Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the chairman for his generous consideration of our concerns, and I also thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue. Senator Inouye is one of the great heroes of our country and continues to earn our highest respect and admiration every day here in the Senate. It is a privilege and an honor to work with him on these important issues.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, throughout the course of our Nation's history, the prosperity of America and its citizens has invariably been linked with the success of its economy. Our country should be proud of its entrepreneurs, who are key components of that success. I would like to recognize and thank the National Franchisee Association for providing the support and resources necessary to maintain its membership which consists of Burger King franchisees. The NFA was founded with a mission: ``To improve, preserve, and ensure the economic well-being of all members.'' For nearly 20 years the NFA has delivered this promise by expanding its services and adapting to the ever-changing economic and technological landscape. Today, the NFA's membership is comprised of approximately 1,200 franchisees from across the country, representing every district in every State. NFA members employ thousands of citizens and provide individuals, especially our Nation's youth, with an opportunity to learn traditional American values, including hard work, cooperation, and responsibility. On October 10 and 11, the members of the National Franchisee Association will arrive in Washington, DC, to engage and educate this Congress. I therefore encourage my colleagues to welcome the NFA's membership to our Nation's capital and to thank them for their continuous positive contribution to the fabric of our society.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I say to my friends, I already discussed that with Senator Webb. I agree to that.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the author of the amendment, Senator Webb, be recognized, and that following his comments, Senator Warner from Virginia be recognized, Senator Vitter be recognized, and that I follow Senator Vitter.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I was on the floor when the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, made his comments a little bit earlier. I hope a lot of the American people were listening to what Senator Warner had to say because there is nobody in this Senate who has more respect, not just on military issues but principally on military issues, than does Senator Warner. He not only has a lot of expertise, and great experience, but he is known to be very thoughtful in his deliberations. He doesn't arrive at decisions of major importance very easily or very quickly. For him to come to the floor and to make the statement he made earlier this afternoon, having thought through this issue and having now decided to change his vote on this particular amendment, is of monumental importance. It is the type of decision that makes all of us proud to serve in this great institution. I rise in opposition to the Webb amendment. This amendment is about restricting the President and his military leaders' ability to prosecute a war we have asked them to execute and which we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to carry out. It is an unwise and harmful effort to limit the ability of the President and his military leadership and to handicap their use of personnel and resources available to them. Senator Webb's amendment would preclude deployment of certain Active and Reserve Forces based on the number of days they have spent at home. Keep in mind, these restrictions would apply to the Nation's most experienced and capable troops during a time of war, when we face an unpredictable and highly adaptive enemy. That statement is very similar to what Senator Warner said a little bit earlier. There is no one in this body who would not like to see every single one of our troops come home tomorrow. There is nothing pretty about a military conflict. There have been times in the history of our country when we have had to bow our backs and when we have had to stand up to an enemy that sought to destroy what America stands for. That is exactly what we are doing in Iraq today. What Senator Warner said is that if we make a decision in this body to micromanage the war, let's make no mistake about it, if this amendment passes, what we are really going to be doing is subjecting our men and women to greater harm and to the possibility of even greater inflicting of injuries and greater numbers, possibly, of making the ultimate sacrifice. This amendment says there are 435 Members of the House of Representatives and 100 Members of the Senate who have determined that this is the rotation that should be carried out by our military leadership relative to the conflict in Iraq, and that is a micromanagement of the war from the Halls of Congress versus the management of this conflict on the ground in theater by our military leadership in Iraq. If we do micromanage this war, exactly what Senator Warner said is what is going to happen, and that is, today in Iraq, the most dangerous weapon that is being fired at our brave men and women who wear our uniform and are protecting the freedom is what we call the IED and the EFPs. These particular weapons are inflicting injuries on our men and women, and are inflicting death on our men and women, requiring them to make the ultimate sacrifice for our sake. We have a very limited number of trained military personnel who are experts in the area of detecting and defusing IEDs and EFPs. If we put those men and women on a mandatory rotation, then we are setting our men and women in uniform up for failure. I have had a policy since I have been elected to Congress of not trying to make decisions on military issues relative to my personal feelings and my personal beliefs. My decisions have been based upon information I have received from our military leadership, both inside and outside the Pentagon, some civilian folks as well as men and women in uniform, who are more expert in these areas than I am. In this case, I listened very closely last week as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker came to Congress and spent the whole day Monday with the House of Representatives, the whole day Tuesday in the Senate, testifying, answering every question that was propounded to them about what is going on relative to the new vision and the new strategy on the ground in Iraq. What I heard from those men who are the leaders from a diplomatic standpoint as well as from the military standpoint is we are seeing great progress made on the ground by our military that is unlike any progress we have seen during the last 4\1/2\ years. That is significant. If you are not impressed by that, then you simply did not hear what they had to say. So I think now to say to them: Well, we appreciate the great job you have done leading our troops, but we are going to take the decision-making process out of your hands, and we are now going to decide how the war is going to be prosecuted, that, I think would be a huge mistake. The Pentagon and the civilian side have responded to the Webb amendment and said this, that if the Webb amendment passes: Operations and plans would need to be significantly altered. Units or individuals without sufficient dwell time would need a waiver to deploy based on threat. This waiver process adds time, cost, and uncertainty to deployment planning. Secondly: In emergency situations, the waiver process could affect the war fight itself by delaying forces needed in theater. Thirdly: Units would need to be selected for deployment based on dwell criteria that may in fact cause significant disruption to needed reset, planned transformation or unit training schedules. Fourthly: The Department routinely deploys units at less than a one- to-one deployment-to-dwell ratio if the individuals within a unit meet minimum dwell requirements. The proposed language stipulates minimum periods between deployments for both units and individuals. The requirement to meet both criteria for unit and individuals before deployment could severely limit the options for sourcing rotations. And more specifically and directly to the point, in a letter dated September 18, 2007, from the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to Senator Lindsey Graham, I quote a comment made by the Secretary. He says: The cumulative effect of the above steps [and he had outlined the Webb amendment] necessary to comply with Senator Webb's amendment, in our judgment, would significantly increase the risk to our servicemembers. Now, this is one of the military experts in the United States of America, the chief civilian military officer, saying: If this amendment passes, it could significantly--it would significantly increase the risk to our servicemembers. And yet some folks are going to vote in favor of this amendment in spite of the fact that the chief civilian military leader of the United States says it has the potential to significantly increase the risk to our men and women in uniform. The power of Congress under article I of the Constitution to make rules for the Government and the regulation of the land and naval forces is well understood, as is the President's authority under article II, to command our military forces as commander-in-chief. This amendment, however, is an unprecedented wartime attempt to limit the authority of the President and the military leaders by declaring a substantial number of troops and units unavailable. Now, again, let me close by saying I wish we could bring everybody home tomorrow and that this conflict would be over. We know we are going to be in this conflict for a long time. The President could not have been clearer on that issue when, on September 17, 2001, in a statement to a joint session of both the House and the Senate, he said: This is going to be a long and enduring war. He was right then, and he is right now. This is a long and enduring war. It is not dictated by the brave and professional job our men and women are doing, but it is dictated by a vicious enemy that seeks to destroy everything that is good about America. We have men and women who are serving today in an all-volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps. They are very dedicated men and women. They know the mission they have to carry out in Iraq. I know because I have been there five times. I have talked with them with their boots on the ground, including about 3 months ago when I had an opportunity to visit with a number of soldiers in an area that had just been cleaned out, an area in Al Anbar Province called Ramadi. Ramadi, a year ago this month, was the self-declared capital of al- Qaida in Iraq by al-Qaida itself. Today, because of the great job and the professional job our men and women, fighting side by side with members of the Iraqi Army and other coalition forces, is clear of al- Qaida. But if we seek to limit the ability of our leadership, if we seek to micromanage the war from the Halls of Congress versus on the ground by our leadership in Iraq, then the potential is certainly there for an immediate return of al-Qaida in Iraq to places such as Ramadi. There is no more important time in the history of our country than the present. That has been the case in so many situations. Certainly this is a very critical time in the history of our country from the standpoint of the ability of future generations to live in the same safe and secure America every previous generation has enjoyed. There is no better way to ensure that, than to make sure we prevail and we win in Iraq. It is my opinion and the opinion of military leadership, the passage of this amendment leads this nation down a trail of exposure to those who seek to do us harm, when what we need to be doing is listening those men and women who are serving proudly to secure our future generations from the enemy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia, Senator Webb, be recognized; that following him, Senator Warner be recognized; that following him, Senator Vitter and myself be recognized; that if there is a member of the other side of the aisle who comes in after Senator Warner or after Senator Vitter, they be given the opportunity to be interjected into the rotation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I neglected to vote on rollcall vote No. 340. Had I voted, I would have voted negatively.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I congratulate the Marine Corps Logistics Command Maintenance Center at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, GA. The Maintenance Center Albany was the 2007 winner of the Robert T. Mason Depot Maintenance Award, and was also named Marine Logistics Unit of the Year. This prestigious award, established in 2004, commemorates the former Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense for Maintenance Policy, Programs, and Resources, Robert T. Mason, a staunch supporter of excellence in organic depot maintenance operations throughout his three decades of Government service. In winning this award, the Maintenance Center Albany has exemplified responsive and effective depot level support to operating units. The Maintenance Center Albany's Dedicated Design and Prototype Effort Team was singled out for its outstanding support to our men and women in uniform through their hands-on innovation. I could not provide higher tribute than the Marine Corps itself when it described the Albany team as clearly demonstrating the ability to be responsive, resourceful, agile, and creative by designing and prototyping multiple systems in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is not the first time the tenant organization of Albany's Marine Corps Logistics Base has received this great honor. In 2005, the Maintenance Center was recognized for its Design and Manufacture Vehicle Armor Protective Kits Program which provided protective armor kits for U.S. Marine Corps combat vehicles, making the Marines a more effective fighting force and profoundly impacting both safety and morale. I also want to individually recognize Christopher Tipper, a Maintenance Center Albany employee who was named Civilian Marine Logistician of the Year. Through his achievements Mr. Tipper brings great credit upon himself, MCLB Albany, and the U.S. Marine Corps. The national recognition of the achievements of the team and this individual is extremely well deserved. They comprise a dedicated workforce committed to meeting the needs of the warfighter. I am proud to pay tribute to these men and women and congratulate them and the leadership of the Maintenance Center Albany, as well as the entire Marine Corps Logistics Command on a job well done.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to encourage my colleagues to join Senator Isakson and me in support of the 2007 Senior League World Series Champions, the Senior League team of Cartersville, GA. On August 18, 2007, the Senior League team from Cartersville, GA, defeated the defending World Series champions of Falcon, Venezuela, by a score of 9 to 0 after Chris Huth pitched a complete game one-hitter. This victory concluded their impressive season with a record of 30 wins and only 2 losses. I would like to recognize the 14 young men of the Cartersville Senior League team individually for their great accomplishment: Garison Boston, Ben Bridges, Trey Dickson, Brad Green, Taylor Greene, Tyler Higgins, Chris Huth, Tyler Linn, Levi Mauldin, Colton Montgomery, Cole Payne, Zack Philliber, Hank Stewart, and Tyler Williams. Their manager Eric Stewart and coaches Jeff Payne and Mark Montgomery each deserve strong recognition for guiding these young players to victory. Moreover, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the teachers and students of these young men's schools, the fans who represented their community, and the State of Georgia for their enthusiasm and support. It is with great pride that I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Cartersville Senior League team and their families. I am extremely proud of each of them and their accomplishments. I wish them great success in the future and urge my colleagues to join Senator Isakson and me in congratulating them on this great accomplishment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in opposition to the Leahy-Specter amendment on the Defense authorization bill. The Leahy-Specter amendment will strike an important change made by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that strips courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from alien unlawful enemy combatants detained by the United States. This amendment would restore jurisdiction to the Federal courts to hear habeas petitions from detainees who are currently pending trial before a military commission. Essentially, this amendment would grant habeas corpus rights to all non-U.S. citizens, regardless of location, who are detained by the United States. The amendment would have the effect during the current global war on terrorism or during a large-scale protracted war on the scale of World War II of giving any noncitizen detained by U.S. forces, regardless of where they are detained and regardless of the reason for their detention, the right to challenge that detention in the U.S. court system. I can think of few better ways to ensure that the United States is defeated in any conflict in which we engage and few better ways to undermine the national security of the United States than to adopt this amendment. In 2004, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld held that the President is authorized to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities based on longstanding law-of-war principles. It also held that Congress could authorize the President to detain persons, including U.S. citizens, designated as enemy combatants without trial for a criminal offense so long as the enemy combatant has a process to challenge that designation. As a result of the Hamdi decision, the Department of Defense created the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, a process where detainees may challenge their status designations. Congress passed and the President signed the Detainee Treatment Act on December 30, 2005, which included the Graham-Levin amendment to eliminate the Federal court statutory jurisdiction over habeas corpus claims by aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay. After a full and open debate, a bipartisan majority of Congress passed the Military Commissions Act just last fall. The MCA amended the Detainee Treatment Act provisions regarding appellate review and habeas corpus jurisdictions by making the provisions of the DTA the exclusive remedy for all aliens detained as enemy combatants anywhere in the world, including those detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The MCA's restrictions on habeas corpus codified important and constitutional limits on captured enemies' access to our courts. The District of Columbia Circuit upheld the MCA's habeas restrictions in Boumediene v. Bush earlier this year. The Supreme Court, in a rare move, reconsidered their denial of certiorari and will make a decision on this case in the near future. In the meantime, Congress should not act hastily. Before the Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush in June 2004, the controlling case law for over 50 years was set out in the Supreme Court case of Johnson v. Eisentrager, a 1950 case which held that aliens in military detention outside the United States were not entitled to judicial review through habeas corpus petitions in Federal courts. The Court recognized that extension of habeas corpus to alien combatants captured abroad ``would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy,'' and the Constitution requires no such thing. The Rasul case changed the state of the law for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, due to the unique nature of the long-term U.S. lease of that property. The Supreme Court reasoned that the habeas corpus statute and the exercise of complete jurisdiction and control over the Navy base in Cuba were sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of U.S. Federal courts over habeas petitions brought by detainees. The Supreme Court ruled that the status of a detainee as an enemy combatant must be determined in a way that provides the fundamentals of due process--namely, notice and opportunity to be heard. The executive branch established Combatant Status Review Tribunals, or CSRTs, to comply with this mandate. Judicial review of CSRT determinations of enemy combatant status by article III courts is provided by the Detainee Treatment Act. Under the DTA, appeals of CSRT decisions may be made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In his dissent in the Rasul case, Justice Scalia wisely pointed out that at the end of World War II, the United States held approximately 2 million enemy soldiers, many of whom no doubt had some complaint about their capture or conditions of confinement. Today, approximately 25,000 persons are detained by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay. Restoring jurisdiction over alien enemy combatants could result in providing the right of habeas corpus to all those detainees held outside the United States so long as their place of detention is under the jurisdiction and control of the U.S. Armed Forces. In fact, habeas challenges on behalf of detainees held in Afghanistan have already been filed. The Supreme Court recognized in Johnson v. Eisentrager that allowing habeas petitions from enemy combatants forces the judiciary into direct oversight of the conduct of war in which they will be asked to hear petitions from all around the world, challenging actions and events on the battlefield. This would simply be unworkable as a practical matter and could greatly interfere with the Executive's authority to wage war. As the Supreme Court revisits these issues, Congress should not undue what it has done. Federal courts have ruled twice--in December 2006 at the district court level on the remand of the Hamdan case from the Supreme Court and again in February 2007 at the DC Circuit Court level in the consolidated cases of Boumediene and Al Odah--that the Military Commissions Act is constitutional and that alien enemy unlawful combatants have no constitutional rights to habeas corpus. The Supreme Court, at the end of June, decided it would hear these cases on expedited appeal this fall. It is appropriate for Congress to allow the Supreme Court to review the decision made by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the standards of review enacted in the DTA and the MCA before granting habeas rights to and opening the Federal courts to thousands of detainees held outside the United States. For these reasons, and simply because it represents extremely bad policy, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Leahy-Specter amendment. Mr. President, I had also intended to talk a little while today about Senator Graham's amendment seeking to strike section 1023 of the underlying bill. It is my understanding now that there are discussions ongoing relative to the possibility of trying to work that amendment out. So if that amendment does come to the floor for consideration, I will be back to talk about the support of that amendment at that time. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I note for the record that after 4 years of work on a housing privatization contract and the millions spent, exactly two houses have been built. This article talks about a celebration at Moody Air Force base upon the completion of these two homes. The problem is, neither one of these two houses has ever been occupied, and the privatization issue at Moody has developed into a real mess. The Air Force entered into a real estate transaction with Carabetta Enterprises Inc. for privatized housing at Moody Air Force Base. The estimated cost of the project has exceeded available funding by $25 million, and the project lender stopped funding in March of 2007 to prevent all funds from being expended. At least three other Air Force bases--Patrick Air Force base in Florida, Little Rock Air Force base in Arkansas, and Hanscom Air Force base in Massachusetts--have similar contracting delays with privatized housing projects associated with this same contractor. Despite having declared bankruptcy in the 1990s and supposedly being embroiled in a series of previous lawsuits over Government contracts, the Carabetta organization was allowed to form a new joint entity, American Eagle Communities LLC, and has won Government contracts in five States for a total $3.3 billion. American Eagle won the $50 million contract for the Moody Air Force Base Magnolia Grove privatized housing project, hired one of its principals to be the general contractor, and now has left dozens of local subcontractors unpaid for months, resulting in numerous liens being filed, a complete lockdown of the site, and millions of dollars in unpaid bills to local subcontractors. There has been concern that we have 1,000 new personnel who are going to be coming into Moody by 2009 under the BRAC, and this housing project is specifically designed to accommodate the influx. I have written two letters to the Air Force expressing my concern and inquiring about the delay and the intended plan of action. In response, the Air Force has said that because it has no legal agreements with the contractor, issues of nonpayment between the contractor and subcontractors must be resolved through the legal system. That is not an acceptable answer. The Air Force is a contractor. This directly affects the quality of life of Air Force personnel at Moody Air Force Base as well as the other bases that have contracts with this particular contractor. Air Force personnel are suffering because of the poor performance of this contractor, and the Air Force should have been more proactive to fix this problem before we got to this point. I have several questions on this issue that have yet to be answered. I am specifically asking the Air Force to answer: First, what were the factors contributing to the decision to award Carabetta Enterprises, Inc. this contract, given their known previous defaults and bankruptcy declarations? Secondly, is the Air Force currently taking steps to terminate this contract and, if so, what steps are they taking and, if not, why not? Thirdly, what is the plan for housing the incoming Air Force personnel slated to live in the new quarters at Moody Air Force base as well as the other bases that are affected by the default of this contractor? In my opinion, this issue is also ripe for an IG investigation to figure out exactly what went wrong, why this contractor was awarded a $3.3 billion contract for privatized housing, covering five States, work on all of which has been halted. I urge the Air Force's expeditious attention and resolution of this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to first of all say I am sure I am going to be supporting this underlying bill; military construction is such a critical component of our overall defense programs. But there is a collateral issue I would like to address for a minute. I, first of all, ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Moody Air Force Base newspaper from February 1 of this year.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to encourage my colleagues to join Senator Isakson and myself in support of a resolution congratulating the 2007 Little League World Series champions, the Warner Robins American Little League team of Warner Robins, GA. Warner Robins and Houston County, where Warner Robins is located, have a very proud athletic tradition. Warner Robins High School and Houston County High School have been in the same region as my home high school over the last several years and I have seen my high school win and lose against teams coming out of Houston County. The tradition in Houston County goes way back. There is also a town in Houston County called Perry, and Perry, GA is the home of a former all-State basketball player by the name of Sam Nunn who served in this great institution for a period of 24 years. Success in Houston County and Warner Robins from an athletic standpoint is nothing new. But on August 26, 2007, the Warner Robins American Little League team defeated the Tokyo Kitasuna Little League team of Tokyo, Japan by a score of 3-2 after Dalton Carriker hit a solo walk-off home run in the bottom of the eighth inning. This victory concluded their impressive season with a record of 20 wins and only 1 loss. Considering the fact that more than 7,000 Little League All-Star teams took the field in July, this accomplishment is extremely impressive. Their talent, hard work, and sportsmanship allowed them to become the third team from the State of Georgia to win the Little League World Series and, in doing so, they captured the hearts of people all across Georgia and in many parts of the Nation who love the game of baseball. As a former Little League coach myself, during the years when my wife, Julianne, and I were raising our children in Moultrie, GA, I was proud to participate in the longstanding tradition of Little League baseball as a coach for my son's team, the Destiny Dawgs. I have seen firsthand the uncontested confidence, determination, and hard work that Little League baseball instills in our youth. I wish to recognize the 12 young men of the Warner Robins American team individually for their great accomplishment: Keaton Allen, Dalton Carriker, Zane Conlon, Hunter Jackson, Taylor Lay, Nick Martens, Payton Purvis, Kendall Scott, Hunt Smith, David Umphreyville, Micah Wells, and Clint Wynn. Their manager Mickey Lay and coaches Mike Conlon, Tommy Morris, and Mike Smith each deserve strong recognition for guiding these young men to victory. Moreover, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the teachers and students of these young men's schools, the fans who represented their community, and the State of Georgia, for their enthusiasm and their support for this team's efforts. It is with great pride that I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Warner Robins American Little League team and their families. I am extremely proud of each of them and their accomplishments. I wish them great success in the future and urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, is it not true that prior to September 11, certain of the September 11 hijackers were inside the United States and communicating outside the United States to the leaders of al-Qaida, who were giving them instructions, who were sending them money, and who were providing them the details of the circumstances leading up to the events of September 11? We did not have the capability at that time of intercepting those conversations because we did not have this particular program in place. Therefore, is it not true that we missed some of the intercepts of correspondence between the September 11 hijackers and their leadership overseas? Is it not true that following September 11, the very essence of the program we are talking about now that the DNI says he needs, it was in place following September 11, but because of circumstances beyond his control, it is now not in place? Isn't it true that what he is asking for is the ability to gather information from any prospective terrorist who we know may have the ability and the intent to attack Americans, either on foreign soil or on domestic soil, and that what is sought to be done here is not to intercept conversations between Americans, not to intercept conversations even between terrorists who are in America, but what the DNI needs is the ability to intercept conversations coming out of areas such as Pakistan and Waziristan? Potential terrorists or actual terrorists who reside in the United States, much like happened prior to September 11--and we are about to get out of here for a month--we know this is a time when the Director and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security have said it is a high threat month. Would the Senator not agree that it is imperative that we give the intelligence community the ability to listen to those terrorists' conversations, which may include--and I emphasize ``may'' because this is a moving target--may include listening in on the planning of potential activity inside the United States?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. First, I thank the Senator for his great leadership. The Senator said we have worked on this in a bipartisan way in the Intelligence Committee since April. The Senator and Senator McConnell have proposed a fix to this particular issue that now is before the Senate. Is it not true that everybody on this side of the aisle is prepared to vote for that, vote their conscience on it, whatever it may be, and that we expect a number of Senators from the other side will also be supportive of that? Are we ready to vote on this, to give the DNI the authority he has asked for?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield for a final question?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I wish to ask the Senator about really the guts of what we are talking about because I want to make sure the American people thoroughly understand this. The FISA law is the law that deals with the collection of intelligence by our intelligence gatherers through the airways and through any other means we can seek to gather that information, whether it is e-mails, telephone calls, or whatever. Is it correct that right now our intelligence community is telling us they are not just handicapped but they are hamstrung and they do not have the ability because of the delay of this body and of the House of Representatives in passing this legislation which would give them the tools with which to go out into the bad guys' territory and collect information on those bad guys about what they are saying relative to potential attacks against Americans?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act. It reauthorizes the highly successful Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, PRIA, which was modeled on the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and enacted as part of the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. PRIA authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to collect service fees in order to help cover the cost of registering new pesticides. It also authorized EPA to continue to collect fees to review older pesticides. PRIA established a fee schedule for pesticide registration requests and set specific time periods for EPA to make regulatory decisions on pesticide registration and tolerance requests. The goal of PRIA was to create a more predictable and effective evaluation process for pesticide registration decisions and link the collection of individual fees with specific decision review periods. PRIA was developed through the work of a unique coalition of environmental associations and the registrant community, which included agricultural and non-agricultural, antimicrobial, large, small, biotech, and biopesticide companies. This same coalition came together to develop this legislative proposal to reauthorize PRIA. This is true consensus legislation. It clarifies the intent of the original law and continues the fee-for-service program, with some technical adjustments. Specifically, it increases and clarifies categories covered, uses maintenance fees for registration review, protects funds for grant programs, increases funding, and prevents free-riding. I am pleased to cosponsor and support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to approve its reauthorization and continue the positive changes PRIA brought to the pesticide registration process.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member and the minority leader for the introduction of this bill. It looks to me, Mr. President, like we have boiled this down to a specific issue of both bills saying they cover foreign-to-foreign surveillance. The problem is, when NSA has its eyes and its ears out on the wire, NSA does not know who an individual, who is in a foreign country, is calling--whether they are calling somebody foreign or whether they are calling somebody domestically. So if they know somebody is a foreign caller, it is imperative we provide our intelligence gatherers with the opportunity to discover the conversations that are taking place between that foreign caller and whomever they may be calling, if--and only if--it involves potential terrorist activity. And we are not going to be listening in to any foreign caller unless we know they are a member of al-Qaida under current law. So the clear difference in these two bills is this: The bill offered by Senator McConnell and Senator Bond says, very clearly, that NSA will have the tools necessary to listen to any conversation from a foreign al-Qaida member to a callee anywhere, whether it is foreign or domestic, versus the bill offered by the Democrats that may say you can have a foreign-to-foreign intercept, but the problem is there is no clarity in the Democratic proposal as to who the callee is. So it is pretty clear, if we are going to give the NSA the opportunity to protect Americans, we have to pass the bill of Senator McConnell and Senator Bond. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to address the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the bill that currently is before the Senate. I have been a strong advocate of this particular program. We, in Georgia, I think, have one of the model SCHIP programs in the country. We call it PeachCare. It provides health insurance to 290,000 uninsured poor children in my State. We cover no adults in Georgia. Every single dime that is spent on this program in Georgia is spent on children, and that is the way it should be. That is one of the problems I have with the reauthorization of this bill as it came out of committee. It does three things that really bother me. First of all, the bill that came out of committee does not take all parents off of coverage under the SCHIP program on a national basis. It does remove, over a 2-year period, all adults who are not parents of some of the children who are eligible for this particular subsidy, and that is good. The problem is, it still covers any number of adults. This is a children's program, and that is where the money ought to be spent. Every single dollar we spend on an adult takes money away from children. Secondly, under this bill, States are authorized to go up to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level for coverage. The previous bill authorized up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. In Georgia, we are at 235 percent of the Federal poverty level, which means that a family of four making $48,000 is eligible for coverage under our PeachCare program. Unfortunately, once you reach the level of 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, you are at almost $62,000 for a family of four in income, and you are still eligible under this program. Lastly, I would simply say the bill out of the Finance Committee is financed by the creation of new and additional taxes. I think the American taxpayers--I do not care in what form the taxes are--are already an overburdened group of citizens. From the standpoint of trying to find funding for this program, the Lott amendment did exactly what we needed to do in Georgia to cover all 290,000 of our existing children who are covered, plus all who will be coming on within the next 5 years, which is the term of this bill. Senator Lott found offsets in his amendment that would not have required the raising of any taxes to cover those children. That is the type of sensible approach that should have been taken. I regret that it did not pass. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to support this bill in its current form. With that, Mr. President, I thank the chairman for being generous, and thank the Senator from New York for allowing me to extend my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Chair. Since the Senator is running for President, we are glad to accommodate him for what time he needs. He is serious and very emotional about this issue, and he should be. We all should be. I commend the Senator from Connecticut for spending a good bit of time on talking about this issue. I commend the Senator from New York for bringing this issue to the forefront. We are in a war unlike any war we have ever been in before. We are in different times today with respect to military conflicts, and the inclusion of our wounded warriors in the Family and Medical Leave Act is certainly well deserved and something that I hope we get passed before we leave. I rise to commend the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors for their hard, high-quality work in analyzing and recommending improvements for our Nation's treatment of wounded warriors. The Dole-Shalala Commission has boldly addressed one of the most important issues facing our military today and has created a simple roadmap that will help make monumental improvements to the military health care system. I am pleased the Commission's recommendations span agencies, cross services, and take into consideration the needs of both veterans as well as their families. During their review, they visited 23 health care facilities, including military and VA hospitals and treatment centers nationwide, held 7 public meetings, heard testimony from military health care experts, and communicated directly with servicemembers, their families, and health care professionals. This dialog is greatly needed and must continue. I provided my own input directly to the Commission regarding one of Georgia's own success stories in providing care to wounded warriors through a partnership between the Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, GA, and the Augusta VA hospital. This Commission untangled a web of complex issues and provided six recommendations based on their findings. Former Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala did what others have been trying to do since World War II. Their joint statement succinctly describes the culmination of these efforts. The face of our military has changed, as have their needs. Some returning servicemembers, injured in the line of duty, have complex and often multiple injuries placing greater challenges on the DOD and VA as well as family members. Well-meaning attempts over the years to reform health care in the military and VA have produced many positive results that have also made the system more complex and confusing in some areas. In these cases, it is difficult for servicemembers, their families, and caregivers to understand how to navigate the system. The events that brought us to this point were inexcusable and could have been prevented. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention a letter I received from a constituent whose son was a patient at Walter Reed Medical Center, after being evacuated from Iraq due to injuries he sustained in an IED attack. The letter said to the commander and staff at Walter Reed: You and your staff are a remarkable team that has the welfare of our soldiers and families foremost in mind as you execute your critically important duties. My family and I owe you and your team our heartfelt thanks and debt of gratitude we can never repay. This kind of feedback tells me the Army's improvements are taking hold. Through the Commission and recent legislation, these improvements will continue. I applaud the Commission's work and am equally pleased that much of it parallels the initiatives set forth by the Senate's Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. The President's Commission recommended that seriously wounded servicemembers receive a patient- centered recovery plan developed by a cadre of highly skilled recovery coordinators. Such a plan can only increase the level of support given to our wounded warriors. Along these same lines, the Wounded Warrior bill requires development of a unified and comprehensive policy between the VA and the Department of Defense that addresses personnel strength, training, access, standards, family counseling, and creation of a DOD-wide ombudsman. Of central importance, the Commission recommends a complete restructure of the disability and compensation systems. We have all heard case after case of lost paperwork, endless waste, bureaucratic delays, and confusing redundant processes. Both the Commission and the Wounded Warrior bill provide guidance to consolidate systems and streamline this process. One of the most important recommendations made by the Commission, also addressed in the Wounded Warrior bill, concerns increased support to the families of our Wounded Warriors. Although the Commission did not visit Georgia, I have spent time at Fort Stewart and Fort Benning with family members of deployed troops, and I have spent as much time with the troops themselves in my five visits to Iraq. I can tell you that when it comes to taking care of our servicemembers, the well-being of their families is of paramount, if not greater, importance to them than their own well-being. These troops can count on their families. The more we support the families, the better we are taking care of our troops. Among other things, the Dole-Shalala report recommends extending privileges under the Family and Medical Leave Act from 12 weeks to 6 months, which will allow family members to take up to 6 months of leave to care for a wounded servicemember. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill that introduces legislation that enacts this recommendation. The bill Senator Pryor and I cosponsored on this subject, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, S. 1283, also contains provisions along these lines, such as advocating counseling and job placement services for family members, as well as the creation of an ombudsman's office which will provide support to members and their families. So, once again, I commend Senator Clinton for her initiative in getting this bill on the Family Medical Leave Act introduced and I concur again with the Senator from Connecticut. I hope this legislation is completed before we leave here in the next couple of days. The global war on terror has brought recognition of the enormous impact of two previously silent and little-noticed conditions to the forefront: post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Accordingly, both the Commission and the Wounded Warrior bill address these issues. The Dole-Shalala report advocates the most aggressive treatment for both conditions by the DOD and the VA, and also recommends private-sector involvement to capitalize on the most recent and valuable findings and treatments. Similarly, the Wounded Warrior bill provides comprehensive and coordinated policies between DOD and the VA on PTSD and TBI. The Wounded Warrior bill creates a level of accountability for the DOD and VA by requiring an annual report on PTSD and TBI expenditures and reports assessing progress in the overall treatment of these conditions. The bill also includes a provision I proposed that builds upon a study at Emory University for TBI treatment and the use of progesterone and directs collaboration between DOD and other Federal agencies in TBI-related research and clinical trials. The approach taken by the Commission and in the Wounded Warrior Act capitalizes on cooperation among Federal agencies, as well as between the Federal Government and private sector. As part of the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, I proposed a sense-of-the- Senate amendment that DOD continue to encourage collaboration between the Army and the VA in the treatment of wounded warriors. A prime example of this type of collaboration is in Augusta, GA, between the only Active-Duty rehabilitation unit, located at the Augusta Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the behavioral health care services program at the Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, GA. This unique, unprecedented collaboration between the Augusta VA and the Eisenhower Army Medical Center has been growing since its inception in 2004, assisted by GEN Eric Schoomaker, now the head of Walter Reed and former commander of the Eisenhower Army Medical Center. Our wounded warriors deserve the best possible care. The recommendations of the President's Commission and the requirements set forth in the Dignity for Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act pave a clear path for the type of medical treatment and support the people defending our Nation deserve. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Wounded Warrior Act, unanimously approved by the Senate. I am pleased with the comprehensive recommendations provided by Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala. I especially thank the servicemembers and their families who have shared openly and bravely about their experiences to this body as well as to the Commission. Their stories made the need for this reform real to all of us, and their experiences can help us transform the quality of military health care. Doing so will be one small way of saying thank you to the men and women in the U.S. military for their service and their sacrifice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 additional minutes to address the bill before the Senator from New York is recognized.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise tonight to support the McConnell legislation that has been submitted relative to FISA modernization and say, first, that I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Maryland. She has been a huge asset on the Intelligence Committee. She does her homework, she works hard, she studies the issues. She is exactly right. This is not a partisan issue by any means. This is truly an American issue because it is an issue that allows us to continue to protect Americans and allows us to do the best job we possibly can in the intelligence community to ensure we do not suffer another attack on American soil. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that will not happen, but the fact is, we need this updated, even though it is temporary, FISA modernized to allow our intelligence community to gather the type of information from the bad guys who are certainly out there getting up every day and making plans to attack assets of America, whether they are abroad or whether they are assets in the United States. It is simply necessary that we take advantage of the technology that is available today that was not available at the time the original FISA statute was implemented and passed into law, and that we make sure we are giving our intelligence community all the tools they need to do their job in a very professional manner. There is a threat out there. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has expressed recently that a threat exists, that he has a gut feeling something may happen. There are a lot of factors timewise and otherwise that make us feel that might be the case. Who knows. We cannot step into the minds of the bad guys who are out there. I will say one thing about this legislation. It does not invade the privacy of any group except one, and that is the terrorists. We need to invade the privacy of the terrorists. This bill is something that if it had been in place, if the tools had been in place in 2001, who knows whether we could have stopped the attack that took place on September 11. But what we do know is that certain phone calls were made by some of the 9/11 hijackers, and if we had in place a program that we now are operating under, it is very likely that we might have picked up on some of those phone calls. This legislation, again, gives our intelligence community tools which they can use to gather information only from those people who are making plans to carry out a terrorist attack against the United States or against our allies or in some country where we have assets. I appreciate the cooperative spirit that, obviously, we are seeing from folks on the other side of the aisle. This is truly one of those times we need to come together in a bipartisan way and, obviously, we are going to make this fix to make sure our intelligence community can do their job in a very professional way. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Graham amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. This is an issue which has been with us for years now, an issue of border security which we simply, as a group of policymakers, have not addressed in the right way. That became pretty obvious during our debate on the immigration bill several weeks ago. All of us heard from our constituents back home that while overall immigration reform may be needed in due course, what we need to do immediately is to take action to make sure our borders are, in fact, actually secure. That is the first step in real immigration reform. Senator Isakson and I sent a letter to the administration imploring them to take action on this issue. We have asked the administration to send an emergency supplemental to the Senate and the House requesting that certain measures to secure our borders be enacted and adequately funded. What Senator Graham has done with this amendment is a step in the right direction toward ensuring that our borders--particularly our border to the south--are made secure. I am a little bit disappointed we cannot go any further because what Senator Isakson and I have asked the administration to do in its supplemental request to this body would be to include the creation of a biometric identification card so all of those folks who cross the border in a legal way would have that identification card and any employer who sought to hire any of those individuals would know that they are here legally. If you hired them otherwise, it would be at your own peril. There are some technical reasons why Senator Graham could not add that provision in here. It is going to require more money, No. 1, plus some other issues regarding the rules of this body. So I am hopeful that there are some additional measures we will take up after we, hopefully, adopt this amendment overwhelmingly, get this bill into conference, out of conference, and on the desk of the President. So I applaud my colleague from South Carolina, as well as Senator Pryor, who I know has worked very hard on this particular measure. This amendment does many of the things Senator Isakson and I have asked for, and we are very hopeful this will get to the desk of the President immediately. This will answer one of those questions a lot of us heard during the immigration debate from our constituents; that is, why don't you enforce the laws that are on the books today? Well, here is the answer: We do not have the money to do it. This will give us the money to do some of those things. So I urge all of my colleagues to look very favorably on this amendment. Let's take the first right step to secure the borders. Then we can come back and deal with the overall remaining immigration issues that are outstanding. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.