[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 130 (Tuesday, October 2, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10027-S10032]
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 legislative 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 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10 a.m. shall be equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
member or their designees.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I first thank the assistant majority 
leader for his words on this subject. I associate myself with the need 
to move forward on this bill. I am going to vote for cloture. I am 
about to leave and go into my party's conference and so indicate and 
encourage others to do likewise.
  Madam President, when I looked at the television this morning and saw 
our President with the leadership reconciling differences, such as the 
budget, our President moving to make the tough decision, but it is a 
correct one given the security arrangements in place, to open National 
Airport, these are bold initiatives. Now the Senate has the opportunity 
to move forward and complete today a bill for the men and women of the 
Armed Forces, men

[[Page S10028]]

and women who, with their families, are now preparing to face an 
unknown situation but facing it with commitment and courage. I hope 
this Senate stands tall behind them and moves forward with this 
legislation.
  I ask my distinguished chairman to allocate a few minutes of his time 
to me. I have reserved the equal amount of time for those who may wish 
to come to the floor in opposition to this cloture motion. I stand 
strongly in favor of it so America can move forward and we can support 
the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and their 
families.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. First, I thank my dear friend from Virginia for all his 
work on this bill, for his comments, his determination to proceed on a 
bipartisan basis to a real test of wills. This vote we are now about to 
cast will decide whether we are going to have this year a Defense 
authorization bill which will provide funds for our military, pay 
raises for our men and women in the military, housing allowances which 
are desperately needed, the equipment that they need in order to 
prepare and to go to war, should that be their fate, and it surely 
looks as though that is now clearly ahead.
  What we are hoping for, looking for this morning, is a strong 
bipartisan expression of national resolve and national unity by voting 
for cloture on this bill. It is the only way we will complete action on 
this bill. There has been an effort to debate matters on this bill that 
are unrelated, important matters but not matters that are directly 
related to providing and equipping the men and women in our forces.
  This is the bill that provides the authorization required by the 
Department of Defense for their programs for the year 2002 that also 
includes the provisions for the Department of Energy. The bill is 
consistent with the national security priorities of the President of 
the United States and the Secretary of Defense. At a time when we are 
deploying forces around the world and mobilizing our National Guard and 
Reserve units to augment our active forces, it is a bill which is 
essential to our national security.
  I am hoping that any partisan differences will be set aside. I am 
hoping that differences over particular provisions can be set aside. 
None of us agree with every provision in this bill. Some of us have 
taken steps to make sure that this bill could pass on a bipartisan 
basis and some of those steps have been very difficult steps for many 
of us to take. Many of us have had to take steps to preserve our rights 
to debate certain issues at a later time rather than at this moment in 
our history. I know that personally because I am one of those persons 
who has had to make a decision on language which I crafted and fought 
so hard for in committee as chairman, to set aside that issue--not to 
bury it; we are talking here national missile defense, but to save that 
debate for another day when two things could happen.
  One, we could debate it in an environment which makes it possible for 
the pros and cons of that issue to be debated; second, at least to have 
a chance of prevailing on the issue, which is not possible under the 
current circumstances.
  Nonetheless, the point is, some of us, on both sides of the aisle, 
have taken difficult steps. Some who oppose the BRAC provision, by the 
way--I am looking at our Presiding Officer--are faced with a decision: 
Will they vote for cloture on a bill which contains a provision to 
which they object? This was a close vote on BRAC, something like 53-47, 
if I remember. That means some of us who very much oppose that 
provision are now faced with a cloture vote. Are they going to vote to 
bring to an end debate on a bill that contains a provision to which 
they so strongly object? I am confident that most of the Senators who 
voted against the BRAC provision nonetheless will see that the bill 
overall is essential to our national security and to the well-being of 
our forces and to their success.
  This bill contains a pay raise for military members that ranges from 
5 percent to 10 percent depending on grade, the largest pay raise in 
two decades. We have been making progress on pay by the way. The last 
administration, as well as this one, has been making significant 
progress in making more adequate our pay for men and women in the Armed 
Forces. So we have the largest pay raise in two decades. We have 
authority and authorization for funding to increase the basic allowance 
for housing to eliminate the difference between the allowance that 
military members receive and the actual out-of-pocket expenses, and we 
are doing this now, a full 2 years earlier than the Defense 
Department's plan. So we are trying to eliminate that differential a 
lot faster than we had planned.
  Our bill extends and modifies the authority to pay 18 different 
bonuses and special pays to military members in order to recruit and 
retain a high-quality force. We authorize new accession bonuses for 
military services to offer officers in critical skills. We authorize 
funding for a new TRICARE for Life Program that we enacted last year 
for military retirees over the age of 65.
  All of this is hanging in the balance. The question is whether or not 
those who favor a debate on a comprehensive energy bill are going to 
use that issue and their inability to get it debated on this bill as an 
excuse to vote against this bill, or whether or not some who oppose the 
BRAC provision are now going to vote against cloture in order to bring 
down a bill which contains provisions which are so critical to the 
well-being of the men and women in the military and the success of 
their operations.
  There are many other provisions in this bill which I will just 
briefly summarize. We have multiyear authority for the F-18E/F and the 
C-17 aircraft programs. We have a new round, as I have mentioned, of 
base closures in the year 2003, which the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have told us is critically needed 
for the improvement of DOD facilities in the future. We repeal a limit 
on the dismantlement of certain strategic delivery systems.
  The last administration wanted us to get rid of this restriction. The 
uniformed military wanted us to get rid of this restriction. Their 
civilian leadership wants to get rid of this restriction. This 
administration wants to get rid of the restriction in order to reduce 
the size of our offensive nuclear forces. We have missiles that our 
military does not want--nuclear-capable missiles with nuclear warheads 
on them. The military says: we do not want them; we do not need them; 
it costs us money to maintain them. Yet Congress has forced the 
military to keep these systems that they do not want. This 
administration says please get rid of this limit. The last 
administration said please get rid of it. Again, our administration and 
military want us to get rid of it.
  Congress now has a chance to get out of this artificial and costly 
and ineffective restriction on the limitation/reduction of nuclear 
forces.
  We have had a lot of opportunities to amend this bill. We have been 
debating it over the course now of 6 days. We have adopted 76 
amendments. Two amendments have been tabled. One amendment has been 
withdrawn. We have tried to get a finite list of amendments so debate 
could be finally brought to an end, so we could finally have a bill. As 
is usually done in the Senate, an effort is made to say bring your 
amendments here, tell us what you want to offer, and let's agree on a 
so-called finite list of amendments.
  There has been an unwillingness to do that. The people who are trying 
to bring to the floor a debate on a matter unrelated to the matters in 
this bill have said they will not agree to such a finite list. So here 
we are in a situation where we have no way to bring debate on this bill 
to an end without cloture. We are more than willing to consider any 
relevant amendment, any germane amendment. But what we cannot do is 
just set aside the Defense authorization bill to begin a week-long or 
month-long debate on an energy bill. That is what we cannot do if we 
are going to act on behalf of the men and women in the Armed Forces, 
and to try to assure their success when they go into combat.
  So that is the dilemma that we have had. The managers have worked 
hard, as Senator Reid has mentioned. I thank him very much for his 
comments. Our leadership has worked hard to get that finite list. We 
have not been able to do it. Now we face a very clear

[[Page S10029]]

vote as to whether or not we are going to demonstrate the support for 
our Armed Forces by voting for cloture on this bill. That is the simple 
issue. It has come down to that. We are not trying to preclude anybody 
from offering a relevant or germane amendment. Quite the opposite. We 
have been here now for days saying bring your amendments to the floor.
  It is going to come down to this vote. I am very much afraid that 
unless we get cloture the Defense authorization bill, so important to 
our forces, is going nowhere this year. That would be a horrendous 
message to send to the men and women and to the Nation and to the 
world. I hope that message will not be sent; rather, a message of unity 
and determination will be sent by a strong bipartisan vote for cloture 
on this bill.
  Madam President, I know there are others who are going to want to 
speak between now and 10 o'clock. I will reserve the remainder of my 
time. I know Senator Warner has his time, the remainder, reserved. I 
wonder if we could ask the Chair how much time we each have reserved?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 2 minutes and the 
minority has 10 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I do not see anyone else who wants to 
speak, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The second assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Oregon be granted 3 minutes without changing the time for the 
vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support Chairman 
Levin on cloture this morning.
  As our country prepares to go to war against terrorism, this is not 
the time to be taking urgently needed national defense legislation 
hostage.
  Protecting our Nation's energy infrastructure from attacks may well 
need to be part of our national defense strategy. But there is not one 
single provision in the energy legislation that some want to graft onto 
the defense bill that will in any way help protect our energy 
facilities from attack.
  In fact, one of the bills that some are claiming is urgently needed 
for our energy security would actually undermine the security of our 
oil supply--by allowing Alaskan oil to be exported overseas.
  While the House energy bill would restrict exporting of oil from the 
Arctic refuge, a Senate version of that bill would allow that same 
oil--that some are claiming we need to reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil--to be exported overseas. Those who claim we need to address energy 
policy as part of the defense bill can't even seem to agree whether we 
need to restrict Alaskan oil exports in order to increase our energy 
security.
  The issue of energy security and the role of Alaskan oil ought to be 
debated in the Senate, but it should be done as part of the debate on 
energy policy.
  I think this is particularly important for all the residents of the 
west coast of our country because it is clear that it is a very tight 
market on the west coast of the United States. We have seen again and 
again evidence that the markets on the west coast have been 
manipulated, that oil has been sold to Asia at a discount, and the 
companies then make up for it by sticking it to consumers in Oregon, 
Washington, and California.
  This is an extraordinarily important issue. One version that has been 
presented to the Senate would allow the oil that is so important to our 
country to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to be exported. We 
aren't going to improve our Nation's energy security by short-
circuiting the process on this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Levin and support cloture 
this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in the weeks since September 11, 
Congress has risen to the occasion and worked in a bipartisan manner to 
address the many problems caused by the atrocities committed against 
our country. The American public can be proud of how their elected 
representatives have responded to this grave national emergency. I am 
proud of our performance.
  But I am worried that in a few minutes, the Senate may undo all our 
good work of the past three weeks, bring an end to the bipartisan 
cooperation that has distinguished this institution, and give the 
public a reason to be ashamed of us.
  Obviously, with America at war, the Defense authorization bill may be 
the most important legislation we will pass since September 11. 
Recognizing that importance, Democrats and Republicans on the Armed 
Services Committee have worked together to resolve differences that 
might have imperiled the bill's passage and threaten our bipartisan 
cooperation.
  The chairman of the committee, Senator Levin, has agreed at the 
minority's urging to remove a provision in the bill restricting the 
administration's ability to develop a ballistic missile defense. I 
commend the Senator for that act of statesmanship, and for keeping his 
priorities straight in this critical hour.
  Regrettably, some senators have decided that passing a defense 
authorization bill should take a backseat to fighting over our 
differences on energy policy and to denying the President, the Joint 
Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense the ability to reorganize our 
military to respond to the new threats that confront this nation.
  Every civilian and uniformed leader of the United States armed forces 
has recognized that an additional round of base closings will be 
necessary to reorganize the military. We cannot, in this national 
emergency, let our parochial concerns override the needs of the 
military.
  Nor should we insist on fighting over our differences on energy 
policy if the consequence of our insistence is that we fail to provide 
the military with the resources they need to maintain their readiness 
as they prepare to wage what the President has correctly called a ``new 
kind of war.'' There will be time enough for that debate. But not now, 
not on this bill.
  I beg my colleagues to continue to distinguish themselves and the 
Senate by keeping the national interest first, second and last, to work 
together, as the country expects and needs us to, and to surrender, if 
only temporarily, the habits of partisanship and parochialism that have 
no place in this crisis.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters from Secretary 
Rumsfeld and Chairman Shelton to Senators Levin and Warner be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2001.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to underscore the importance we 
     place on the Senate's approval of authority for a single 
     round of base closures and realignments. Indeed, in the wake 
     of the terrible events of September 11, the imperative to 
     convert excess capacity into warfighting ability is enhanced, 
     not diminished.
       Since that fateful day, the Congress has provided 
     additional billions of taxpayer funds to the Department. We 
     owe it to all Americans--particularly those service members 
     on whom much of our response will depend--to seek every 
     efficiency in the application of those funds on behalf of our 
     warfighters.
       Our installations are the platforms from which we will 
     deploy the forces needed for the sustained campaign the 
     President outlined last night. While our future needs as to 
     base structure are uncertain and are strategy dependent, we 
     simply must have the freedom to maximize the efficient use of 
     our resources. The authority to realign and close bases and 
     facilities will be a critical element of ensuring the right 
     mix of bases and forces within our warfighting strategy.
       No one relishes the prospect of closing a military facility 
     or even seeking the authority to do so, but as the President 
     said last evening, ``we face new and sudden national 
     challenges,'' and those challenges will force us to confront 
     many difficult choices.
       In that spirit, I am hopeful the Congress will approve our 
     request for authority to

[[Page S10030]]

     close and realign our military base facilities. Thank you for 
     the opportunity to provide our views in this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
     Donald Rumsfeld.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                               September 25, 2001.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: 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 can not 
     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.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the attempt to add energy legislation to the Defense 
authorization bill.
  This debate comes at a moment of historic challenge. We are a nation 
poised for battle against a shadowy enemy that has as its aim the 
destruction of America and all that we stand for. Our President has 
prepared us for a sustained military campaign, and at this time there 
can be no higher priority than to pass this critical legislation to 
support our armed services and the men and women who we will send into 
this war to, literally, defend our freedom. In that context, the 
amendment is an unnecessary and divisive distraction from that high 
purpose, which ultimately will do little to strengthen our national 
security.
  My friend from Oklahoma is right to be concerned about our national 
energy policy. In fact, I believe we must take a fresh look at our 
policies in light of the terrible events of September 11. In 
particular, we must look at the vulnerability of our energy 
infrastructure to terrorist attack, and refocus our energy policy to 
ensure that we address our weaknesses.
  On that point, let me quote from a recent letter from a former 
Director of the CIA, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
and the former National Security Adviser to President Reagan:

       Our refineries, pipelines and electrical grid are highly 
     vulnerable to conventional military, nuclear and terrorist 
     attacks. Disbursed, renewable and domestic supplies of fuels 
     and electricity, such as energy produced naturally from wind, 
     solar, geothermal, incremental hydro, and agricultural 
     biomass, address those challenges.

  The authors of the letter continue by stating that we must limit our 
vulnerabilities and increase our energy independence by passing, among 
other things, a Renewable Portfolio Standard. The energy proposal under 
consideration, however, does not include this innovative measure, or 
many of the other steps we can and must take to protect and enhance the 
security of energy infrastructure because it was drafted long before 
the terrible events of September 11 forced us to rethink our positions.
  Just as problematic, these amendments would open the priceless Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge for oil production. In the view of many, 
myself included, opening the refuge to drilling is not just bad 
environmental policy, it is bad energy policy and would do next to 
nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, as we have 
repeatedly pointed out, the refuge would not provide a drop of oil for 
at least a decade. This 10-year figure is a conservative estimate that 
was made by the Department of Interior under President Reagan, and 
proof positive that ANWR is not the answer or even an answer to our 
current crisis, let alone our long-term needs.
  What this proposal would do, however, is severely threaten a national 
environmental treasure, which is the last thing the American people 
would expect us to do at this moment of crisis. In times such as these, 
many of us found solace in nature, including many people at the heart 
of these horrific terrorist attacks. The New York times reported in the 
days following the attacks that Manhattan citizens were flocking to a 
garden in lower Manhattan to seek comfort, to grieve, and to connect 
with each other in sharing our grief.
  In my view, we need to know that vast natural areas such as the 
Arctic refuge exist as we cope with the events of the past month. 
Nature reminds us of the eternal rhythms of life of which we are a part 
and which will endure over time. Ensuring an enduring refuge in the 
Arctic, no matter how uncertain other parts of our life may seem right 
now, provides us solace and perspective in these trying times. This 
crisis has reawakened us to the importance of protecting our values, 
and I believe that the Arctic wilderness has a place on that list.
  The time to debate the merits of energy policy is not today, and not 
as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Debating the merits 
of these, and other, provisions will take time, time we do not have 
now. There will be deep divisions and much disagreement. As Senator 
Murkowski said just last week, consideration of energy legislation on 
the defense bill is ``inappropriate.'' ``[T]here is a place for the 
consideration of domestic energy development.  . . . That belongs in 
the energy bill where it should be debated by all individual members.''
  We should leave this Arctic refuge debate for another day and focus 
with intensity on the task at hand: supporting and strengthening our 
Armed Forces. This is not the time for the distraction and division 
that this amendment would create.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am pleased to say that my colleague, 
Senator McCain, and I think one or two others in our conference 
strongly support cloture. I am pleased to say that I think momentarily 
the Senate will see a very strong vote in favor of cloture and for 
moving ahead on this bill. I thank my colleague, the Senator from 
Arizona, and others for their support in this matter.
  I say to the chairman we will make as much progress as possible 
today, and we will have to vigilantly enforce the rules with regard to 
germaneness if we are to achieve our results. But we have stood 
steadfast on both sides of the aisle on behalf of the men and women of 
the Armed Forces. I am proud of the Senate on this day.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I know the hour of 10 has arrived. I 
thank my good friend from Virginia for his work in his conference. I am 
optimistic, with his words now and with Senator McCain's efforts and 
others in the Republican conference, that we now have an opportunity to 
get cloture. We hope that is true. We will find out shortly. The stakes 
here are great.
  I yield any time that I have.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wonder if we might extend the time of 
the vote by 2 minutes to allow the Senator from Alaska to address the 
Senate, and then the vote will take place at 10:02.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, good morning. And I thank my good 
friend, Senator Warner.
  Let me indicate my support for the DOD authorization bill. It has 
never been my intent to block this legislation. However, as a 
consequence of the manner in which the objections were heard relative 
to the DOD authorization bill, and the effort to put H.R. 4, the House 
energy bill, as an amendment on it, I felt compelled to come before 
this body and ask the majority when we might take up an energy bill, a 
national energy security bill that addresses protecting the critical 
energy infrastructure of our Nation, whether it be electric 
reliability, pipeline safety, and provisions of the administration's 
energy security proposal. There were other issues relative to securing 
domestic supplies: Price Anderson, clean coal, ANWR, hydro provisions,

[[Page S10031]]

and a title reducing demand and increasing efficiencies.
  I felt it imperative, based on the requests from the White House, the 
Vice President, and the Secretaries of Energy and Interior, that we 
have some assurance that the Senate will complete its work on a 
national energy security package. The House has done its work. H.R. 4 
has passed the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the majority 
did not see fit to give us an indication of whether or not we would 
likely take up an energy bill in the remainder of this session.
  That was my request relative to the authorization bill pending before 
us this morning. We still have not received any assurance from the 
majority that they intend to take up a national energy security bill 
this session. I encourage them to reconsider that. I advise my 
colleagues that I will be pressing this issue on other opportunities 
before this body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) The Senator's time 
has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the occupant of the chair a 
good day. And I thank my friend, Senator Warner.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on Calendar No. 
     163, S. 1438, the Department of Defense authorization bill:
       John Kerry, Jon Corzine, Debbie Stabenow, Byron Dorgan, 
     Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Harry Reid, Zell Miller, Daniel 
     Inouye, James Jeffords, Richard Durbin, Kent Conrad, Jack 
     Reed, Charles Schumer, Joseph Lieberman, John Edwards, Tom 
     Daschle, and Carl Levin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call under 
the rule is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
1438, a bill 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 
Forces, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 100, the nays are 
0. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider that vote.
  Mr. ALLARD. 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 Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to bring up 
an amendment. Prior to that, I yield no longer than 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I did not hear what was asked.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have asked to be recognized to bring up 
an amendment that is at the desk. However, in deference to the Senator 
from Arizona and the Senator from Oregon, I have yielded them 5 
minutes, but I want to retain my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to 
object, I wonder whether or not that amount of time is sufficient for 
both of them.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is sufficient.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield 10 minutes if they need it?
  Mr. INHOFE. Not to exceed 10 minutes. I amend my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not take more than 1 minute because 
we need to move forward with this legislation. In fact, we need to move 
forward with it urgently. I hope there will be time agreements and 
amendments decided on so we can finish this bill today. We have to move 
on to airport security and other important issues.
  (The remarks of Mr. McCain and Mr. Wyden are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 1735

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1735, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1735.

     (Purpose: To add an expression of the sense of the Senate on 
comprehensive national energy legislation that ensures the availability 
            of adequate energy supplies to the Armed Forces)

       On page 47, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       (e) Sense of Senate on Availability of Energy-Related 
     Supplies for the Armed Forces.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate should, before the adjournment of the first 
     session of the 107th Congress, take action on comprehensive 
     national energy security legislation, including energy 
     production and energy conservation measures, to ensure that 
     there is an adequate supply of energy for the Armed Forces.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to reread that because this is 
very simple. This is not the comprehensive amendment I had which would 
have put H.R. 4 into the Defense authorization bill.
  There is no one in this Chamber who wants to have a Defense 
authorization bill more than I do. I will not jeopardize that. However, 
this amendment is simply a sense of the Senate on availability of 
energy-related supplies for the Armed Forces. It is the sense of the 
Senate that the Senate should, before the adjournment of the first 
session of the 107th Congress, take action on the comprehensive 
national energy security legislation, including energy production and 
energy conservation measures, to ensure there is an adequate supply of 
energy for the Armed Forces.
  The reason I am bringing this issue up is I cannot imagine that 
someone would not want to support it. Right now we are, as we all 
know--you have heard me say this many times--56.6-percent dependent 
upon foreign sources of oil for our ability to fight a war. Roughly 
half of that comes from the Middle East and the largest, fastest 
growing contributor to energy, to oil that is imported by the United 
States, is Iraq.
  So what we are saying is we are dependent upon Iraq for our ability 
to fight a war against Iraq. Now, that is insane.
  The very least we can do is recognize that energy is a national 
defense issue. So I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S10032]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________