[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 94 (Monday, July 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7312-S7313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to request--I understand my 
colleague, Senator Stevens, has already done this with respect to his 
cloakroom--that our cloakrooms send out a call to various Senators and 
staffs who are in town to let Senator Stevens and me and the floor 
staffs know by 3 p.m. today if they have amendments which they expect 
to offer. If Senators expect to offer amendments and have not already 
informed Senator Stevens and myself and our floor staffs, they should 
do so by 3 p.m. today.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.


                           Amendment No. 862

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Schumer and others, I 
send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
     Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Corzine, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 862.

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

(Purpose: To rescind $33,900,000 for the printing and postage costs of 
the notices to be sent by the Internal Revenue Service before and after 
  the tax rebate, such amount to remain available for debt reduction)

       On page 44, line 20, strike ``$66,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$32,300,000''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment has been sent to the desk on 
behalf of Senators Schumer, Reed, Dodd, Lieberman, and Corzine that 
would rescind $33.9 million in unnecessary spending from the 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  This money would finance an unnecessary and inappropriate notice to 
taxpayers on the rebate they will receive as part of the Economic 
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
  This amendment is offered to help uphold the standards of 
professionalism and integrity that the Internal Revenue Service has 
historically tried to maintain.
  These standards are threatened by this partisan notification.
  The letter reads:

       We are pleased to inform you that the United States 
     Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law 
     the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2001, which provides long-term relief for all Americans who 
     pay income taxes. The new tax law provides immediate tax 
     relief in 2001 and long-term tax relief for the years to 
     come.

  In 1975, a similar rebate was made available to taxpayers and it was 
simply included in the refunds.
  I look forward to working with my colleague on this amendment, as 
does Senator Schumer, as debate on the supplemental appropriations 
proceeds. I hope this amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 863

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] for Mr. Feingold, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 863.

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

(Purpose: To increase the amount provided to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, 
  and tuberculosis, and to offset that increase by rescinding amounts 
     appropriated to the Navy for the V-22 Osprey aircraft program)

       On page 28, beginning on line 9, strike ``$100,000,000'' 
     and all that follows through line 13, and insert the 
     following: ``$693,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That this amount may be made available, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for a United 
     States contribution to a global trust fund to combat HIV/
     AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis: Provided, further, That the 
     entire amount made available under this heading is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided, further, 
     That the entire amount under this heading shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for that 
     specific dollar amount that includes the designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress: Provided, further, That the total amount of the 
     rescission for `Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2001/2003' under 
     section 1204 is hereby increased by $594,000,000.''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be 
laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am going to ask that the Senate recess 
awaiting the call of the Chair. I will be available, and Senator 
Stevens will be available anytime a Senator comes to the floor and 
wishes to offer an amendment or to make a statement on any matter. This 
will merely free the floor staff for a moment to have lunch, if 
necessary.
  Mr. President, seeing no Senator seeking recognition, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate stand in recess awaiting the call of the Chair.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 3:24 p.m., recessed until 
3:27 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer 
(Mr. Graham).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 864

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for Mr. Roberts, for 
     himself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Craig, Mr. Miller, Mr. Crapo, and 
     Mr. Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 864.

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

[[Page S7313]]

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for reorganizing certain B-1 
                             bomber forces)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense for fiscal year 2001 may be obligated or expended for 
     retiring or dismantling, or for preparing to retire or 
     dismantle, any of the 93 B-1B Lancer bombers in service as of 
     June 1, 2001, or for transferring or reasigning any of those 
     aircraft from the unit, or the facility; to which assigned as 
     of that date.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, recently the Air Force revealed as part of 
its programmed budget decision its plan to cut the B-1B force structure 
by more than one-third. This has a substantial impact on a variety of 
Air Force bases that currently have a B-1B mission, and actually 
eliminates the B-1B entirely from Mountain Home Air Force Base in my 
State, from McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, and from Robbins Air 
Force Base in Georgia.
  Such a drawdown in the B-1B fleet has the same national impact as 
would BRAC. Clearly, decisions of this magnitude should not be made 
without consultation with Congress. There was no opportunity for advice 
and consent on the part of the Air Force or the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense.
  Therefore, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator 
Roberts to preempt any precipitous action by the Department of Defense 
that could circumvent the right of Congress to review such a 
significant change in our Air Force defense structure.
  This amendment will prevent any 2001 funds from being used for the 
preparation of retiring, dismantling, or reassigning any portion of the 
B-1B fleet. This would allow Congress the necessary time to consider 
the significance of the Air Force's decision and its impact with regard 
to the fiscal year 2002 defense budget.
  The B-1B satisfies a very specific warfighting requirement as our 
fastest long-range strategic bomber capable of flying intercontinental 
missions without refueling. With its flexible weapons payloads and a 
high carrying capacity, it is extremely effective against time-
sensitive and mobile targets.
  While cutting the force structure is advocated as a means of cost 
savings and weapons upgrade, it comes at a significant national 
security cost. Removal of the B-1B from Mountain Home Air Force Base 
calls into question DOD's support of the composite wing which is the 
basis for the air expeditionary wing concept and raises other long-term 
strategic and mission questions.
  The composite wing is our Nation's ``911 call'' in times of conflict 
that require rapid reaction and deployment over long distances. Do we 
want to eliminate our nation's 911 call, particularly in light of a 
future defense strategy that requires the increase capabilities that 
the B-1B offers as a long-range, low-altitude, fast-penetration bomber?
  Mountain Home Air Force Base is unique.
  At Mountain Home, we train our men and women in uniform as they are 
expected to fight by bringing together the composite wing and an 
adjacent premier training range with significant results that will 
ensure that we are the next generation air power leader. We have 
composite wing training twice a month, premier night low-altitude 
training, dissimilar air combat training, and the current composite 
wing configuration fulfills the air expeditionary wing requirement 100 
percent. Without the B1-B in the composite wing, our target load 
capability is reduced by 60 percent.
  Removal of the B1-B from the three bases will actually increase costs 
while reducing operational readiness: The B1 missions for the National 
Guard at McConnell and Robbins Air Force bases have a 15 percent higher 
mission capable rate than active duty units at Dyess Air Force Base in 
Texas and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, with 25 percent 
less cost per flying hour, due to decreased wear and tear on the 
aircraft. Also, the National Guard repairs B-1 engines for the whole 
fleet at 60 percent of the depot cost. As a result of the high costs 
associated with traveling to others bases for training, other B1-B 
wings from Dyess Air Force Base and Ellsworth Air Force Base take part 
only once a year in composite wing training, whereas the B1-B wing at 
Mountain Home Air Force Base conducts this type of training twenty four 
times per year. The result is that aviators from Mountain Home are 
rated higher in operational inspections and training because of the 
enhanced training opportunities which they receive at reduced cost to 
the government.
  The Department of Defense shouldn't make budget decisions which 
change major national security objectives without congressional review. 
Military budget decision should be made for the right reasons and not 
be based on playing political favors, especially when it impacts our 
operational capability and readiness, and will cost the government more 
money in the long run. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment which will provide Congress with time to review the Air 
Force's decision and its effects on our national defense structure.
  I have another amendment for proposal that is to be drafted and that 
I believe the ranking member will offer before the 6 o'clock deadline. 
I will speak briefly to that amendment. It deals with grain and 
commodity sales to Israel.
  Israel, as we all know, began to receive cash transfer assistance in 
1979 which replaced, in part, commodity import program assistance. In 
lieu of assistance specifically for commodity purchases, Israel agreed 
to continue to purchase United States grain, of which it has purchased 
1.6 million metric tons every year since, or until this year, 2001, and 
ship half of it in privately owned United States-flagged commercial 
vessels. That, in essence, was the agreement in 1979.
  Despite a level of United States aid in every year since 1984 that 
has been higher than the 1979-1983 level, Israel never increased its 
grain imports. That was kind of the quid pro quo: As our rates 
increased, support would go up, and so would their purchases of 
commodities. Had proportionality been the test, Israel would have 
reached the 2.45 million tons at least at one point. It never has. 
However, Israel has consistently cited proportionality in reference to 
the 2001 Foreign Operations appropriation act in stating its intent to 
cut purchases of approximately 1.2 million metric tons in this fiscal 
year. This cut is disproportionately greater than the reduction of the 
U.S. aid from the 2000-2001 fiscal period and is not consistent with 
congressional intent.
  My amendment, which will be proposed later this afternoon, reshapes 
this, ensuring that a side letter agreement, with the terms of at least 
as favorable treatment as those in the year 2001, would be more 
consistent with past congressional intent and previous bilateral 
relations. Proportionality is something that I don't think can be or 
should be effectively argued whereas they did not respond when our aid 
increases went up.
  We will be bringing a letter to the floor insisting that Israel stay 
consistent with what was agreed to following 1979 as it related to 
turning, if you will, commodity import programs into cash transfer 
assistance. We think we have honored our agreement with Israel. The 
amendment simply requires them to honor their agreement with us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________