Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, this amendment addresses a very significant issue, which took up a lot of time of the committee. We have, in the bill itself, added some additional money to what the administration requested because their request was so inadequate to the threat. We have found over the period of time we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan a totally inadequate response to our armor needs. We have had I don't know how many hearings in the Armed Services Committee--the chairman says about five; and that would be about my recollection, too--where we have pressed our military leaders, the Secretary of Defense, as to why there has been such a slow response to such an obvious need. So we have been pressing very hard to provide all of the adequate resources. We get different answers from the people who run the Defense Department than we get from the people who are providing the vehicles. We were told, for instance, by the manufacturer that they never got a request for an increased amount. On the other hand, our military leaders said: Well, sure, we pressed for an increase in the amount. We have a total conflict on the subject of whether there was ever a time when funding was short, because the committee was determined that we provide all of the resources--all of the resources--that are necessary to provide the armor. It is inexcusable we have men and women who are subject to these devices on the side of the road who do not have the best armor. Hearing after hearing, we put pressure on our civilian and uniformed leaders to provide the equipment our men and women deserve, and the armor our men and women deserve. There has been a number of Members of our committee, particularly Senator Kennedy, Senator Bayh, and others, who have had not only a major interest in and made a major effort to press for additional funding and for additional armor but who I know are interested in this subject on this bill. So I suggest to my friend from Virginia that we give them an opportunity to read what he has now offered because I think it would be very possible they may want to either go in a slightly more increased direction or in a different direction. And I am not sure, they may want to offer a second-degree amendment to this amendment or they may be perfectly happy to cosponsor it. But I would like to give them an opportunity, since this does come at this hour, to read to see exactly what is being proposed since they have such an interest in this issue and I know they were planning on offering language on this bill. I would join in the suggestion that this language be available promptly to the members of the committee or any Member of the body because I think every Member of this body has had an interest in trying to press the Defense Department to provide greater armor at greater speed. I have been very dissatisfied, publicly, as to an issue having to do with the fact that our military leaders tried to get the manufacturer, as we understand it, to have a second source. That would have required the manufacturer to share some technology with the second producer. According to one story, they refused to share the technology with a second producer. If that is true, as I said publicly before, it would be pretty shocking we would have a contractor who produces material for the Defense Department, who knows we desperately need more, who would not share the technology with a second source so we could produce the armor a lot faster. There is a lot of significant background. I think we ought to give every member of our committee and every Member of the Senate an opportunity to take a look at the approach the chairman is proposing to see whether this meets the various needs and thoughts of Members of the Senate. I welcome the chairman's willingness to lay this amendment aside to give those Members an opportunity.

Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection on this side.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. It has been.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Collins, I offer an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to develop a strategic plan for the civilian workforce of the Department of Defense, and I believe the amendment has been cleared.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment which was just offered has now been cleared on this side relative to the degree at the university. We support it. Senator Nelson is our ranking member. We wanted to doublecheck with him.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. The glory days.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, in bringing S. 1042, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, to the Senate floor. I do so proudly. I am always proud to stand next to Senator Warner and with Senator Warner and our staffs in bringing this bill forward. It has been many years that we have done this together, and we always look forward to it because it is a time we, together with our staffs, can spend time trying to strengthen the security of this country in a bipartisan way. This bill, to my memory, has always been a bipartisan bill. Our staffs work together on a bipartisan basis. The way they have worked together should be a role model for how we in the Senate should be working. I congratulate Senator Warner for his leadership of our committee. He sets the right pattern for all of us. Again, it is an honor to be standing here with him. The bill we bring before the Senate is the product of 3 days of markup. I do not believe we needed a single recorded vote. There may have been some voice votes where there were some differences, but I don't even remember that. I think we worked out all of our differences. Where there were differences that remained, I think we actually were able to address them, if not resolve them, but without actually a recorded vote, if my memory is correct. That is quite a tribute to the leadership of Senator Warner as well. We have a common interest in providing the support the men and women in uniform need and deserve. We are unanimous on that, regardless of our positions--which differ. As Members of the Senate we don't all have the same position on events in Iraq--how we got there and how we proceed from here. There is no unanimity on that issue. And on a number of other issues there is not unanimity. But where there is unanimity is that once that decision is made democratically to send our men and women to war, in harm's way, we stand behind them. And on that there is no dissent regardless of the positions of different Senators on the underlying issues. The men and women in uniform deserve our support. They are entitled to the support. During the Vietnam era, we had times when men and women in uniform did not receive the support they deserved. That has not been true since Vietnam. And finally, I think our people recognize that the men and women we put in harm's way, who are in the uniform of the United States, when the Commander in Chief, the Congress make a decision that they go to war, they are entitled to the full support of the people and of the Congress of the United States. We are proud of these troops. Senator Warner and I have done many things together in the Senate, and one of them has been to travel to visit our troops. We have seen some of the most amazing men and women this country can produce who are in uniform, some of the most professional, dedicated, committed, patriotic people you will ever find representing the United States in uniform. We have been to far-flung places of the world. We have traveled long distances, but whenever we arrived where we were going, we have had that kind of feeling that whatever the thousands of miles were that we traveled to get there, it was worth it just to be inspired literally by the men and women who represent this country and take the risks for all of us. The bill that is reported by the Armed Services Committee will improve the quality of life of the men and women in uniform, provide funding needed to continue ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, make needed improvements to the management of the Department of Defense, and authorize critical investments that are needed to reduce the risks the United States will face in the 21st century. First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in compensation, in the quality of life our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships that are imposed by continuing military operations around the world. Those demands have increased significantly over the years, and we have tried to respond to those demands and to those increased hazards which the men and women face. In particular, the bill would authorize a 3.1-percent across-the- board pay raise for military personnel, authorize a $70 million increase in childcare and family assistance, services for military families, and authorize additional funds for supplemental education aid to local school districts affected by the assignment or location of military families. We have increased the death gratuity to $100,000 for survivors and military members who die in a combat zone, and we are going to have an amendment which will broaden that further. We have increased from $250,000 to $400,000 the maximum amount of coverage available under the Service Members Group Life Insurance Program. Second, the bill would provide funding needed to continue ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and help address the challenges our military faces around the world. For instance, the bill would authorize a $50 billion supplemental to cover part of the cost of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the coming years. We know that supplemental is going to be needed. We on the Armed Services Committee asked the Budget Committee to add this money for our authorization bill because we have to plan on this expenditure. We know it is going to take place, and we should authorize it as part of a regular budget process and not just simply leave it to supplemental funding. So we are authorizing a $50 billion supplemental for 2006 to cover ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is far more realistic budgeting than we have too frequently not done in the past. Our bill authorizes an increase in the Army's active-duty end strength by 20,000 people to a total of 52,400 soldiers for fiscal year 2006. It is going to be a challenge to meet that new end strength just in terms of recruitment, but we are determined that we are going to try to respond to the demand of our members of the military by increasing the size of the Army's active-duty end strength. We have added 20,000 to that and added $1.4 billion over the President's request for force protection gear for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We authorize almost $350 million for up-armored vehicles to provide additional force protection for our troops in the field. That represents an increase of $120 million over the President's budget request. We direct that $500 million be dedicated to the joint improvised explosive device, IED, task force to facilitate the rapid development of technology to counter the top threat to our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The chairman of our committee described the threat in terms of those IEDs and what we are doing to respond to that threat, which is everything we possibly can do given its nature and the fact that threat is really, if not the top threat, one of the top threats to our service personnel. Our bill authorizes up to $500 million for the continuation of the Commanders Emergency Response Program. This program enables our military commanders in the field to respond quickly and flexibly to urgent requirements in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. They have told us that this authorization and appropriation which follows is one of the most effective actions we can take to increase their capability in the field, and that Commanders Emergency Response Program continued at $500 million for these 2 years is provided. Third, the bill contains a number of important provisions to improve the efficiency and the transparency of the Department's operations. For instance, the bill contains provisions that would prohibit the inappropriate use of contracting techniques that result in the heightened risk of fraud and abuse by limiting the Government's insight into contractor cost and performance in the acquisition of major weapons systems. It addresses continuing awareness of interagency contracts by requiring the inspector general to review major interagency contracts which have been used by the Department of Defense. There have been real abuses in these interagency contracts, and we have, indeed, had a number of hearings over the years into some of these abuses where one agency uses the contract of another agency in order to carry out some function, but there is no transparency. Nobody knows it is done. You can do it noncompetitively. There is too much opaqueness in that process, and we are trying to make sure the abuses in the interagency contract area are addressed, and so we require the inspector general to review the major interagency contracts the Department of Defense is using or has used. Our bill strengthens the defense ethics oversight by requiring major defense contractors to identify former Department of Defense officials on their payrolls and by requiring a review of ethics rules that are raised by the increased use of contractors to perform Government acquisition functions, and we establish a contract fraud risk assessment team to assess the vulnerability of Department of Defense contract fraud, waste, and abuse and require the Secretary of Defense to develop an action plan to address these areas of vulnerability. Finally, the bill contains a number of critical provisions that should help reduce some of the risks our country will face in the coming century. We are particularly pleased that the bill authorizes the budget request for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and related Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. The greatest probable threat we face as a nation would be if a terrorist or terrorist group could get their hands on a nuclear weapon or weapon of mass destruction. There are too many loose nukes in this world. We have to do more to address the proliferation threat. I don't believe the funding in this bill is adequate. I hope we can find a way to increase the amount of funding that goes into this threat reduction program and the other nonproliferation programs that are funded in this bill. Other than giving all the support we possibly can to our troops, there is probably nothing in this bill that directly addresses the greatest threat we face, which is the threat of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist, than this threat reduction program and the nonproliferation programs which are aimed at securing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Our bill provides the President permanent authority to waive on an annual basis the condition that must be met before the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program money can be provided to countries of the former Soviet Union. This is an authority which the administration has requested. Instead of having to come to us each year for this authority, we believe it should be made permanent. Our bill enhances the authority of the Secretary of Defense to use cooperative threat reduction funds to address risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction outside the countries of the former Soviet Union. We not only have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction inside those countries, we have those risks outside, and we ought to use this program to address again what is surely the most, or one of the most, serious risks any nation can face. We in our bill earmark $100 million of missile defense money specifically for enhanced ground and flight testing to require objective testing and evaluation of the operational suitability of each block of missile defense that is produced. There hasn't been enough testing in this program. There has been too much buying before we fly, and we are trying to see if we can't take some of the risk out of this program, to see, if we are going to proceed, whether we can't proceed in a way which would guarantee a system which is effective and workable and useful rather than just plowing billions of dollars into a system procuring missiles that may never be usable. So we take some of this money, specifically $100 million of that program, and we address it specifically to ground and flight testing in addition to what was previously planned. We add $20 million to the President's budget to accelerate chemical demilitarization activity and to enable the United States to meet obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. While this bill takes many important steps to fund the national defense and support our men and women in uniform, there is more that we can and should do. I would like to just mention a few areas that I hope we can revisit as our bill is considered in the Chamber. First, the bill contains a provision that would increase the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000, but it is restricted to combat-related deaths. That means that the families of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who die in the line of duty outside of the combat area will still receive only $12,000. Our top military officers have uniformly testified that the amount of the death gratuity should not be dependent on the circumstances of somebody who is on active duty. The death of a family member in an accident, for instance, while on active duty can be every bit as hard on a family as a death in Iraq or Afghanistan. Somebody who is killed while being trained for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan should surely have his or her family provided with the same kind of benefit as somebody who is killed in combat. From the family perspective and I think morally, there is no significant difference. They are on active duty, they are taking risks, and they are killed while taking those risks on active duty. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before our committee the following: When you join the military, you join the military. You go where they send you. It's happenstance that you are in a combat zone or at home. And I think we in the past held treating people universally foremost and consistently and that's how I come down on that. So our top uniform folks support the uniform application of that benefit to $100,000 for people who are on active duty. Earlier this year, the Senate adopted that position. We adopted an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act which would have made the families of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who die in the line of duty eligible for the full death benefit. The appropriations amendment was dropped in conference, but we should try again. I hope the Senate will stand strong on this issue and adopt a similar amendment to our bill. Second, while the bill takes many positive steps to improve compensation and benefits for our men and women in uniform and their families, we have to do more for Guard and Reserve forces who are bearing so much of the burden in our current military operations. Never before have we relied so heavily on the Guard and Reserve to serve on active duty over such an extended period of time. All members, representing different States, understand that. The families of the men and women who are in our Guard and Reserve forces have reminded us about how overly stretched those forces are. We do not get many complaints from the men and women themselves. They are too professional to do the complaining. We hear from families. We hear from employers. Again, we have never before relied as heavily on our Guard and Reserve forces to serve on active duty for extended periods of times as we do now. Studies have shown that 40 percent of our junior enlisted members in the Reserve components nonetheless have no health insurance except when they are on active duty. I hope we can develop an approach to this problem that uses the military's TRICARE health care program to ensure that members of the Reserve component have adequate health insurance and are medically ready when called upon to serve. Third, the bill earmarks $100 million of missile defense money specifically for enhanced ground and flight testing and requires objective testing and evaluation of the operational capability of each block of missile defense which is produced. Those are positive steps, as I have said, which will move us in the direction of the ``fly before you buy'' approach that we insist on with other major acquisitions. However, the bill also authorizes more than $60 million in long-lead funding for more interceptors on top of the 30 we already are buying, even though those interceptors are not subject to operational testing and evaluation. If we want a missile defense that works, rather than one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should insist on testing the missiles that we already have before we go out and buy more. Finally, the administration requested $8.5 million for research and development of the robust nuclear earth penetrator, even though Congress canceled this program last year. Although the bill does cut $4.5 million of the Air Force money from this program, it authorizes the Department of Energy to spend $4 million to resume the feasibility study. Instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we, ourselves, pursue the development of a new nuclear weapon. It is exactly the wrong message to send to the rest of the world. We are trying to persuade the rest of the world, don't go nuclear. We are telling some of those countries, if you do go nuclear, we may take very serious action to prevent you from crossing certain red lines. Yet we, ourselves, again are on the verge of putting in money to resume a feasibility study for a new nuclear weapon to be developed. I know it is only a study, but it is a message. It is a loud message. It is a dramatic message. It is a compelling message. It is a persuasive message, and it is used against us when we go to other countries and say: Don't go down that nuclear road. They say: Wait a minute. You are considering the possibility of going further and you already have thousands of nuclears and you are trying to persuade us that we should not be using nuclear weapons to defend ourselves when you are studying an additional use or additional weapon yourself? It weakens our argument and it weakens the argument that we must make against the most serious threat we face, which is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Finally, as our chairman has said, as we begin consideration of this bill, the men and women of our Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve, are deployed in harm's way in many areas of the globe that are subjected to daily armed attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. We joined together in standing behind our troops in expressing pride the extraordinary accomplishments on the battlefield. This bill will do much to provide them with the equipment they need and the compensation and benefits they deserve. If we can do more, we ought to do more. They deserve it, and their families deserve it. We have important issues to debate. Again, I conclude by thanking Chairman Warner for his leadership, bringing this bill to the floor and having this bill in the fairly complete shape it is in coming to the Senate. I thank him for his leadership of our staffs. We have wonderful staff, as he mentioned, and we have a wonderful committee. We are blessed to have members on our committee who all contribute in such important ways to the production of the bill. One of those members just walked off the floor. I, as Senator Warner did, want to recognize Senator Byrd although he is not here. He is stalwart in his commitment to this Senate and to this Nation. There are times when his plate is so overly full and his heart is so heavy, but nonetheless he performs his duty, and he is an inspiration to all members. All members of our committee deserve praise for the contribution they made to the bill.

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy's Navy Fellow, Doug Thompson, be given floor privileges during consideration of this bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to make my colleagues aware of one of the many organizations working to bring an end to the gun violence problem in this country, the PAX organization based in New York City. According to their Web site, PAX is ``the largest non- political, nonprofit organization dedicated to ending the gun violence epidemic in America.'' As part of its public health campaigns, PAX promotes commonsense solutions to help protect families, teenagers, and children from the tragedy of gun violence. One national program run by PAX, known as the Asking Saves Kids or ASK Campaign, encourages parents to simply ask other parents if there are guns in the homes where their children play. According to statistics cited by the ASK Campaign, more than 40 percent of households with children have guns. In the overwhelming majority of these households, the child also knows where the gun is hidden. Using public service advertising and grassroots education, the ASK Campaign is working to prevent accidental shootings involving children by encouraging parents to take common sense steps to protect their children. The ASK Campaign is a partnership between PAX and the Academy of Pediatrics and is supported by more than 400 organizations nationwide including the American Medical Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, and the Police Executive Research Forum. According to PAX, in 75 percent of the school shootings in our country, the attackers told other students of their plans prior to the attack. In addition, PAX states that students bring more than 100,000 guns to school every day. To help address these issues, PAX has created the Speak Up Campaign. The centerpiece of the campaign is a national hotline, 1-866-SPEAK-UP, where children and teenagers can call to anonymously report threats involving weapons at their school. Since the creation of the hotline in 2002, the Speak Up Campaign has received more than 5,000 calls which were then passed along to appropriate law enforcement officials. To increase public awareness of school violence prevention and the Speak Up hotline, the campaign has created an outreach program for schools and other community organizations. PAX has also partnered with various cable networks including MTV, NBC, ABC, and CBS to help reach children, teens, and parents with its message. I thank the PAX organization and their partners for their work to end gun violence. Their commonsense approach provides families with practical solutions to help protect themselves from the tragedy of gun violence. I am hopeful that the 109th Congress will do more to support their efforts by taking up and passing sensible gun safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I have two quick points. First, the current law which has been referred to by my good friend from Minnesota is a discretionary law. Whether someone does this intentionally or negligently, the violation may or may not lead to the loss of one's clearance. That is simply too loose. It is too discretionary. It has resulted in leak after leak after leak. It is long overdue that we tighten this law, and that is the effort of the amendment before us. It relates directly to the national security of the United States. I agree with my dear friend from Maine when she says we have to address national security issues. Protection of the classified identity of CIA agents is essential to the national security of the United States. If one identifies an agent, a CIA agent, it seems to me that person should lose their clearance, no ifs, no ands, no buts. That is not something which should be left to a ``may'' lose one's clearance. It should be a ``shall'' lose one's clearance. On the second-degree amendment, the amendment of the majority leader, when it states that . . . ``Any Federal officerholder that makes a statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda'' shall lead to the loss of clearance, we had a whole hearing yesterday about FBI agents' statements. Those statements were highly critical of the Department of Defense employees at Guantanamo. These included a number of FBI agents' e-mails that were critical. Those were the subject of a hearing of the Armed Services Committee yesterday. Many members of the Armed Services Committee were highly critical of the conduct of some of the people at Guantanamo as reflected in those FBI e-mails.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Newsweek magazine reported that on July 11, 2003, a correspondent for Time magazine, Matt Cooper, sent an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy: Subject, Rove P&C, and that means for personal and confidential. The e-mail said: Spoke to Rove on double supersecret background for about 2 minutes before he went on vacation. According to Newsweek, Cooper wrote that Karl Rove offered him a big warning not to get too far out on Joe Wilson. Cooper's e-mail said the following: that it was, Karl Rove said, Wilson's wife who apparently works at the Agency--and that is referring clearly, by the other part of the e-mail, to CIA--on WMD, weapons of mass destruction, issues, who authorized the trip, referring to Joe Wilson's trip. According to the Newsweek report, Ambassador Wilson's wife is Valerie Plame. Then Cooper finished his e-mail by writing: Please do not source this to Rove or even White House--and suggested that another reporter check with the CIA. Then in October of 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked whether Karl Rove was involved in the leak. These were the questions and answers: Question: Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove nor two other named persons disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I am wondering if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? Mr. McClellan: Those individuals, now referring to including Rove, I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. Question of McClellan: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? Mr. McClellan: They assured me they were not involved in this. Then comes the bombshell, the contemporaneous e-mail which indicated that as a matter of fact Mr. Rove indicated to Mr. Cooper that Joe Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues. It is not good enough to parse words on a matter that is this serious. It is not good enough to say, as both Mr. Rove and his lawyer have said, well, there was no reference to a specific name. On July 3, Mr. Rove's lawyer said his client did not disclose the identity of the CIA person. A little over a week later, after the release of the Cooper e-mail, Mr. Rove's lawyer parsed the words and said Mr. Rove did not disclose the name. Well, whether it is the name of a CIA employee or the identity of a CIA employee, that is wrong. It has to be stopped, and the only way to stop it is to adopt a statute which says either it is a criminal offense in case of specific intent, which we already have on the books, but even if one cannot prove a specific intent, even if one identifies a CIA employee, period, without the higher level of proof that is required for a criminal law, the identification of a CIA employee is enough to lose their security clearance. That is what the amendment before us provides: Identify a CIA agent, put that agent in this Nation at risk, and they are going to lose their security clearance. Now, if someone does it intentionally, and if that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond that, then they have committed a crime. So that is the answer to the question of my friend from Minnesota or the question of the Senator from Kentucky as to whether specific intent is required. It is not. In the criminal statute, it is, but we say the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA employee is sufficient to lose one's security clearance. Let us be clear as to what this e-mail said. There was no doubt that Mr. Rove, at least according to the e-mail, knew that the wife of Joe Wilson was a CIA employee because she was so identified as a CIA employee. So there is no question in the fact situation which has brought this matter to such dramatic light that the facts are there to provide this basis that there was, indeed, knowledge. But, to answer the question, there is no specific intent which is required. I wonder if the leader will yield 2 additional minutes?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Will my friend yield for a question on that?

Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to. I do not control the time.

Mr. LEVIN. The amendment speaks for itself. If you identify a covert CIA agent, and you have a security clearance, and the person to whom you identify that covert CIA agent does not have the right to receive that information, you lose your clearance. Period. I think it is pretty clear.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will support final passage of the Homeland Security appropriations bill today not only because it provides funding for many programs that I support, but also because it contains many provisions that I worked to have included. I am pleased that the Senate overwhelmingly supported, by a vote of 71 to 26, an amendment that I cosponsored with Senators Collins and Lieberman that provides a fairer approach to allocating homeland security grants than was provided in the current law and which the underlying bill would have continued. For the past 3 years, the State homeland security grant program has distributed funds using a funding formula that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of the funds to be divided equally among the States, regardless of size or need. This ``small state formula'' severely disadvantages states with high populations. Many Federal grant programs provide a minimum State funding level. But the state minimum formula used to allocate state homeland security funds is unusually high as was the base funding level in the underlying homeland security appropriations bill prior to the adoption of our amendment--.75 percent. This amendment would reduce that guarantee to .55 percent of the total amount appropriated for the threat-based homeland security grant program and added an option for the larger States of selecting a minimum amount based on a State's relative population and population density. This option for the States will provide additional guaranteed funds to the largest and most densely populated States, which also are probably the most at risk of an attack. For instance, Michigan would receive $17.55 million in guaranteed funding under the Collins/Lieberman amendment, but only $10.86 million in guaranteed funding in the underlying appropriations bill. I was pleased to be the author of this option, which was added in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The remainder of the total funds, approximately 60 percent, would go to the States and regions based purely on risk and threat assessment by the Department of Homeland Security using factors set forth in the amendment, with up to half of the remaining funds to be allocated by the Department to metropolitan areas through the Urban Area Security Initiative. The amendment also provides guidance on the factors to be considered in allocating risk-based funding. For example, in prioritizing among State applications for risk-based funds, the Secretary of Homeland Security will now consider whether the State is on an international border. The underlying appropriations bill, on the other hand, would have left all funds above the state base to be allocated without guidance, at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. This legislation also includes language that I offered that will assist our first responders by creating demonstration projects at our northern and southern borders. The amendment provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish at least six international border community interoperable communications demonstration Projects--no fewer than three of these demonstration projects shall be on the northern border, and no fewer than three of these demonstration projects shall be on the southern border. These interoperable communications demonstrations will address the interoperable communications needs of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, National Guard, and other emergency response providers at our borders because of the location at those borders where there is such a great threat of terrorists entering. Finally, the bill contains language I proposed that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to deny entry of any commercial motor vehicle carrying municipal solid waste from Canada until the Secretary certifies that the methods and technology used to inspect the vehicles for potential weapons of mass destruction as well as biological, chemical and nuclear materials are as efficient as the methods and technology used to inspect other commercial vehicles. I do not think that the funding levels provided in this bill go far enough to strengthen the programs that fund our domestic preparedness and response capabilities, protect our borders and ports and improve our transportation security. We cannot expect our first responders to be well-trained, properly equipped, and fully staffed to protect us if we cut their funding sources. I am hopeful that funding levels will be increased in conference.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the President has his responsibility. The President has said he knows Karl Rove was not involved. Now there is clear information that Karl Rove identified a CIA employee to a reporter who had no right to that information. Now what? Now that the President does know Mr. Rove is involved, now what? That is up to the President. That is the President's responsibility; how he exercises it is his judgment. He will exercise it as he sees fit, now that he knows Mr. Rove was involved. We can all give him suggestions, and we have, that he ought to exercise that responsibility by addressing the issue. Now that you know there was this involvement, now what? But we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility in Congress to make sure there is no ambiguity in the law, there is no hair splitting, no legal loopholes, no question about--well, wait a minute, I didn't name a name, I only named an identity. No higher standard of proof is required by criminal law beyond a reasonable doubt. You identify a covert agent of the CIA, you lose your security clearance. It is as clear as that and as important as that to the security of this Nation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, during the July 4th recess, I traveled to Iraq and Jordan to evaluate the progress of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my trip report be entered into the Record at this point. I spent two days--July 5 and 6--in Iraq and the morning of July 7 in Jordan. I believe mine was the first Congressional delegation to overnight in Iraq since the start of the war. It was also my fifth post-war trip to Iraq. In Iraq, I spent a day and a half in Baghdad meeting with U.S. Embassy and military personnel and with Members of the Government of Iraq, including the President and Prime Minister. Additionally, I met with numerous Sunni Arabs, including officials of the Government, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly, and representatives of political groups, including some who had just been added to the Assembly's constitutional drafting committee. I also met with the Chairman of the constitutional drafting committee and the UN Special Representative, whose staff is advising on the drafting of the constitution. I spent the remainder of the second day in Iraq in Fallujah in the Sunni Triangle, where I was able to meet with a number of U.S. servicemen and women, and was privileged to have dinner with ten Marine Corps and Navy personnel from Michigan. Once again, I was deeply impressed by the dedication and professionalism of our servicemen and women and with their very high morale. I told them that the Congress and the American people are proud of them and back them one hundred percent, regardless of differing positions on the Administration's policies. One purpose of my trip was to gauge the level of the insurgency. I found strong support for the recent assessment of General Abizaid, the regional U.S. Commander, that the insurgency is not weakening and that the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq has increased. I found no support for Vice President Cheney's view that the insurgency is in its ``last throes.'' Another purpose of my trip was to assess the current and potential level of participation of the Sunni Arabs in the political and constitutional drafting processes, including the likelihood that the Iraqi constitution would be completed by August 15th (and therefore not needing to utilize the one six month extension allowed under Iraqi law). I was surprised by the optimism of most Iraqis that the constitution would be agreed by August 15th and particularly that the Sunni Arab participants (recently increased by 15) would likely be supportive of the draft. If that is true, that will pave the way for a referendum on the draft constitution on October 15th and a national election on December 15th. If this optimism is not borne out, however, a way must be found to bring pressure to bear on the parties to make the reasonable compromises that will be required for agreement on the constitution. Everyone whom I met on this trip advised that none of the Iraqis--not just Shia and Kurd, but also Sunni Arab--want U.S. forces to leave now. They want our forces to be less visible and Iraqi security forces to be more visible, but they want us to stay for now. Given that fact and given the consensus that a political solution is necessary if there is any prospect of defeating the insurgency, we need to make clear to the Iraqis that if they are unable to reach agreement on the constitution, we will reconsider our presence in Iraq and that all options will be on the table, including withdrawal. (The logic of that position is that if a political settlement is essential if there is a chance of lessening the insurgency, that without a political settlement the insurgency is not going to be defeated even with our presence.) I focused on meeting with members of the Sunni Arab community, as I believe they are the key to a successful political process in Iraq. Most of them realize it was a mistake for them not to have participated in the January elections and they want to participate in the drafting of a constitution and in the follow-on elections. At the same time, the so-called former regime element that is fueling the insurgency in an attempt to block a political settlement comes from the Sunni Arab community, and too many members of that community sympathize with and provide support for the insurgents. There are a number of issues that will need to be resolved if a draft constitution is to be agreed upon by August 15th. These include the role of Islam; the form of the government (i.e. parliamentary or presidential); the relationship between the national government and the provinces and the degree to which natural resources will belong to the provinces or the national government; and the degree of autonomy that will reside in the regions. Since the oil resources of Iraq are located in the Shia south and the Kurdish north, these are issues that are extremely important to the Sunni Arabs, whose area lacks oil resources. The decision of the National Assembly to accept 15 Sunni Arabs as members of the constitutional drafting committee, despite the Sunni Arabs lack of participation in the election, hopefully augurs well for the kind of compromises that will need to be made by all three of the main political factions for a draft constitution to be reached. Although the successful drafting of a constitution, with the active participation of the Sunni Arab community, is very important and may help create an environment within which the insurgency can be dramatically reduced, it will not automatically achieve that result. The Sunni Arabs with whom we met, although from different groups, complained of the extended detention of their brethren, the perceived focus of raids by Coalition and Iraqi security forces on their community, the forced unemployment of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs fired in the de-Baathification process and denied the pensions to which they contributed. They expressed a preference for the U.S. military to leave the cities and to locate on bases removed from populated areas, and the need for at least a rough estimate as to when Coalition forces will be withdrawn. I explored in depth the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. It is clear that a great deal of time was wasted during the existence of the Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA. While it appears that progress is being made now, it is moving slowly and will take quite some time before Iraqis will be capable of dealing with the insurgency on their own. In his recent speech to the nation on Iraq, President Bush said, with respect to the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, that ``as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' General Casey, the overall commander on the ground in Iraq, acknowledged to me that he is working on a plan whereby units of the Iraqi security forces would first partner with Coalition military units and gradually take the lead in military operations, then will assume control in selected provinces, and gradually assume control more broadly until they ultimately can control the entire country. Part of that plan provides for Coalition forces to be reduced as Iraqi security forces become more and more capable. I also spoke to General Casey and to Iraqi officials about the need for greater progress in the review of Iraqis detained by Coalition or Iraqi forces and the need to either release or try them. While some progress has been made in this area, it has been too slow in coming and much more must be done and done quickly. In Jordan, I was pleased to be able to meet with King Abdullah. King Abdullah had just finished presiding over the closing session of a three day International Islamic Conference that he had organized. This visionary and critically important Conference was attended by top Muslim authorities from around the globe. It was aimed at finding common principles among various Muslim schools of thought and isolating and deligitimatizing those who preach violence in the name of Islam. Two things need to happen within the next 40 days to improve chances of a successful outcome in Iraq. A draft of the Iraqi constitution needs to be agreed and sent to the National Assembly by the constitutional committee no later than August 15--the timetable the Iraqis have set for themselves. All of the people with whom I spoke--whether Sunni, Shia, or Kurd--agree that that date should and can be met. There also needs to be a more detailed road map for drawing down U.S. forces. General Casey, commander of the multi- national forces in Iraq, has said that it should be possible for a fairly significant reduction in U.S. force levels in the first few months of next year. But what is so far missing are the decision criteria for determining when that reduction can begin so that presidential rhetoric and statements of intent are turned into a credible and reassuring roadmap for Iraqis taking ownership of the risks and responsibility for their own security and survival. After much prodding by Congress, the Administration has finally created and implemented a capability assessment system for determining the readiness of Iraqi military and police units to conduct counter-insurgency operations-- whether alongside of Coalition units, or in the lead but with Coalition support, or independently. Now there must be a detailed plan, mutually agreed to by the Coalition and Iraqis, with measurable benchmarks to determine progress, and with a reasonable estimate of the time required to reach those benchmarks. Only in this way can we know the approximate number of Iraqi units that need to be capable of counterinsurgency operations so that coalition units can first withdraw from cities and other visible locations and begin a withdrawal from the country as a whole. It is essential that such a plan be promptly agreed to and implemented, and its outline publicly announced, so as to provide reassurance to the American public which is expressing growing concern about simply being told we need to ``stay the course'' in Iraq, and to the Iraqi public which needs to see that U.S. forces will not be in their country indefinitely. Both publics must see that the President's statement that ``as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down'' is not just a bumper sticker slogan. Secretary Rice has said that we will be in Iraq as long as we are needed. Without adopting and implementing a measured and credible plan, coalition forces could be ``needed'' for an indeterminate time. Without such a plan, Iraqis may never assume the responsibility for taking back their country from the insurgents and taking the risks and making the compromises necessary to chart their own destiny. Finally, while I was surprised by the high level of optimism about the August 15 date being met for agreement on a draft Iraqi constitution, I was given a sobering assessment about the current and future strength of the insurgency. Even if the timetable for adopting a constitution is met, and even if a plan is agreed upon for phasing in capable Iraqi military forces to take over responsibility for security so U.S. forces in Iraq can simultaneously be reduced, there is still great uncertainty that the insurgency will be eliminated or lessened in the near term. But, while taking those steps doesn't guarantee success, they could help change the dynamic in Iraq and provide the only way a poorly thought through and mistake ridden U.S. policy in Iraq can still reach a successful conclusion.