Amendment Text: S.Amdt.3126 — 110th Congress (2007-2008)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Proposed (10/02/2007)

This Amendment appears on page S12411 in the following article from the Congressional Record.

[Pages S12408-S12417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3126

  (Purpose: To prohibit waivers for enlistment in the Armed Forces of 
               individuals with certain felony offenses)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3126.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  No amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to provide a waiver for 
     enlistment in the Armed Forces of an individual convicted 
     under Federal or State law of any felony offense, during the 
     five-year period ending on the date of the proposed 
     enlistment of such individual in the Armed Forces, as 
     follows:
       (1) Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
       (2) Arson.
       (3) Hate Crime.
       (4) Sexual misconduct.
       (5) Terrorist threatening.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading my 
amendment. I had it read because it is such common sense. I think if 
you went out on the street and you asked any American: Do you think 
there are people serving in the military who, within the last 5 years, 
were convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or a sex 
crime or a hate crime or making a terrorist threat that was a phony 
terrorist threat? They would say: Oh, no; no one like that would be let 
in, not if they did something like that within the last 5 years.
  That is what leads me to this commonsense amendment. It is hard for 
me to believe I have to fight for this. This amendment may not pass, 
which is stunning to me when I think of how clear the issue is.
  I guess I would ask a mom or a dad who has a son or a daughter over 
there, would they want their child in a foxhole with someone who was 
convicted twice of assault with a deadly weapon. Do you want someone in 
a foxhole with your son or daughter who was convicted of a sex crime? I 
think they would say no.
  So here is where we are. In recent years, the U.S. Army in particular 
has dramatically increased the number of waivers it grants for 
admission into its ranks of those convicted of a felony. Now, let me be 
clear. It is against the rules to allow anyone to come into the 
military who has a felony conviction. However, there is a loophole 
which says waivers can be granted in certain circumstances.
  Now, I totally understand. For example, let's say as a young man or 
woman some potential recruit tried drugs because it was the thing in 
his school. He did it, but he regrets it and is over it. He was 
convicted, but he has promised never to use drugs again. OK, give 
someone a chance. That is the American way. Give someone a chance. But 
for these particular felonies, which I will outline again and explain 
what they are, I think if someone has been found guilty within the last 
5 years, it is an open-and-shut case.
  Now, I understand the Army is under incredible strain right now and 
is facing a difficult recruitment environment. I realize there may be 
times that they are going to ask for these waivers. I know they do it 
for health reasons and other things, but there is a point at which it 
goes too far; that is, the point at which it is dangerous. When you 
hear about the increase in felony recruitment, you will agree it is 
alarming. Rather than strengthening our military, it weakens our 
military.
  Listen to these numbers: In 2004, the Army granted 360 waivers to 
recruits with felonies on their records. In 2005, the number grew to 
571. And in 2006, the number grew to 901. The 901 figure is a 59-
percent increase over the 2005 number, and a 150-percent increase over 
the 2004 figure. So I believe the spirit of the law that allows these 
waivers is being violated. Nobody thought that it would reach these 
proportions.
  Again, I think people deserve a second chance in this country if they 
have served their time and they are rehabilitated. That is why I have 
in this amendment a 5-year cooling off period so we know that they have 
been clean for 5 years of these types of crimes. But the Army should 
not drastically lower its standards because it cannot find enough 
recruits, and it should not seek out individuals who have had 
disturbing personal histories involving violence.

  I just read in the newspaper the other day that the military is going 
to these criminals if they are undergoing rehab. They go right there. 
Army recruiters actually attended a job fair for ex-convicts in Houston 
in August of 2006. Many experts believe this is leading to a spike in 
gang activity in the military. Listen to this FBI report: ``Gang 
related activity in the U.S. military is increasing.'' This is a direct 
quote. ``Members of nearly every major street gang have been identified 
on both domestic and international military installations.'' According 
to this report, these members can ``disrupt good order and discipline'' 
while in the military.
  Here is the alarming part, and this is the FBI--the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation--speaking, not Senator Barbara Boxer or any other 
Senator. Upon discharge, ``they may employ their military training 
against law enforcement officials and rival gang members and such 
military training could ultimately result in a more organized, 
sophisticated and deadly gang as well as an increase in deadly assaults 
on law enforcement officials.'' The FBI is saying that an abuse of 
these waivers is leading to a more dangerous America, more dangerous 
for law enforcement--more gangs.
  This is not what our country needs. It is not what our wonderful 
brave men and women in uniform need right now. They have enough 
problems to deal with in Iraq. They are in the middle of a civil war. 
This President has no plan to get them out. While the military says 
there is no military solution, this President is doing nothing about a 
long-term solution. We find our young men and women in harm's way in 
the middle of a civil war in a mission that has changed about five or 
six times, and now they have to worry that they are serving next to 
someone who has been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly 
weapon, arson, terrorist threatening, or sexual misconduct--imagine, 
with all they have to worry about.

[[Page S12409]]

  I am going to share with my colleagues a chart that I do not believe 
has ever been made public before. This is the list of all the different 
felony waivers that have been granted--adult, juvenile, and the total. 
Look at this list of waivers that has been granted. I am going to go 
through, for my colleagues and for the American people to see, what 
crimes have been committed by recruits.
  I mentioned the top two and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, 
then arson, attempt to commit a felony, breaking and entering, burglary 
with burglary tools, a bad check worth less than $500, embezzlement, 
forgery, hate crime, larceny, narcotics, negligent vehicular homicide, 
riot, robbery, sexual misconduct, stolen property knowingly received, 
terrorist threatening, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, criminal 
libel, illegal or fraudulent use of a credit card--$500 or more--
perjury or subornation of perjury, car theft, mail--abstracting, 
destroying--indecent acts with a minor, manslaughter, kidnaping or 
abducting a child. Kidnaping or abducting a child? We took in three 
recruits.
  What I have attempted to do is pick out the ones I believe would be 
an open-and-shut case here of where we would not want someone recruited 
into the military who has been convicted of these particular crimes: 
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arson, hate crime, sexual 
misconduct, or terrorist threatening. There were 13 of those.
  I want to protect our men and women in uniform. I have deep respect 
for them. In my State, we have lost more than any other State--23 
percent those killed in Iraq have been from or based in my State. I 
want the men and women from my State and every other State to feel 
comfortable that their buddies will truly be their buddies and that 
they share the same values of right and wrong. I want to keep it that 
way.
  Larry Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald 
Reagan, said, ``The more of those people you take the more problems you 
are going to have and the less effective they are going to be.'' This 
is Larry Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under 
President Reagan: ``The more of those people you take the more problems 
you are going to have.''
  GEN Barry McCaffrey, who commanded U.S. forces during the gulf war, 
said, ``By and large these are flawed recruits. Those getting waivers 
won't be sergeants.'' General McCaffrey pointed to the lessons of 
postwar Vietnam. ``It took us a decade to take a fractured Army and 
turn it around. We don't have 3 years this time.'' That is Barry 
McCaffrey.
  Retired LTG William Odom, who was the Army's chief intelligence 
officer from 1981 to 1985, has called the increase in waivers 
``disturbing.'' The Army's chief of intelligence for 4 years called the 
increase in waivers ``disturbing.''
  The last thing our servicemembers need to worry about is whether 
there are violent felons in their ranks. It sets back the quality of 
our forces. It can severely set back our mission.
  I would like to share one particular story about lowering standards. 
I think we are all very familiar with the story of PVT Steven Green. As 
you will remember, Private Green is the soldier charged with the deaths 
of an Iraqi family of four. According to the reports, Private Green 
went to the home of an Iraqi family with three other soldiers. He ended 
up raping the 14-year-old daughter before killing her and setting her 
body on fire. He is also alleged to have killed the other family 
members. This turned into an international news story that once again 
brought negative attention to our country, infuriating Iraqis and 
making the lives of our troops that much more difficult.
  Private Green was admitted to the Army after being given a waiver. In 
the case of Private Green, it was a waiver for a misdemeanor offense, 
and I am not even stopping that with my amendment. I am not even 
stopping that with my amendment. I am going to the most egregious 
crimes. That story illustrates the potential consequences of going down 
a path where standards are dramatically lowered.

  Let me spell out specifically how my amendment addresses the issue. 
The amendment simply says the military cannot offer a waiver for 
enlistment to the Armed Forces to individuals convicted of these 
felonies: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arson, hate crime, 
sexual misconduct, or terrorist threatening. They cannot get a waiver 
if they have committed any of these and they were convicted of it in 
the last 5 years.
  If someone stands up and says: Give people a second chance, then they 
have not read my amendment because we are giving people a second 
chance. We are saying: If you are clean for 5 years, OK. And we are not 
even touching all these other waivers--unauthorized use of a motor 
vehicle, car theft, even indecent acts with a minor. I will tell you, 
if I had my way, I would put that one on--and kidnaping--but I just 
picked five.
  So we provide for a cooling-off period, and we believe that cooling-
off period--5 years clean--will give the military some information that 
people are, in fact, on the straight and narrow path.
  Unfortunately, we do not see the global challenges we face going 
away. We need our men and women in uniform not only to be soldiers but 
to be ambassadors to the world. They are the best we have. This 
amendment helps to ensure we have the right men and women to do that 
job. I hope we will get support for this amendment. I say to my 
colleagues who vote against this amendment, the only message you are 
sending to the people who are serving honorably is: You know what, we 
are so desperate, we are willing to put you at risk.
  Again, I ask a rhetorical question: How would you feel if your son or 
daughter or grandson or granddaughter wound up in an awful situation 
with someone who had committed and was convicted of aggravated assault 
with a deadly weapon?
  There is one more thing I would like to do before I yield the floor, 
and that is to describe these felonies, how they are defined.
  Arson, generally, is the malicious burning of another's dwelling. It 
can be intentional or a fire set with reckless disregard of obvious 
risks, in some States. Seven waivers were granted for arson.
  Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is the intentional creation 
of reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm by use a deadly weapon. An 
example would be pointing a gun at someone, pointing a knife, swinging 
a baseball bat, threatening violence or harm with a weapon in a manner 
to create a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm--40 waivers for 
that.
  Terrorist threatening: intentionally making false statements 
regarding a weapon of mass destruction such as placement on a 
government or school property--essentially placing a fake WMD on 
government property without permission; threatening to cause death or 
serious injury for the purpose of terrorizing others, their property, 
school, or teachers; a false statement that could cause dangerous 
evacuation from buildings or airports. It could be bomb threats, 
threats of poison-laced letters, or threats of mass shootings at 
school. Waivers granted there.
  Hate crimes. Most of the States penalize crimes of violence or 
intimidation based on race, color, religion, national origin, and when 
we are looking at our military we are looking at the face of diversity, 
and someone who has been convicted of a hate crime within the last 5 
years--I think they need to think about what this country stands for 
and how it is based on equality for all before they are taken into the 
military.
  Sexual misconduct. Rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, sodomy of a 
minor--those are nonwaiver, but the category that is waiverable is 
solicitation of sex, indecent exposure, illegal possession of 
pornography.
  So these are crimes which I think simply are too much to ask our men 
and women in uniform to deal with in new recruits.
  I would point out something else. Because the Army has been so 
desperate to get new recruits, they are paying tens of thousands of 
dollars, and now we have a situation where these convicted felons are 
getting this money, to boot. It may not be that many people--maybe we 
are talking about 100. Overall, it has been 90+. We are making a point 
here that our men and women in uniform deserve better protection than 
this. We fight so hard, and we must fight to get them the bulletproof 
vests, to get them the up-armored HMMWVs

[[Page S12410]]

to protect them from IEDs, from all the horrors they face. Yet we allow 
into the military--indeed, we pay bonuses to get into the military--
people who have been convicted of very serious crimes. It is not fair, 
it is not right, it is not just, and I hope there will be strong 
support for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second. There are no 
Republicans on the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. We will ask for that later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I find it, firstly, very difficult to 
speak in opposition to this amendment. But I do so after consulting 
with the senior members, the chairman and the vice chairman, of the 
Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator 
from Arizona.
  I have been assured that after due consideration and investigation, 
they have been convinced that the process of waivers does work. In 
fact, the investigation has suggested that those who have served after 
receiving such waivers have done much better in serving our Nation than 
those who came without any crime.
  We should keep in mind that when we speak of certain crimes, there is 
no standard rule throughout the United States. In different States, 
certain activities are considered criminal, in other States it is not 
even mentioned.
  I was an assistant prosecutor a long time ago. I find that in certain 
States certain activities are considered conservatively and other areas 
very liberally. For example, in recent days, we have been hearing much 
about the demonstration in Louisiana on the Jenna 6. Would that be a 
crime in other States? In other communities? I do not think we have the 
answer because we know that, depending on jurisdictions, certain 
activities may be criminal and in others of no concern.
  Whatever it is, on behalf of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I 
am calling on the leadership of the Armed Services Committee to conduct 
a thorough further investigation on this matter. If it does work, and 
if it is necessary to provide waivers to get certain skills into our 
military, then we should be told why.
  But as of this moment, I cannot ignore the advice that I have 
received from my colleagues who are leaders of the authorizing 
committee. So, accordingly, at the appropriate time, I will make a 
motion to table this amendment.
  Before I do, if I may be very personal about this, I have been a 
victim of hate and hate crimes, so I do know something about hate 
crimes. If you can imagine my returning from World War II in my full 
regalia, uniform with four rows of ribbons, with a hook in my right 
hand, and going to a barber shop, and they looked at me and said: Are 
you a Jap?
  When I told them, no, I am an American: But your parents, are they 
Japs?
  And I have to say: Yes, they are Japanese.
  Well, we do not cut Jap hair.
  Well, in some jurisdictions, that was appropriate and proper. Today 
we do have jurisdictions where we do have segregation, maybe not 
legally but understandably we do.
  So as I have indicated, at the appropriate time, I will make a motion 
to table the Boxer amendment. It is not a happy deed. But I believe at 
this moment, under the circumstances, I am compelled to do so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I note the Senator is waiting to be 
heard. I will be brief, but I do want to respond.
  I so appreciate the fact that Senator Inouye spoke to our colleagues 
on the Armed Services Committee. But I do think we need to use our own 
brains and our own common sense. I do think when I look in the eyes of 
parents who are sending their kids into the military, they need to 
know, they need to know that in addition to the dangers of this war, in 
addition to the danger of being thrust into the middle of a civil war, 
they should not have to deal with the danger of a convicted felon who 
has used a gun and put that gun against somebody's head within the past 
5 years.
  We all know that the committees are very close to the military. I 
understand that. But is not there a time for us to stand up and show a 
little spunk and spine here and state the obvious, that although we all 
support waivers, because there are certain cases where a waiver may 
make sense, there is such a thing as an abuse of a waiver. If you look 
at the numbers and see we are up to almost 1,000 of these waivers, 
things are getting out of control.
  Now, I know that both the Armed Services Committee, the authorizers 
and the Appropriations Committee, which are very powerful committees, 
do not like this amendment. They want me to go away. They have offered 
now twice, the authorizing and appropriations: Will you not take a 
study and go away?
  Yes, I want to have a study. But, no, I do not think we should walk 
away from this. This is a commonsense amendment. This takes five of the 
whole list of crimes--and I will repeat what they are: arson, 
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, sexual crimes, hate crimes, 
and making a terrorist threat.
  I think for this year, do not pay bonuses to these people who have 
been convicted of these crimes for the last 5 years and do not take 
them into the military. That would send a signal to the military that 
they need to do their own study. It is stunning to me that we would 
have to have a study about this--the DoD does not even want to study 
this thing. They just want to meet the recruitment goal.
  We all want them to meet their recruitment goals, but if it means 
putting someone, a dangerous criminal, next to one of my men and women 
in uniform, no thank you. It is tough enough to survive Iraq. We have 
worked with veterans on this amendment so we have gotten it to the 
point where, yes, we give people a chance to turn over a new leaf.
  I am disappointed that Senators Inouye and Stevens do not support 
this amendment, but I am not surprised. I am going to keep talking 
about this issue because this status quo is not good for our troops.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
underlying appropriations bill. First, let me thank the chairman and 
the ranking member of the subcommittee. I think the work they have done 
on this bill is very important.
  I wish to talk especially about the issue of the bomber fleet in this 
country: B-2s, B-1s, B-52s. I do that for a very specific reason.
  Right now a lot of our soldiers are in the field, in harm's way. They 
strap on body armor in the morning, get shot at that day. We are at 
war. All of us want to make certain our soldiers who have answered the 
call have everything they need to do what they need to do.
  I do think, however, there are times in the Pentagon when a 
substantial amount of money is spent, far more than is necessary, and 
there is some waste. I wish to describe one of the things I find 
interesting and also somewhat troubling.
  Our bomber force is a part of the force that gives us air 
superiority. When you provide air superiority and have control of the 
air it has a tremendous impact on our ability to fight a war. We have 
seen some recent examples about what impact that has.
  Part of that force is made up of B-52 bombers. They were produced 
decades ago. They are kind of the ``gray beards'' of the bomber fleet. 
They are essentially bomb trucks that will haul

[[Page S12411]]

weapons to various parts of the world. The newest ones were built in 
the 1960s. But, of course, most of the plane has been rehabilitated and 
changed, the electronics and so on.
  Former Air Force Chief of Staff GEN John Jumper said the B-52 and 
other aircraft will have greater access to targets in the future 
because of the F-22. With its stealth and supercruise characteristics, 
the F-22 will be able to precede other aircraft into combat zones to 
clear out any threats.
  So we have been told we should fund the F-22. I have supported that. 
The F-22 is an unbelievably effective next-generation fighter. We are 
told we should support that because the F-22 goes in and essentially 
clears out the airspace; knocks out the radar and knocks out all things 
that could be a threat to our bombers and other aircraft, at which 
point the airspace is owned and you can bring in a bomb truck, for 
example.
  Well, here are the costs of flying our bombers. The cost is: $78,000 
an hour to fly a B-2, $48,000 an hour to fly a B-1, and $34,000 an hour 
to fly a B-52.
  We are told the B-52 will be usable for another 30 years. Yet we are 
told by the Air Force planners that what they would like to do is 
retire the least costly bomb truck. That way, after we have cleared the 
air threat and have air superiority, they want to fly the most 
expensive bomb trucks in and have the least costly bomb truck retired. 
It makes little sense to me, from a taxpayer standpoint, but that is 
what we would try to do.
  It also doesn't make sense when we look at the new bomber the Air 
Force is planning on. The earliest date it might be available is the 
year 2018. Of course, that will slip. They all slip.
  The new bomber, we are told, that when completed, would have an 
unrefueled range of 2,000 miles. The B-52 has double that and more. The 
new bomber will have a weapons payload of 14,000 to 28,000 pounds; the 
B-52, 70,000 pounds.
  Not only does the B-52 have more endurance and more payload than the 
new bomber. The B-52 is also fully paid for. It is usable for three 
more decades, and it flies at much less cost than the other two bombers 
we now have. But the Air Force wants to take a good number of B-52s and 
retire them at Davis-Monthan.
  I make the point that the authorizing committee has indicated the Air 
Force should keep 76 of the B-52s. As we work through this and look at 
what our bomber fleet should look like, I think it will become clear 
that keeping the B-52s makes sense both for our defense capabilities 
and for the effect on the American taxpayer.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.


                    Amendment No. 3126, As Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have sent a modification of my 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  No amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to provide a waiver for 
     enlistment in the Armed Forces of an individual convicted 
     under Federal or State law of any felony offense, during the 
     five-year period ending on the date of the proposed 
     enlistment of such individual in the Armed Forces, as 
     follows:
       (1) Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
       (2) Arson.
       (3) Hate Crime.
       (4) Sexual misconduct.
       (5) Terrorist threatening.
       (6) Kidnapping or abducting a child.
       (7) Indecent acts with a minor.

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time have I consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 7 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I want to make a couple other points that are not related 
to this specific bill but to the emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill for the continuing Iraq War and fight against global terrorism. We 
have a $152 billion request in front of us with another $45 billion 
expected on top of that. All of this is emergency spending and none of 
will be paid for. This will take us to the neighborhood of three 
quarters of a trillion dollars or more, when spent, with respect to the 
war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other related matters. All of these 
costs will be added directly to the federal debt.
  During wartime, in most cases, this country has decided it should pay 
for things that we consume and pay for the cost of wars. We did it in 
the Civil War. We did it in the Spanish-American War. We did it in 
World War I and World War II and other wars. We began a process by 
which we tried to pay for some of that which the war was costing.
  The question about whether we should commit ourselves as a country to 
pay for war is an interesting question. In the Iraq war, our soldiers 
were sent to fight, and President Bush indicated we could best serve 
our country by going shopping. We should go to the mall to keep our 
economy moving.
  We could also best serve our country, in my judgment, by deciding not 
to send our soldiers to fight and then come back later and pay the bill 
because we decided to charge all of it--every penny of it borrowed.
  Let me read something Franklin Roosevelt said during one of his 
fireside chats:

       Not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our 
     enemies in distant parts of the world. Not all of us can have 
     the privilege of working in a munitions factory or a ship 
     yard, or on the farms or in the fields or mines, producing 
     the weapons or raw materials that are needed by our armed 
     forces. But there is one front and one battle where everyone 
     in the United States--every man, woman, and child--is in 
     action. . . .That front is right here at home, in our daily 
     lives, and in our daily tasks. Here at home everyone will 
     have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is 
     necessary, not only to supply our fighting men [and women], 
     but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified 
     and secure . . .

  President Johnson said:

       The test before us as a people is not whether our 
     commitments match our will and courage; but whether we have 
     will and courage to match our commitments.

  When the emergency supplemental bill comes to the floor of the Senate 
this time, I am going to ask if we should begin to pay for some of this 
and to begin to ask for some sacrifice. At least in the easiest of 
areas for all of us to make a decision, let me show you $23 billion of 
revenue right now that we might use to offset some of that which 
otherwise will be described as emergency. I have a piece of legislation 
that will shut down offshore tax haven abuses. This is one I described 
2 years ago on the floor of the Senate. It is the Ugland House, a five-
story white house in the Cayman Islands, that is home to 12,748 
corporations. They are not there. That is a legal fiction created by 
lawyers to allow those companies to avoid paying the taxes they owe in 
the United States. I have a piece of legislation, S. 396, that says if 
U.S. corporations are going to set up a paper company in an offshore 
tax haven simply to avoid paying taxes, it is not going to work. We 
close that loophole. Here is an obvious one we could change 
immediately: end abusive foreign sale and lease transactions. We can 
use some of these to pay for some of that which we are spending on the 
war. This is a case of the lease of 65 streetcars in Germany by a 
United States corporation, First Union Bank. Here is one in which 
Wachovia Bank bought a sewage system in a German city. Do they want to 
own a German sewer system? No, they want to save $175 billion in taxes 
through a tax loophole. We could close this right now.
  I am going to suggest, when we bring another emergency bill to the 
floor--in this case nearly $200 billion--that maybe it is long past 
time for us to meet the obligation we have; that is, to ask all of us 
to sacrifice a bit. In this case, ask those who have exercised huge 
loopholes to avoid paying taxes in the United States. This is a picture 
relating to another bill I have. This is called the Radio Flyer. I 
expect every Member of the Senate when they were little toddlers rode 
in a little red wagon called a Radio Flyer. This was made in Illinois. 
It was made by an immigrant who over a century ago built the company 
that created the Radio Flyer. The reason he named it Radio Flyer is, he 
liked Marconi. He enjoyed airplanes so he decided to call his little 
red wagon the Radio Flyer. Guess what. After a century this is gone. 
There are no more red Radio Flyer wagons built in America. They have 
all gone to China. And by the way, the company that shut down the plant 
in the United States and moved the red

[[Page S12412]]

wagons to China in search of cheap labor got a tax incentive from this 
Congress to do it. We can shut that down immediately.
  So these three ideas and a temporary 1 percent emergency tariff on 
imported foreign goods would raise some $23 billion in the first year 
alone. Do we need to wait? Do we need a month, a year, 10 years? I 
don't think so. All we need is the will and the commitment to do what 
is right. With respect to these issues, I believe we could do plenty of 
things that would begin to reduce the cost that will inure to our 
soldiers, who valiantly fight when asked to, when they come back and 
discover we have spent a lot of money but we charged it all. So they 
get to fight today and pay the bill tomorrow. I think we can and should 
do much better than that.
  I have described in shorthand four proposals that I hope we will 
consider when we do the second piece of this issue of Defense 
appropriations.
  Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens worked very hard on this 
legislation. This is one of the largest bills we consider in the 
Senate. There are a lot of issues, some very controversial. I 
appreciate the work they and their staff have done to put this 
together. It is not an easy appropriations bill to do. My hope is that 
as we work through this in the next day or so, we will be able to have 
final passage in a couple of days and get this into conference so we 
can resolve all of these issues.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I want to start where the Senator from 
North Dakota concluded his remarks, to express the gratitude of 
Delaware for the fine work the appropriations subcommittee has done, 
the leadership of Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, their staffs, the 
other members of the committee. One of the letters I sent to Senator 
Inouye and Senator Stevens several weeks ago was a letter calling on 
them to not rescind, through legislative language in the appropriations 
bill, the 2004 Defense authorization language which said we were not 
going to allow the Air Force to retire any additional C-5 aircraft 
until the first three had been fully modernized, flight tested, and 
then evaluated. A number of us signed that letter and a number of us in 
the same letter also called for the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense to endorse the President's budget proposal for fiscal 2008 with 
respect to C-5 modernization. The subcommittee has done that. I thank 
them in a very public way for their attention to our request.
  Today we are considering an important bill, one that provides funding 
for our troops, many in harm's way around the world, others in 
different phases of training or in some cases retraining or rest after 
they have been deployed abroad. As we vote to appropriate these funds 
for our Nation's defense, we are reminded of one of the fundamental 
duties of our military. Our Armed Forces are charged with providing our 
Commander in Chief and military leaders with flexible options for 
responding to a wide variety of threats. In Iraq, our Armed Forces are 
keeping the lid on civil war and protecting civilians from terrorists 
and literally from one another. In Korea, our Armed Forces are charged 
with guarding the ally's border and deterring aggression on the part of 
a large conventional military on the other side of the South Korean 
border. In the Pacific and the Persian Gulf, they protect America's 
interests through the projection of naval power and carrier-based air 
power.
  At home our National Guard provides the Nation's Governors with 
critical response capability to cope with natural disasters such as 
Katrina. At times it can seem as though the demands on our military are 
almost limitless. Unfortunately, the resources available for equipping 
our military to meet these demands are not limitless. At a time when 
our Federal budget remains mired in red ink, we need to be looking for 
ways to effectively meet our military requirements but to do so in a 
fiscally responsible manner.
  Last Thursday in the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, we spent 3 hours 
doing just that. In this hearing, which I chaired along with Senator 
Coburn of Oklahoma, we explored how we can best meet our Nation's 
strategic airlift needs and how we can do this in a way that is 
fiscally responsible. What I wish to do is take a few minutes this 
afternoon to remind us why airlift is important and to offer a little 
history of how we got into the position we are in today. Then I wish to 
share with my colleagues some of what we learned at our hearing last 
week.
  The bottom line is that regardless of whether strategic airlift is 
performed by C-5s, by C-17s, or by some other capability, airlift is 
essential to our Nation's ability to project power and meet threats 
abroad. I would remind us that roughly 90 percent of the materiel we 
move around the world goes by sea. Maybe 10 percent goes by air. When 
it comes to moving military personnel, almost all of them are moved 
around the world by airlift. When you think of the 10 percent or so of 
cargo that is moved by aircraft, roughly half of that is moved by C-5s, 
C-17s, and by C-130s. The other half is moved by commercial aircraft 
the Air Force leases from time to time.
  The bottom line is that regardless of whether we are moving goods or 
personnel by C-5, C-17, or some other capability, we have to have that 
capability when we need it and it has to be reliable.
  Though the men and women of our strategic airlift fleet rarely get 
the attention they deserve, the reality is our military could not 
perform its missions if it were not for the hard work and dedication of 
the airlift. Strategic airlift involves the use of cargo aircraft to 
move personnel, weaponry, materiel over long distance, often to combat 
theaters on the other side of the globe. During the current war in 
Iraq, airlift sorties have made up the majority of the nearly 35,000 
total sorties flown by U.S. aircraft. Strategic airlift enables our 
military to respond to threats wherever they occur in the world real 
time. Not only must our fighting men and women be transported to the 
fight, they must be continually supplied. Airlift helps to make that 
happen. Both the C-17 and the C-5 have fulfilled their lift duties 
admirably, and the United States owes much of its rapid deployment 
capability to these fine machines.
  We are blessed in Delaware at the Dover Air Force Base to have both 
C-5Bs and a new squadron of C-17s. However, the problem is that over 
the past 10 years, the United States has reduced its Cold War 
infrastructure and closed two-thirds of our forward bases. I remember 
many of the bases my squad and I used to fly out of in Vietnam. A lot 
of the bases in Thailand from which we flew missions in Southeast Asia, 
Okinawa, and the Philippines have now been closed. We no longer fly 
from those particular places. As a result, our ability to project our 
troops by air power as well as by sea power is more important than 
ever.

  One of the ways we have sought to keep the strategic airlift fleet 
healthy and ready to meet this challenge is by modernizing the C-5 
through two unique programs. One is called the Avionics Modernization 
Program, where we take a 1960s, 1970s cockpit and turn it into a 
cockpit for the 21st century. The second is a program called the 
Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program, where we literally 
take old C-5 engines, take them out--they break down about every 5,000 
flight hours anyway--and replace them with an engine that will give us 
10,000 hours between engine changes; change out the hydraulic system, 
overhaul the landing gear system, fix some 70 systems in all, and, 
again, replace the cockpit.
  Those are the kinds of things that are done with the modernization 
process that is underway. So far, three aircraft have been fully 
modernized; three C-5s have been fully modernized and are being flight 
tested as we speak here today. In fact, collectively they have been 
flown over 500 hours, and the full evaluation is to be completed--I 
think the flight evaluation will be done for the most part within the 
next 12 months, and some flight evaluations will be completed by June 
of 2010.
  Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor in the program. They are 
obligated to produce C-5Ms with a mission-capable rate that meets or 
exceeds 75 percent. That is well above where the C-5 is today. It is, 
frankly, slightly below where the C-17 is today.

[[Page S12413]]

  Lockheed reports that nothing in the flight data to date, after over 
500 hours of flight testing, suggests the 75 percent mission-capable 
rate cannot be met or exceeded. The Assistant Secretary for Acquisition 
of the U.S. Air Force last week in our hearing concurred in that 
opinion. Consequently, I was compelled, along with Senator Coburn, to 
hold a hearing to find out an answer to a very contentious question, 
and here is the question: At what price per aircraft could Lockheed or 
would Lockheed modernize all or part of the remaining C-5 fleet of 108 
aircraft?
  This past summer, Lockheed offered to modernize the C-5 fleet at what 
they call a flyaway cost of--a little less than $90 million per 
aircraft, whether the Congress and the administration decide to 
modernize half of the C-5 fleet, two-thirds of the C-5 fleet or all 108 
C-5s. If Lockheed can deliver C-5s at a mission-capable rate of 75 
percent or higher, at a flyaway cost of $85 million, $95 million or 
even $105 million, aircraft capable of flying another quarter of a 
century or more, we would be foolish not to modernize the remaining 108 
C-5s. If Lockheed cannot deliver--cannot deliver aircraft that are 75 
percent mission-capable rate or higher--if they can't deliver them at a 
cost we are willing to pay--then we need to find another alternative.
  Now, the Air Force has questioned whether Lockheed will actually be 
able to deliver what the company has promised. The Air Force has 
suggested the cost of fully modernizing the C-5s may significantly 
exceed original expectations. This has led the Air Force to conclude 
that C-5 modernization may not be as cost effective as we all had 
originally thought and hoped.
  I wish to take a moment and share with my colleagues three areas in 
which the Air Force and Lockheed appear to be in disagreement. As you 
can see from the chart beside me, the Air Force and Lockheed disagree 
on the modernizing of C-5s in three areas. No. 1, propulsion system, 
that is aircraft engine; No. 2, installation costs and what they call 
touch labor costs, or the amount of man-hours to be invested in these 
changes; and finally, overhead costs which include, among other things, 
the kinds of problems that might be uncovered as Lockheed goes through 
and conducts the modernization of the C-5s--problems that aren't even 
related to the modernization changes that are being installed.
  Now, this disagreement yields a C-5 modernization cost discrepancy of 
over $4 billion--not a small amount of money. With this fundamental 
cost disagreement coming to light, our hearing tried to get into the 
true cost of C-5 modernization. What we found was a temporary 
stalemate. We also found what appears to be a way forward. In their 
cost calculations of the C-5 modernization, the Air Force determined 
the cost of the C-5 modernization has grown over its baseline, causing 
the view of at least some in the Air Force to trigger what we call a 
Nunn-McCurdy breach. The Nunn-McCurdy breach, as some will recall, is 
part of a law passed in 1983 that allows Congress to track the rising 
costs of Defense programs. A breach of Nunn-McCurdy occurs when a 
Defense program procurement cost goes beyond 50 percent of its 
baseline. When this happens, the Department of Defense has to notify 
the Congress and the program is more heavily scrutinized, in this case 
by the office of the Secretary of Defense. Interestingly enough, 
though, we found that part of the Air Force calculation includes costs 
of inflation due to the risks the Air Force may incur if Lockheed 
cannot meet its goals. Lockheed also stated they have a different 
calculation to show some growth but not enough to trigger a Nunn-
McCurdy breach.

  Lockheed's witness at our hearing last Thursday stated that the 
contractor--that is Lockheed--is ready to alleviate the Air Force's 
concerns and, therefore, to decrease the amount of cost growth that the 
C-5 modernization would realize by providing the Air Force with a firm, 
fixed price contract to modernize all 108 aircraft at a set cost. If 
Lockheed exceeds this price, then the cost is on them--on Lockheed. The 
only obstacle--major obstacle at least--that stands in Lockheed's way 
is the Air Force's decision on how fast they want to fully modernize 
the C-5s. The President's budget for 2008 calls for modernizing C-5s, 
one starting in fiscal 2008, ramping up from 1 to as many as 12 several 
years down the line. But the contractors need to know how many aircraft 
are going to be modernized, and in order for them to be able to be held 
or bound to a fixed cost, they have to have some reasonable assurance 
that what is being projected will actually be followed, in this case by 
the Air Force and by us in the Congress.
  Let me mention a couple of things in closing. One, it says propulsion 
system. This is one of the three areas of disagreement between Lockheed 
and the Air Force. This involves engines--actually the same engine that 
goes on Air Force One and a whole lot of other aircraft around the 
world. The engine, made by General Electric, provides generally between 
engine changes about 10,000 flight hours. It would replace an engine 
that gets about 1,000 hours between engine changes. That is a 
miserable-performing engine that is on the C-5, and it has led to all 
kinds of problems. There is a question about what is GE going to charge 
Lockheed to sell them four new engines for 108 planes, plus 25 spares. 
I think that ends up being about 457 engines.
  In our conversation offline with GE, they gave us a price well below 
what the Air Force is expecting or is calculating. If GE is good to 
their word and Lockheed is good to its word, then this $1.2 billion 
deficit--or in the case of the Air Force, ostensibly an overrun--that 
shouldn't be there. That shouldn't be there. The question is, Can GE 
and Lockheed be compelled--contractually bound--to provide these 
engines at the lower cost that was quoted to us by GE.
  The second piece deals with labor, touch labor costs, the amount of 
man-hours that will be used to build these or rebuild these aircraft. 
The first of the C-5s that were modernized took 143,000 man-hours, the 
second took 125,000, the third took about 110,000 man-hours. Lockheed 
says they think they can bring it in at about 100,000 man-hours. The 
Air Force says, no, 116,000 man-hours. Lockheed has a learning curve in 
terms of better, faster work on the modernization that they believe 
they can adhere to. The Air Force says, no, that is too optimistic.
  Interestingly enough, though, Lockheed has said to the Air Force and 
to us at our hearing, if we are wrong on the number of man-hours that 
we say it is going to take to modernize the fourth, fifth or sixth 
aircraft, if we are wrong on the learning curve and not as successful 
as we think we are going to be, we will eat the cost. They say they 
will eat the cost. That is great that they offer that, but what we need 
is a contract that can bind them to eat the cost if there is a failure 
to perform as otherwise would be suggested.
  Those are the kinds of things that are in dispute. Ultimately, I 
would hope--and I can't speak for Senator Coburn, but I believe I would 
share his view that we need large cargo aircraft. We have C-5s. They 
can carry more than most cargo aircraft. Right now, we are using 
Russian aircraft, Russian-made aircraft, a big aircraft called the AN-
124, to supplement the work that the C-5 can do. We spend today almost 
$200 million leasing Soviet aircraft or Russian aircraft to do the work 
for us of the strategic airlift. Nothing against the Russians, God 
bless them, but I don't know how comfortable you feel--I don't feel all 
that comfortable--relying on Russian cargo aircraft to supplement our 
needs around the world.
  My hope is that what we will do is have our friends from Lockheed and 
our friends from the Air Force step back, for a moment, and then 
reengage in a way that seeks to narrow this, what you call a $4 billion 
delta or difference, in the assumption of costs for completing this 
project.
  If Lockheed can produce fully modernized C-5Ms that will perform at a 
75-percent mission-capable rate or more and do that at a cost of $85 
million, $95 million or even $105 million on a flyaway basis, we would 
be foolish to turn down that deal. If they can't do it, if they can't 
deliver aircraft at that kind of mission-capable rate, if they can't do 
it along the line that I quoted as a price that we can be assured of, 
then we need to look for another alternative.
  My hope, coming out of our hearing last week, is that there is a way 
forward, and we need the best efforts of

[[Page S12414]]

the Air Force and the best efforts of Lockheed to find it. If we get 
those best efforts, we may end up with what in the end will not be just 
a good deal for our country and for our taxpayers at a time when we are 
running huge budget deficits but a good deal for the men and women of 
the Armed Forces who are depending on strategic airlift every day of 
their lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3130

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment and to call up the Sanders amendment, which has 
been filed at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3130.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase, with an offset, the amount appropriated for 
    Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, by $10,000,000)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107. (a) Additional Amount for Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army National Guard.--The amount appropriated by 
     title II under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army 
     National Guard'' is hereby increased by $10,000,000.
       (b) Offset.--The aggregate amount appropriated by title II, 
     other than under the headings ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'' and ``Operation and Maintenance, Air 
     National Guard'', is hereby reduced by $10,000,000.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, yesterday, as part of the managers' 
package, the Senate approved an amendment that I offered to the Defense 
authorization bill. That amendment would establish a pilot program at 
the Department of Defense to deal with a very important problem. That 
problem is that all across our country, men and women are returning 
home from the war in Iraq, from the war in Afghanistan, they are coming 
home to big cities, small towns, and rural communities, and they and 
their families, in many cases, are hurting. These are soldiers and 
military family members who are suffering from post-traumatic stress 
disorder, who are suffering from traumatic brain injury, who are 
suffering from depression, and who are watching their marriages and 
their families coming apart. They are suffering nightmares, they are 
suffering panic attacks and sometimes uncontrollable anger and various 
physical symptoms. Because of the stigma, many of these brave soldiers 
do not come forward for help, and others, where the military 
infrastructure is not strong, simply don't know where to turn. They are 
hurting, but they don't know how to get help. In my view, we have a 
moral responsibility to reach out to these soldiers and their families 
and to help them.
  The program, approved by unanimous consent yesterday, would create a 
pilot program at the Department of Defense. Under this pilot, funds 
would be provided to adjutant generals to conduct person-to-person 
outreach to soldiers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. In 
other words, the heart of this program is outreach quality. We can't be 
successful in dealing with PTSD if soldiers do not get involved in the 
program, if they are not involved in counseling. I fear very much that 
unless we are aggressive in our outreach efforts, especially in rural 
areas, especially with the National Guard's people, we are going to see 
folks who don't know where to turn.
  These trained outreach personnel will be meeting with the soldiers 
and their families. They will be able to make sure the soldiers and 
their families know about the help that is available to them. In other 
words, it doesn't matter how much help we have if our soldiers don't 
know where to turn and what is available. These outreach workers would 
make sure that America's heroes and our military families don't fall 
through the cracks.
  As I mentioned, this body unanimously approved this new pilot as part 
of yesterday's Defense authorization bill. I thank the Members for 
their support. That pilot program amendment was cosponsored by Senators 
Sununu, Kerry, Harkin, and Brown. I also point out that this amendment 
is supported by the National Guard Association of the United States.
  My amendment today, cosponsored by Senator Leahy, is to make sure the 
commitment we made yesterday to returning servicemembers and their 
families is a real commitment backed by the necessary resources. This 
amendment would provide $10 million to carry out the pilot program for 
State-based outreach programs to assist servicemembers and their 
families created by the Sanders-Sununu-Kerry-Harkin-Brown amendment No. 
2905 to the Defense authorization bill. This amendment is fully offset.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I look 
forward to working with them.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the present 
amendment be set aside to reconsider the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. 
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Boxer amendment, as 
modified; that the time from 3:55 until 4 p.m. be equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Boxer and Inouye or their designees; that 
no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that at 4 
p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that when 
the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 3222 on Wednesday, following 
morning business, there will be 30 minutes of debate prior to a vote in 
relation to the pending Graham amendment; that the second-degree 
amendment be withdrawn and no other amendment be in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote; that the time be equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Graham and Inouye or their designees; that 
upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote 
in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3126

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I understand I have 2\1/2\ minutes, 
followed by Senators Inouye and Stevens, and then there will be a 
motion to table my amendment. I hope to convince colleagues who may be 
listening to this debate to vote no on the motion to table.
  I think this amendment deserves to be heard. It doesn't deserve to be 
shut down. The amendment is my modified amendment, which I sent to the 
desk. It basically says there can be no more waivers granted for folks 
who want to join the military who have been convicted of aggravated 
assault with a deadly weapon, arson, a hate crime, sexual misconduct, 
threatening a terror attack, kidnapping or abducting a child, or 
indecent acts with a minor.
  If we can show you this chart, right now, it is against the military 
policy to allow any of the people into the military who have been 
convicted of a felony. But there is a waiver process. What has happened 
is--and we all agree that there are occasions when there ought to be a 
waiver now and then--we have seen an alarming increase in these waivers 
because the Army, in particular, is having a hard time meeting its 
recruitment goals. We see in 2004 that the Army granted 3 of the 60 
waivers to recruits who had felonies on their record. In 2005, they 
granted 571. In 2006, they granted 901 waivers. That is a 59-percent 
increase over the 2005 number. It is a 150-percent increase over the 
2004 figure.

[[Page S12415]]

  So what we have seen is an alarming increase in the number of 
waivers. What my amendment simply says is: Enough of this for seven 
felonies. Again, the seven felonies are aggravated assault with a 
deadly weapon, which is someone who has been convicted, perhaps, of 
putting a gun to someone's head and threatening them with bodily harm; 
arson, someone who obviously has started a fire and put other people's 
lives in danger; hate crimes, and we discussed that at length. As a 
matter of fact, we have a fine amendment that Senator Kennedy offered 
and that is now on the Defense authorization bill, which would say that 
people have a right to be free of hate crimes because of the fact that 
they may be different than the next person. Here you send people like 
this into the military, and this is one of the most diverse 
institutions we have.
  In conclusion, we are saying, please, don't table this amendment. The 
others are sexual misconduct, terrorist threatening, indecent acts with 
a minor, and kidnapping or indecent acts with a child. You don't want 
somebody like that next to your son or daughter who is serving 
honorably in the military.
  I hope you vote no on the motion to table. I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, as I indicated in the earlier debate, we 
have been assured by the chair of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. 
Levin, and the vice chair, Mr. McCain, that this waiver process is 
working and has worked.
  It is not an easy amendment to speak against, but I am reminded of 
something that happened during my days of youth. After World War II, 
there was a very distinguished German, who was a Nazi. He was the prime 
person who helped develop the rockets and bombs that devastated London, 
who was then in the process of developing an intercontinental ballistic 
missile to devastate the United States. But we provided him with a 
waiver. He came to the United States and worked to develop rockets for 
the United States. If it weren't for this scientist, there is grave 
doubt that we could have sent a man to the Moon at the time we did or 
whether we could have developed the ICBM that we have today. His name 
was Dr. Wernher von Braun.
  I am against those crimes that my colleague from California cited. 
They are objectionable, they are horrible, and as the father of a son, 
I can imagine what I would go through if my son had been a victim of 
one of these crimes. But this process does work, and I think at this 
moment to flat-out determine that this process cannot be used in 
certain crimes may be shortsighted.
  So on behalf of the ranking member of the committee and myself, I 
move to table the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I join in that motion.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb

                                NAYS--41

     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to announce that tomorrow 
morning, after morning hour, at approximately 10:45, we will consider 
and vote upon the Graham amendment.
  If there are no amendments after that, the committee is prepared to 
move to pass the bill on third reading, final passage. So those who 
have amendments, please come forward.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendments Nos. 3120; 3125; 3128; and 3124, As Modified, En Bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following managers' package, No. 1, be adopted: amendment No. 3120, for 
Senator Baucus and others, regarding the Army Smart Data Project; 
amendment No. 3125, for Senator Roberts, regarding Air Force materials 
research; amendment No. 3128, for Senator Kohl, regarding the Navy's 
permanent magnet motor; amendment No. 3124, as modified, for Senator 
Lott, regarding Air Force pallet systems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. We support these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3120

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
  Evaluation, Army, $1,000,000 for the Smart Data Project: Real Time 
             Geospatial Video Sensor Intelligence program)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', up to $1,000,000 
     may be available for the Smart Data Project: Real Time 
     Geospatial Video Sensor Intelligence program.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3125

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
 Evaluation, Air Force, $1,000,000 for Materials Integrity Management 
                    Research for Air Force Systems)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force'' and available 
     for Program Element 0603112F, up to $1,000,000 may be 
     available for Materials Integrity Management Research for Air 
     Force Systems.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3128

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation, Navy, $2,000,000 for the DDG-51 Class Modernization-Hybrid 
               Propulsion Permanent Magnet Drive System)

       At end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'' and available for 
     the Permanent Magnet Motor, up to $2,000,000 may be used for 
     the DDG-51 Class

[[Page S12416]]

     Modernization-Hybrid Propulsion Permanent Magnet Drive 
     System.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3124, AS MODIFIED

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107. Availability of Funds.--Of the amount 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by title III under 
     the heading ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', up to 
     $4,000,000 may be available for purposes of accelerating the 
     deployment of the Associate Intermodal Platform pallet 
     system.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, as my colleagues are aware, current 
force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, ISR, capabilities 
are impeded by three specific technology issues: in-theater network 
interference, dissimilar IT infrastructure across forces and 
intelligence agencies, and slow storage and retrieval of mission 
critical intelligence.
  Once intelligence is gathered, whether by unmanned aerial vehicle, 
stationary sensors or mobile ground sensors, it is transmitted to ISR 
Command. The data is sent as two streams--content, which is the actual 
imagery, and context, which is comprised of metadata relating to 
location, date, time, target information, destination of message, 
sender information, and more. Currently, much of this context stream, 
whether location coordinates, date, and/or time information, is dropped 
or interrupted during transmission. These drops render as much as 30 
percent of all motion video and still-imagery intelligence unusable. 
Such data loss negatively affects current ISR operations and creates 
undesirable consequences in the field.
  In cooperation with Senators Tester, Kerry, Wyden, and Smith, I 
submitted an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2008. This amendment would provide funding for the 
Smart Data Project through companies in three states. The recipient of 
funding for this project would be Digimarc, Inc., of Oregon and 
Massachusetts. Additional research for the project will be conducted by 
GCS Research of Missoula, Montana, and S Technologies of Pablo, 
Montana. The purpose of this program is to address the existing 
capability gap within the military's intelligence gathering operations 
and to provide our military with real-time geospatial video sensor 
intelligence.
  The basis for the solution to address this capability gap is 
currently employed by all the major media networks, which use 
components of Smart Data technology to track usage of proprietary 
video. ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox embed unique data such as TV station 
identification, date, and time into the content. This unique embedded 
data is then used to generate reporting information about distribution 
and viewership.
  Adaptation of Smart Data technology for military applications 
involves the embedding of key contextual information such as location 
coordinates, date, time, and sender onto reconnaissance imagery. The 
embedding technology developed by the Smart Data team will eliminate 
data loss that has negative effects on Current Force ISR operations. 
Addressing this data loss will improve operative effectiveness and save 
lives in the field.


                           amendment no. 3125

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today in support of an amendment 
to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. This amendment is in the 
interest of Kansas and our national security. I request up to $1 
million be made available for Materials Integrity Management Research 
for Air Force Systems, MILTEC. This project aims to develop advanced 
wireless sensors to be optimally placed for aircraft structure health 
monitoring. The processed data will provide diagnostic and prognostic 
information that can be further used to assist in critical mission 
planning. MILTEC is currently operating through Wichita State 
University in Wichita, KS. I have no personal, familiar, or political 
connection to these projects.


                           Amendment No. 3128

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I submitted amendment No. 3128 along with 
Senator Kennedy to allow the Navy to provide up to $2 million to DRS in 
Milwaukee, WI, for DDG51 Class Modernization, Hybrid Propulsion 
Permanent Magnet Drive System. This would give the Navy the flexibility 
to develop a hybrid drive system to increase fuel economy. Today the 
DDG51 uses gas turbines to power the propulsion system. Installing a 
hybrid system would allow an electric motor to drive the ship at low 
speed when the main turbine would be very inefficient. The project is 
expected to pay for itself in saved fuel costs in 3 years. This upgrade 
would be performed as the DDG51s underwent their 15-year midlife 
upgrade. While the work envisioned in this amendment would be done in 
Milwaukee, part of the work would also be done in Massachusetts and 
Connecticut.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I submitted amendment No. 3128 along 
with Senator Kohl to allow the Navy to provide up to $2 million to DRS 
in Milwaukee, WI for DDG51 Class Modernization--Hybrid Propulsion 
Permanent Magnet Drive System. This would give the Navy the flexibility 
to develop a hybrid drive system to increase fuel economy. Today the 
DDG5l uses gas turbines to power the propulsion system. Installing a 
hybrid system would allow an electric motor to drive the ship at low 
speed when the main turbine would be very inefficient. The project is 
expected to pay for itself in saved fuel costs in 3 years. This upgrade 
would be performed as the DDG51s underwent their 15-year midlife 
upgrade. While the work envisioned in this amendment would be done in 
Milwaukee, part of the work would also be done in Massachusetts and 
Connecticut.


                           amendment no. 3129

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I am submitting Senate amendment No. 3124 
to make funds available from the appropriation account Other 
Procurement, Air Force, to accelerate the deployment of the Associate 
Intermodal Platform pallet system.
  The Associate Intermodal Platform pallet system is manufactured by 
Shan Industries LLC, headquartered in Miami, FL, with manufacturing 
plants currently located in New Jersey and Oklahoma.
  The Department of Defense has concluded that use of the Associate 
Intermodal Platform, AIP, pallet system, developed 2 years ago by the 
U.S. Transportation Command, could save the United States as much as 
$1,300,000 for every 1,000 pallets deployed. The Associate Intermodal 
Platform pallet system can be used to transport cargo alone within 
current International Standard of Organization containers, or in 
conjunction with existing 463L pallets. The Associate Intermodal 
Platform pallet system has successfully passed rigorous testing by the 
U.S. Transportation Command at various military installations in the 
United States and in the field in Iraq, Kuwait, and Antarctica. The 
Associate Intermodal Platform pallet system has performed well beyond 
expectations and is ready for immediate production and deployment.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the work of the managers on 
this important piece of legislation. I have conferred with the 
managers. After we have one vote sometime tomorrow morning, and if 
there is nothing more happening, I think we should move to third 
reading. Just to protect all of our military, in case something goes 
awry in the next 24 hours, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     353, H.R. 3222, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2008.
         Daniel K. Inouye, Jon Tester, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Ted 
           Kennedy, Tom Carper, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Robert 
           Menendez, Patty Murray, Carl Levin, Ben Nelson, B.A. 
           Mikulski, Ron Wyden, Blanche L. Lincoln, Charles 
           Schumer, Byron L. Dorgan.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would hope we can just totally avoid this. 
Of

[[Page S12417]]

course, the cloture vote would not occur, at the earliest, until 
Thursday anyway. I would hope that it will not be necessary that 
cloture be invoked. But we want to make sure that we are able to 
complete this legislation, including the managers' package on which 
these two veteran legislators have worked. I have spoken to staff, and 
the managers' amendment has not been cleared yet. It should be cleared. 
I hope we can finish this bill tomorrow afternoon early. This cloture 
motion is to protect us in case something goes wrong.
  I think perhaps we shouldn't go into morning business right now. 
Someone might want to offer an amendment, and I want to make sure 
everyone has the ability to do that. It is 5 o'clock now. There will be 
no more votes today. Unless we have somebody here by 5:30 to offer an 
amendment, we will go into morning business.


                           amendment no. 3135

  Mr. KENNEDY. I introduced amendment No. 3135 to allow the Navy to 
provide up to $5 million for the high temperature superconductor AC 
synchronous propulsion motor. These funds will be used to test and 
transition the high temperature superconductor AC synchronous 
propulsion motor to Navy ship class. This will serve in the effort to 
increase power while reducing vessel weight.


                           amendment No. 3134

  I introduced amendment No. 3134 to allow the Navy to provide up to $3 
million for the MK 50, NULKA, Decoy System. These funds can be used for 
the purpose of continuing efforts to defend the Navy from the 
continually evolving threat of antiship missiles and associated seeker 
systems.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I submitted an amendment with Senator 
Kennedy as a cosponsor which may provide up to $1 million, within the 
Navy Sealift Account, to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, MMA, in 
Buzzards Bay, MA. The funding will be used to help complete the 
conversion of the T.S. Enterprise, a Ready Reserve Force training ship. 
In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Department of Defense Appropriations 
conference report included $25 million for the conversion of the T.S. 
Enterprise. However, that funding only allowed MARAD to produce a ship 
which holds only 600 cadets. The Massachusetts Maritime Academy has had 
a growing number of students in recent years and requires the 
additional room to allow all of their cadets to train on the ship. At a 
time when our troops depend heavily on the material shipped to war 
zones on American flag ships, I believe it is critical to the 
livelihood of the Nation that our maritime academies continue to 
produce the professional men and women needed in the maritime trades.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on my amendment, 
designating $5 million--the amount requested by the Pentagon--for the 
Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center, a facility within the 
Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center on Schriever Air Force 
Base in Colorado Springs, CO.
  The Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center supports research 
and development, agency operations, test and evaluations and operations 
and training for missile defense capabilities. It provides the Missile 
Defense Agency a common support infrastructure and connectivity for 
operating MDA experimental satellites, and integrating space data in 
support of the missile defense mission. The MDSEC provides a multilevel 
security environment for sensor data management and integration across 
all space and terrestrial sensor data activities.
  MDSEC activities support analysis, demonstration and integration of 
space sensor capabilities into developmental and operational MDA 
Elements. MDSEC also supports advanced technology and algorithm 
development, including fusion of multiple sensor types--radar, overhead 
nonimaging infrared, electro-optical and other emerging sensor 
technologies. MDSEC supports mission integration of space-based missile 
track--boost and midcourse phases--sensor and weapons cueing via C2BMC, 
features and discrimination, kill and impact point assessments into 
C2BMC, Aegis, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense--THAAD--Global 
Missile Defense--GMD--and other--non-MDA--mission areas such as space 
situation awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space 
characterization. For Fiscal Year 2008, the Missile Defense Space 
Experimentation Center will: Demonstrate connectivity and integration 
of space layer data into X-lab, BMDS elements, and external users; 
demonstrate capability to access, share, and playback data across 
stakeholder programs--MDSEC Interchange System; provide synergy for 
testing, experiments, integration and algorithm development--
Integration Lab; demonstrate capability to support and integrate across 
multiple security environments/domains; demonstrate space-layer data 
support to non-BMDS Missions--external users; demonstrate integrated 
birth-to-death tracking and fusion across existing, R and future BMDS 
sensors; support space-based sensors data collections and algorithm 
testing experiments; complete MDSEC Interchange System--MIS: Test 
prototype MIS operating system and host MIS hardware suite.
  I believe the mission and task for the MDSEC require our support and 
I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. President, in regards to my amendment designating $5 million to 
support research and development, agency operations, test and 
evaluations and operations and training for missile defense 
capabilities at the Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center, a 
facility within the Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center on 
Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO, neither I nor anyone 
in my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the center or its 
operations.


                           Amendment No. 3140

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 
3140 to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. This amendment is in the 
interest of Louisiana and health care programs within the Department of 
Defense. I request up to $1 billion be made available for Maternal-
Fetal Health Informatics and Outreach Program. This project will be the 
use of Telehealth and electronic medical record, EMR, technologies 
centered on conducting research and developing technology solutions for 
high-risk obstetrical patients, in collaboration with the DOD. The 
intent of the Maternal Fetal Informatics Outreach Program, MFIOP, is to 
leverage technology toward optimizing health care delivery solutions 
for women and infants. This effort will increase portability of patient 
records and lead to a decrease in associated health care cost related 
to obstetrical, OB, and newborn health care services. The Maternal-
Fetal Health Informatics and Outreach Program is currently operating 
out of Woman's Hospital in Baton Rouge, LA. I have no personal, 
familiar or political connection to this project.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________