropolitan area of this world, for example. here's how many nuclear warheads we have, and this is from the carnegie endowment in 2009. they estimate the number of nuclear warheads that exist on the planet. russia, about 14,000 nuclear weapons. the united states, 10,500 nuclear weapons. china, about 125france about 300. britain 160.

israel 80. india 50. pakistan 60. and so on. let me tell you a story, if i might. it's a story that's been written about extensively. in fact, it was the lead for a book called "nuclear terrorism" written about graham allison. it was one month after september 11, 2001. it was october 11 on 2001 when the presidential daily briefing to president george w. bush by george tenet, then the head of the c.i.a., informed the president that a c.i.a. agent named dragon fire -- code name dragon fire -- had reported that al qaeda terrorists possessed a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon evidently stolen from the russian arsenal. and according to dragon fire, the c.i.a. agent, it had been smuggled into an american city, probably new york city. again, the president's daily briefing one month to the day

after 9/11 said that al qaeda had smuggled a 10-kiloton stolen nuclear weapon into perhaps new york city. now, the c.i.a. had no independent confirmation of it, but in the hours that followed, the question was, for the secretary of state, the national security advisor, and others: who do you call to talk about that? and how do you do it without the news media putting out a bulletin that there's a rumor that a 10-kiloton russian weapon, nuclear weapon had been stolen, causing mass exodus in one of our major cities and panic? and so, they tried to determine what to do about this and analyze was it plausible, possible that al qaeda terrorists had stolen a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon? the answer is yes. did the russians possess

10-kiloton nuclear weapons? yes. did they have good command and control over them? absolute command and control? no. was it possible having stolen it that the terrorists could have smuggled it into new york city or perhaps washington, d.c. yes. and if it were to be exploded, could the terrorists detonate it? the answer is yes. if it were a truck, for example, to times square and exploded, would 500,000 people be killed instantly? yes. about a month later, while there were a lot of people having an apoplectic seizure about this prospect, it was determined that perhaps the report by the c.i.a. agent dragon fire, that he had picked up was not credible. but they didn't tell anybody. they didn't tell the mayor of new york. they sent teams to new york -- the president sent teams to new york but didn't inform anybody, for obvious reasons.

now, think of that. think of the unbelievable angst about the potential of one rather small nuclear weapon, a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon having been stolen on a planet where there are 25,000 of them, most of them much larger than that. think of the angst about the potential of having one stolen by a terrorist group and exploded in the middle of an american city. that's just one weapon, and there are 25,000. and there are a lot of people who are good thinkers and very experienced in these areas who will tell you, including former defense secretary perry and others, that there's a very high probability that within the coming ten years there will be a nuclear weapon exploded in a major city. so with all of the talk about planes and ships and all the issues in this bill, this issue

of the threat reduction, $400 million-plus in this bill, the threat reduction that allowed us to dismantle nuclear weapons, cut off the wings of the adversary's bombers, grind up the wiring and destroy the submarines, that is critically important. the question for us is: what are we going to do to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world? because almost certainly there will be an explosion of a nuclear weapon in a metropolitan area at some point in the future unless we provide the leadership to decide that arms talks, arms reductions represent a responsibility for us to lead. it is our responsibility. it falls on our shoulders to bear this burden to lead. and i know there are some who would say, you know what, that's a sign of weakness to be talking about reducing nuclear weapons.

i'm not suggesting reducing america's strength or allowing america to be undefended. i am suggesting the world will be a much safer place if we don't have 25,000 nuclear weapons. and this world will be a much safer place if we find a way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. we see every day now the spectacle of iran, iran possessing a nuclear weapon. that's scary. north korea -- we don't know whether north korea has nuclear weapons, but the carnegie endowment says perhaps they do, perhaps less than 10. but what do we do now? what do we do to decide that we're going to be involved in a very aggressive way, leading the world in nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and beginning to reduce the number of nuclear weapons? now, we're operating now under what is called the strategic offensive reduction treaty, also known as the moscow treaty that

our last president negotiated. it required the u.s. and russia to have no more than 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear weapons. doesn't mean that's the limit. that's just the operationally deployed limit. they can have far more nuclear weapons than that. by 2012, it had it be down. doesn't restrict delivery vehicles of any kind -- missiles, ships, planes. it does not have any verification measures. and it expires in 2012. there's another treaty called the start treaty, which was superseded by the treaty i just described. but some -- i just described. but some parts of the start treaty are still in force because it does have verification and on-site monitoring and confidence-building measures. and it does limit delivery vehicles. but that limitation is going to expire. and that start treaty expires at the end of this year. so the point i wanted to make today simply is this, we're talking about a lot of very

important things, and i think the bill put together by the chairman and the ranking member of this defense authorization bill is very important. i understand that. we need an army, a navy, the marines, the air force. we need them well equipped. this is a troubling world in some corners. we face enormous threat of terrorism. we face a lot of different threats. but we must keep our eye on the ball. and we, above all here in the united states have a responsibility to provide the leadership that's necessary to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to try to push and push and push for agreements that would reduce the number of nuclear weapons. as i said before when, again, a c.i.a. agent code name dragon fire shows up and says to the c.i.a., i've picked up information that there is one nuclear weapon that's been stolen in the hands of terrorists and is now in new york cityied to be detonated, when that next happens, we had

better worry a great deal if we haven't prevented it. if we haven't taken all of the steps necessary to say that can happen. that report in october of 2001, turned out to be falls, but all -- false, but all of the postmortem by experts understood that it could have been true. all of the elements could have been accurate. a weapon could have been stolen, smuggled into the city and detonated and a half million people within three-quarters of a mile of times square would have died immediately. if that happens, and when that happens, the world will now be the same. everything will have changed. and so it seems to me that we have a responsibility to pursue aggressively arms control agreements. we have an opportunity now and a responsibility to pursue

aggressively even in legislation like this the reduction of delivery vehicles, to try to see if we can step back from the abyss and engage with other nuclear powers to do things that will tighten in a very significant way and prevent the opportunity from other nations and especially rogue nations and most especially terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons. we know, we he have the history that's osama bin laden has a fascination with to acquire nuclear weapons for a long time. we know that. al qaeda is still there. to the extent that we know it, osama bin laden is still leading al qaeda. it is pretty unbelievable to think about that. on 9/11, i assume that there is not one acre on earth that would be safe for the person who led the attack or designed the attack, rather, against our country.

but it is now eight years later and we are told in the briefings by our c.i.a. that our public, that is, the public report of their assessments that the greatest threat to our homeland is al qaeda, a reconstituted al qaeda, the terrorist threat, which is greatest threat to our homeland is a reconstituted al qaeda with training camps and designing attacks against our country. now, let us hope that we're able to make the kinds of efforts and provide the kind of leadership that singularly says to the world, it is this country that leads the way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. and it is our country that wants to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this planet. no, that won't make us weaker. i don't suggest any approach that would ever weaken in country relative to its adversaries, but it will certainly strengthen the future of this planet if we reduce the

number of nuclear weapons below the 25,000 nuclear weapons that now exist and also take very significant steps to stop other countries and certainly to prevent forever rogue nations an terrorist organizations from acquiring nuclear weapons. that needs to be job one. we don't talk nearly enough about it. we just don't talk about the subject as much as we should. but i wanted to during this discussion because it is in this bill, the cooperative threat reduction. we know works. we have funded in the past. we'll fund it again, something that addresses the issue of not just building more weapons, but actually finding ways to engage with our adversaries to reduce the weapons that can, frankly, threaten the existence of this planet. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: what is the pending amendment?

the presiding officer: the pending amendment is akaka amendment number 1522. mr. burr: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment 1519. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from michigan. mr. levin: reserving the right to object. and i will not object, of course. this would be the next amendment in line of amendments that senator mccain and i are trying to work out alternating between the two sides so that everyone knows what's going on. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: senator from north carolina, mr. burr, for himself an mrs. hagan, proposes amendment number 1519. mr. burr: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, most members won't know much about this amendment. if you're not from virginia or not from north carolina or not

on the armed services committee, this will probably not make a lot of sense. but this is about the proposed acquisition of land in north carolina for an outlying landing field for those carrier-based aircraft to practice their tough and goes for the purpose of night takeoffs and night landings. this is not new to north carolina, and let me say to my colleagues there is -- i don't think there is a state more friendly to the military than north carolina, we're home to camp what june, the -- camp lejeune. and we don't only welcome the military, we support the military. it is the most military state you can find and there is no military family that's stationed within north carolina that's not extended in-state tuition regardless of how long they're there or whether their kids are

still in education once their parents have been deployed elsewhere. this is not an issue of not in my back yard. but there are two proposed sites. what my amendment does is prohibits the establishment of an outlying landing field at the proposed hales lake and the sounds bank county site in north carolina. it says you have to take them off the list. the navy is proposing to construct this outlying landing field for their carrier fixed wing aircraft squadrons stationed in virginia beach at the naval air station oceana. and they propose to acquire 30,000 acres. so they're getting 30,000 acres through accommodation of fee simple purchases, the purchase of restricted use or through conservation easements. approximately 2,000 acres would be used for the core area, which

would include an 8,000-foot runway. think about 30,000 acres relative to the airport that's in your local community and you get an idea of just how much bigger this footprint is. now, i said earlier this is not about just not in my back yard. as a matter of fact, north carolina, has proffered to the navy currently a marine air station in cherry point has the potential o.l.f. site where we've already got squadrons of marine aircraft. we've got the capacity and, more importantly, have a community that wants to have this site. now, the navy doesn't support the cherry point proposal partially because it's considered to be in a location too far from n.a.c. oceana. well, let me describe for my colleagues, when you draw the line that says anything outside of this is too far, cherry point

falls 20 miles outside of the line that they've drawn. 20 miles is the glide path to land or the glide path to take off. we're not talking about a big distance. it doesn't seem to make sense why the navy's looking to condemn 30,000 acres for the purposes of constructing a new facility instead of using an existing facility -- an existing military base that would be much more efficient, cost effective for the navy, and, more importantly, cost effective for taxpayers. why am i here? why is senator hagan offering this amendment? because the people in gates county, in curituck county, they don't want it. they went into the process saying, if they don't want us, we won't go there. and the truth is it doesn't stop there. mr. chairman, i would like to

neent the record, if i -- i would like to enter into the record on may 27, 2009, the north carolina general assembly unanimously passed house bill 613, which states the consent of the state is not granted to the federal government for acquisition of land for an outlying landing field in county or counties which have no existing military base where squadrons are stationed. i would like to make that a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: accompanied with that bill is the senate president of the north carolina senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, an o.l.f. at any of the proposed sites in north carolina or virginia would create 52 jobs. 52 jobs for a 30,000-acre footprint. the location at hails lake site is a farm -- a 38,000-acre farm that currently employs 90 employees and has a local

economic impact of approximate approximately $6.5 million. let me say that again. we're being asked to consider a footprint, a 30,000-acre footprint at hales lake where we're going to take 90 jobs and we're going to replace it with 52 jobs. where they have $6.5 million worth of economic impact and we're going to go to a situation where the federal government doesn't pay property taxes. the core of the sands bank outlying site contains 89 acres of wetland. the core of the sands bank contains 89 acres of wetland. the north carolina division of water quality recommended that sands bank site not be pursued. why? because of the significance of wetlands. now, i say to my colleagues, and i think we'll probably lose this amendment and we're going to have a voice vote on it.

but i think it's important for colleagues to understand north carolina's take option after option after option to the navy. as a matter of fact, this is our second round after they shortcut an environmental impact study and the courts got involved and a site that they had picked and already purchased land they're in the unusual position now of having a lot of land and they can't build the site there based upon where the environmental impact study sent them. because they were trying to put it next to one of the largest migratory bird areas on the east coast. not a smart thing when you want to have pilots taking jets in. and it's got to go through environmental impact study whether they pick the sands bank site or whether they pick hale lake site. i'm not sure if the e.i.s. study

will allow them to go to sands bank where there is 1,200 acres of wetlands out there. that's all in there. but we have communities today that are being affected. they're being affecected by the fact that the property can't sell. that people don't want to move there because they don't know he whether there will be a naval jet base. they don't know whether there will be a 30,000-acre protected area where all night long you're going to have aircraft going in and it only produces 52 jobs for the local community. not a very good tradeoff on part of north carolina. not a very good action on part of the military. i ask my colleagues -- i think we probably know the outcome of the vote. but we've got to be vigilant. north carolina's an incredible state when it relates to our military. that doesn't mean that the military can just walk in, make

a decisions that inconsistent with what's good for our state and potentially forces an adverse relationship between the state and the military. they pushed it and that's why the general assembly did what it did it. it's my hope that as this bill moves through conference, that since the house has this provision in it, that at least this provision will prevail. but i thank my colleagues. i thank the chair, and i thank the ranking member for their understanding of allowing me to bring this amendment up. it's important that every member understand what's involved and at the core of this it's the lives of people in north carolina. it's the ability to have predictability in the future and not necessarily a decision that may linger for six or seven or 10 years with individuals not knowing what the di dispositionf the navy decision is going to be. therefore a market for their property or the plans for the next generation of farmer, as it

might relate to hales lake, not knowing exactly how to plan their lives. i would suggest that we call a question on this amendment. mr. mccain: mr. president, let me say i rely, i rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment by my friend in north carolina. he and the other senator, the junior senator from north carolina, argued passionately and in some degree persuasively in the markup of this legislation. i think it's very appropriate they're reacting to local concerns and perhaps even the fact that perhaps i think perhaps the department of the navy has not approached some of the communities in a way that

would gain the cooperation of these communities. i agree also with senator burr that the people of north carolina are among the most patriotic we have in our nation. but the facts are facts. that is, the navy needs a field to train carrier pilots stationed on the east coast within the range of both naval air station oceana and the marine corps air station, cherry point, north carolina. the navy needs the field to train pilots, a field to train pilots in order for us to is t e the best qualified pilots in the world. part of that training is to learn landing on aircraft carriers, amongst other type of training. now, again, a lot of local communities in north carolina and virginia have expressed concern about the noise, about the hours, about the impact it

will have on their communities. during the markup we adopted an amendment by the senator from virginia, senator webb, that basically requires the navy to do extensive consultation with the local communities, to consider local assistance to the local communities in case there is substantial economic impacts and to do everything they can to reach an agreement with the local communities as they go through this siting procedure. now, madam president, i can't change geography. the map is that two of our major air stations, one at oceana, the other at cherry point, is where our pilots and our air wings are stationened. stationened. they have to have the ability to train and they have to train someplace within reasonable range so i really believe that

after spirited discussion in the committee that the senator from virginia came up with a very excellent amendment that basically requires a lot more participation in the local communities, a lot more consideration and consult takes- consult dispaition even some economic assistance to the local communities if necessary. no one likes to be awak awakenet 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning by jet engines. i understand that. but i hope all of our colleagues understand, on the entire east coast because of population and because of the location of the two major bases, cherrypoint and oceana, we don't have much choice but than to look in the states of virginia and north carolina and we cannot let, over time, that requirement be overridden forever. we can try to accommodate.

we can try to understand. we can try to do whatever is necessary to ease the burden. but the fact is our pilots have to train. so i appreciate the fact that both senators from north carolina are eloquently stating the concerns their local communities have in their state would may be unconsideration for the location of an airfield just as the senator from virginia was concerned but the senator from virginia, i think, in his amendment, laid out some parameters that i think will lead to a fair process that will take into consideration the very understandable concerns of the local communities. so with reluctance but with concern for the ability of our navy and marine corps pilots to train and be adequately prepared to fight, i oppose this amendment. mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, i

also reluctantly oppose this amendment. senator burr and senator hagan have both been very eloquent in their positions and it's understandable how they and their states feel on this matter. the navy has not done a particularly good job. senator webb, in committee, suggested some report language which hopefully will be helpful that's constructive. and senator webb, of course, is equally eloquent in his position. we adopted that report language. we should instant with it. it is not good public policy for congress to prematurely limit training locations. particularly when those sites have not been fully considered by the military. so it's hopefully going to prod the navy to do better in terms of consultation and communication with our communities and south carolina

and virginia and around the country. so i oppose this debate. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye, opposed, no. the nos appear to have it, and the nos do have it and the amendment is defeated. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent we set aside the pending amendment for the consideration of the inhofe amendment number 1559. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. levin: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside temporarily and it be in order to offer an amendment on behalf of myself, senator graham, senator mccain. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. levin: amendment 1710. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from mitch, mr. levin, for himself and others proposed an amendment numbered 1710. on page 321, strike the items

relating to subchapters five, six, and seven and insert the following -- mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: i offer on behalf of senator graham, mccain and myself an amendment modifying the procedures for handling of classified evidence by military commissions. this is language which was requested by the administration witnesses at our hearing on military commissions procedures a few weeks ago. we've worked closely together. we've worked closely with the administration on the language. it's our understanding that this amendment will fully address the administration's concerns, has the support of both the justice department and the department of defense. section 1031 of the bill which addresses military commissions is based on the standard established by the supreme court

in the hamdan case. in military commissions should be conducted in a matter consistent with the procedures applicable in trials by court-martials and that any deviation from those procedures be justed by "evident practical need," and for this reason the procedures in the bill for the handling of classified information are based on the procedures established in the uniform code of military justice.however, the witnesses r july 7 hearing on military commissions made a persuasive case that the procedures for the handling of classified information in federal court -- the classified information procedures act, or cipa, would provide a better model for handling classified information. the haven't that the federal courts have far more experience handing classified information and far more precedent

applicable to the difficult issues raised by classified information in detainee cases. d.o.d. general counsel jay johnson explained the issue as follows: "we note that the legislation incorporates certain of the classified evidence procedures currently applicable in court marshals where there is relatively little precedent and practice regarding classified information." so, mr. johnson continued, "we in the administration believe that further work could be done to codify the protections of classified evidence in a manner consistent with the protections that now exist in federal civilian courts. we believe that those protections," referring to the federal civilian court protections, "would work better to protect classified information while continuing to ensure fairness in providing a

stable body of precedent and practice for doing so." and vice admiral bruce mcdonald, the judge advocate general of the navy, testified in a very similar way. he said, that "section 949-d provides for the use of rules of evidence in trials, by general court-martials in the handling of classified evidence. this is consistent with our overall desire to use those procedures found within the ucmj whenever possible. however," he said, "experience has shown that practitioners struggle with a very complex and unclear rule within the military rules of evidence. the military rules do not have a robust source of informative or persuasive case law. frankly," he said, "prosecutions using military rule of evidence 505 are rare in developing the rules for the handling of

classified material during a military commission, it would be more prudent to rely upon the classified information procedures act or cipa, used in the article 3 courts as a starting point." now, madam president, since the time of the hearing, we have been working on a bipartisan basis with the administration to produce new language on the handling of classified information consistent with the recommendations of our witnesses. in accordance with those recommendations and our own thinking and discussion, the language in the amendment that we're considering today tracks very closely with cipa. in a few areas we've chosen to codify standards that are applicable case law under cipa to provide additional clarity. and so the amendment is consistent with the intention of the bill to apply established procedures to military commissions and to deviate from those established procedures

where justified by evident, practical need. there is an evident, practical need here. we've got a good experience under cipa, and we decide that that is the better model to follow, and we also believe that the procedures in this amendment will facilitate the handling of classified information in trials by military commissions in a way that is fair to both sides. so i -- there are few other elements to this that i better briefly touch on. i yield the floor. i would do one other thing -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: before senator graham is recognized. and that is that we have a letter from the department of justice on this matter which i would ask unanimous consent be inserted in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: and, again, let me

just thank senator graham, senator mccain. senator graham is an expert that we all look to in matters such as this. he's got not only personal experience, but he's got a vast amount of personal knowledge from study as well as his own experience in this area, and it's invaluable to us, and it really does help make possible here a conclusion which we offer to the body. mr. graham: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd like it thank the chairman for those kind comments. i have real estate been a military lawyer for a while, but i'm smart enough to know what i don't know, and the bottom line is that the judge advocates to a person have indicated that the procedures, as outlined by senator levin, would be the best way to go. under the civilian classified information procedures act, there's a robust body of cases, military evidence rule 505-b is not used very obvious in

court-martials and what we've tried to do is interject into the commissions some reforms that will make the trials go forward in a manner that the courts are likely to approve the work product. i think everybody involved -- military judges, defense counsels, prosecutors -- welcome in change and senator levin and his staff and our staffs have worked with the white house, and i think we've found a way to reform the military commissions that would provide balance when it comes to the admission of classified evidence, protecting the nation at large, and also allowinallowing the people accua crime as much as possible and every lawyer involved in military commissions supports this change and i think it is one way to make the commissions better and this whole effort is bearing fruit, and i appreciate what senator levin has done. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. levin: madam president, i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, there is now pending an amendment that i've offered on

behalf of myself, senator graham, senator mccain relative to the protection of classified information. is that correct? the presiding officer: amendment 1710 offered by senator levin is pending. mr. levin: thank you. i thank the presiding officer. at this time i ask unanimous consent that a statement of senator mccain be inserted in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: and i think we're ready now to vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: is there further debate? without objection. the amendment is agreed to. mr. levin: i would ask to reconsider that vote. mr. mccain: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: the regular order now would be to return to the akaka amendment. is that correct? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. levin: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. i'm sorry i have to be down here this afternoon. and i would apologize to my colleagues that we will have a delay on this bill, probably on cloture, until tomorrow morning. and my statement is meant to in no way reflect any ill will on stphofr akaka or senator collins -- on senator akaka or senator collins or voinovich or senator lieberman, but we have before news this amendment something that is intolerable to the unemployed people in this country today, should be intolerable to everybody. in fact, what we're going to do is take $3.1 billion and give it to federal employees in their retirement systems and adjustments to retirement systems when we've got a 9.5%

unemployment. we've got six states with over 15%. what we should be doing is taking that $3 billion and making sure we create jobs so people have jobs in this country rather than paying federal workers. i want to enter into the record what the average pay and benefits are for federal employees, because most americans are unaware. the average federal paper and benefit for an employee in the postal service is $80,353 a year. if you work at the pentagon but you're not a soldier, your average pay and benefit is $89,000 a year. if you're a soldier, it's about $25,000 less than that. the guy that's taking the bullets is making about $25,000 less than the civilian that's

working in the pentagon. and then you have all of the rest of the federal employees, and their average is $113,000. that's twice what the average wage is in this country. and we have with this amendment, has nothing to do with the defense department. it has to do with adjusting -- adjusting -- pension benefit for federal employees outside of the defense department attached to this bill. so i think our federal employees are valuable, and i don't mind paying them that. but i do mind spending more money at that level now when we have the large number of people that are unemployed. and if you count people who are not looking for work anymore because they're so discouraged, we're over 15% unemployment. and the very idea that we would take $3.2 billion from our grandkids to add now to a program when we've got millions

and millions of americans not collecting a paycheck at all, to me, is inappropriate. we can't afford it because we're going to charge it to the next two generations. we don't have the money. which reminds me, if we go back and talk about where we are in this country, we have the first $4 trillion budget ever this year. that's what's going to be spent. $4 trillion in one year. we're spending $1 trillion more this year in the last seven months than we did last year in this country. we have passed bill after bill after bill after bill that we can't afford to buy things that we don't need with money we don't have. let me, for my colleagues, raoet the unemployment rates throughout the country. alabama, 10.1%.

alaska, 8.4%. arizona 8.7%. arkansas 7.2%. california 11.6 p-rbgt. colorado 7.6%. connecticut 8%. delaware, 8.4%. washington, d.c. 10.9%. florida 10.6%. georgia 10.1%. hawaii 7.4%. idaho, 8.4%. illinois 10.3%. indiana 10.7%. iowa of.2%. kansas 7%. kentucky 10.9% unemployment. louisiana 6.8%. maine 8.5%. maryland 7.3%. massachusetts 8.6%. michigan 15.2%. what would the people of michigan do with $3 billion to invest in jobs in michigan right now? minnesota 8.4%. mississippi 9%.

missouri 9.3%. montana 6.4%. nebraska 5%. nevada 12%. new hampshire 6.8%. new jersey 9.2%. new mexico 6.8%. new york 8.7%. north carolina 11%. north dakota 4.2%. ohio 11.1%. oklahoma 6.3%. oregon 12.2%. pennsylvania 8.3%. puerto rico 14.5%. rhode island 12.4%. south carolina 12.1%. tennessee 10.8%. i missed south dakota. 5.1%. tennessee 10.8%. texas 7.5%. utah 5.7%.

vermont 7.1%. virginia 7.2%. washington state 9.3%. west virginia 9.2%. wisconsin 9%. and wyoming 5.9%. those are just percentages, but you know what they represent? they represent real hard-core pain for american families today. and the fact that we would have the gumption to come up and take another $3 billion from them to increase the benefits structure of federal employees at a time when what we should be doing is seeing how we can become more efficient in the federal government, spend less money in the federal government, flies in the face of the difficulties that these individuals find themselves faced with. if you look at what's actually

happening to our country and you take the 75-year projections, this year we're going to spend under $200 billion in interest. in eight years from now we're going to spend $806 billion in interest just on the interest rates that we have today. how many people believe we'll have a fed discount rate of .25% eight years from now and we'll be able to borrow money on a ten-year t-bill at 6.6%? it isn't going to happen. we're going down the road to destruction, and we are clueless about how to solve it. so if you add up the 75-year projected unfunded liabilities for medicare and if you add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for medicaid, and if you add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities

for social security, and if you add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for federal employee retirement, and if you add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for military retirement, and if you add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for every other trust fund that this congress and congress before has robbed the money from to spend now, which should have been endowed, what you come to is $100 trillion. now, if you look at what our population is expected to be then and the percentage that won't be working in the workforce -- in other words, the very young children and the very large, 40% of that population that's going to be retired -- what you end up having is an unfunded obligation for every one of those people who are going to be the taxpayers of $500,000 a piece.

and that doesn't include the debt that we have now, which is $11.4 trillion, which is going to double to $22 trillion over the next ten years. and the internal debt of that will triple. so now we have $122 trillion worth of liabilities, and we're saying now's the time to increase the benefits for federal employees. and i don't deny that they do great work. but when you look at what the average pay plus benefit is for federal employees versus everybody else in the country, now is not the time to do it not only because we can't afford it, but, number two, it's patently unfair to everybody else in this country based on what the average salaries are. so the fact that we bring an amendment on the defense bill because it's a bill that's going to move, there's no question it won't survive cloture, and we're

going to do that, that doesn't bother me. i've done that a lot. what bothers me is we lack the perspective of what is happening. we passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, of which only $80 billion has got out the door. the unemployment rate is still rising. i'm not critical. this body passed it. it's not going to be highly stimulatory because most of it wasn't meant to be stimulatory. it was meant to be transfer payments. but we spent that, and that's all borrowed money. we passed an omnibus. we passed a supplemental. none of that was paid for. not a penny of it was paid for. that's all borrowed. so what we have done is we're going to add $2.2 trillion to our debt this year, and we have something -- it just adds, just a measly little $3.2 billion.

think about what $3.2 billion would do to help people who don't have a job in this country today. instead we're going to enhance the benefits of federal employees. and, to me, it is insulting to every other worker that's out there that's either struggling to keep their job -- and, oh, by the way, we're going to add 100,000 federal employees this year. so these numbers are underestimating what the real cost is. this is this amendment. it's 49 pages long. it has six major titles in it. adjusting. we allow people who left the government to come back and put their money back in and say, you didn't leave so you didn't lose any of your retirement. you still get it compounded. we have institutionalized sick pay and we've made it an entitlement. we said if you work for d.c., everybody that's ever worked for the d.c. government can work for the federal government, and all your retirement years will

transfer to the federal government. but we don't do that to anybody else who works for any other state government, and we certainly don't when we hire them on to the federal government if you had a retirement plan from any other company, we don't add it. so what we're doing is things that are patently unfair to the rest of the american workforce in this country. i plan on speaking on this bill till cloture ripens, which means we're going to be here all night. and until this amendment is withdrawn, i will stay here or i will have a colleague stay here, and we will talk about how this country is out of control in its spending. we will talk about how we have failed the american people to not be good stewards, how we have not done oversight on the $350 billion worth of waste every year. not one amendment has passed that has gotten rid of any of the waste that this government

wastes every year. not one has gotten through this congress. not one. we're getting ready to work on a health care bill. we've been working on it. we spent a ton of time on it. we got $120 billion worth of fraud in medicare and medicaid. we haven't addressed that at all. it's not being addressed. and we're twit telling our thumbs as -- twit telling our thumbs as medicare goes bankrupt and medicare doesn't offer the service that's promised and we're going to create another $1.6 trillion worth of costs for the american people. the only thing i can figure out is washington only thinks you can spend more money to save money in a significant way, and we've been trying to do that since 1965, and it hasn't worked once, and it isn't going to work this time.let me mention for a

minute just some of the things that we've been doing that don't fit with the priorities of the american citizens. it doesn't come anywhere close to matching what every american family is doing today. here's what they're doing. first of all, they're scared and they're fearful and they're worried. and you know what they're doing? and we is it in the economic statistics when consumer spending drives normally 70% of our economy, we have the highest savings rate we've had in 40 years. because they're afraid to spend and one of the reasons they're afraid to spend is because they don't trust what we're doing up here. they think things might get worse. i think things are going to get better. but they're certainly not going to get better by spending another $3.2 billion in this way. but what they do is they sit down as a family and they say here's what's coming in and here's -- here's the auto

payment and here's the house payment and here's what we've got to have for groceries, and here's what we have to have for the utility bills. what's next? in other words, they make a list of priorities. they decide what has to be done and what must be done. but what they want to do comes last because we're in tough times. and that applies to almost every family in this country. and it applies heartaches because it means that a father isn't doing something that he'd like to do for his son. or a mother isn't buying a new dress for a daughter to help her own self-esteem in comparison with other children. it has real-world factors on families. and they make those hard decisions every day. absolutely every day.

and, you know, the reason they make those hard decisions is they don't lack the courage to face reality. -- reality like we do. they also don't have the other option that we have and that is charging our lack of courage to the next two generations. you see, most americans aren't cowards. they look at the real world. they look at what's responsible of them, what's going to have to be made. they dig in their heels, they work and they work to solve the problem and they will go through tough times doing the very best they can can to make good of a bad -- they can to make good of a bad situation. that's opposite the behavior this place has been displaying. we've ignored the fact that we've got $11.4 trillion worth

of debt. we passed a stimulus spending bill that less than $150 billion was true stimulus. we've created dependence sis of now the states that any time -- dependencies of now the states any time they're in tough time, they've been infected with our illness is, don't worry about it, we'll charge it to the next generation. every state that we helped through the stimulus, we did charge to the next generation. so we now instituted lack of discipline by every state legislature in the country. because now they no longer have to worry about it. the senate will borey it from their grandkids -- worry about it. so what -- what all have we done that would secure the honor of the american people that we're really working for them? what symbol have we given them in terms of limiting our

excesses in washington that might give them hope? and the akaka amendment is just the opposite of that. it's saying you don't get it. your priorities aren't right. you think you can forget about what's happening to us. you think you can charge to our grandchildren and our children. you think you can steal their opportunity and nobody's ever going to know it. well, i barked up this tree a lot in the last five years in this body and i'm not ever going to stop barking up this tree. because it is morally wrong to steal future from your grandchildren. it is morally wrong. it's not just ethically wrong. it's not just conveniently wrong. it's morally wrong to take the great attributes of this country and take them away from your children and grandchildren. it's time for some grownups to start making hard decisions that

may cost us reelection, but in the best long-term interest of this country. and so this issue isn't going to go away. and i may ultimately get defeated on it, but those families out there that don't have a job, those families out there that are making those hard choices every day, every night worrying about where the money to buy the food that's going on the table the next day, that still have a job, they're going to know somebody's going to fight for some common sense in the senate. and there's no question. i lost this amendment in committee. and i was just as mortified at the lack of sensitivity to the rest of this country and to place federal employees very good benefits, enhancing those above the negatives that are occurring to every family in this country based on our

economic situation. and even if we weren't having a tough economic time, it would still be wrong to do this. it would still be incredit to do this. -- incorrect to do this. you know, if you think for a minute about what it costs to fund the interest costs o on $500,000, if it's 6% -- if it's just 6%, it's $30,000 a year. you know, if i was a school teacher here and we had a blackboard, i would be making everybody write home, i'm sorry i'm stealing $30,000 a year from each of your children. i'm sorry i'm stealing dz 30dz thousand a year -- $30,000 a year on just the principal. you take a young child that is 6 years of age today and you extrapolate that out to right

before their retirement and what you've done is you have stolen their opportunity to have the american dream. because it isn't just going to be the $30,000. because all of the years they can't work, it is going to build that they're going to have to pay and all the years in their retirement will be less because we're not going to have the benefits. and, oh, by the way if you're a federal employee and you're unhappy with me trying to defeat this amendment, you should pay attention to something. there is no guarantee to your federal pension based on the economics that we face today in this country. if you think it's guaranteed, you've got another thought coming. because the world economic system is going to determine whether or not we can honor that pension. that's what's really coming. and we're very close. you know, it wasn't long ago alan alan greenspan was asked a question. -- alan greenspan was asked a question. he said, what is the maximum

limit for which we can borrow? there is a question as to whether he people want to loan us money anymore. and what he said is, i don't know what it is, but i can tell you we're getting very close. now, what happens to -- what happens to us when we tap out? and, you know -- he is not an unrespected thinker in terms of economics and banking. here's what happens to us -- interest rates that are 3.6% for a 10-year government note go to 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%. now all of a sudden the cost of funding our debt becomes $2 trillion or $3 trillion a year 20 years from now. what's the option there? the option is there won't be any government pensions. there won't be any medicare. we'll barely have money to

defend our country. all these wonderful federal programs that we have, most of which have a duplicate somewhere in the federal government that we can't get rid of because they have a constituency that somebody might be afraid that they defend if we eliminate the $30,000 worth of waste, fraud, and duplication. they aren't going throb. so what -- they aren't going to be there. so what it really comes down to and what we're really facing is: can our republic survive our excesses? can we survive this tremendous direction that we've stepped away from reality in saying economic forces don't apply to us? and the answer to that is no. there won't be a federal pension when interest is at 10% or 12%

and we've got $35 trillion or $40 trillion worth of debt. a senator: will the senator yield for a question? mr. coburn:ly. mr. mccain: does the senator have an estimate of the cost? mr. coburn: over $3.3 billion. mr. mccain: i understand from the amendment that there is some provision that all of the money's paid back? mr. coburn: well, it's another tricking game. there's an assumption that it's paid back. but it will never be paid back. it will never be paidack. what it will do is increase the obligations of the federal taxpayer, that's me and you and all of our families and everybody we represent, to the liabilities of the people that are going to get the benefit from this amendment. mr. mccain: could the senator tell me the connection between this amendment and the defense authorization bill? mr. coburn: there is no connection between this amendment and the defense authorization bill. mr. mccain: may i say to the

senator from oklahoma, i'm in agreement. and we do strange things around here. particularly late in the consideration of a bill. i thank him for at least bringing it to the attention of the american taxpayer. mr. coburn: thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i want to finish my line of thought because what i sense is the american people get it and we don't. the american people are worried that we don't get it. they're worried that we think we can continue spending money, not reform things, not make things more efficient, not eliminate duplication, and what they know is -- is this isn't monopoly money. they know that this isn't not real money. they know that this issue about us being -- having common sense, about us being fiscally responsible, they know their

children and their grandchildren's future depends on whether we start acting the way that every family has to act. and that's in the real world. not in the world of washington, don't worry, we'll put it off because this election is more important than taking the tough vote. we'll put it off. i say to my colleagues, i'm going to spend the next couple of hours going through i was so the american people can see how well we've done with their money, waste and earmarks and things that benefit the well connected, but hurt your children and hurt your grandchildren. but before i do that, i want to spend a minute talking about what the heritage of our country is. how do american exceptionalism come into being? how is it that this became the great he's country in the world

-- greatest country in the world that had more technological advances than anybody else in the world, that had the highest stanstandard of living than anyy else in the world? what was the glue? what was the key? what was the characteristic that allowed that to happen? i'll tell you what it was -- it's called sacrifice. if you think back four or five generations in your family and you go and try to find out what was really going on, no matter what your racial background or what your lineage is, what you saw was people willing -- absolutely willing to sacrifice the short term to make sure the long term was better for their children, their family, third and grandchildren. and that's what i call a heritage of sacrifice. it's what made us great. it's what created this vast,

great country. and i'm sorry to say that since i entered the area of public service, and one of the reasons i entered it was because i didn't see this trait, is that since 1994, i haven't seen any change. actually it's worse. and when you take the oath to be a u.s. senator, what it says is you will do what the constitution says. you will upto hold. you will make sure -- uphold it. you will make sure that it's protected. that you will follow it. you know, i have a bill called the enumerated powers act. it's got a lot of cosponsor, but none of the big spenders here want to cosponsor it. you know why? because it creates a