[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 126 (Tuesday, September 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9763-S9780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1438, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1438) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2002 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Services, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Bunning amendment No. 1622, to strike title XXIX, relating 
     to defense base closure and realignment.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1594, to authorize the President to 
     waive a limitation on performance of depot-level maintenance 
     by non-Federal Government personnel.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1595, to revise requirements relating 
     to closure of Vieques Naval Training Range.


                           Amendment No. 1622

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 15 minutes of debate remaining on the Bunning amendment 
numbered 1622.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note that the Senator from Arizona is 
here. I assume, since we oppose the Bunning amendment, that he, along 
with the two managers, will be controlling the time.
  I yield myself 1 minute at this point to put into the Record a letter 
that I,

[[Page S9764]]

along with Senator Warner, received from Gen. Shelton, who is the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These are his words:

       . . . reiterate how critically important it is that 
     Congress authorize another round of base closures and 
     realignments.

  We previously put in the Record a letter from the Secretary of 
Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, strongly supporting one additional round of 
base-closing authority to begin in the year 2003 and giving the reasons 
for that need.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I 
received this morning from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. 
Shelton.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   Chairman of the


                                        Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the full Senate deliberates the FY 
     2002 Defense Authorization Bill I would like to reiterate how 
     critically important it is that Congress authorize another 
     round of base closures and realignments.
       Last Thursday the President outlined a sustained campaign 
     to combat international terrorism. The efficient and 
     effective use of the resources devoted to this effort will be 
     the responsibility of the Services and the Combatant 
     Commanders. The authority to eliminate excess infrastructure 
     will be an important tool our forces will need to become more 
     efficient and serve as better custodians of the taxpayers 
     money. As I mentioned before, there is an estimated 23 
     percent under-utilization of our facilities. We cannot afford 
     the cost associated with carrying this excess infrastructure. 
     The Department of Defense must have the ability to 
     restructure its installations to meet our current national 
     security needs.
       I know you share my concerns that additional base closures 
     are necessary. The Department is committed to accomplishing 
     the required reshaping and restructuring in a single round of 
     base closures and realignments. I hope the Congress will 
     support this effort.
           Sincerely,

                                             Henry H. Shelton,

                                                   Chairman of the
                                            Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to read two paragraphs of 
this letter from the Chairman.

       Last Thursday the President outlined a sustained campaign 
     to combat international terrorism. The efficient and 
     effective use of the resources devoted to this effort will be 
     the responsibility of the Services and the Combatant 
     Commanders. The authority to eliminate excess infrastructure 
     will be an important tool our forces will need to become more 
     efficient and serve as better custodians of the taxpayers 
     money. As I mentioned before, there is an estimated 23 
     percent under-utilization of our facilities. We cannot afford 
     the cost associated with carrying this excess infrastructure. 
     The Department of Defense must have the ability to 
     restructure its installations to meet our current national 
     security needs.
       I know you share my concerns that additional base closures 
     are necessary. The Department is committed to accomplishing 
     the required reshaping and restructuring in a single round of 
     base closures and realignments. I hope the Congress will 
     support this effort.

  Mr. President, both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs are acting in accordance with the Commander in Chief, the 
President of the United States. This BRAC issue is clearly one that our 
President needs at this time given the extenuating circumstances facing 
the United States of America.
  I yield sufficient time as he may need to our colleague from Arizona, 
Senator McCain.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining and how is it 
divided?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 5 minutes remaining to 
the opponents and 7\1/2\ minutes remaining to the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the opponents 
of the Bunning amendment be given an extra 2 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to make sure Senator McCain has 
adequate time. How much time would he like?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to request that Senator Levin have 2 
additional minutes at the expiration of the 5 minutes I have. I ask 
unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes for Senator Levin and 2 
additional minutes for the Senator from Kentucky, if he wishes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan will be the first speaker.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BUNNING. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I do not doubt that when there is excess 
capacity with respect to military installations we ought to take action 
to deal with them. But I think it ought to be action that is targeted, 
thoughtful, and timely. In my judgment, there are two reasons why we 
ought to strike the language from this bill at this point: One is 
military and the other is economic.
  First, we do not know what the force structure is going to be. We are 
undergoing a quadrennial review at this point and yet, before we talk 
about force structure, we already presumably know what the base 
structure should be.
  With the issue of homeland security and all the other changes that 
will occur as a result of this country's determination to protect 
itself, we ought to, at this point, reserve the question of what should 
be our base structure. And for that reason, I do not think this is the 
time to do this.
  Second, on the economic circumstances, the potential of having a 
base-closing commission that says to every military installation in the 
country, by the way, we are going to look at you for potential closure, 
is, in my judgment, an opportunity to stunt the economic growth of 
virtually every community in every region in the country that has a 
military installation.
  At a time when we have an extraordinarily soft economy, and one that 
is in significant trouble, can you imagine anyone making a decision to 
invest in any military installation community in this country if they 
know the prospect might exist that installation will be closed? The 
answer is, they will not make that investment. They will decide they 
cannot in good conscience do it.
  We have been through this before. If we just say that every base is 
at risk with respect to a commission, it stunts the economic growth of 
every community in which a base exists.
  I say to the Pentagon, I think it would make much more sense to 
narrow the focus of where they have excess capacity. When that is 
narrowed, then let's have a commission that evaluates that excess 
capacity and how to deal with it. But I really believe that both for 
military and economic purposes this amendment ought to be agreed to and 
this provision ought to be stricken.
  I disagree with my friend from Arizona. I think he is an American 
hero. I have the greatest respect for him--and he is a good friend of 
mine--but we disagree. I believe we ought to take a chunk out of this 
excess capacity at some point but not now, given the question of 
homeland security. I certainly do not believe now is the time, given 
what it will do to the economy, the economy of communities, regions, 
and our country, if we say every military installation is at risk of 
closure. That clearly will dry up investment that we need in this 
country to try to uplift the American economy.
  For that reason, I intend to support the motion to strike.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I would like to very briefly address some of the 
arguments that have been made. One is that the economy is too soft 
right now to consider further base closings and couldn't absorb the 
loss of jobs. The fact is that the provision gives the President the 
authority to consider a base closure in 2003, not 2001. If our economy 
is still bad in the year 2003, we will have other problems besides a 
base-closing commission.
  Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Center for Defense Information 
prepared an independent report that they released in September 2001. 
Some of this data may surprise some of my colleagues who are citing 
economic concerns as to why they oppose further base-closing rounds.

[[Page S9765]]

  This objective study studied 97 bases closed in four base-closing 
rounds. Eighty-eight percent of the bases closed experienced per capita 
personal income growth, as high as 36 percent, and averaging nearly 10 
percent. Seventy-five percent of the bases closed experienced gains in 
average earnings per job. Eighty-seven percent of the bases closed had 
positive employment rates. Sixty-eight percent beat the national 
average. The average job replacement rate of all these bases closed--
all bases is 102 percent.
  By the beginning of 2001, only 3 of the 97 counties had higher 
unemployment rates than the BRAC announcement year; and 53 percent had 
unemployment rates lower than the national average.
  I will be glad to share this information with my colleagues.
  Everything has changed with regard to BRAC. The argument is, and as 
my friend from North Dakota has said, everything is changed now as of 
September 11. That may be the view of some, but it is not the view of 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense. 
In fact, in their view, the opposite is the case--the opposite--that we 
need now to provide the Secretary of Defense with more flexibility 
because we may be called upon to do things very differently.
  The argument is made that we do not know what the force structure 
will be absent the QDR--the Quadrennial Defense Review--so how can we 
vote on further base closure rounds? Maybe we ought to remember that 
this issue has been around since 1970.
  In 1983, the Grace Commission made recommendations for base closures. 
In 1997, the QDR recommended that after four closure rounds we must 
shed excess infrastructure. The 1997 Defense Reform Initiative and 
National Defense Panel strongly urged Congress and the Department of 
Defense to move quickly the base realignment, and BRAC has been 
recommended--basic realignment--by Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, 
and now President George W. Bush.
  Finally, Mr. President--and I think this is important--this is a time 
we should place trust in the judgment of the Commander in Chief and the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If 
we adopt the Bunning amendment, we will be acting in direct 
contradiction to their views. I think it is important that there is not 
a single military expert in this country of any credibility who doesn't 
believe that we need a base-closing round.
  I ask my colleagues to consult anyone--Gen. Schwarzkopf--retired or 
active. Who does not believe we need another base closing round? I hope 
we will vote down the Bunning amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUNNING. I yield Senator Ted Stevens 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I support the Bunning amendment to strike 
the base realignment and closure language from this year's Defense 
authorization bill.
  It is my view that this is the wrong time for our country and our 
military to move forward with BRAC legislation.
  There are serious questions about the adequacy of the costs and 
savings estimates upon which the Department bases its claims for 
savings in the near term.
  My concern has been that over the past 12 years, we have spent over 
$22 billion to close and realign bases throughout the United States. 
These costs are substantial and must be figured into DOD's future 
budgets. There is still considerable work to be done to clean up 
previously closed bases.
  However, the Department of Defense has not put aside funds in the 
future year Defense plan to pay for BRAC. They have not budgeted for 
the up-front costs. A reasonable estimate that an additional BRAC round 
would cost $3 to $4 billion a year--starting as early as 2004.
  In recent General Accounting Office reports, they state that ``net 
savings from BRAC were not generated as quickly as initially estimated 
because the costs of closing bases and environmental cleanup were high 
and offset the savings.''
  The up-front money must be found and it will most likely come from 
the Department's investment accounts. The diversion of billions of 
dollars to support an additional BRAC round could have a serious impact 
on the transformation of the services for the 21st century.
  There has been a lot of discussion about savings. We found that in 
the past, most of the savings came from the elimination of civilian and 
military positions. This was consistent with the downsizing of our 
Armed Forces through the 1990s--not necessarily related to closing 
bases. Many of the military personnel were simply realigned to other 
bases.
  Further, I know of no comprehensive assessment of the mission impact 
of the totality of the closure and realignment decisions made to date.
  Particularly with the considerable uncertainty about the future size 
of the force and its requirements, it would seem the more prudent 
approach would delay this legislation until we have a better picture of 
our future requirements.
  I urge you to vote to support the Bunning amendment to strike the 
BRAC language.
  Mr. President, there will be a lot of discussion about the 
elimination of these bases and the impact on the economy. This is not 
the time to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
proposed by my good friends and colleagues, Senators Bunning and Lott, 
concerning eliminating the authorization for another Base Realignment 
and Closure review in 2003.
  In February of 2001, the Business Executives for National Security, a 
non-profit organization focused on improving the Nation's defense 
business policies reported that nearly 70 percent of the defense budget 
is spent on support functions including bases and infrastructure.
  In the 1997 Department of Defense Report on Base Realignment and 
Closure, Secretary Cohen noted that our force structure has been 
brought down significantly, 33 percent, but our domestic infrastructure 
has decreased only 21 percent.
  In June of this year, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that he needed 
``greater freedom to manage,'' and he pointed out that a ``reduction in 
excess military bases and facilities could generate savings of several 
billion dollars annually.''
  This year, the Joint Chiefs testified before the Armed Services 
Committee, and each one--General Ryan, Admiral Clark, General Jones, 
General Shinseki--agreed to a need for an additional round of base 
closures or realignments. In their comments they pointed out that 
savings from excess capacity are real and that the excess 
infrastructure burdens their ability to efficiently execute their 
national strategy.
  On September 3, 2001, Admiral David Jeremiah, former Vice Chairman of 
the JCS, and General Richard Hearney, former Assistant Commandant of 
the USMC wrote in commentary that ``Every billion not spent on unneeded 
bases is a billion that can be re-directed toward building an even 
stronger military.''
  To those of my friends and colleagues who say that we are in a 
different time than in 1997, or in February 2001 or even August, and 
that we must support our military at this time, I say I agree with you. 
We must support our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women and Marines. We 
must give them the financial tools and operational and administrative 
flexibility to effectively carry out their mission, especially at this 
time.
  I draw my colleagues' attention to September 21, 2001, as it is after 
the horrific events of September 11. On that date Secretary Rumsfeld 
communicated to the Congress, once again, his strong support for 
converting ``excess capacity into warfighting ability.'' My colleagues, 
a stronger more applicable comment could not have come at a more 
critical time.
  To my colleagues who may point out that in that letter Secretary 
Rumsfeld noted that ``our future needs as to base

[[Page S9766]]

structure are uncertain . . .'' I point out that he goes on to 
emphasize that the DoD, ``simply must have the freedom to maximize the 
efficient use of our resources.'' By authorizing another round of 
realignments and closures we let our war fighters mold their 
infrastructure to fit their requirements. Let us not burden them for 
political reasons with infrastructure that should have been retired 
with the P-51, the Enfield rifle and the Sherman tank.
  I stand with the Secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Senate 
Armed Services Committee in opposition to this amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator 
from Kentucky to strike language from the fiscal year 2002 Defense 
authorization bill that would authorize a new base closure and 
realignment round in 2003.
  I feel very strongly that the time is not right for another painful 
round of military base closures, and my opposition is only strengthened 
in the aftermath of the tragedy that occurred on September 11. As a 
result of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center and at the 
Pentagon, I believe we must reevaluate our military force structure 
needs--both at home and abroad--in a new and very different light.
  In fact, I was extremely skeptical about the need for additional base 
closures even before the terrorist attacks. On August 14, Congressman 
George Miller and I sent letters to the chairmen and ranking members of 
the House and Senate Armed Services Committees outlining our reasons 
for opposing a new base closure round. I ask unanimous consent that 
those letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, August 14, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Chairman Levin and Senator Warner: We write to express 
     our deep concern about the round of military base closures 
     proposed by the Pentagon for 2003, and the enabling 
     legislation that the Armed Services Committee will be 
     considering. Since the late 1980s, in a series of 
     Congressionally mandated base closures, 97 major military 
     facilities have been closed or ``realigned''--29 of them in 
     California.
       These closures have been extremely painful for the 
     communities involved, and it has proven extremely difficult 
     to convert these bases to other, economically viable uses. As 
     you know, the primary obstacles to converting closed bases 
     are the enormous costs and huge technical challenges 
     associated with cleaning them up. In our state of California, 
     while some sites have made great progress, none of the 29 
     bases closed since 1988 have been fully cleaned up or 
     converted to non-military uses. And until a base is cleaned 
     up (or at least a fully funded clean up plan is in place), it 
     is virtually impossible for a community to attract the 
     vendors, developers and others who can help make a base's 
     conversion an economic and social success.
       We believe it would be unfair and inefficient to close even 
     one more base while the Pentagon continues to raise financial 
     and bureaucratic hurdles to communities that are doing 
     everything in their power to adjust to new civilian economic 
     realities. The Pentagon must work in good faith with 
     communities in California and across the country to expedite 
     and complete the clean up and conversion efforts now 
     underway.
       Instead of devoting time, money and energy to developing a 
     new base closure round, we ask that you work with us and our 
     communities to finish the job we started so long ago.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara Boxer,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
     George Miller,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, August 14, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Stump,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives.
     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives.
       Dear Chairman Stump and Congressman Skelton: We write to 
     express our deep concern about the round of military base 
     closures proposed by the Pentagon for 2003, and the enabling 
     legislation that the Armed Services Committee will be 
     considering. Since the late 1980s, in a series of 
     Congressionally mandated base closures, 97 major military 
     facilities have been closed or ``realigned''--29 of them in 
     California.
       These closures have been extremely painful for the 
     communities involved, and it has proven extremely difficult 
     to convert these bases to other, economically viable uses. As 
     you know, the primary obstacles to converting closed bases 
     are the enormous costs and huge technical challenges 
     associated with cleaning them up. In our state of California, 
     while some sites have made great progress, none of the 29 
     bases closed since 1988 have been fully cleaned up or 
     converted to non-military uses. And until a base is cleaned 
     up (or at least a fully funded clean up plan is in place), it 
     is virtually impossible for a community to attract the 
     vendors, developers and others who can help make a base's 
     conversion an economic and social success.
       We believe it would be unfair and inefficient to close even 
     one more base while the Pentagon continues to raise financial 
     and bureaucratic hurdles to communities that are doing 
     everything in their power to adjust to new civilian economic 
     realities. The Pentagon must work in good faith with 
     communities in California and across the country to expedite 
     and complete the clean up and conversion efforts now 
     underway.
       Instead of devoting time, money and energy to developing a 
     new base closure round, we ask that you work with us and our 
     communities to finish the job we started so long ago.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara Boxer,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
     George Miller,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have heard basically three arguments. 
One is that this is the wrong time to do this, following the events of 
September 11. It seems to me, the compelling answers are set forth in 
the letters from Secretary Rumsfeld and GEN Shelton on that issue.
  Secretary Rumsfeld: ``the imperative to convert excess capacity into 
war-fighting ability is enhanced, not diminished,'' because of those 
events because we need to maximize our resources--in his words--``the 
finite use of resources.'' And the authority to realign and close bases 
and facilities will be a critical element to ensure the right mix of 
bases and forces within our warfighting strategy.
  We are asking our troops to take risks. It seems to me, at a minimum, 
we ought to be willing now to set aside our own back-home concerns and 
do what is essential in order to have the efficient use of resources. 
We cannot afford infrastructure which is excess at any time but surely 
when we are asking our troops to go into combat. There is no 
justification for us to continue to say we are going to preserve excess 
infrastructure. This begins in 2003. I emphasize this because some or 
our colleagues have said, if you don't know the force structure, how 
can you know the base structure? We don't know what our force structure 
is going to be. That is why in the bill itself we require that before 
2003, before this base structure plan is put into place--and here the 
words of the bill are being quoted:

       The Secretary shall carry out a comprehensive review of the 
     military installations of the Department of Defense . . . 
     based on the force-structure plan submitted under subsection 
     (a)2. . . .

  There must be a force structure plan submitted under this law prior 
to the base restructuring proposal.
  Finally, in terms of savings, we heard that at times you cannot prove 
the savings. We have shown, it seems to me, through GAO report after 
GAO report, that--and now I am going to quote from one of the more 
recent ones:

       Our work has consistently affirmed that the net savings for 
     four rounds of base closure and realignment are substantial.

  That is the GAO talking. And we have had a report from the Department 
of Defense, a very specific report, showing the savings in a chart 
which lays them out line by line. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Department of Defense chart showing specifically where the $6 billion 
annual recurring savings comes from be printed in the Record.
  That is a significant amount of money. We cannot afford to waste this 
money. We cannot afford to ask our forces to go into combat if we 
ourselves will not do what is necessary to give them the resources.
  This is excess baggage. They should not be going into combat with the 
belief that we are not willing to strip the excess, at least starting 
in the year 2003, at least starting after there is a new force 
structure that has been decided upon, if they are going to be taking 
the risks we are going to be asking them to take.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S9767]]



                   SUMMARY OF FY 2002 BRAC BUDGET ESTIMATES; SUMMARY OF ALL BRAC COSTS AND SAVINGS BY FISCAL YEAR--INCLUDES ANNUAL SAVINGS (INFLATED) AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
                                                                                  [Current dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1990        1991        1992        1993         1994         1995        1996        1997        1998        1999         2000          2001          Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ONE TIME IMPLEMENTATION
            COSTS
 
Military Construction.......      345.6       478.8       298.1       812.4         985.5       915.6      1244.7       719.1       506.5       224.4          65.7          12.8       6,609.1
Family Housing--Construction        0.0         0.0         0.3         0.0           0.7         0.0         0.0        38.4        46.8         2.0           0.0           0.0          88.2
Family Housing--Operations..        0.0         0.1         0.5         1.4           0.3         0.0         0.1         0.0         0.4         0.3           0.0           0.0           3.1
Environmental...............        0.0       366.4       621.9       487.3         540.5       643.1       847.0       676.9       830.5       750.4         360.7         770.1       6,894.8
Operations and Maintenance..      111.8       120.6        98.9       409.3         784.6      1029.3      1513.9      1057.3       709.7       671.3         270.1         213.3       6,990.2
Military Personnel--PCS.....        0.3         1.3         2.2        13.7          23.7        26.9        14.8        17.9        11.9        19.7           1.5           5.4         139.4
Other.......................       13.6        17.9         4.1        40.4          89.6       160.8       119.4        33.1        17.7        10.1           2.4           0.6         509.6
Homeowners Assistance               0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0           0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0           5.0          13.5          18.5
 Program....................
AF Move Bill From O'Hare            0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0           0.0         0.0         0.0        94.6         0.0         0.0           0.0           0.0          94.6
 Airport....................
Commission Expenses.........        0.0         0.0        13.0         0.0           0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0           0.0           0.0          13.0
Prior Year Financing........        0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0           0.0         0.0         1.3         3.5         0.0        19.0           0.0           0.0          23.8
                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total One Time Costs..      471.3       985.1     1,039.0     1,764.5       2,425.0     2,775.7     3,741.1     2,640.8     2,123.5     1,697.2         705.3       1,015.7      21,384.3
Estimated Land Revenues.....       (4.3)       (4.2)      (40.6)      (12.7)         (0.1)       (7.4)       (6.2)     (113.5)      (48.9)      (59.2)        (39.1)         (0.3)       (336.4)
                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Appropriations For 90-      467.0       980.9       998.4     1,751.8       2,424.9     2,768.3     3,735.0     2,527.3     2,074.5     1,638.0         666.2       1,015.4      21,047.8
       01...................
                             ===================================================================================================================================================================
   COST FUNDED OUTSIDE THE
           ACCOUNT
 
Military Construction.......        0.0         0.0        23.2         0.0           5.9         0.4         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0           0.0           0.0          29.4
Family Housing..............        0.0         0.0         0.8         0.2           0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0           0.0           0.0           1.0
Environmental...............       38.0         0.0        25.6         0.0           0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0         0.0           0.0           0.0          63.6
Operations and Maintenance..        0.0         0.0        95.5        13.0          61.4        60.4       111.4        85.6        96.5        67.0          20.2           2.1         613.1
Other.......................        0.0         0.0        12.2         4.9           0.0         4.8         2.4         2.9         2.1         2.0           0.0           0.0          31.2
Homeowners Assistance               0.1         0.1         0.2        51.1          30.9        98.7         2.3         2.3         0.0         0.0           0.0           0.0         185.6
 Program....................
                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Costs Outside of       38.0         0.1       157.5        69.2          98.2       164.3       116.1        90.8        98.5        69.0          20.2           2.1         924.0
       the Account..........
                             ===================================================================================================================================================================
      Total BRAC Cost [Incl.      505.0       981.0     1,155.9     1,821.0       2,523.2     2,932.6     3,851.1     2,618.1     2,173.1     1,707.0         686.4       1,017.5      21,971.8
       land revenues].......
      Cumulative BRAC Cost..      505.0     1,486.0     2,641.9     4,462.9       6,986.1     9,918.7    13,769.8    16,387.8    18,560.9    20,267.9      20,954.3      21,971.8
                             ===================================================================================================================================================================
           SAVINGS
 
Military Construction.......       16.8        16.9       236.9        82.1         165.4       141.9       124.4        88.4        27.9        47.1           1.3          15.5         964.7
Family Housing--Construction       12.6        16.9        59.6         9.7          18.7         3.5        11.6         0.8         1.7        38.8           1.5           1.5         176.9
Family Housing--Operations..        0.0        15.0        22.8        47.1         100.7       113.2       134.0       154.2       186.3       202.2         210.1         216.8       1,402.5
Operations and Maintenance..        6.5        48.4       148.4       241.3         806.4     1,225.9     1,873.0     2,268.2     2,762.8     2,978.8       3,269.0       3,561.1      19,189.8
Military Personnel--PCS.....       (0.5)       25.4        78.7       362.6         722.0       925.0     1,152.2     1,357.8     1,489.3     1,572.4       1,627.2       1,682.9      10,994.9
Other.......................        0.4         0.5        19.7        98.4         104.6       179.5       887.1       879.7       753.0       673.0         704.6         724.5       5,025.0
                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Savings.........       35.8       123.0       566.1       841.2       1,917.8     2,588.9     4,182.2     4,749.2     5,221.0     5,512.3       5,813.9       6,202.4      37,753.9
      Cumulative Savings....       35.8       158.9       725.0     1,566.2       3,484.0     6,073.0    10,255.2    15,004.4    20,225.4    25,737.7      31,551.5      37,753.9
                             ===================================================================================================================================================================
  NET IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
 
Net Cost/(Savings) [Incl.         469.2       858.0       589.8       979.7         605.4       343.6      (331.1)   (2,131.1)   (3,048.0)   (3,805.2)     (5,127.5)     (5,184.9)    (15,782.1)
 land revenues].............
Cumulative Net..............      469.2     1,327.2     1,917.0     2,896.7       3,502.1     3,845.7     3,514.6     1,383.4    (1,664.5)   (5,469.8)    (10,597.2)    (15,782.1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost $B:22.0; Savings $B: 37.8; Net $B: 15.8; Recurring Savings $B: 6.2.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know we are about to vote. I yield myself 
some leader time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is no secret that I have always opposed 
the BRAC process. I think it is an abdication of the responsibility of 
the Congress. For years and years, the Pentagon made recommendations 
for Congress, and Congress considered them, acted on many of them, and 
bases were closed.
  Second, we know for certain that the BRAC process severely disrupts 
the local economies of communities in States across the Nation. We also 
know there is still a question about the BRAC savings from the past 
base closures. For instance, I know that in the military construction 
appropriations bill that will be coming up, perhaps later today or 
tomorrow, there is $150 million for cleanup as a result of previous 
base closures, most of it going, I guess, to California, some to Texas, 
and some I think maybe to New York. We are still in the process of 
trying to expend money so that the process can be completed.
  Also, I think the timing is bad. We are arguing about exactly what we 
should do now, but I saw an Air Force general talking the other day 
about how our fighters had been looking outward up until 2 weeks ago; 
now they have to look inward. The world did change. I think that at a 
time of our Reserves being called up, the National Guard being called 
up, communities being told to support the military, we are going to be 
together, we have been attacked, and we are going to respond 
appropriately, but we are going to say: By the way, we are going to 
look at closing your base.
  I don't think the timing is good. While I have never supported BRAC, 
it is not to say I won't someday. I realize we have excess capacity and 
duplication. I think we could do this. Maybe we could even look at it 
in a few weeks or months when we see exactly what the force structure 
is going to be, what this conflict is going to look like. After more 
consultation, in my opinion, we will know about how this would look.
  I was interested and appreciative of the language Senator Levin 
pointed out about the force structure. Obviously, before we go forward 
on this, we should match base infrastructure with force structure. We 
still have a lot of questions out there about this homeland defense. 
And Secretary Rumsfeld is still working on his strategic review and is 
currently executing the congressionally mandated quadrennial defense 
review. It is underway, but it is not completed.
  Also, my concern is that every base, every community, every State is 
going to be affected by this. They are going to be alarmed by this. 
They are going to hire consultants and all kinds of people to make sure 
their case is made appropriately. I think that is the wrong way to go. 
Where we have excess capacity, identify it and say we are going to look 
here. Where we know we may not have sufficient capacity now, why have a 
question about that particular base?
  I continue to wonder why we have not done more about overseas bases. 
We gave the Pentagon authority a few years ago to move in that area. 
Have they done it? No. Have they consolidated missions and looked at 
closing bases? No. Do we need bases in Europe? Yes. We need to have air 
and naval bases where we can project power from Europe. We have 523 
activities in Europe, 116,000 troops. We have spent well over a half-
billion dollars since 1997 on MILCON in Europe. So should we not take a 
look at that before, or at least at the same time we are looking at 
bases in our own country?

  Mr. President, I support the Bunning amendment. I think this is a 
classic case of getting the cart in front of the horse. I am committed 
and prepared to work with Senator Warner and Senator Levin and the 
Defense Department to see if there can be a way to do this. I don't 
think the way this is set up in the bill is appropriate. I think the 
timing could not be any worse.
  I urge a vote for the Bunning amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky controls 
just under 6 minutes.

[[Page S9768]]

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I want to make sure I get to close. Do we 
have any other speakers?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the opponents has 
expired. The Senator would have the last word.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I hope the Chair will recognize me for the 
purpose of a tabling motion at the conclusion of my colleagues' 
presentation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we are embarking on a new war like nobody 
has ever seen before. We are not experts in knowing what the landscape 
of the 21st century warfare will look like. None of us knows for 
certain that we need to downsize our military infrastructure under 
these extraordinary circumstances.
  I have heard it said here today, and before, that DOD has a certain 
amount of savings. I show you two reports. One is from the GAO on 
military base closings. In the report, it says: The estimates are 
imprecise and should be reviewed as rough approximations and not likely 
savings. These prospects apply as well to the Department's updated net 
savings estimates.
  So even the GAO and the CBO say the savings are not really savings 
because they didn't consider everything. They can't even back up their 
own numbers. If you agree with DOD on savings--and they also say the 
cost upfront actually is more, which was brought out by Senator 
Stevens. BRAC has been a political football. Anybody who has been 
involved in it knows it has been a political football. First it was the 
commission; then it was the administration. So it cannot be done 
objectively.

  I know our good chairman and the ranking member have tried to do that 
in this BRAC round. But I am not sure it won't become a political 
football again. So that is BRAC as usual, and I am not for BRAC as 
usual.
  The new home security cabinet, as Senator Lott has said, may decide 
they need these bases to make our homeland secure. I think it is very 
good that we keep in mind that when Governor Ridge is confirmed, he may 
decide how important certain bases are. Our economy and BRAC don't go 
hand in hand. If we slow it down, it may fall off the edge. I know that 
is not as necessary a reason, but it is a reason for not doing BRAC at 
this time.
  The DOD's Quadrennial Defense Review is not even completed. It is 
premature to act on BRAC when we don't even know what the quadrennial 
report proposes regarding our infrastructure.
  Please vote no on the tabling motion that is coming.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Kentucky 
yield back his remaining time?
  Mr. BUNNING. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to table the Bunning amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 286 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Biden
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Miller
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Lott
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Torricelli
  The motion was agreed to.


                             CHANGE OF VOTE

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my vote on 
the last amendment be changed. I erroneously voted aye becasue I 
thought I was voting for the amendment. That was a tabling motion. I 
now ask unanimous consent to change my vote, and it will not in any way 
change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  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, I believe there is an order sequenced for 
two amendments. Am I correct?


                           Amendment No. 1594

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The pending business is 
amendment No. 1594 offered by Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1594, As Modified

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have talked about the amendment that is 
under consideration, No. 1594. We have agreed to change it. I send to 
the desk the amendment, No. 1594, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1594), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 335. REVISION OF AUTHORITY TO WAIVE LIMITATION ON 
                   PERFORMANCE OF DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE.

       (a) Section 2466(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Waiver of Limitation.--(1) The Secretary of Defense 
     may waive the limitation in subsection (a) for a fiscal year 
     if--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Defense determines that--
       ``(i) the waiver is necessary for reasons of national 
     security; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a 
     notification of the waiver together with--
       ``(i) the reasons for the waiver; and
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense may not delegate the 
     authority to exercise the waiver authority under paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall provide a report to 
     Congress not later than January 31, 2002 that outlines the 
     Secretary's strategy regarding the operations of the public 
     depots.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may we have a minute?
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman has advised me that the 
Inhofe amendment is acceptable to the other side.
  Would you restate the number of that?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Amendment No. 1594.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are 
vitiated.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, can we adopt the Inhofe amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have reached agreement on the amendment 
having to do with depot maintenance. We have made two modest changes 
from that which was introduced. One is, instead of sending it to the 
President in lieu of the service chiefs, it now

[[Page S9769]]

goes to the Secretary of Defense. No. 2, it says we need to have the 
report from the Secretary of Defense as to the future use of depots. 
That is essentially it. It is agreed to, and I ask it be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify the 
amendment.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand there is no objection to the amendment, as 
modified, on our side.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1594), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1674

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1674.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 821 of the bill.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is an unusual step, but as a manager 
of the bill I have the responsibility to keep this bill moving. We have 
exercised good-faith efforts on both sides to reconcile an issue which 
is deserving of the attention of the Senate. The amendment of the 
Senator from Virginia would strike from the bill that language referred 
to generically as the prison issue of materials made by prisoners and 
sold to the Department of Defense.
  I support the bill, and I am going to vote against my own amendment, 
but in order for the Senate to move expeditiously, to continue to have 
this bill go forward, because at the moment we cannot hope to achieve 
finalization of this bill--the desire of both the majority leader and 
the Republican leader--by tomorrow unless we get finalization on the 
list of amendments.
  I do not, in any way, disparage my distinguished colleague who is 
exercising, perfectly within his rights, certain procedures. But I 
think this will enable the Senate to address this issue now and to come 
to some resolution on it so that we can move on with this bill.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I move to table the amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we need to have some debate, I think.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to have some debate, so I 
will, at the appropriate time, move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I think it is important that debate 
take place on this amendment, and at the appropriate time the Senator 
may seek recognition for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me first say I want to make it clear 
that--reserving all of my rights under the rules of the Senate to offer 
substitutes or amendments--I am hopeful that in the midst of a national 
crisis we can find a way to gather new information and commit to make a 
decision on this divisive issue next year.
  We have voted on this issue probably four or five times in the last 
decade. To this point, in each and every case we have preserved prison 
labor in America. Our new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who 
has consistently sought provisions in the bill that would effectively 
end the current program, is now chairman of the committee and has the 
provision eliminating the program for all practical purposes--I will 
explain that--has put that in the bill itself which has produced the 
situation in which we find ourselves.
  Now let me try to talk about this problem. I want to begin by talking 
about the history of prison labor in America. I want then to talk about 
the point at which we came to a fork in the road, and took the wrong 
fork, in my opinion. And that occurred during the Great Depression.
  I want to talk about the Levin amendment, as to why it violates every 
principle in the bill. Then I want to outline the prison labor system 
and why it is so critically important to our system of criminal 
justice, and why the program, at least in our last study, which was in 
1998, was given very high marks. At that point, I will have made this 
case, I hope.
  We do have some Members of the Senate who are voting on this issue 
for the first time, and I believe it is important that a full 
presentation be made.
  Let me begin with de Tocqueville. We all remember that de Tocqueville 
came to America and wrote the greatest critique ever on democracy in 
America, the great classic which people read even today to understand 
the special nature of America and to understand the genius of our 
economic and political system.
  Many of us forget that de Tocqueville came to America not to study 
democracy but he came to America to study our prison system. In fact, 
his first book was about the American prison system. He basically 
concluded that we had the finest prison system in the world, and the 
foundation of the excellence of the American penal system, as de 
Tocqueville found in the 1830s, was a comprehensive program where, for 
all practical purposes, every prisoner in America worked.
  We had a system where prisoners engaged in manufacturing, prisoners 
engaged in agriculture, and substantial amounts of the cost of 
incarceration were paid for by prison labor, lifting the burden on the 
taxpayers of the 1830s in America to fund our prison system; but most 
important, in de Tocqueville's opinion, was the humaneness of labor in 
prisons. In fact, de Tocqueville went to great lengths to talk about 
the prison system and to talk about how humane it was that people in 
prison in America, unlike Europe, worked.
  Let me read you a quote from de Tocqueville:

       It would be inaccurate to say that in the Philadelphia 
     Penitentiary labor is imposed. We may say, with more justice, 
     that the favor of labor is granted. When we visited this 
     penitentiary, we successively conversed with all its inmates. 
     There was not one single one among them who did not speak of 
     labor with a kind of gratitude and who did not express the 
     idea that without the relief of constant occupation, life 
     would be insufferable.

  In 19th century America when someone went to prison, they went to 
work, and they worked 12, 14 hours a day, 6 days a week, and in working 
several good things happened. One, they weren't idle. And as we all 
know from Poor Richard's Almanac, ``idle hands are the devil's 
workshop.''
  Secondly, they produced food, they produced products that could be 
sold, and they dramatically reduced the cost of incarceration in 19th 
century America. From 1900, where virtually every prisoner in America 
worked--and I would have to say there is some justice to requiring 
people in prison to work and to share the burden of their incarceration 
with working people who today pay $30,000 per Federal inmate to put 
people in prison and keep them there. It is cheaper to send somebody to 
Harvard University than it is to send somebody to the Federal 
penitentiary.
  Now, by the turn of the century, we had an effective prison system 
all over America. In Texas, I am proud to say, we had a model program 
where every prisoner worked, and they worked hard. They grew their own 
food, they made their own clothes, and they produced products that were 
sold in the economy. Attention was given not to glut local markets, so 
generally products were not sold in areas where prisons were located. 
And by all accounts, beginning with de Tocqueville and ending with 
anybody who studied the penal systems of the world, at the turn of the 
century, in 1900, we had far and away the finest prison system in the 
world. And the recidivism rate relative

[[Page S9770]]

to the current day was low because prison was not an experience that 
people wanted to repeat. They had generally accumulated productive 
skills in prison by working, and they were blessed that when they left 
prison, they knew how to do something and it gave them a chance to go 
back to society and to try to do it--and do it for pay.
  This system took a dramatic turn in the 1930s. In the 1930s, we 
passed three laws: Hawes-Cooper in 1929, Summers-Ashurst in 1935, and 
Walsh-Healy in 1936. The Hawes-Cooper Act made it illegal to sell 
prison-produced goods in America across State lines. The Summers-
Ashurst Act made it illegal to transport prison goods in interstate 
commerce. The Walsh-Healy Act, in essence, said, if you produce things 
in prison, you have to pay prisoners union scale.
  The net result of these three laws was it killed the prison industry 
in America. So, today, we have 1.2 million people in prison. Almost all 
of them are young men in their peak years, in terms of ability to work. 
Yet all over America, they are idle because of prohibitions against 
prison labor. So it is all right to let working people work, it is all 
right to tax people at confiscatory rates to pay $30,000 a year to have 
people in the Federal penitentiary. But it is not all right to force 
them to work and to have a process whereby there is productive work to 
be done.
  The only vehicle left--the only work that is currently done in 
America by prisoners is work to produce items that are purchased by the 
Government. That is a pale comparison with the program that we had in 
1900. But it is all that is left today.

  Now, the Levin amendment would effectively kill that program with 
regard to the Defense Department, which is the largest purchaser of 
goods from our Federal prison industry. Senator Levin is going to say 
that all we want is competition. But I am sorry that I have to say that 
nothing in this bill is aimed at competition except the prison labor 
standard. This bill is full of provisions that ban competition, that 
force the Defense Department to pay a higher price. Not one contractor 
in America can bid for a job with the Defense Department unless that 
contractor pays union wages, unless that contractor pays the highest 
wage scale that anyone is paying in that labor market.
  That is not competition. You are going to later hear Senator Levin 
say: All we want is competition.
  All his bill has is the absence of competition. The only place it 
calls for ``competition'' is in the prison labor industry. This, in 
reality, is not a competition provision; this is a special interest 
provision supported by organized labor and supported by private 
manufacturers. Senator Levin and proponents of this provision will say: 
What could be wrong? Business and labor are together on this issue, and 
if the two great special interests of America are for it, surely it 
must be America's interest.
  I beg to disagree. The special interests of labor and business are 
not in America's interest. And I remind my colleagues that by idling 
these prisons who are beginning to pay victims restitution, who are 
beginning to pay funds that displace taxpayers' money, what we are 
going to do is to impose a heavier and heavier burden on the American 
taxpayer. We are going to destroy the only system we have that 
effectively trains prisoners so when they get out, they can go out and 
get a job and hope to hold a job--and America will be a loser.
  Part of the problem here is that all the political interests are on 
the side of the amendment that is now in this bill. I am proud to say 
that in the last decade we have voted on this thing four or five times, 
and each time we have saved prison labor in America. I don't know where 
the votes are here, and I would have to say that I am profoundly 
disappointed that in a year where we are facing an imminent crisis, 
that instead of focusing on defense, we have a special interest 
provision in this bill that is aimed at killing prison labor.
  I want my colleagues to know that I have proposed doing an 
independent study through the General Accounting Office where the 
report would be made in May and where we could have a comprehensive 
debate and, hopefully, have a compromise that would allow us to solve 
this problem once and for all. Senator Levin and I have fought over 
this issue for a decade.

  Let me go back and complete the story. Where we are is that we have a 
provision in the bill that basically claims that the Defense Department 
is a loser from the prison labor system. I want my colleagues to 
understand the Defense Department did not ask for the Levin amendment. 
You might ask: How come they didn't send a letter down here saying they 
opposed it? If you were the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee in the Senate had a provision related to 
prison labor, would you write a letter saying you are against it? No, 
you would not.
  I want my colleagues to understand, the Secretary of Defense did not 
ask for this provision, and the Attorney General and the Justice 
Department are adamantly opposed to the provision in Senator Levin's 
amendment.
  Senator Levin apparently is going to make the argument, which he has 
made for the last decade, that the prison labor system is unfair to the 
Defense Department. I simply make two comments: One, how come every 
other noncompetitive purchasing provision in the pending bill is not 
unfair to the Defense Department? Why only prison labor? What is this 
about?
  I can tell you what it is about. It is about greedy special interest. 
That is what it is about.
  Let me tell you what the facts are, and they are old facts. One of 
the reasons we ought to do a study is to update the facts so we know 
exactly what we are talking about. There was an audit report mandated 
by the Congress that was submitted to Congress on August 5, 1998, 3 
years ago. It was submitted by the Office of Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense. This is basically what it concluded. It was a 
comprehensive study. I have the study here if anybody would like to 
look at it.
  Basically, what the study concluded was that when they looked at a 
random sampling of procurement by the Defense Department from the 
Federal Prison Industries Program, in 78 percent of the products they 
looked at, the price the Defense Department got from the Federal Prison 
Industries was lower than the competitive market price. In 20 percent 
of the cases, it was higher. In 2 percent of the cases, it was the 
same.
  Also, when they looked at waivers--that is where the Defense 
Department concluded that the property that was being procured was not 
being sold at a competitive price or at competitive quality or on a 
timely basis--in over 80 percent of the cases where the Defense 
Department sought a waiver because they believed it was not a good 
deal, that waiver was granted.
  When you look at the overall aggregate situation that existed in 1998 
when we last studied the Federal Prison Industries, in 78 percent of 
the cases, the Prison Industries sold the product at less than the 
competitive price in the private sector; 20 percent of the time, it was 
more; 2 percent of the time, for all practical purposes, it was the 
same. The quality of the product was found to be excellent. There were 
problems in terms of deliverability and, in fact, in 1998, a series of 
reforms were implemented to try to deal with the deliverability 
problem.
  Senator Levin will say that all his amendment does is require 
competition. My answer is, let's require competition in everything the 
Defense Department buys from anybody. If the Senator will change his 
amendment to simply give the Secretary of Defense the ability to buy 
competitively so that the Secretary can have competitive bidding and 
buy the highest quality product at the lowest price across the board, I 
will support that amendment. But that is not going to happen because 
this bill is not a competition bill. This bill is full of restrictions 
on competition everywhere except prison labor.

  Another provision I would support and would rejoice to the heavens 
about would be to eliminate the Federal Prison Industries Program at 
the Department of Defense and in the rest of the Government and let's 
allow the Federal Prison Industries to compete with anybody else in 
Government procurement with no special arrangement, but then, subject 
to simple restrictions, let's let them sell in the private sector.
  What would those restrictions be? A, you cannot sell in the area 
where the

[[Page S9771]]

prison is located because you do not want to glut the market; B, you 
cannot sell products that are in excessive supply where the price is 
falling precipitously; and C, let's focus production where prisoners 
are producing things we are importing--component parts, for example.
  Unless I am sadly misinformed by the last 10 years of the debate, I 
do not expect the proponents of the provision in the bill to say they 
want competition. In fact, not only do they not want prisoners to work 
and produce things to sell in the private sector, they do not want 
prisoners to work to produce things in the public sector. That is our 
dilemma.
  We have before us a provision in the bill which was not sought by the 
Defense Department, which is adamantly opposed by the Attorney General 
and the Department of Justice, a provision that the Federal Prison 
Industries Program believes will be extraordinarily detrimental to 
their program. It is a provision which is now a part of the entire 
bill. If there were a provision in the bill that said the Secretary of 
Defense, in promoting the public interest, shall be driven by the same 
motivation which motivates every consumer and every producer in 
America, and that is to buy the best quality product at the lowest 
possible price and they shall be in no other way constrained, I would 
support that amendment, and I would think it was enlightened policy.
  I want my colleagues to remember when they hear this impassioned 
argument about competition, there is no competition in this bill save 
for prison industry. If the bill had a general competition provision, I 
would be for it because the benefits to America of having competitive 
procurement in defense would greatly outweigh the problems it would 
produce in the American prison industries, but there is no competition 
in this bill, save an effort to kill the prison industries in America.
  Part of our problem in this debate, and it has been one for the whole 
decade--I do not know why it is that I always end up on these issues 
where there is no constituency--the taxpayers, by and large, hardly 
know this issue is even being debated today. In fact, they would be 
stunned. If somebody turned on the television, they would say: What in 
the world is that guy doing standing up talking about prison labor when 
the Nation is hearing the drumbeat and the bugle to march off to war? I 
wonder why we are doing that, too. I did not bring this up.
  The point is, the American public does not understand we have an 
effort underway to kill what is left of prison labor. So we have 1.2 
million young men, at their peak productive period, who are rotting 
away in prison and not working. Why is this being killed? Because of 
the power of special interests, the two biggest ones in America, labor 
and business.
  If anybody cares, I want to make an additional argument, and that is 
about recidivism. I am sorry I did not offer this amendment today. I 
was getting ready to debate it when it was offered by the ranking 
member of the committee, and so I have to thumb through my book to try 
to find it, but let me summarize it rather than reading the number. 
Those prisoners who work have a dramatic decline in the recidivism rate 
or, in English, if people work in prison, they are far less likely to 
come back to prison when they leave. Why? For one thing, because they 
accumulate skills in prison.
  What we really ought to be debating today and every day is turning 
our prisons into industrial parks. We ought to have American 
manufacturers in joint ventures with our prison systems producing the 
component parts in prison that we are buying from other parts of the 
world. We ought to have every prisoner working 10, 12 hours a day, 6 
days a week, bringing down the cost of incarceration and building up 
the skill level, and when they are not working, they ought to be going 
to school, building up the skill level, so when they get out of prison, 
they know how to do something.
  Amazingly--almost astounding to me--is not only are we not going in 
that direction but we are trying to kill the last remaining vestige of 
prison labor.
  I want to ask my colleagues, on the basis of a couple of things, to 
support the Warner amendment to strike this provision.
  No. 1, I am willing to support a comprehensive study. We have not had 
one since 1998. In all fairness, the study was done by the inspector 
general of the Department of Defense, and that is part of the same 
executive branch that is for prison labor. So what I proposed, which 
has not yet been accepted--I am hoping it will be--is we have the 
General Accounting Office, which is part of the legislative branch of 
Government, do a comprehensive study of the prison labor system and 
procurement by the Defense Department and report back to us by May, so 
we have it for next year, how competitive is prison labor production? 
What is the quality like?
  We know in 1998 that 78 percent of the time it was cheaper, 20 
percent ofttimes more expensive, 2 percent ofttimes about the same.
  We should have a report on quality. We know in 1998 quality was 
excellent. And we should have a report on the problem that was 
uncovered in 1998, which was deliverability.
  With that report, I then commit to seeking a compromise within our 
Government, or voting one way or the other on the program.
  So I hope my colleagues will vote to strike this provision now, 
knowing we will have an opportunity next year, hopefully under very 
different circumstances than today, to deal with this problem.
  The second thing I ask people is to not kill the remaining vestige of 
prison labor in America. I know my colleagues are hearing from 
furniture manufacturers, from some electronics manufacturers, saying: 
We do not want to compete with prison labor. We want to force prison 
labor into a--we want to eliminate the special status they have.
  I say, and have said to manufacturers in my State: Look, if you will 
let prison labor compete in selling in the private sector, in a no 
glutting of the market system, then I will support taking away their 
special relationship with government. I would support that. But they do 
not want to do that. They do not want to compete with prison labor 
anywhere.
  The problem is, if you do not let prisoners work, you have 1.2 
million young men idle--idle hands are the devil's workshop--and you 
eliminate the building programs of victims' restitution and self-
funding of prisons. In fact, since the 1930s we have largely destroyed 
the greatest prison system in history by destroying prison labor.
  Finally, let me ask my colleagues to look very closely at the 
recidivism rates. Look at what is happening with people who are working 
in prison and what is happening when they leave prison versus people 
who are not privileged to work in prison and their recidivism rate. 
What you are going to find is the probability of people coming back to 
prison when they are released falls dramatically if they have worked in 
prison; it goes up dramatically if they have not worked in prison.
  So I understand we do not have any prisoner PACs. We do not have any 
organized lobby from people in prison.
  I am not sympathetic to people in prison. I think they ought to have 
to work. I am sympathetic to working people who are going to have to 
work harder to pay this $30,000 a year to keep people in prison because 
special interests want to kill off the prison labor system because some 
desk that the Defense Department is buying or some component part of 
some item the Defense Department is buying is being produced by prison 
labor.
  So remember, if the issue were, let us buy everything competitively 
in the Defense Department and have the Secretary constrained in no way, 
save by the best product, the lowest price, put me down as a cosponsor, 
but there is no such provision in this bill. In fact, there are pages 
in this bill that prohibit competition. If I am a paving contractor and 
they are paving a road at the Pentagon or a parking lot at the 
Pentagon, I cannot even bid on pouring of the concrete unless I pay the 
highest wages in the region. What kind of competition is that?
  So when you hear this chest thumping about all we want is 
competition--that is all they want--where is it? Where is it except for 
Prison Industries?
  Secondly, if people think Prison Industries should not have a special 
agreement with the Government to buy products it produces, let Prison 
Industries produce and sell in the private

[[Page S9772]]

sector and eliminate the special privilege. But there is no proposal 
for competition. There is no proposal for allowing Prison Industries to 
sell in the private sector.
  Cloaked in the righteousness of competition--and what special 
interest in American history has ever cloaked itself in anything other 
than the public interest?--cloaked in the public interest is this 
demand by unions and by manufacturers to kill the prison labor system 
in America. Reform it, yes. Study it and find better ways of doing it, 
yes. Bring competition to defense procurement in general, yes. Let 
anybody bid on a prison contract based on pricing and quality, yes. But 
kill prison labor in America, no. That is what the issue is.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and let us settle 
this issue. But this issue will not be settled if this amendment is 
rejected because there are other amendments and other ways of doing 
this, and I think it is very important. We are talking about the lives 
of real people. We are talking about the burden on taxpayers. They are 
not represented. I assume no taxpayers know what is going on here. 
Nobody has heard from one. I don't take calls from prisoners myself, so 
they are not busy lobbying. But the AFL-CIO and furniture 
manufacturers, in particular, are very active on this issue.

  One will say: All they want is competition. What about competition in 
selling to the private sector? They do not want that. This is a special 
interest provision aimed at killing or dramatically reducing the 
Federal Prison Industries. I think that is a mistake. It is wrong. I am 
opposed to it.
  This is a debate that ought to be taking place, but on another day, 
on another bill, not on our defense authorization bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I rise in support of tabling this amendment. I have 
listened to my esteemed friend from Texas. I am not going back to 
Plato. I will start closer to the current situation. I am surprised, 
when we talk about giving the private sector an opportunity to compete 
for contracts put out by the Defense Department, that that is special 
interest. That is difficult for me to understand.
  This is defense authorization. It is absolutely the appropriate place 
to talk about how we do that, how we pay for it, and who does the work. 
It is also important we get moving with this program.
  This is not an amendment that came in; this language is in the 
committee bill.
  I have worked for several years, as many have, on a fair amendment 
designed to give the private sector an opportunity to bid on Government 
businesses. We have been successful. We have had many agencies look at 
what they are doing instead of doing it internally, instead of putting 
it out for contract. It seems reasonable. This is competition. The 
prisons will continue to have the opportunity to compete under a very 
unfair--for them, favorable--situation. They don't have to pay taxes; 
they don't have to pay minimum wage; they don't have to do any of the 
things they do in the private sector.
  This has been in place since 1934. Talk about a study. The study was 
not even made by the congressional group. The study did not come up 
with the real facts. It is time to do something. It is time to deal 
with this idea that the private sector ought to be able to participate, 
to compete. That is the bottom line.

  As to the notion that this does away with Federal Industries, only 18 
percent of the Federal prisoners are involved. The other 82 percent are 
doing food service, plumbing, carpentry, other things. It is not a fact 
that this does away with the industry. As a matter of fact, as a good 
example, New Mexico, a State that had a mandatory source situation such 
as this, lifted it. The New Mexico Prison Industries operated under 
that until the State legislature reformed it. They are very happy with 
the result of that transformation which does, indeed, provide for 
competition, which is exactly what we want.
  The Senator from Texas, a proponent of the private sector for the 
most part, is calling the private sector private interest. That is 
peculiar. We have a Government monopoly and we are saying this is an 
opportunity for people to compete. This does not eliminate the prison 
production. It makes it competitive.
  As I mentioned, there are a number of opportunities for them. The 
competitive advantages are retained: Inmate wages, from $.23 to $1.15, 
compared to the private sector; factory space furnished by the host 
prison, with no cost to the actual production; equipment, utilities, 
taxes, insurance, workplace benefits--none of those things offered. Yet 
they will be able to compete. That is what it is, competition.
  We have had meetings about the private sector and trying to 
strengthen the economy. Yet we seem to be reluctant to allow the 
private sector to help the economy by moving into this area. It is very 
timely and appropriate to do it on this bill. The idea of setting it 
off I don't think makes much sense.
  There are many other products beyond defense, less vital to the time. 
We have had, for 45 years, a policy in this Government that we ought to 
go to the private sector to provide for governmental needs. That has 
been the policy. Yet we still have a monopoly to do it the other way. 
There are plenty of jobs prisoners can do. I, too, support the idea 
that there ought to be work for prisoners. But there are lots of jobs 
that can be done in the prison realm that would be outside of this 
competitiveness as to who can do the supplies and the necessary 
equipment for the defense.
  This idea is also supported as a special interest by the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, by the small business NFIB, by labor unions, which also 
favor all these opportunities for the private sector to supply the 
needs of Government. It is not a new idea. It makes sense to me.
  Also, we will find it is difficult for the Defense Department to have 
various contracts. They are not the ones that supervise the contract. 
They lose some control when it goes to this prison authority. It is 
difficult when we have a mandatory source for the needs that are 
required in defense.
  I don't know that we need to go into a great deal of detail. The 
facts are that prison workers can still continue. Most support the idea 
that we ought to have competition for these expenditures. Most support 
the idea the private sector ought to have an opportunity to compete 
with Government in any circumstance where the private sector can do 
that. That is what strengthens it.
  We are in a time that anything we can do to increase the activity of 
the private sector is good for the economy. We are fighting on two 
fronts: terrorism on one side and strengthening the economy on the 
other. These are the things we need to do.
  The policy for doing this is 46 years old. We have strengthened that 
in the last several years to get more emphasis on the idea that there 
needs to be competition, there needs to be private sector involvement. 
In my view, the more the private sector can do in terms of the 
Government realm, the better off we are. What the Government ought to 
do is strengthen their ability to let contracts and review the 
contracts and make sure it is done that way.
  Prison Industries has been in place since 1934. I think it has not 
been improved. This is not going to change it. Only 18 percent are 
involved out of 22,000.

  So we are going to find ourselves with an opportunity that they can 
find ways to continue to do it. We will find a way to put the private 
sector in, have more efficiency, less cost, and if they cannot compete, 
then the prisons will continue.
  I am not going to take an awful lot of time. It seems to me the 
issues here are fairly basic. Let me just review them again. This was 
not an amendment. This was part of the bill of the committee. This is a 
time when we ought to be looking for more opportunities for the private 
sector. This is a time when we ought to have competition. I think we 
have an opportunity to do that here and yet continue to have a program 
which works for the prisoners.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I may speak for a couple of brief 
moments about the Gramm amendment?

[[Page S9773]]

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator's remarks are welcome even 
though they might be contrary to the views of the Senator from 
Virginia. But I arranged this debate. It is quite unusual to put on a 
fellow Senator's amendment, but it was necessary to keep this bill 
moving. We welcome the debate. I shall be voting against it eventually. 
My distinguished colleague from Wyoming will be seeking recognition for 
purposes of a tabling motion in due course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will not keep the body long. I do 
rise in support of the amendment of Senator Gramm of Texas regarding 
Prison Industries. This has come after some considerable review, and 
visiting the prison in Kansas at Leavenworth, the Federal Penitentiary 
of Leavenworth. I note: visiting, not occupying. This is a maximum 
security facility. Men are in this facility for years, frequently for 
life, and at these Prison Industries at this facility.
  I visited with the warden about 2 months ago--a month and a half ago, 
actually--about this particular issue, and also with the head of 
Corrections for the Federal Government. Both insisted that if we do not 
allow Prison Industries to effectively be able to compete--there are 
questions about that in the language, but if we don't allow Prison 
Industries to effectively compete, they are going to have difficulty at 
the penitentiary keeping these gentlemen occupied, working with them, 
and being able to effectively run that prison. Otherwise, these men are 
going to be sitting around, and idle hands present a great deal of 
difficulty.
  I have worked with the Senator from Wyoming on privatization efforts 
within the Federal Government. I think he is absolutely on the mark on 
these issues. From a personal perspective and the perspective of 
Kansas, having a penitentiary that has long-term inmates, people who 
are going to be incarcerated frequently for life, or at least 10 to 20 
years, prisoners need something that is going to keep them occupied and 
working or else we are going to have a great deal of difficulty with 
them.
  Prison Authorities don't know what they are going to do with these 
inmates otherwise, and they pleaded with me, saying: Don't allow this 
to go forward. This is going to be very difficult for us in the system.
  I bring that word to my colleagues from a State with a major Federal 
penitentiary facility housing long-term inmates. They don't know how 
they are going to be able to handle it. Some say it will still allow 
them to compete and do the work all right, but reading this, within the 
system, it will cut back their ability to effectively have jobs for 
these inmates, and they need jobs for these inmates. It helps with 
restitution pay, helps them build self-worth; more than anything, it 
helps manage this population that is very violent, very difficult, and 
if you do not give them anything to do, the idle hands are the devil's 
playground. This has a great deal of difficulty.
  I appreciate my colleagues allowing me to put those sentences 
forward, and I will be supporting the Gramm amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment that strikes section 
821 of our bill. Section 821 is a good government provision. It simply 
says the private sector should be allowed to compete when it comes to 
selling items to the Department of Defense and that Federal Prison 
Industries should not establish a monopoly and say the Department must 
buy an item made in the prison, even though the private sector might be 
able to make it more cheaply.
  I think everybody wants prisoners to work. But I hope everyone also 
wants the private sector to be able to survive and compete and be able 
to offer products to its own Government. I think if anything would 
shock taxpayers, it would be that the private sector--private 
businesses, private industry--is precluded from bidding on items the 
Department of Defense wants to buy.
  I think it also would come as a shock that the private sector can 
produce something more cheaply than can a prison at times. The Senator 
from Texas said about 20 percent of the time the prices are lower in 
the private sector, according to a study, than they are from a prison. 
That is not bad savings--20 percent of the time.
  Of course we want prisoners to work. The Senator from Kansas just 
said we should not stop the prisons from competing for purchases by the 
Department of Defense. We are not stopping the prisons from competing. 
What we are trying to do in this legislation is allow the private 
sector to compete, instead of saying Prison Industries can establish a 
``must buy from us'' policy.
  The Senator from Texas also said this is the only provision in the 
bill which talks about competition. There are probably dozens of 
provisions in this bill that promote competition explicitly. This is 
but one of them. The Senator from Texas said: Why don't we, then, say 
competition will be everywhere; eliminate Davis-Bacon--which of course 
he favors anyway. If he wants to offer an amendment to eliminate Davis-
Bacon, that is his right. But that is not in this bill. What is in this 
bill is the opportunity for private businesses to bid. If they are 
underbid by prisons, that is the way it is.
  Prisons have tremendous economic advantages when it comes to bidding. 
Obviously, 25 cents or 50 cents or a dollar an hour is an incredible 
advantage to prisons when it comes to bidding. But even with that 
advantage, the private sector can produce things more cheaply and at 
better quality at times. At those times, how in Heaven's name can we 
tell a Government agency that they must buy from a prison if they can 
buy more cheaply from the private sector? How in the name of Heaven can 
we tell someone in a private business, or an employee in a private 
business, that he cannot bid on something that his Government is 
buying? That is all this language does. It doesn't end the Prison 
Industries program, or come close.
  There are all kinds of things prisoners can and should be doing, by 
the way, including focusing on things the Government buys that it 
currently imports. There are all kinds of opportunities.
  We talk to Federal Prison Industries about this year after year. They 
always say they are going to do something about it, and they have not.
  The Senator from Texas says let's do a study. We just had a study, in 
1999, April. This is what the joint study of the Department of Defense 
and the Federal Prison Industries did. This is the result of that 
study:
  On price, 54 percent of Department of Defense electronics buyers, 70 
percent of Department of Defense clothing and textile buyers, 46 
percent of Department of Defense furniture buyers, 53 percent of 
Department of Defense office case goods buyers, and 57 percent of 
Department of Defense systems furniture buyers rated the Federal Prison 
Industries prices as average, fair, or poor. There is a lot of room in 
there to save money for the Department of Defense.
  On delivery, the figures are approximately the same: Roughly 50, 60 
percent say: average, fair, or poor. On quality, about 50 percent say 
average, fair, or poor. Those are averages. These are buyers at the 
Department of Defense.
  So we ought to be very clear what this provision does and does not 
do. It allows, for the first time in a long time, a private person who 
is working hard on the outside of prison to make a product and be able 
to bid when his Government is buying that product and not be stopped 
from bidding by an establishment of a monopoly by Federal Prison 
Industries.
  There are letters which we received, to which I think my friend from 
Virginia will also refer. I will place one of the letters in the 
Record. It comes from the AFL-CIO, urging us to oppose any effort to 
weaken or eliminate the Federal Prison Industries reforms contained in 
the bill. It says at the end that the AFL-CIO supports prison work 
programs and recognizes that they make prisons safer for correctional 
staff. They say:

       However, we do not believe that the Federal Prison 
     Industries should enjoy a monopoly that unilaterally deprives 
     other firms and workers of job opportunities. Section 821 
     represents a more balanced policy and we urge you to support 
     it.

  Finally, my friend from Texas talks about letting prisons sell in the 
private

[[Page S9774]]

sector. We have laws going back 50 years which say that they can't. The 
reason we say that is because it is obviously totally unfair to say 
that 25 cents or 50 cents an hour should be able to compete 
commercially against people who provide products when they are paying a 
decent wage. We prohibit imports from China that are made with prison 
labor. Yet the suggestion of the Senator from Texas is, hey, let's 
just, across the board, allow prisoners to make anything that goes into 
the commercial world at the scale that they are paid.
  In that case, he said he would favor the language and broaden it to 
include anything. He says that is real competition. That sure is. That 
is totally unfair competition.
  You can't compete. If an employer pays a decent wage to somebody, you 
can't possibly compete with somebody who is paying 25 cents or 50 cents 
an hour. Yet that is the approach which the Senator from Texas really 
favors and says so openly on this floor.
  That is not an approach which too many of us--I hope--would favor. I 
surely don't favor that. To hold that up as being what is desirable, 
and short of that we should not allow a private business in this 
country to offer to supply its own Government a product because Federal 
Prison Industries has said you may not bid because we have a monopoly 
on this item, it seems to me, is just highly wrong.
  The language in the bill has been carefully constructed; it simply 
allows for competition. It doesn't say that Federal Prison Industries 
can't compete at all, as the Senator from Kansas suggested. That is not 
what it says at all. It simply says, allow private businesses to 
compete, as I think most Americans would think that the private sector 
surely can now compete when it comes to providing the Department of 
Defense with products.
  We received many letters from owners of businesses across this 
country. From an office supply company in Biloxi, MS:

       I could go on and on about how we could have sold the 
     product much cheaper which would have saved taxpayers' money, 
     faster delivery, which would have increased productivity, 
     and, finally, better service. You get the picture.

  From Tucson, AR:

       The Prison Industries' representatives routinely refuse 
     waivers. The answer is the standard ``we have products which 
     will meet your needs.'' No explanation. They refuse to answer 
     waiver requests in a timely fashion. I had a $110,000 order 
     for the Arizona Air National Guard in Tucson literally taken 
     away by Prison Industries. The representative demanded the 
     designs--the company's--and said that Prison Industries would 
     fill the request. No waiver, no discussion.

  Fairfax, VA:

       You know, it is not just the impact that Federal Prison 
     Industries has had on our businesses. It is the waste of 
     everybody's tax dollars when furniture costs more and doesn't 
     even do the job.

  According to Economy Office Products of Fairfax, VA:

       Federal Prison Industries tells their customers what the 
     customer can have rather than the needs of the customer.

  I hope this language will remain in the bill and that the effort to 
table it on the part of Senator Gramm will fail. When the time comes 
for a tabling motion, I hope that tabling motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thoroughly support what my distinguished 
chairman has said, and indeed the Senator from Wyoming.
  For purposes of clarity, I submitted the amendment to keep the bill 
moving and to frame the issue so it could be debated. We have now had a 
very good debate on this subject.
  Just for clarity, I will be voting against my own amendment, which I 
said at the time I introduced it. There will be a motion to table, and 
therefore Senators who desire to have the bill remain intact would then 
support the motion to table.
  The distinguished chairman alluded to certain letters. I think it is 
important that colleagues understand that while the labor unions, which 
Senator Levin addressed, are strongly in favor of keeping the bill 
intact, there is an equal strength among the private sector 
organizations.
  The National Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small 
business, addressed a letter to the Senate signed by the senior vice 
president.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be 
printed in the Record, together with a letter from the Chamber of 
Commerce, which I will shortly address.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the 
     National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), I want to 
     express our support for your language in the FY 2002 National 
     Defense Authorization Act that would allow the Department of 
     Defense to purchase products from the private sector rather 
     than from Federal Prison industries if it would benefit the 
     taxpayer and the DOD. We will oppose any effort to strike 
     this language from the defense authorization bill.
       Eighty-nine percent of NFIB members do not believe that 
     prisons should receive preference over small businesses for 
     federal contracts. NFIB's members have long fought against 
     unfair government competition with the private sector. 
     Federal Prison Industries (FPI) has become one of the most 
     egregious examples of unfair government competition. FPI, 
     also known by its trade name UNICOR, is a government-owned 
     corporation operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. From a 
     small program when it was established in 1935, FPI has grown 
     to be a large enterprise. According to its most recent annual 
     report, FPI operates a centrally managed chain of over 100 
     prison factories that employed 20,966 inmate workers in 1999. 
     With sales to the Federal Government of $566.2 million, FPI 
     would rank 36th among the top 100 contractors to the Federal 
     Government.
       FPI would be a formidable competitor for even the most 
     accomplished small business experienced in the Federal 
     market, but FPI does not have to compete. FPI simply takes 
     its contracts from its captive Federal agency ``customers.'' 
     Under FPI's Depression-era statute, FPI is a mandatory source 
     for all Federal agencies, meaning that they are not required 
     to compete with private businesses for Federal contracts. A 
     Federal agency must actually obtain FPI's authorization, a 
     so-called ``waiver,'' before it can even solicit competitive 
     offers from the private sector. FPI, rather than the Federal 
     agency, determines whether FPI's product, delivery schedule, 
     and non-competitive price meet the agency's needs.
       FPI's advantages don't stop there. FPI pays its workers at 
     hourly rates of $1.25 per hour or less, rather than market-
     driven wages. FPI's facilities are built as part of a prison. 
     FPI has access to production equipment excess to other 
     Government agencies at no-cost. Congress even gave FPI direct 
     access to the Treasury with authority to borrow up to $20 
     million, at rates far below what would be available to even 
     the largest commercial enterprise.
       Your language provides for fundamental change, making FPI 
     less predatory to small business government contractors and a 
     more responsible supplier to Federal agencies and taxpayers. 
     it would require that FPI compete for its contracts with the 
     Federal government. small businesses do not want to prohibit 
     prison industries from entering the market, they just want a 
     fair and level playing field upon which to compete against 
     the FPI. Thank you for your support for small business and 
     fair competition.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dan Danner,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: The United States Senate is expected to 
     very shortly consider A. 1416, the Fiscal 2002 National 
     Defense Authorization Act. Contained in that measure is a 
     provision (Section 821), based on legislation authored by 
     Senators Carl Levin and Craig Thomas, that would allow the 
     Department of Defense to purchase goods and services in the 
     private sector rather than from Federal Prison Industries 
     (FPI), if doing so would be in the best interests of the 
     taxpayer and DOD. Be aware that efforts may be made to strike 
     or alter this provision.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation, representing more than three million 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region urges you to 
     support Section 821 and oppose amendments to weaken or strike 
     this pro-defense, pro-business, pro-taxpayer, pro-worker 
     provision.
       Under current law, federal agencies, including the 
     Department of Defense (DOD), must purchase needed goods from 
     FPI rather than buy them following a competitive procurement 
     process. As a result, DOD and other Federal agencies subject 
     to the FPI monopoly, waste taxpayers dollars purchasing 
     inferior-quality prison made goods and services at inflated 
     costs.
       By supporting the Levin-Thomas FPI provision you will 
     signal your support for freeing up needed defense dollars for 
     other vital needs and you will save jobs in your state just 
     as many workers and their employers are facing layoffs and 
     cutbacks.

[[Page S9775]]

       Prisoners should work and learn skills, but can be occupied 
     with work and skills development activities that do not mean 
     that DOD and other agencies waste taxpayers dollars and cost 
     jobs in the private sector.
       The language in Section 821 has broad bipartisan support as 
     well as support from both the business community and 
     organized labor. Please join the U.S. Chamber, the AFL-CIO, 
     and scores of other organizations, large and small, in 
     opposition to any attempt to strike or amend Section 821. The 
     U.S. Chamber may use votes on or in relation to Section 821 
     in our annual ``How They Voted'' guide to Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it says:

       On behalf of the 600,000 members of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), I want to express our support 
     for your language in the FY 2002 National Defense 
     Authorization Act that would allow the Department of Defense 
     to purchase products from the private sector rather than from 
     Federal Prison Industries if it would benefit the taxpayer 
     and the DOD. We will oppose any effort to strike this 
     language from the defense authorization bill.
       Eighty-nine percent of NFIB members do not believe that 
     prisons should receive preference over small businesses for 
     federal contracts.

  That is what we are talking about here.
  The Chamber of Commerce:

       The United States Senate is expected to very shortly 
     consider S. 1416, the Fiscal 2002 National Defense 
     Authorization Act. Contained in that measure is a provision 
     (Section 821), based on legislation authored by Senators Carl 
     Levin and Craig Thomas, that would allow the Department of 
     Defense to purchase goods and services in the private sector 
     rather than from Federal Prison Industries (FPI), if doing so 
     would be in the best interests of the taxpayer and DOD. Be 
     aware that efforts may be made to strike or alter this 
     provision.

  On behalf of the Senator from Wyoming and myself, I move to table the 
amendment.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has been very 
cooperative on this unusual procedure. He advises the managers that he 
and two other Senators wish to participate in this important debate, 
that debate by these total of three Senators could be concluded prior 
to 2:15. The leadership is prepared to agree to have a vote at 2:15.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Secretary of State is going to be here 
for a briefing at 2:30. We would have to have that vote at 2:15. The 
time between now and 12:30 when we recess would be taken. I understand 
the Senator from Texas says he has at least one other person who wants 
to come to speak in addition to him. I am sure the two managers will 
fairly divide the time between now and when we recess. But if we could 
have an agreement, we first ask for the yeas and nays on Senator 
Warner's motion to table and then agree that the vote would be at 2:15 
this afternoon. I ask that in the form of a unanimous consent request.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask the Senator from Texas, is that agreeable? We would 
now ask unanimous consent that a vote would occur on the tabling motion 
which I, together with the Senator from Wyoming, will make at 2:15, 
subject, however, to a continuation of this debate up until, should we 
say, no later than 1 o'clock.
  Mr. GRAMM. That is fine.
  Mr. REID. Why don't you make it 12:40 or something.
  Mr. LEVIN. 12:30.
  Mr. WARNER. 12:30.
  Mr. GRAMM. That is fine. All I want to do is answer the three 
speeches that have been given. I have two other people who say they may 
want to speak. They may not get over to the Chamber. If they cannot, 
they cannot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I only ask unanimous consent that we vote at 
2:15, that the time until 2:15 be divided between the two managers, and 
that prior to that motion to table there be no amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request proposed by the Senator from Nevada?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been trying to get an amendment up, 
amendment No. 1595. That is the Vieques amendment, not the energy 
amendment. And this somehow got in front of me.
  Mr. REID. This has nothing to do with that amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I understand that. After that vote, could we then take up 
this amendment?
  Mr. REID. It recurs automatically, so we do not have to do anything.
  Mr. INHOFE. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request propounded by the Senator from Nevada?
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I don't object. I would just like to be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have listened to our three speeches. In 
listening to them, you get the idea that what they want is competition 
in defense procurement. I would, therefore, like to ask unanimous 
consent that the pending resolution be set aside and that an amendment 
be adopted by unanimous consent, which says the following:

       All defense procurement shall be on a competitive basis, 
     and the Secretary of Defense shall buy products at the 
     highest possible quality at the lowest possible price.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I wanted that objection because I wanted to 
make a point. And that point is, this bill is completely full of 
noncompetitive provisions. This bill is full of provisions that say who 
can do business with the Pentagon and who cannot. This bill prohibits 
someone from even bidding on a contract with the Pentagon unless they 
pay the highest wage rates paid in their region. There is no price 
competition in this bill. This bill is the antithesis of price 
competition. When our colleagues talk about price competition, their 
bill has none, save they want to destroy Prison Industries.
  The point I want to make is the following: This amendment has nothing 
to do with price competition. This bill has to do with killing Prison 
Industries. Now, look, if you listen to our colleagues, it sounds as 
though they are saying, we do not want to compete with prisoners. It 
sounds as if prisoners are getting all this money that would have gone 
to some private sector producer.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from The 
National Center for Victims of Crime be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                           The National Center for


                                             Victims of Crime,

                               Washington, DC, September 24, 2001.
     Hon. Phil Gramm,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gramm: The National Center for Victims of 
     Crime wishes to express its strong opposition to Section 821 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2002 (S. 1438), concerning purchases from federal prison 
     industries. This amendment raises a panoply of concerns at 
     both the federal and state levels, and will literally take 
     desperately needed funds away from victims who are trying to 
     piece their lives back together in the aftermath of crime.
       At the federal level, we are deeply concerned that this 
     provision would thwart the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) 
     efforts to collect millions of dollars each year to support 
     victim assistance and pay crime victim restitution.
       In addition, we have spoken to state officials who are 
     extremely concerned that this federal provision may set 
     precedent for state level action, significantly affecting the 
     ability of crime victims to collect restitution. Many states 
     require a percentage of money deposited into inmate 
     accounts--including inmate earnings from prison industries--
     to be collected to support statewide funds for crime victim 
     assistance programs as well as to satisfy court-ordered 
     restitution for victims. For example, in California, during 
     fiscal 2000-2001, the state Prison Industry Authority (PIA) 
     deducted 20% of the inmate

[[Page S9776]]

     wages and transfers (or the balance of victim restitution 
     orders of court-ordered fines, whichever was less) to pay for 
     crime victim assistance programs and restitution orders. The 
     total payment from PIA wages for crime victim restitution 
     during that year was $440,000 dollars. In Florida, the 
     statewide private Prison Rehabilitative Industries and 
     Diversified Enterprises (PRIDE) collected $264,000 in crime 
     victim restitution during the last fiscal year. To take away 
     those desperately needed victim assistance funds is a slap in 
     the face of the already wounded.
       Furthermore, we believe that prison work programs can 
     prepare inmates for a productive return to society, reducing 
     recidivism. Section 821, by introducing competitive bidding 
     into the procurement process, will reduce the availability of 
     prison work. The result will be fewer prisoners returning to 
     society with the necessary skills and work history to gain 
     employment.
       We strongly urge you to support restitution for victims of 
     crime and oppose Section 821 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Susan Herman,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. GRAMM. The point of this letter is, some of the money that is 
being earned by producing goods in prison is going for restitution to 
their victims. Prisoners get approximately 5 percent of the value of 
the products that are sold. This is not benefiting prisoners in any 
real sense. Who it is benefiting really boils down to three groups of 
people: One, restitution to victims, where some of the money goes for 
that purpose; two, we are beginning to develop a program whereby we can 
pay some of the $30,000 per-prisoner cost of keeping somebody in the 
Federal penitentiary by having them work; and, finally, indirectly 
prisoners benefit by a reduced recidivism rate.
  Our colleagues say: Well, look, why should the Government give to 
Prison Industries the right of first offering to sell products to the 
Government? Why shouldn't we just do it competitively?
  Let me say, Madam President, I would be perfectly happy--in fact, I 
ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside and that 
the following amendment be adopted:

       The Federal Prison Industry Program and its special 
     relationship to the Defense Department shall be terminated 
     and the Federal Prison Industies shall have every right to 
     sell products in the private sector of the economy except 
     with two limitations: No. 1, no products shall be sold in the 
     immediate vicinity of the prison; and, No. 2, no products 
     shall be sold in a market where price has declined more than 
     10 percent in the last year.

  I ask unanimous consent that be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I wanted that objection because I wanted 
to make the point that when our colleagues are talking about wanting 
prison labor to compete; they do not want prison labor to compete; they 
do not want it to work. The unions and the furniture manufacturers 
pound their chest and talk about: We want to compete with prison labor. 
But they are not telling the truth. They want to take away the only 
market that is left for prison labor.
  They killed off the market for prison labor in the 1930s where 
virtually everybody in American prisons worked and where they produced 
their own food, where they produced their own clothes, where they paid 
for part of the cost of their incarceration, and where they learned 
skills. So having killed that, now they want to kill the last vestige 
of prison labor; and that is selling to the Federal Government. They 
cloak themselves in the righteousness of competition, but they want no 
competition.
  Now, lest anybody think the relationship the Federal Prison 
Industries has is a relationship which is unfair to the Government, I 
remind my colleagues that in the 1930s we killed the prison industry as 
it related to producing and selling goods in the private marketplace 
with three Federal statutes: One, forbid the sale of prison goods in 
interstate commerce; another, forbid the transportation of prison goods 
in interstate commerce; and another one said: You can work, but you 
have to pay them union wages. The simple English was: Prisoners are not 
going to work. What happened? We drove up the cost of keeping people in 
prison.
  The only thing left is Government procurement. Every other kind of 
production by prisoners is now illegal in the United States of America.
  Let me recite these facts: In the last comprehensive study by the 
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense--let me remind 
my colleagues, the Defense Department did not ask for the Levin 
amendment. The Justice Department is adamantly opposed to the Levin 
amendment. But you get the idea in listening to the proponents of this 
provision that, well, these prison products are overpriced and are no 
good. When we did a comprehensive study that was reported to Congress 
on October 5, 1998, here is what it found:

  In 78 percent of the procurements that the Defense Department engaged 
in with Federal Prison Industries, the cost of the product was actually 
lower than the cost of the product that was available in the private 
sector. So 78 percent of the time it was cheaper buying from the 
prisons; 20 percent of the time, in the survey, it was higher; 21 
percent of the time it was roughly the same.
  When the cost is higher, the Defense Department has the ability to 
apply for a waiver so that they don't have to buy from Prison 
Industries if they think it is not a good deal. Well, in listening to 
the proponents of this provision, you would get the idea that the 
answer every time they asked for a waiver was no. The plain truth is 
that in 89 percent of the cases where they said they didn't want this 
product from Prison Industries, that waiver was granted.
  Let me summarize by making the following points: First of all, by 
roughly a 4-to-1 margin in the surveys that have been done, it is 
cheaper to buy from Prison Industries than from the private sector.
  Secondly, in those cases where it is not cheaper, almost 90 percent 
of the time a waiver was granted so that the Pentagon did not have to 
purchase the item from Prison Industries.
  Our colleagues talk about competition, but they don't want 
competition. When I asked unanimous consent to have competition for the 
Pentagon to buy the best quality at the lowest price, just as Mr. and 
Mrs. America try to do every day--and as every business in America 
tries to do every day--they claim it is what they want, but when I ask 
that we do it by unanimous consent, they object. They say they want 
prison labor to have to compete, but when I ask unanimous consent that 
it be able to compete for both Government contracts and private 
contracts, save the limitation that you could not sell things right 
around the prison when you glut the market and you could not sell in 
markets where prices were falling because of an excess supply--when I 
tried to take the principle they argue on and apply it across the 
board, they object.
  So what is the principle? The principle is, having killed prison 
labor in the private sector, having gone from a system where virtually 
every prisoner in America worked 12 hours a day, 6 days a week to pay 
restitution to victims, to pay for their incarceration--having killed 
that in the private sector, we have an effort before us today to kill 
it in the public sector. That is what this amendment is about. It is 
not about competition.
  Now, it is true that our colleagues hold up letters from the AFL-CIO 
and from the NFIB, and those letters say they are for this bill, and 
that is true. We do have a letter from labor unions. We have a letter 
from people who produce items and who would like to see prison labor 
killed so that they can sell the items to the Federal Government. But I 
ask my colleagues, who benefits from that? It is true that the workers 
of a furniture manufacturing plant that might get more jobs or higher 
wages by killing the Federal Prison Industries--maybe they will 
benefit. It is probably true that the furniture manufacturer who would 
sell the product if we kill Federal Prison Industries will benefit. But 
there are 285 million people in America who are paying $30,000 per year 
to incarcerate one person in a Federal penitentiary. We have 1.2 
million people nationwide in prison. Does that cost, borne by 285 
million people to keep someone in prison, carry no weight? Do we only 
care about the labor unions and the manufacturers who would benefit by 
killing the Federal prison system? And do we not care about the 285 
million people who would lose by losing victim restitution, by losing 
our ability to develop a system

[[Page S9777]]

where prisoners will help pay some of that $30,000 a year? Do we only 
hear from the voices of the few who would benefit by killing the 
Federal prison system and not hear from the 285 million people who 
would lose?

  What a skewed debate this is. But the problem is, the unions know who 
they are; they have sent letters and they have called Members of the 
Senate. My dear friends at the NFIB--one of the great organizations in 
America, which is a special interest organization--have sent out 
letters, and they have called and lobbied. Where are the lobbyists for 
the 285 million people who are going to pay $30,000 a year to keep 
somebody in prison? Have we heard from them? No. They can't figure out 
why we are talking about killing Federal Prison Industries when the 
Nation hears the drum roll and the bugle of war. They don't even know 
this is being debated.
  So we have Members of Congress, and over their left shoulder are all 
those special interest groups that want to kill the last vestige of 
prison labor in America. They are all going to send letters back home 
telling people--whether you care about the manufacturer or the labor 
union, they are going to send those letters. Nobody is going to send a 
letter back home saying that you cared about 285 million taxpayers 
because the American public thinks that we are in a crisis and they are 
paying attention to it.
  That is how bad laws are made. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
Levin amendment. We had a very unusual thing happen. I must say, in all 
the time I have been here I don't remember it happening before, but it 
is perfectly within the rules. We had the Senator from Virginia offer a 
tabling amendment on behalf of another member--in this case, myself--
before I was ready to debate the issue, before I could get together my 
supporters to come speak on behalf of it. I am sure that was not his 
intention. His intention was to get on with this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAMM. Did we have a unanimous consent agreement dividing the 
time? If so, I did not hear it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time was to be equally divided.
  Mr. GRAMM. That was in the unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it was.
  Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent for one additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. The issue is not going to be decided on this tabling 
motion unless this provision is stricken because I have not yet had an 
opportunity to offer an amendment. I would like to have a compromise. I 
would like to get new data, and I would like to try to improve the 
Federal prison system. I would like to respond to the legitimate 
concerns that have been raised. But I am not willing to step aside and 
allow prison labor to be killed in America. We have 1.2 million people 
sitting around in idleness, and the cost of keeping people in prison is 
driving up taxes all over America.

  If, in fact, this amendment is taken out of this bill, it will settle 
this issue for this year, but if it is not taken out of this bill, it 
will not settle this issue for this year. I urge the distinguished 
chairman of the committee to compromise, to come to a reasonable 
solution so we can deal with the Nation's problems.
  This is an important issue. There are 285 million people paying 
$30,000 a year to keep people in prison. We have 1.2 million people in 
prison. I just cannot be indifferent about that. As a result, I am 
opposed to the Levin amendment. I will vote against this tabling 
motion. If it is not tabled, the amendment will be pending and it can 
be amended. If it is tabled, then another amendment can be offered, so 
I do not know that we have settled anything.
  We have had a good debate, and I think the more people hear about 
this, the better off we are. I cannot imagine an objective American 
siding with killing the Federal Prison Industries.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, very briefly, there are a number of 
points which the Senator from Texas has made which deserve, again, to 
be refuted. I will pick two of them.
  First he says Mr. and Mrs. America, if they only knew, they surely 
would say that we have to allow the Prison Industries to establish a 
monopoly so that the Defense Department must buy a product from Prison 
Industries, even though the Defense Department is paying more for it 
from Prison Industries than they do from a private firm.
  I think Mr. and Mrs. America would be stunned, would be shocked if 
they heard that a private firm is not allowed to bid on a product that 
the Government is buying.
  I think Mr. and Mrs. America would probably shake their heads in 
disbelief and say: Wait a minute, you mean that the office supply 
company down the street my husband or wife works at is not allowed to 
bid even if they have a lower price than Prison Industries at 50-cents-
an-hour labor? You mean that firm, that company, where my spouse has a 
job, cannot even bid on it? Talk about being stunned. That would stun 
Mr. and Mrs. America.
  There is something else, by the way, about Mr. and Mrs. America to 
which I want to make reference. We do not allow Americans to buy 
products made by Chinese prison labor. We prohibit it. We just do not 
think it is right that we should be competing with Chinese prison 
wages. It is tough enough to be competing with wages of people who are 
not in prison in other countries, but we have a prohibition on that.
  Yet our friend from Texas says we ought to let prison labor sell in 
the private sector. That is really what is at issue by the way. The 
issue is much more than the language which is in this bill which would 
simply allow the private sector to compete. What the Senator from Texas 
is really after and has said he would support would be a provision that 
would let prison labor make products and sell in the private sector.

  I want to see whether or not the American public will support a 
system where our workers not in prison have to compete with prison 
wages. I do not think they want to do it any more than we want to 
compete with Chinese prison wages. I do not think they want to do it. 
Yet that is what the Senator from Texas says he will support.
  I hope this Senate will reject that as being really what the Senator 
from Texas is after and, according to his own words, something he will 
support.
  The issue before us is a narrower issue. Although the issue I 
mentioned may be the underlying issue, the narrower issue is the 
language in this bill. The language in this bill simply says that if a 
private firm wishes to bid on a product that the Department of Defense 
is buying, it ought to be allowed to do so and that Prison Industries 
should not be able unilaterally to say a private company may not bid, 
that Prison Industries is going to have a monopoly.
  The Senator from Texas repeated perhaps 20 times that the effort here 
is to kill prison labor, kill Prison Industries. Of course, it is not. 
It is to permit the private sector to compete. Indeed, the statistics, 
which he cited a number of times, support our language. It was his 
statistics which said that in 78 percent of the procurements by the 
Department, the price paid to Prison Industries was actually lower. 
Fine. We are not trying to change that. All this language does is take 
care of the other 20 percent, which is also one of the statistics cited 
by the Senator from Texas.
  In the other 20 percent, according to the Senator from Texas, it 
would actually be cheaper for the Department of Defense to buy from the 
private sector than it would from Prison Industries. He cites that 
statistic as proving that in most cases it would be cheaper for the 
Department to buy from Prison Industries. Fine. We are not trying to 
stop that. We are not trying to stop the Prison Industries from 
competing. We just want to allow the private sector to compete so that 
in 20 percent of the cases where the Department of Defense would save 
money by buying from the private sector, it would be allowed to do so.
  Madam President, I hope this language will stay in the bill. It has 
broad support. It is also, it seems to me, so fundamentally fair that 
American citizens not in prison be allowed to bid on items that their 
Government is buying. That to me is so obvious and so fair that it 
would come as a shock to American citizens to learn that is anything 
other than what the current system is.

[[Page S9778]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


             Order for Recess Subject to Call of the Chair

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
2:15 p.m. vote, the Senate be in recess subject to the call of the 
Chair as a result of the briefing that will take place by Secretary of 
State Colin Powell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we have a minute before we recess. I 
feel so strongly about this notion that we favor private enterprise, 
that we favor the opportunity for competition, and that we have worked 
at this problem for a number of years and now to pick out a portion of 
it and say somehow private competition should not work surprises me a 
great deal.
  I understand the number of Federal prisons in Texas. Talk about 
special interests. It is there. What we ought to do is follow the 
policy we have had for a very long time and see if we can move as much 
activity to the private sector as possible when they can compete, when 
they can make the best product, and that is the case here.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, we have a couple minutes remaining, and I 
would like to have that time, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, first of all, I am not in a Federal 
prison, and I do not have any kinfolk in a Federal prison, so I do not 
know how I would benefit from that.
  Second, it is interesting, all this concern about competition. The 
Defense Department sent the chairman a recommendation that they be 
allowed to be more competitive in purchasing items by not requiring 
defense contractors to pay inflated wage rates in order to bid. They 
estimated that next year they could save $180 million if they were 
allowed to be more competitive, and that provision was struck and not 
included in this bill.
  The Defense Department sent the chairman and the ranking member a 
letter saying: If you will just let us have a little bit more leeway in 
getting competitive bidding on small contracts of less than $1 million, 
that could have saved $180 million in 1 year.
  Our colleagues who are so concerned about competition today say 
basically we do not want to save $180,000 if it means competition, and 
so they rejected that provision. Yet when it comes to Federal Prison 
Industries, now all of a sudden everything should be different.
  So I hope my colleagues will vote on this on the merits. Do you want 
to kill Federal Prison Industries or not? Do you think a handful of 
workers and a handful of manufacturers who would benefit by killing 
Federal Prison Industries are more important than the 285 million 
taxpayers who are paying $30,000 a year to keep somebody in prison 
where those costs can be ultimately partially paid by prisoners working 
and where we could use some of the money for victims' restitution? That 
is the issue, and I hope people will vote on that basis.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
preservation of the Federal Prison Industries Program. Language that is 
currently in the Defense authorization bill would gut this program 
within the Bureau of Federal Prisons, effectively withdrawing hope for 
thousands of incarcerated Federal prisoners and fostering a dangerous 
number of idle hands within our Federal prison system.
  Today, the Federal Prison Industries Program employs and provides 
valuable skills training to the greatest practicable number of inmates 
incarcerated within the Federal prison system. Overall, FPI has some 
21,000 inmates in more than 100 Federal prisons working in 100 
industries, from textiles to electronics to graphic design. In Ohio, 
the Federal Correctional Institute at Elkton has up to 450 inmates 
working in data processing and electronics recycling. This employment 
of prisoners does more than just occupy time, it teaches prisoners the 
skills they need to obtain a job once they leave prison.
  By giving prisoners an opportunity to change their lives, the FPI 
program contributes to security inside prisons, and it reduces the rate 
of recidivism among those it trains. Indeed, inmates in FPI's work 
programs are 24 percent less likely to be repeat offenders after being 
released. In addition, 55 percent of inmates' wages go toward meeting 
their financial obligations, such as victim restitution, child support, 
and court fees.
  When I was Governor of Ohio, we had a similar program to FPI and saw 
firsthand the success and value of giving inmates a second change at 
being productive members of society. In Ohio, we had inmates who had 
been trained in horticulture take part in groundskeeping throughout the 
Governor's residence. We had inmates working in the Governor's office 
mailroom and copy center operations, where they put together news 
clippings, distributed mail and did a good portion of the photocopying. 
Overall, I had an extremely good experience with the work these inmates 
did, and I have to say that for the most part, the work they performed 
was excellent. For some inmates who had exemplified themselves, I even 
wrote letters of recommendation to help them get jobs when they got out 
of prison.
  The experience that I have had at the State level by employing State 
inmates is one that is replicated at the Federal level through the FPI 
program.
  I understand that some private sector companies desire to compete for 
FPI contracts, however, I believe that FPI provides an invaluable 
opportunity for inmates, and the communities to which they will 
eventually return, that cannot be ignored.
  While I find merit in pursing possible reforms to the FPI program, I 
do not believe the answer is to completely obliterate FPI, as the 
current language does. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support to 
ensure the viability of FPI, the safety of our Federal prisons and the 
rehabilitation of our Federal inmates.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I oppose section 821 of the Fiscal Year 
2002 Defense authorization bill because I fear that this section would 
undermine what has proved to be a successful program in helping to 
manage Federal prisoners.
  Section 821 would effectively eliminate the mandatory source 
requirement for the Department of Defense, which ensures that Federal 
prisoners are employed in sufficient numbers, and thus is fundamental 
to the security of our Federal prisons.
  Moreover, since this section would significantly affect our Federal 
prisons, it is an issue that the Senate Judiciary Committee should 
first consider before the Senate takes action on it after only 2 hours 
of debate.
  I support competition for the provision of goods and services to the 
Federal Government. However, this competition should not be sought at 
the expense of a successful prisoner management program, and that 
program should certainly not be repealed without some alternative 
program to replace it.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise to support my colleague from 
Texas in his effort to strike section 821 from S. 1438. I have outlined 
why I believe that the Federal Prison Industries is important for the 
continued orderly function of our prisons.
  Today I have received a letter from Fraternal Order of Police 
President Steve Young. In his letter, Mr. Young made an interesting 
point that a healthy Federal Prison Industries is not only important 
for the orderly function of our prisons but also for the safety of our 
corrections officers.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Young's letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                               Washington, DC, September 25, 2001.
     Hon. Sam Brownback,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brownback: I am writing on behalf of the more 
     than 299,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police to 
     advise you of our strong support for Amendment No. 1674 to 
     strike Section 821 from S. 1438, the ``FY 2002 National 
     Defense Authorization Act;'' and therefore urge a ``no'' vote 
     on the motion to table this important amendment.
       Reform of Federal Prison Industries has been an issue which 
     has received much attention over the past several years. For 
     our

[[Page S9779]]

     organization, any reform proposal put before the Congress 
     must be viewed from the perspective of its potential impact 
     on both the safety of Federal correctional officers, and the 
     safety of the public from recidivist offenders.
       With the large number of Federal prisoners incarcerated in 
     Bureau of Prison (BOP) facilities, now is the time to seek 
     increased opportunities for inmates to gain meaningful 
     employment through FPI. In so doing, we can reduce the rate 
     of recidivism, enhance public safety, provide restitution to 
     victims of crime and their families, and require these 
     inmates to truly pay their debt to society at no additional 
     cost to the American taxpayers. In addition, it will create a 
     safer environment for the thousands of correctional officers 
     who work in BOP facilities.
       On behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of 
     Police, I wish to thank you for your continuing leadership on 
     this issue and your support of America's law enforcement 
     officers. Please do not hesitate to contact me, or Executive 
     Director Jim Pasco, if we can provide you with any additional 
     information or assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Steve Young,
                                               National President.

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise to express my strong support 
for the amendment to strike section 821, the Federal Prison Industries 
provision of the Defense Authorization Act. I commend Senator Gramm for 
his leadership and excellent remarks today on this critical issue.
  FPI or UNICOR is an essential correctional program that keeps 
thousands of prisoners working every day without any cost to taxpayers. 
It helps maintain prison safety and security because inmates that are 
productively occupied are less likely to be involved in mischief and 
violence.
  FPI has existed since the 1930s, but it has never been more important 
than it is today in these times of rising prison populations. Just on 
the Federal level, the prison population today is twice what it was in 
the late 1980s. While the number of inmates in State prisons may be 
leveling off now, the number of Federal prisoners is continuing to rise 
and is expected to expand by 40 percent in the next seven years. The 
Congress is approving 28 more medium or high-security prisons to 
accommodate this continuing increase, which is needed to keep our 
streets safe and keep the crime rate declining. It is prisons of this 
type that most need the work programs that FPI provides.
  Moreover, Prison Industries helps provide prisoners a future when 
they are released. The program teaches inmates meaningful job skills 
that they can use when they return to society, and has proven to be the 
most successful government initiative in helping prevent prisoners from 
returning to a life of crime. It is an extremely popular work program, 
through which inmates volunteer to participate. In fact, the prisons 
have long waiting lists for inmates to be involved. It is worth 
repeating that FPI requires no government funding and sustains itself 
as a government corporation.
  We should not destroy what keeps the growing correctional population 
occupied in a way that benefits prisoners and protects the prisons and 
our communities. Yet, Section 821 of the Defense authorization bill 
could do just that. It would essentially exclude the Defense Department 
from FPI and endanger this program and its essential mission.
  The Defense Department is critical to FPI's continued success. It is 
one of FPI's most important customers, constituting about 60 percent of 
FPI sales. Also, FPI is an important part of the military supply 
network. DOD and FPI have a good working relationship, and there is no 
basis for us to create a special carve out of DOD from FPI's very long-
standing Federal Government preference in procurement.
  Section 821 would eliminate the preference that FPI has over the 
private sector for sales less than $2,500, for products that are part 
of a national security system, or for products that are components of 
items that FPI does not sell. This would essentially exclude Defense 
from the mandatory source because the great majority of DOD orders fit 
into one of these three categories. In fact, for any remaining 
purchases, DOD would be required to conduct ``market research'' before 
making purchases. This provision is simply unworkable in practice and, 
considering that DOD constitutes about 60 percent of FPI sales, would 
severely harm FPI, and even endanger the program.
  The arguments that opponents of Prison Industries are making are 
certainly not new. These issues were raised by Senator Levin years ago 
in a previous Defense authorization bill, and the Congress required the 
Defense Department and the Justice Department to complete a major study 
regarding their relationship. The results of that joint study were 
released in 1999, and show that the changes we are considering today 
are not warranted. The study found that they have a beneficial and 
cooperative relationship, and the suggestions it made for improvement 
have been implemented. It specifically concluded that no statutory 
changes in the procurement process are warranted, which the provision 
we are considering today entirely disregards.
  Moreover, the current Bush administration opposes this type of 
piecemeal effort to harm FPI, just as the Clinton administration and 
others did in the past. The Bush administration has expressed great 
concern about the effect that Section 821 could have on the safe and 
effective administration of Federal prisons.

  This concern is entirely appropriate. The fact is that Section 821 
would eliminate many FPI jobs and create problems for the safe and 
efficient operation of Federal prisons. Also, many opportunities for 
inmates to earn marketable job skills would be lost or have to be 
subsidized with scarce Government funds. Given the severe budget 
constraints and demands for Federal money caused by the September 11 
terrorist attacks, this is definitely not the time to be creating an 
additional need for Federal dollars.
  The operation of Federal prisons is a matter within the jurisdiction 
of the Judiciary Committee, and that committee is the appropriate place 
to consider matters related to FPI. In fact, reform legislation that we 
should consider in the Judiciary Committee is currently pending there.
  I agree that it is time to move away from the mandatory source 
preference that FPI has in the Federal market. However, we must do so 
in a reasoned, comprehensive way that creates more opportunities, not 
less.
  Senator Hatch and I have introduced a bill that is pending in the 
Judiciary Committee which would eliminate the mandatory source in a way 
that would not endanger FPI. Our legislation, S. 1228, would give 
private businesses the opportunity to partner with FPI to make products 
in the private sector.
  Most importantly, it would permit prisoners to make products for 
private companies that otherwise would be made overseas, such as 
electronic toys and televisions. This has the potential to return jobs 
to America that have been lost to foreign labor. FPI already purchases 
over $400 million per year in raw materials and equipment from United 
States companies, most of which comes from small businesses. This bill 
would expand those opportunities for private industry.
  Also, under S. 1228, when inmates made products in the domestic 
market, they would earn comparable locality wages. Additional money 
that they earned would be used to pay restitution, child support, and a 
portion of their room and board costs. This would be in addition to the 
millions of dollars that FPI inmates already contribute annually to 
their families and to crime victims. I think we should make FPI a 
partner with the private sector as part of a comprehensive solution to 
this long-standing issue.
  Any argument about forced labor, whether in FPI today or in this 
bill, has absolutely no merit. FPI is a program that inmates volunteer 
to participate in, and S. 1228 would require that participation be 
voluntary. Also, the facilities would comply with standards established 
by OSHA, the International Labor Organization, and the American 
Correctional Association.
  I am prepared to work with all interested parties to help resolve 
this matter once and for all. However, the Defense Authorization Act is 
not the right place and section 821 is clearly not the right approach 
to reforming Prison Industries. With the recent terrorist attack, many 
want to limit the Defense authorization bill to our military and 
national security needs. This bill certainly should not be used to 
interfere in the orderly operation of Federal prisons. Thus, I 
encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

[[Page S9780]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if the Senator from Texas wants to offer 
an amendment to modify the Davis-Bacon law to accomplish what he talked 
about, he ought to offer it. Nobody offered it in committee, but the 
Senator from Texas is free to offer it.
  What troubles me is we have a bill which is of critical significance 
to the Armed Forces of the United States. We have pay increases in the 
bill. We have housing allowances. What the Senator from Texas is saying 
is, unless he gets his way on this issue, he is not going to allow that 
bill to go forward. It seems to me that is wrong, and that is the 
problem. That is what has caused this particular situation.
  That is the only reason the Senator from Virginia obviously offered 
the amendment and moved to table it, to see whether or not there is 
support for the position of the Senator from Texas. If the Senator from 
Texas prevails on his position, fine. If he does not prevail on his 
position, this bill is too important, has too much in it that matters 
to the security of this country, to be held up by one Senator who 
insists he is going to get his way even if the majority of the Senate 
disagrees with him. That is what the issue is. It seems to me that is 
the overriding issue.
  Back to competition, if the Senator from Texas believes there should 
be an amendment that would modify Davis-Bacon, I would urge him to 
offer that. Let us debate it. Let us vote it, but let us not hold up 
the Defense bill as his position would.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent that the request of the Defense 
Department that they have the right to engage in competitive bidding on 
contracts of less than a million dollars be accepted.
  Mr. LEVIN. I object. I have said very clearly that the Senator should 
offer the amendment if he wants to do so. Send the amendment to the 
desk. Let's debate that amendment. Win or lose, modify Davis-Bacon if 
he wishes. Send an amendment to the desk. We will debate it. But what I 
object to is holding up the Defense bill on this ground. We do not do 
this by unanimous consent.
  Mr. GRAMM. Not to keep dragging this dead cat back across the table, 
but I am not asking for any special privilege. I wanted to offer my own 
amendment, which someone else offered. The Senator can deal with his 
bill as he chooses. I have been a private in the Army, but I believe I 
am a private in the right. I want this issue to be heard, and I want to 
debate it. I don't understand why that is somehow unreasonable.
  When people want to pass special interest legislation, they can cloak 
themselves in the righteousness of the moment. I do not understand why 
it is even in this bill. I think, quite frankly, people ought to be 
embarrassed that it is in this bill.
  In any case, I am not asking for any special privilege whatsoever. I 
want to exercise my right as 1 of 100 Senators. That is all I am doing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:34 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:34 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and 
reassembled when called to ordered by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Nelson 
of Nebraska).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________