Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 130 (Tuesday, October 2, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 130 (Tuesday, October 2, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10032-S10041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before we recessed subject to the call of
the Chair, I called up amendment No. 1735. I want to read it again
because, as I stated before, to even consider that our energy
dependence upon foreign sources is not a defense issue I think is
ludicrous.
Instead of offering the long amendment, I have merely offered a
sense-of-the-Senate amendment that says:

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.

I think the strongest point we can make about our dependency upon the
Middle East is the fact that the most rapidly growing contributor to
our energy supply in the Middle East, Iraq, is a country with which we
are at war. It is absurd not to at least make this commitment as a
sense of the Senate to get this done.
I ask this amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a motion that the Chair rule this
amendment is dilatory.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator withhold that motion for just a moment
so I can ask a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to.
Mr. INHOFE. I assure you, if you make the motion and the Chair rules
it is not in order--I think if the Chair read it very carefully, it
would be in order, but if it rules that it is not in order, I will not
challenge the ruling of the Chair for obvious reasons. I do want as
much as anyone in the Senate an authorization to pass, and pass
quickly. I know if we had that motion and overruled the ruling of the
Chair, that would open it up and it would be disaster and we would not
get a bill. So I would not do that. I am not going to.
I ask you not make that motion, but if you do make the motion, I
encourage the Chair to realize and read--this is not the amendment I
had before. This is merely directly relating to defense.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been advised by my friend from
Delaware he wishes to speak, and of course postcloture he has a right
to speak for up to an hour. I would not stand in his way of doing that,
so I withdraw my previous point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I wanted to speak on a matter of strategic
airlift capability, but I do not want to get in the way of the sense-
of-the-Senate amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I would like to
say this, if I could. Obviously, we are not going to vote on the energy
package that the House passed as an amendment to this bill. The Senator
from Oklahoma and I have spoken. I don't think that is appropriate.
Having said that, if we have not learned any other lesson from the
events of 3 weeks ago, I hope we have learned that this country needs
an energy policy.
I finished my active-duty tour of the Navy in 1973 and went to the
University of Delaware on the GI bill. My first recollection of being
in Newark, DE, was sitting in a line trying to buy gas for my car. That
was 28 years ago. We did not have an energy policy then; we don't have
an energy policy today; and we need one today a lot more than we did
then.
Mr. President, 28 years ago about a third of the oil we consumed in
this Nation was coming from places outside of our Nation's border.
Today it is almost 60 percent, and we still have no energy policy. My
hope is that by the time we adjourn from this first session later this
year, we will have taken up the legislation we are working on in the
Energy Committee on which I serve and be in a position to go to
conference with the House on a very important matter.
Mr. INHOFE. I say to my friend from Delaware, that is exactly what
this amendment does. It is a sense of the Senate to do exactly what he
has suggested. I certainly think it would be appropriate at this time
to include this sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I retain my time. Whether this is germane
or not I don't know, but I know the issue is relevant and it is an
important issue for our country and for this body. It is my hope,
speaking to my friend and our leader from Nevada, that before we leave
here we will have taken up and passed a comprehensive energy policy for
our country, which we desperately need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the majority leader many
times in the last week about this issue of energy policy. The majority
leader, myself, and Senator Levin--if he were here--recognize the
importance of developing an energy policy. I agree with my friend from
Delaware.
I was Lieutenant Governor of the State of Nevada during that time. I
came back and had meetings with Vice President Ford as a representative
of the National Lieutenant Governors Conference. The purpose of that
meeting was to talk about energy.
The first energy czar was a man named Bill Simon, who later came to
the Department of Energy.
There is no question we need to do something about energy policy in
this country. There is no question about it. Senator Daschle, the
majority leader, realizes that. He wants to move to an energy bill just
as quickly as is possible. But we have lots of problems in this country
as a result of what happened on September 11 in New York.
It only exacerbates the problem as it relates to energy. We
understand that. I have spoken to Senator Bingaman several times in the
past week. He is doing his very best to report out a bill. I have
spoken to the minority leader. The place that Republicans and Democrats
want to go is basically the same. Probably 75 to 80 percent of the
things that both parties want energywise we can all agree on. Some of
the other things we can't agree on. One example, of course, is ANWR,
which is a real problem.
We understand the intentions of the Senator from Oklahoma. I have
spoken to him many times on this issue.
The majority leader is going to get to the energy bill--hopefully
this year--as quickly as he can. We know we have to do something with
an airline safety bill. We have a stimulus package. We have workers who
have been displaced. We have to do something about that. We have to
finish this very important Defense bill. It is important. We are so
happy that the Senate invoked cloture. We have 13 appropriations bills
we have to complete. We have a lot of work to do. The majority leader
recognizes that more than anybody else.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment filed by my
friend from Oklahoma is dilatory.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The
amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't know what the order is right now.
The Senator from Delaware may have the floor. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The floor is open.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand what the Senator from Nevada,
the distinguished assistant majority leader, said. The problem is that
we have been talking about this now--I personally, since the eighties
when then-Secretary of the Interior Don Hodel and I would tour the
Nation to explain to the Nation that our dependency on foreign sources
of oil for our ability to fight a war was not an energy issue; it was a
national security issue. At that time, we were 37-percent dependent on
foreign sources of oil for

[[Page S10033]]

our ability to fight a war. Now it is much more serious. We have gone
through the 1990 Persian Gulf war. I think everyone realizes that.
The problem I have is the statement of the Senator from Nevada that
nothing is going to happen, that this is merely a sense of the Senate.
I know the Chair has ruled it is not germane. I will not challenge that
and put in jeopardy the Defense authorization bill. I don't want to do
that.
I only say this: Talk is cheap. We have been sitting around talking
about it. The statement made by the Senator from Nevada is the same
statement they made back in the 1980s and all during the 1990s. Every
time we try to bring up an energy bill, they say: Yes, we all want it.
Yet do they really want it?
We will continue in our efforts. I will continue in such a way as to
not jeopardize in any way the Defense authorization bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I say from this side of the aisle that we
welcome the decision not to challenge the bill so that we can go
forward. The points the Senator made are well taken. Our Nation's trade
deficit this year will exceed $300 billion. We consume oil from other
places around the world. As sure as we are meeting here today, some of
those billions of dollars we are paying for oil from other sources--
including from places where people do not like us very much--are surely
going to fuel the kind of terrorism which happened 3 weeks ago this
morning for a whole host of reasons.
I pledge to work with my friend from Oklahoma and others on the
Energy Committee to get this legislation moving and out of committee.
There is a lot on which we can agree. ANWR may be one. On some points
we disagree. A lot we can agree on. We need to do that and move.
I really want to say this morning a word or two with respect to the
Defense authorization bill as it pertains to our strategic defense
capability.
The tragedy of 3 weeks ago this morning left many dead. There are a
number of uncertainties that grow out of those attacks: Who planned
them? Who executed them? Who funded them? Who supported them? Who
harbors the terrorists today? How will we respond?
Amid those uncertainties, there are a number of things we know for
sure. They include the fact that this war is going to be unlike any war
we have fought in my lifetime and before--unlike World War II, in which
many of our fathers served, unlike Korea, unlike Vietnam, where my
generation served, and unlike the Persian Gulf war barely a decade ago.
This we know: Our success in this war against terrorism will depend
on many factors:

The readiness of our forces we are deploying;
Our ability in gathering the support of the other civilized nations
of the world to join us in this war;
The quality of the intelligence, the reliability of the intelligence
that we gather and that we receive from others with whom we work;
Our ability to understand our intelligence and to act effectively in
a timely manner in response to that intelligence;
Our ability to deploy covert operations and do so successfully.
And our success in the world also depends in no small part on our
ability to move quickly at a moment's notice large numbers of men and
women and materiel from the United States to other parts of the world.
There are many military bases around the world, out of which I used
to operate as a naval flight officer, that are closed today. While we
work with nations that are sympathetic to our cause against terrorists
in order to try to secure air space and to try to secure airfields to
use, the fact of the matter is we simply don't have the bases to deploy
troops that we used to at airfields and ports. We depend more than ever
on an air bridge that is going to be comprised of C-17s and on an air
bridge that will be comprised of C-5s.
When I was a member of the active-duty forces, even though I was in
the Navy, I flew a fair amount on C-141s, a transport aircraft that the
Air Force uses. They are the workhorse for the Air Force. C-5s were
introduced, and we had a combination of the C-141 and the C-5 to
provide an air bridge in earlier wars.
The C-141 is old today. It is being retired. Its place is being taken
by the C-17, a terrific aircraft. The C-17 carries about half the load
of a C-5. While it has pretty good legs and can travel a pretty long
distance, it doesn't have the legs or the ability to travel far
distances that the C-5 enjoys. The C-5 has been with us more than two
decades--C-5As and now C-5Bs. The aircraft is about half the age of the
B-52.
I was struck when we started to ratchet up to see B-52s being called
on again to serve our Nation. It has been around 50 years and is still
ready to work for us. The C-5, having half the years and age of the B-
52, is certainly able to work a bit longer alongside the C-17.
Someone gave me a sheet of paper today with a picture of the C-5.
This picture shows some idea of the life remaining in the C-5 with
respect to its ability to play a major role in our strategic airlift
capability. The fuselage is good for another 30-plus years;
stabilizers, another 40-plus years; wing service, over 50 years; the
fuselage, another 50-plus years; forward fuselage, there is plenty of
durability left in the C-5 aircraft.
There are two things the C-5 needs in order for us to be able to
maximize its effectiveness in this war and in any other war that may
come our way over the next 40 years. One is an avionics package. When
you sit in the cockpit of the C-5 and look at the instrumentation, you
think you are looking at a plane that is 25 years old; and you are. The
aircraft needs a new avionics package. The bill before us today
provides a very substantial step to enable us to put that avionics
package in place in the C-5 to enhance its capability.
Another major component of this bill deals with the engines that are
mounted on the wings of the C-5. Most of the new airliners that are
flying in our skies and around the world today have engines that can
generally fly for 10,000 hours before they need to be changed. The
engines on the C-5s, which I said earlier are over 20 years old, those
engines need to be changed about every 2,500 hours. We need to
reengine, if you will, the C-5s. If we do that, with modern engine
technology, we will be able to get 10,000 hours between engine changes,
as they do in the commercial fleets.
The combination of those two steps--to introduce into and incorporate
into our C-5 aircraft, the C-5As and C-5Bs, a modern avionics package,
and to also reengine the aircraft in years going forth--will enable us
to fully benefit from the 30 or 40 years that are still left in those
planes. There are a lot of air miles to be traveled, a lot of troops to
be carried, a lot of tanks and helicopters and trucks to be moved. The
C-5 and the C-17 can do it.
With the adoption of this legislation, our air bridge from this
country to other troubled points around the world will be reinforced
and made stronger for this generation and for generations to come.
I yield back my time, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 1760

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. It is a
filed amendment. It is amendment No. 1760.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hatch,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Specter, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Rockefeller, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Durbin, Ms.
Collins, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 1760.

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

(Purpose: To strike the condition precedent for the effectiveness of
the dual compensation authority provided in section 651)

Beginning on page 207, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 209, line 12, and insert the following:
(d) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this
section shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
(2) No benefits may be paid to any person by reason of
section 1414 of title 10, United State Code, as added by the
amendment

[[Page S10034]]

made by subsection (a), for any period before the effective
date under paragraph (1).

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment along
with Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Specter, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms.
Cantwell, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Dorgan, and Mr. Bill Nelson.
Our amendment will correct an inequity for veterans who have retired
from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.
This amendment is identical to the bill I sponsored on January 24, S.
170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001. The Retired Pay
Restoration Act currently has almost 80 cosponsors, 80 Senators,
approximately. This clearly illustrates the bipartisan support for this
legislation.
As with the bill, this amendment will permit retired members of the
Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive
military retired pay concurrently with veterans disability
compensation.
In 1891, the original inequitable 19th century law was passed to
prohibit the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA
disability compensation. When this original law was enacted, the United
States had an extremely small standing army. Only a portion of our
Armed Forces consisted of career soldiers.
Career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to
receive VA disability. The law simply discriminates against career
military men and women. I repeat, under the current law, if you retire
from the military and have a service-connected disability, you have to
waive your retirement pay. When I first heard about this, I could not
believe it. I thought my staff had given me bad advice. They had not.
But adding to this injustice is the fact that the Federal employee
has been able to collect VA disability compensation while working for
the Federal Government--but not if you are in the military. You can
work for the Department of Energy or the Park Service, and if you have
a service-connected disability, you can draw your whole retirement pay.
But if you retire from the military, no chance, you have to waive that
or a portion of it. The civil service retiree may receive both his
civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset at all.
Disabled military retirees are only entitled to receive disability
compensation if they agree to waive their retirement pay or a portion
of it equal to the amount of the disability compensation. This
requirement clearly discriminates unfairly against disabled career
soldiers by requiring them to essentially pay their own disability
compensation.
If you are in the military, and you get out with a service-connected
disability, you can draw all that pay unless you retire from the
military. If you work for Sears & Roebuck, or if you work for the
Interior Department, you get it all, but not if you are retired from
the military. How unfair.
To understand the law's unfairness, one must look at why the
Government pays retirees and disabled veterans. Military retirement pay
is earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices
inherent in a military career. It is the promised reward for servicing
at least two decades, and many times more, under conditions most
Americans find intolerable. You are told when to get up, when to go to
bed, where you are going to live, and what you are going to do. That is
what the military is all about.

Veterans disability compensation, on the other hand, is recompense
for pain, suffering, and lost future earning power caused by a service-
connected illness or injury.
Military retirement pay and disability compensation were earned and
awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the
distinction between these two entitlements.
One of our valued staff on the minority side, every time there is a
military bill, comes in this Chamber proudly wearing on his lapel a
medal, the Silver Star. He wears that very proudly. But if he has a
service-connected disability--and he may have one--he can draw that
because he is not a retiree from the military or, if he is, he cannot.
It does not make sense. It is not fair. Current law ignores the
distinction between these two entitlements. Military retirement pay and
disability compensation were both earned and awarded for entirely
different purposes.
This amendment represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice
that has existed for a long, long time, for far too long. Allowing
disabled veterans to receive military retired pay and veterans
disability compensation concurrently will restore fairness to Federal
retirement policy.
It is unfair for our veterans not to receive both of these payments
concurrently. Today we have 560,000 disabled military men and women who
have sacrificed a lot for this country. Today nearly one and a half
million Americans dedicate their lives to the defense of our Nation.
And that is going up as we speak. The U.S. military force is unmatched
in terms of power, training, and ability. Our great Nation is
recognized as the world's only superpower, a status which is largely
due to the sacrifices that veterans have made during the last century.
This past weekend I read a book written by Stephen Ambrose. It is his
latest book. It is about B-24s. It is the history of these bombers
during World War II. It is a fascinating history. The losses of B-24
pilots and crews were unbelievable. They were shot down all the time.
They were big, heavy, awkward airplanes, and very hard to fly. And they
lost a lot of them in noncombat situations. But it is an example of the
sacrifices made by people who have served our country in the military.
Why should not someone who flew a B-24, has a service-connected
disability, and has retired from the military, be able to draw that
disability compensation as a result of being hurt flying a B-24?
Rather than honoring their commitment and bravery, the Federal
Government has chosen instead to perpetuate a 110-year-old injustice.
I know the Senate will seriously consider passing this amendment.
With almost 80 cosponsors, it is a fair statement that this amendment
should pass. I hope the Senate will pass this amendment to end at last
this disservice to our retired military.
Some believe this amendment may be too expensive. This country has
saved lots of money by not doing the right thing in years past. We have
1,000 World War II veterans who die every day. From today to tomorrow,
there will be 1,000 funerals held for World War II veterans. Since last
June, we have fallen a little short. It has not been quite 1,000 a day.
It has been close. Since then we have lost 465,000 veterans. These
dedicated service people will never have the ability to enjoy their two
well-deserved entitlements. To delay any action on this amendment means
we will continue to deny fundamental fairness to thousands of our
Nation's retirees.
If we can pass this legislation and give a World War II veteran 1
month of the compensation they deserve before they pass on, we should
do that.
This amendment is supported by numerous veterans' service
organizations--I cannot name them all--the Military Coalition, the
National Military/Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, Disabled
American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans
of America, and the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees, plus many
more.
This is the right thing to do, and we must eliminate this century of
sacrifice. Our veterans have earned this. Now is our chance to honor
their service to the Nation.
I hope this legislation passes overwhelmingly and that it is not
taken out in conference. We passed the amendment last year. Out of 100
percent of what we needed, we maybe got 2 percent to help just a few
people. We need to help them all.
It is not easy for me to stand here and say that 1,000 World War II
veterans die every day, but that is a fact. They do. Many of those
World War II veterans are today receiving unfair payments by this
Government. They are not able to receive their retirement and their
disability. They have to waive part of their retirement. That is
unfair.
I hope this amendment is adopted. I am not going to require a vote on
it. I am not one who believes a big heavy vote helps in conference.
Everyone

[[Page S10035]]

knows this has almost 80 Senate cosponsors. It is something the
veterans community supports wholeheartedly.
I was talking to one of the Armed Services staff people today. They
get more mail on this issue than any other issue because people are
desperate. They know they are dying off.
I hope this amendment will be accepted. I repeat, I am not going to
require a recorded vote. But the conscience of this Senate calls out
for recognizing the sacrifices made by these veterans and that we adopt
this amendment in the Senate and make sure the same happens in
conference because they deserve this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. REID. Are we going to take action on this amendment? Is the
Senator from Kansas speaking on my amendment?
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I was not planning to, unless the
distinguished Senator would ask me to do so. I have worked with him at
great length on the Ethics Committee. Is the amendment ethical?
Mr. REID. The two managers are not here, Mr. President. I have no
objection, if the Senator from Kansas is going to file another
amendment, to setting mine aside.
Mr. ROBERTS. I think the agreement was, at least as far as this
Senator understood, that I was going to have 20 minutes to talk about
an amendment I had planned on introducing. I am not in a position to
acquiesce to the Senator's request. I would have to check with our
leadership in that regard. I have no doubt the Senator has an
outstanding amendment.
Mr. REID. The Senator has every right under postcloture to speak for
an hour on anything relating to defense as he wishes. I know he has
been a very stalwart member of the committee and has done so much for
defense issues over the years. I certainly look forward to listening to
him for 20 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my friend and colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Establishing a Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in the interest of germaneness and to
move this bill along, I am acceding to the request by the distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and Senator
Warner, our distinguished ranking member, in that I had intended on
introducing an amendment. I am going to speak to the amendment. I think
my decision will be to simply lay down the amendment as a freestanding
bill.
Having said that, I rise this morning to warn my Senate colleagues
about an urgent issue facing the Senate and this Nation. This issue has
been identified many times now by various respected commissions, by
leaders within the military, the academic, political, and national
security communities. Whether we admit it or not, the need for action
is instinctively understood by most Members of this body.
However, despite months and years of hearings, testimony, and
warnings, until September 11 there was little sense of urgency or
desire to make changes to the structure of the Senate required to
address the problems of homeland security and terrorism.
I know the distinguished majority leader and our Republican leader
and a few other Senators and staff have certainly given this
recognition serious and careful consideration. As the former chairman
of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities within the
Armed Services Committee, now the ranking member--the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu is now the chairman--I come to
this issue after 3 years of hearings and testimony from virtually all
the experts and more than 40 agencies of the Government.
It gives me little solace and a great deal of frustration to find the
fine members of the subcommittee and our excellent staff in the role of
Paul Revere, but unable to awaken the Federal Government, our
colleagues, and the American people.

Let me share two paragraphs from the very first report our
subcommittee issued to the Congress, to the press, and to the public:

The terrorist threat to our citizens, both military
personnel and civilians at home and abroad is real and
growing. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
individual acts of terrorism have dramatically raised the
stakes and increased the potential of massive casualties in
the event of the terrorist attack.

I further quote from the first report of the subcommittee:

Further, the serious prospect that known terrorist Osama
bin Laden or other terrorists might use biological and
chemical weapons as well as individual acts of terrorism is
of great concern. His organization is just one of
approximately a dozen terrorist groups. bin Laden, for
example, has called the acquisition of these weapons ``a
religious duty'' and noted that how to use them is up to us.

My colleagues, that was 3 years ago. We also stressed in our report
that to confront this continuing and growing threat, it was critical
that our governmentwide efforts to combat terrorism be coordinated and
clearly focused. We noted at that time there were approximately 40
Federal departments and agencies with jurisdiction in the fight against
terrorism.
Last spring, members of the Intelligence, Armed Services, and
Appropriations Committees for the first time joined together and asked
these same agencies to testify. All claimed jurisdiction. Many claimed
they were in charge. We asked them three things: What is your mission?
What do you really do? Who do you report to?
The bottom line: The hearings demonstrated that too many Federal
agencies do not have a firm grasp of their roles and responsibilities
for preventing and preparing for and responding to acts of domestic
terrorism.
This patchwork quilt approach is not a substitute for a national
strategy, the purpose of which would be to coordinate our Federal
agencies into an effective force. It seems to me the administration is
now working overtime to get that job done. Obviously, the
administration has the attention of all Members of the House and Senate
and the American people.

Along with that summation, the three committee chairmen and two
subcommittee chairmen sent a list of recommendations to the Bush
administration. We responded after those hearings. Now that situation
has dramatically changed. The attack on the United States, the deaths
of more than 6,000 Americans, and the very real probability that other
attacks on the United States by terrorists are not only possible but
probable require--require--that the Senate take action now to create a
single entity to focus the action of the Senate--not the Federal
agencies, not the House, but the Senate--on homeland security and
terrorism.
I remind my colleagues that as tragic as September 11 was, it was not
the first act of terrorism in this regard: The 1993 bombing of the
World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole --the Intelligence
Committee, by the way, is still progressing on an investigation in
regard to the U.S.S. Cole--and the bombing of our embassies. These
earlier attacks and the promises and threats that prefaced them should
have been the clarion call to prepare adequately for homeland security.
They were not. If we now fail to properly organize and coordinate our
actions in the Senate as the Nation fights a war against terrorism, we
will be part of the problem, not the solution.
We do not now speak with one voice. As a body and as individual
Members, we do not know all of the actions being taken within the
various committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction or self-declared
jurisdiction over homeland security and terrorism. I know this for sure
in regard to reading about hearings that were held 2 weeks before,
hearings we held in the Emerging Threats Subcommittee with the same
witnesses, or that there were hearings planned 2 weeks down the road
from hearings we had planned, not that we had the exact answer to the
problem by any means. Bluntly put, the Senate cannot be a contributing
partner with the Executive to win the war against terrorism unless we
are properly organized.
On the other hand, we have done some good work. Last year, the
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, in an attempt to reduce
confusion and focus action, required the Department of Defense to
establish a single Assistant Secretary to speak for the Department.
Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have worked hard to
require a similar single point of responsibility in the Department of
Justice.

[[Page S10036]]

Last Thursday, the President of the United States designated
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a former colleague of ours in the House,
to head up a new Cabinet-level organization to focus attention and to
speak for the administration on homeland security.
Last week, the House of Representatives of the United States
established a subcommittee to be the single voice for the House. The
Senate leadership knows, I am sure--I have talked with them at length--
that we must create a single committee in some form to coordinate and
to prioritize initiatives and programs concerning homeland security and
terrorism.
Mr. President, we have not done so. I say to my colleagues, it is our
turn to act. The select committee I am recommending with this
legislation will allow us to speak with one voice and be a key partner
with the administration and the House of Representatives in the war on
terrorism.
Before I outline my proposed legislation, let me give some background
regarding this urgent need.

First, there is precedent for creating a select committee to address
a very significant problem. The Truman committee: Convinced that waste
and corruption were strangling the Nation's efforts to mobilize itself
for war in Europe, President Truman conceived the idea for a special
Senate committee to investigate the national defense program. Many
consider this to be one of the most productive committees in the
Senate's history.
The Arms Control Observer Group provided a way for Senate leaders to
observe arms reduction talks and anticipate issues that might block
eventual ratification.
Y2K was created to examine the year 2000 problem in the executive and
judicial branches of the Federal Government, State governments, and the
private sector operations in the United States and abroad. Everybody
owes a debt of thanks to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr.
Bennett, for his leadership in that regard.
Each of these organizations was created to solve a particular problem
in extraordinary times, and they proved to be invaluable. This is an
extraordinary time.
To combat terrorism and protect our homeland is an issue demanding
unity of effort in the Senate. Several studies and commissions have
been conducted on the threat of terrorism and the preparedness of
America to cope with an attack. We all know what they are. There is the
Bremer commission, the Hart-Rudman commission, the Gilmore commission,
and a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies; the
acronym is CSIS. Each had elements of agreement. They all recommended
the following:
No. 1, the threat to our homeland is real. It is not a matter of if
but when. Sadly, we know the answer to when. The people who planned the
terrorist attack and killed 19 of our service men and women on the
U.S.S. Cole are the same kind of people who planned the attack in New
York and Washington and the same kind of people who are planning the
next attack.
Point No. 2, from all of these commissions, all of these experts: The
executive branch is fragmented and poorly organized to prepare or deal
with such an attack. The President is stepping up to that issue. So is
Tom Ridge.
Point No. 3, the Nation needs a strategy to address the problems in
international terrorism. I think the President is doing a good job on
that respect with the help of his Cabinet, with the help also of the
international community.
Point No. 4--and this is the point I want to make as of today--the
Congress is as poorly organized and fragmented as the executive branch.
Finally, if we need another example of why we must coordinate our
actions on this issue, we need only look at the various legislative
proposals moving through the Senate to direct the administration to
reorganize the executive branch to face this war on terrorism. These
actions are certainly well meaning.
I do not oppose each or any of them, and I do not perjure their
intent or the intent of the distinguished Senators who have introduced
the bills. But, I say to my colleagues, could we not better serve the
Nation in this critical time if there were a single select committee to
coordinate and prioritize our efforts?
Could not a single committee serve the Nation better and work more
closely with the President than all of the various committees we have
now with some measure of jurisdiction over homeland security and
terrorism?

How many committees and subcommittees must the administration meet
with to take action now, to put politics second and America first?
How many chairmen and ranking members must Governor Ridge meet with
and convince before he can take action?
Could not a single coordinating and prioritizing committee better
serve the Nation during this war on terrorism and serve the Senate as
well?
During the hearings of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, we asked
all the witnesses to state what keeps them up at night, what was their
biggest worry, and to prioritize homeland security threats.
Their suggestions mirror the threats now receiving national press
attention and the priority challenges that now face Governor Ridge as
he comes to the Senate asking for immediate consideration and expedited
action.
The first concern mentioned by our witnesses was the danger of an
attack using bioterrorism. Goodness knows, we have seen headlines about
that. The probability is low or perhaps medium, but the risk is severe,
if not chaotic. Were I to be asked by Governor Ridge and his staff, I
would recount that concern and recommend immediate funding and policy
reforms.
I see the distinguished former chairman of the full Armed Services
Committee, the ranking member, the gentleman I like to refer to as the
``chairman emeritus,'' the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who is
very much aware of an exercise that was just taken at Andrews Air Force
Base called ``Dark Winter,'' the use of biological weaponry. The
results were very grim.
I think both Senator Warner and this Senator would meet with Governor
Ridge and say: Tom, this is something that must be addressed and is
being addressed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Secretary Thompson. But on whose door will the Governor knock?
Certainly, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee;
certainly the Armed Services Committee; perhaps our subcommittee; the
Intelligence Committee; and the Government oversight committee, and, of
course, the Appropriations Committee and the appropriate subcommittee
on the Appropriations Committee. And let's not ever forget the growing
danger of agriterrorism. So, obviously, he better knock on the door of
the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee.
The second priority concern stressed by the experts was the danger of
a cyber-attack, or information warfare. So Director Ridge doubtlessly
would knock on the door of the Commerce Committee again, as well as the
Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, doubtlessly the
Banking Committee and others. Now I could go on, but I think my point
has been made.
The third priority concern was the danger of a chemical attack, and
the fourth, the danger of any possible use by a state organization or a
nonstate organization of terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction.
As the September 11 tragedy demonstrated, there were few threats that
were not discussed or that will be as Governor and now Director Ridge
comes to the Senate to brief Senators to ask for our advice, our
expertise, and our support, and we have that. We have had many
hearings. We have many staff experts, and we have good judgments as
evidenced by the Senator from Virginia and others who have worked so
hard on this issue. That is how it should be.
We have a great many Senators, as I have indicated, who have
considerable expertise and experience. They can, and we will, be part
of the answer, but we do not have time to introduce bill after bill and
hold hearing after hearing and request Governor Ridge to knock on
virtually every committee and subcommittee door of the Senate in a
merry-go-round of turf contests.
I know that senior committee chairmen and senior ranking members and
even subcommittee members and ranking subcommittee members care about

[[Page S10037]]

turfs. Scratch their turf, and it is like Ferdinand the bull. He does
not smell flowers; he gets upset.
I say again, the House has acted. The administration has acted. We
have not. It is time. Last Sunday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld issued
the long awaited Quadrennial Defense Review. In his forward he states:

The vast array of complex policy operational and even
constitutional issues concerning how we organize and prepare
to defend the American people are now receiving unprecedented
action throughout the United States Government. Importantly,
since the scope of homeland defense security responsibilities
span an array of Federal, State, and local organizations, it
will also require enhanced interagency processes and
capabilities to effectively defend the United States against
attacks.

Then he went on to say: The recent establishment of the Office of
Homeland Security will galvanize this vital effort.
That is the word, ``galvanize.'' ``Galvanize,'' that is the word, to
be sure. Various dictionaries define ``galvanize'' as follows, and I
quote:

To arouse to awareness and action; to spur; to startle.

Erskine Childers of dictionary fame said:

A blast in my ear like the voice of 50 trombones galvanized
me into full consciousness and action.

Mr. President, the Senate of the United States will not be able to
galvanize or even play a significant part in winning the war against
terrorism if in coming to the Senate the President, Tom Ridge, and the
American people have to knock on 100 doors and listen to 100 different
trombones. That is not galvanizing anything.
My proposed legislation would do the following: First, establish a
Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism. It would be
cochaired by the majority and the minority leaders. It would have
membership designated by the leadership from committees with preeminent
and primary jurisdiction. Note I said preeminent and primary
jurisdiction over homeland security and terrorism. And it would be
responsible to coordinate and prioritize initiatives and programs of
the U.S. Government concerning homeland security and terrorism.
It would submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation
and report to the Senate concerning such activities and programs.
This is a modest proposal. It is not written in stone. This proposal
is not perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect bill. It is one
that does not take authority away from committees, despite a lot of
discussion that that might be the thing to do; the committees that
certainly currently have the jurisdiction over these matters. It does
allow the Senate to have a single voice and a single point of contact
the administration can deal with as we fight this war on terrorism.
It is the right thing to do. It must be done now if the Senate is to
be a key player and a meaningful partner in this Nation's war on
terrorism.
I have a more detailed summary of the bill. I ask unanimous consent
that the summary be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Roberts Resolution Establishing a Select Committee

1. Establishes a Select Committee on Homeland Security &
Terrorism.
2. Select Committee would coordinate and prioritize federal
initiatives toward genuine homeland security and preventing
incidents of terrorism in the U.S.
3. Select Committee will have a legislative jurisdiction
and shall have referred to it all legislation substantively
connected to addressing homeland security and terrorism
challenges.
4. Composition of Select Committee would be: two co-
chairmen (Majority Leader and Minority Leader), two vice-
chairmen (appointed by majority and minority leaders),
chairmen and ranking members of Senate committees with clear
jurisdiction (as determined by leaders), four members not
sitting on such committees, and four members with expertise
in the area of homeland security and terrorism (these eight
members will also be appointed by the majority and minority
leaders).
5. The Select Committee will hold hearings, compel the
attendance of witnesses, draft legislation, report
legislation, and generally be the focal point for the
Senate's legislative and policy response to the challenge of
keeping the American homeland safe and prepared in regards to
incidents of terrorism and the phenomenon of 21st century
terrorism (where each incident is exponentially more
catastrophic than the last).
6. Select Committee will periodically report to the Senate
and the committees of the Senate on the federal long term
policy response to challenge of homeland security and
terrorism.
7. Select Committee will require an annual report from the
President outlining the coordinated federal long term policy
response to challenge of homeland security and terrorism.
8. Select Committee is to compliment (by coordination and
prioritization) the work of other committees in the Senate on
homeland security and terrorism. Other committee jurisdiction
is not removed by this proposal.
9. After introduction, the resolution will be referred to
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration for further
consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my distinguished
colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee. Let the Record
reflect he was the chairman of the Emerging Threat Subcommittee, which
as a new chairman I created many years ago. Many of us on the
committee, preeminent and foremost our distinguished colleague, Senator
Roberts, in his tireless efforts, brought to the attention first of the
committee, then the Senate as a whole, the serious looming threats
across the board. Often he was alone in those efforts, but he had me by
his side. I say the two of us, I suppose, in some respects at times had
to forge ahead.
I do not say that in a partisan way because both sides of the aisle,
in terms of our committee, at times had to push hard to get measures
through and to eventually get what money we could from the
Appropriations Committee to support the initiatives of the former
chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats.
We are fortunate the Senator remains as the ranking member under the
chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
I have not had an opportunity to examine the format of the Senator
for this important initiative that must be taken at some point by the
leadership of the Senate and hopefully the endorsement of the full
Senate. From what I have heard of the Senator's remarks, I think it is
a landmark place from which to begin to examine this question.
If I might inquire, perhaps in the Senator's extended remarks he
covers the budgetary authority. That, as the Senator knows, is very
important. For example, in our bill now pending before the Senate for
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2000, we have a number of billions of
dollars directed towards the President's initiatives, the initiatives
of the Congress of the United States, to thwart terrorism. How would
that be treated under the proposal the Senator from Kansas has? Would
that jurisdiction over those funds--would we have, should we say,
coequal authority of, say, the Armed Services Committee and other
committees that have jurisdiction over portions of terrorism?
Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to respond.
The second point, which will be inserted in the Record following my
remarks, the select committee would coordinate and prioritize the
Federal initiatives toward genuine homeland security and preventing
incidents of terrorism.
It would have a legislative jurisdiction and have referred to it all
legislation substantially connected to addressing homeland security and
terrorism challenges, but the budget authority, of course, stemming
from the Budget Committee and all the work they do and all the work the
appropriators do would still remain in the Armed Services Committee. It
is more of a clearinghouse.
I suspect Director Ridge would come to the select committee, indicate
his advice and counsel from the National Security Council, all that he
has talked to, that we have the top five priorities and that, as a
result, would go to our committee. We would recommend to the committees
of jurisdiction, which I would think would be no more than four or
five. They would not lose their jurisdiction.
There was a great deal of concern, when I talked to various ranking
members and chairmen of these committees, that they did not want to
lose jurisdiction. Some thought about making them ex officio, but in
terms of the budget authority, obviously the Senator from Kansas and
the distinguished

[[Page S10038]]

chairman of the Armed Services Committee would have a direct say in
terms of the authorization. It would be like everything else we do that
is subject to our work with the appropriators.
Mr. WARNER. If I might continue, one area of work of the Senator, as
the former chairman, and I presume now in this bill the current
chairman, is to prioritize those funds that go to the National Guard
support teams. We started out 3 years ago with I think 4, 5, 6. Our
committee each year increased the number of teams, increased the
funding for the teams. Their teams would be the first responders; or
maybe the local police, fire, and other authorities would be the first
responders.

There was a problem because we only had so many teams for the 50
States. How many teams are we up to now?
Mr. ROBERTS. If the distinguished Senator will continue to yield, we
increased that number by 22. There was a GAO report, as the Senator
knows. He always sat as the presiding chair and now ranking member at
the subcommittee because of his intense interest. We would not have the
subcommittee focus on this problem without the leadership and
inspiration of the Senator from Virginia.
The GAO issued a rather critical report in regard to the teams, what
we call civil support teams, the idea being that very well trained
National Guard units could be within 4 hours of any community to be one
of the first responders and signal back to the Federal Government--now
with the FBI, with FEMA, with the Red Cross, with everybody concerned--
exactly what the problem was.
That report found no fault in the raid teams. That report focused on
the lack of direction and leadership within the Department of Defense.
We fixed that problem with the help of the able staff, including the
able staff member sitting to the Senator's right. He goes on periodic
inspections to make sure these raid dreams are up to snuff. It means
within 4 hours of anywhere in the United States you will have a crack
professional and well-trained National Guard team to come in to
immediately recognize the problem, indicate to the first responder, and
also Washington, exactly what the problem is, and respond as fast as
possible.
It was that initiative that the distinguished Senator mentioned to
this Senator, and we were able to increase the number of teams even
before the Department of Defense clearly recognized that need.
Mr. WARNER. I wanted to discuss that. There was a clear and historic
bipartisanship in the work by the committee.
I pose it as a question now: Supposing in a future budget coming
before the Congress from President Bush's team, and Mr. Ridge would
have a voice, of course, and say, arbitrarily, he needed another 10
teams, and that funding is in the Department of Defense budget, and our
committee decided we ought to have 20 teams. However, the new committee
that you envision would, I presume, get the budget request, as would
the Armed Services Committee, and would either have to agree with our
committee or disagree, and if there is a disagreement, how do you
resolve it?
Mr. ROBERTS. The same way we resolved the problems with Y2K. The
leadership would have to make a decision in regard to the
prioritization of what the distinguished Senator is talking about.
I point out No. 8 in the summary of the bill. The select committee is
to complement--complement, by coordination and prioritization--the work
of other committees in the Senate on homeland security and terrorism.
Other committee jurisdiction is not removed by this proposal. I cannot
imagine that the Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism
would not adhere to the recommendations of the Armed Services
Committee, more especially the subcommittee on which I serve, and also
the budget as submitted by the administration. The budget authority is
more of a notification authority to this select committee. It is not
``triplication''--if there is such a word--in terms of the Budget
Committee.

I do not want in any way to tread on the expertise and the knowledge
of the distinguished chairman and all the members of the committees
that have jurisdiction. The Senator might remember we had a chart that
we showed weeks ago, before September 11. The Senator may remember he
was an active participant when we had the 40 agencies that came in. We
asked: What is your mission? Who do you report to? Who is in charge? As
a matter of fact, I think you were the Senator who showed up with the
chart that showed it was a hodgepodge. It would be impossible for
anyone to figure it out. I held up a much smaller chart of
``stovepipes,'' if you will.
At that time, I thought there were five major committees that had
jurisdiction that somehow could recommend or at least be part of this
select committee, either ex officio or official. We had decided now to
make them members because I didn't want to scratch that term. I have
since found out there are eight, and there may be nine, and it may be
growing more than that. It did affect our budget.
Mr. WARNER. The Record should reflect the important contribution by
that group of Senators. Senator Judd Gregg was in the leadership at
that time. You were present. Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator
Levin attended a lot of these. We had 2 full days of hearings.
Mr. ROBERTS. Senator Mikulski was very active, Senator Hollings was
very active, Senator Stevens was there, as I have indicated, and
Senator Shelby on the Intelligence Committee. We had the Armed Services
Committee, Intelligence, and the appropriators.
Mr. WARNER. That was an important piece of work we did.
Again, if no standing committee gives up any jurisdiction, I am still
having difficulty understanding exactly how this new committee will
function. I ask the question in a supportive manner and in no way to
infer that I am not supporting the ultimate objective, especially of
the leadership itself, to establish such a format. If we don't have
some yielding of jurisdiction, I am not sure how that committee
functions.
Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield again, I will try to do this
one more time. We had plans A, B, C. The first plan was to create a
task force. Then we thought after September 11 that yet another task
force was not the thing to do. The task force was to be a clearinghouse
of all the major committees that had that jurisdiction. The task force
was to at least let everybody know that the left hand knew what the
right hand was doing. We have had meetings like that. Members come
once, staff members come later, and simply protect the turf of the
subcommittee or the committees.
We said: We will hold a hearing on that. Why would you want to hold a
hearing when we already held one? With whom are you working downtown in
terms of the agencies? And round and round and round. So we decided the
task force would not fit the bill.
Then we had another plan. This plan I call the Bennett plan, although
I am not sure the distinguished Senator from Utah would take credit for
it, or even should. But it was based on the committee that he chaired
in regard to the Y2K challenge we had. In this particular case, you had
the majority leader, the minority leader designating two designees to
be vice chairmen, which we do. He called it the worker bees, so they
could get that done. They basically were in charge of that particular
effort. It didn't mean that the Commerce Committee--I do not remember
the other main committee involved; perhaps it was the Governmental
Affairs Committee; I may be misspeaking--could not introduce
legislation and have budget authority, which they did. It was an effort
to make sure that the Senate of the United States was on top of this
issue and everybody knew what was occurring.

When the leadership would come to Senator Bennett or Senator Dodd,
the other participant, they would say: This is our best recommendation.
I will say any senior committee chair who has a strong feeling, I
understand that, but in the end it will have to be a decision by the
executive, by our leadership, hopefully by a single committee that can
serve as a clearinghouse to prioritize. I don't think we get into the
budgets that much.
Plan C is the one I have introduced to make sure your senior
committee

[[Page S10039]]

chairmen, or at least part of the action, are not ex officio. Plan C
was put in. First, this is flexible; this is not ``the'' plan.
I am trying to prompt action. Frankly, what I am trying to do when we
have a problem in Dodge City, and you have to use a cattle prod and
start to push a little bit, that is what we are doing. I think it is a
pretty good bill, but it may not be the best bill, and there may be
another way to approach this.
The distinguished Senator knows what has happened. We have been
talking about this now for 6 months.
Mr. WARNER. In fairness, Senator Lott has hosted several meetings--
you and I have been present--so he could look at all options on it.
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, I have been present.
Mr. WARNER. I want to follow this carefully.
Mr. ROBERTS. I have discussed this with the minority leader. I gave a
similar plan, and I said it is not so much whether it is this plan or
that plan, we must have a single select committee. We thought about a
standing committee, and we said: No, that is going too far. You know
and I know that if you tread on the turf of an important committee
chairman, they will say no to the leadership. That is precisely what
has happened. I am not going to get specific, but we have been working
on this for 6 months to a year, and if we just get into personalities
and turf fights, there ought to be a way to work this out. So this
select committee would prioritize and coordinate with Tom Ridge. My
word, if he can do it with 40 agencies, we can do it here with all the
subcommittees and committees we have in the Senate. If we do not, we
will not be part of the answer.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Senator is aware that I, in my
capacity as ranking on Armed Services, have not objected to what
Senator Lott has put out as some format. To the contrary, I have
indicated to him my strongest support for whatever evolves, hopefully
with his leadership and others'--yourself--out of this effort.
I commend the Senator but I am prepared to make whatever adjustments
are necessary in order for this very important concept to be formalized
and instituted in the Senate.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for his help, support, leadership,
and advice, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his continuing
leadership. He was an absolutely marvelous chairman of the Emerging
Threats Subcommittee and took that committee in a direction that really
foresaw some of the activities that we have seen in the year since he
began that effort. For that foresight we are all in his debt. He has
continued that as ranking member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee
now, with Senator Landrieu as Chair.
But he has really been way, way ahead of his time. He has prodded us,
as he used the image, in more ways than one and more times than just a
few. I know the leadership is discussing some kind of a select
committee. Hopefully they will come to some kind of conclusion so we
can act with one voice.
He has been sometimes a lone voice, often a voice with a lot of
support--but nonetheless a strong voice in that direction. I thank him
again as I often have publicly and privately for his extraordinary work
on our committee and in the Senate.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished chairman and my good friend
and colleague for his very kind remarks.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 1760

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask we return to amendment No. 1760.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the record, the amendment is accepted
on this side.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be lead Republican
sponsor of the concurrent receipt amendment offered by my distinguished
colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. Now is the time to restore
fairness to our military retired. Men and women who served our country,
who dedicated their lives to the defense of freedom have earned fair
compensation.
Our veterans have earned and deserve fair compensation. I have been a
longstanding supporter of efforts to repeal the 110-year-old law that
prohibits military retirees from collecting the retired pay that they
earned as well as VA disability compensation.
This amendment will correct the inequity of disability compensation
for our Nation's military retirees. Today, our military retirees are
forced to fund their own disability compensation. Essentially, it is
the view of this government, that those that have already given so much
for our Nation must provide more. These are worthy Americans who
answered our Nation's call for 20 years or more. They are veterans who
stood the line, defending our Nation, during peacetime and conflict.
Today as we face a new enemy we have the duty to show our men and
women in uniform that we as a nation fully support them, that the
United States Senate recognizes their sacrifice. I urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to support this important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the amendment
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1760) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1834

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Thomas and Senator Gramm of Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Thomas, for
himself and Mr. Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 1834.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike the material beginning with page 264, line 21 and
ending with page 266, line 6.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am sure we all remember the lengthy,
spirited debate on the question of whether or not private businesses in
this country should have an opportunity to bid on items which the
Government is buying or whether they ought to be preempted from being
able to bid on those items by the monopoly position of Federal Prison
Industries. The Senate spoke and spoke loudly. Senator Gramm strongly
opposed it. He had some suggestions afterward which I find acceptable,
Senator Thomas finds acceptable, and those suggestions are now
incorporated in the amendment which we have sent to the desk. It leaves
intact the thrust of our amendment.
I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Last week, the Senate voted 74-24 to table an amendment
that would have removed the Federal Prison Industries provision from
the bill. This vote was an overwhelming victory for those who believe,
as I do, that Federal Prison Industries should not be able to prohibit
private sector companies and their employees from bidding on federal
contracts that are paid for with their tax dollars.
Under Section 821 of the bill, which has now been endorsed by the
full Senate, FPI's ``mandatory preference''

[[Page S10040]]

would come to an end, and Federal Prison Industries would have to
compete for future Department of Defense contracts. Under this
provision, the Department of Defense, not Federal Prison Industries,
would be responsible for determining whether Federal Prison Industries
can best meet the Department's needs in terms of price, quality, and
time of delivery. If DOD determines that the FPI product is not the
best available in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery, the
Department is directed to purchase the product on a competitive basis.
Today, we are agreeing to an amendment that would modify the Federal
Prison Industries provision. In particular, this amendment would delete
language from the bill which specifically addresses: (1) DOD purchases
of integral or embedded products from FPI; (2) DOD purchases of
national security systems from FPI; and (3) DOD purchases in amounts
less than the micropurchase threshold of $2500.
The first thing that I would like to emphasize about this amendment
is that it does not in any way alter or undermine the key language in
the provision, which would end FPI's mandatory preference and allow
private companies to compete against FPI for Department of Defense
contracts. Would the Senator from Wyoming agree with this?
Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to end FPI's
mandatory preference on DOD contracts, and we have not and would not
agree to any amendment that would undermine that action. As Senator
Levin stated, last week's vote sent a clear message that the Senate
fully supports eliminating FPI's mandatory source status.
Mr. LEVIN. I would now like to address the language that we are
removing from the bill.
First, we are removing language that would have expressly stated that
DOD may not be required to purchase integral or embedded products from
Federal Prison Industries. This provision was intended to address FPI's
practice of using its mandatory source status to insist that it get a
share of projects that would ordinarily be performed by a single
general contractor.
While we believe that some of FPI's practices in this area have been
abusive, we are dropping this language from the bill because we do not
believe that it is necessary. Since the language in the bill would end
FPI's mandatory source status, FPI would no longer have the leverage it
has used in the past to insist that contracts be divided up, that
contract specifications specifically require the use of FPI products,
or that subcontracts be awarded to FPI.
Let me be clear. We expect FPI's abusive practices to end under this
provision. It is our belief that with the elimination of the mandatory
preference, these practices will come to a stop. Would the Senator from
Wyoming agree with this?
Mr. THOMAS. I agree. The only reason for dropping this language from
the bill is that it is redundant.
Mr. LEVIN. Second, we are removing language from the bill that would
have expressly stated that DOD may not be required to purchase national
security systems from FPI.
There are certain types of products that are inappropriate to produce
in our prisons. I don't think we want guns produced in our prisons. I
don't think we want missile guidance systems to be produced in prisons.
I don't think we want rocket launchers to be produced in prisons. I
don't think we want bullet proof vests to be produced in prisons.
We have agreed to drop the language in the bill because it is
unnecessary. With the elimination of the mandatory preference, DOD will
no longer be required to purchase any product from FPI, unless the
Department determines that FPI offers the best product and the best
price, and with a delivery schedule that meets the Department's needs.
For this reason, we do not believe that is necessary to retain the
language singling out national security systems.
Would the Senator from Wyoming agree with this?
Mr. THOMAS. I do agree and in fact, I think the American public would
be shocked to learn that under a depression-era statute the DOD is
required to purchase national security products from Federal prisoners.
In addition, FPI's entry into services generally, and data services
related to mapping and geographic information in particular is
troubling. This is an inappropriate area for prison work for a number
of reasons. First, Congress has included mapping and geographic
information services within the statutory definition of professional
architect-engineer (A/E) services. This law requires Federal agencies
to award A/E contracts (including those for surveying or mapping
services) to firms based on their ``demonstrated competence and
qualification'' subject to negotiation of a fee ``fair and reasonable
to the government'', rather than awarding such contracts to the lowest
bidder. The vast majority of States have also adopted this process in
their codes and it is recommended by the American Bar Association in
its Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments.
Public health, welfare and safety is dependent on the quality of work
performed by professionals in the fields of architecture, engineering,
surveying and mapping. To add to these highly technical and
professional services the drawings, maps and images processed by prison
inmates is questionable to the public interest.
There are prisons engaged in a variety of digital geographic
information services, including converting hard copy maps to electronic
files; plotting maps at various scales; creating databases with
information on homeowners, property appraisal and tax assessment;
digitizing, and other computer aided design and drafting and geographic
information services. FPI is involved in a program to provide support
services to some of the Nation's most classified and sensitive mapping
programs. I believe it is highly inappropriate for prisoners to be
involved in programs where their work later becomes classified.

It is unwise to provide inmates access to information about
individual citizens' property and assets, address information, and
other data that carries serious civil liberty implications. I want to
emphasize that inmates working for FPI in geographic information
services often have access to homeowner data, property appraisal and
tax assessment records and other information that most citizens would
not want in prisoners' hands. It is equally dangerous in today's
climate to give prisoners access to underground utility, infrastructure
or power system location data.
Moreoever, to train prisons in imaging techniques and technologies
makes the potential for utilizing such skills in nefarious
counterfeiting operations upon release from incarceration too tempting.
These are examples of where prison industries has gone too far and
where constraints are needed.
Mr. LEVIN. finally, we are removing language from the bill that would
have stated that DOD may not be required to make purchases with a value
less than the micropurchase threshold of $2500 from FPI.
The micropurchase threshold is important, because the removal of
statutory requirements on small purchases makes it possible for DOD and
other agencies to use efficient purchasing methods, including credit
cards. For this reason, DOD has long sought, within the executive
branch, an exemption from FPI's mandatory source requirement for
purchases less than $2,500. So far, FPI has been willing to grant an
exemption only for purchases up to $250.
We are removing this language from the bill so that the Department of
Defense and the Department of Justice can continue efforts to work it
out within the executive branch. It is our hope that, with the
elimination of the mandatory preference for DOD purchases from FPI, the
two agencies will be able to work this issue out in a constructive
manner. Would the Senator from Wyoming agree with this?
Mr. THOMAS. I agree with the good Senator from Michigan and want to
point out that FPI has been fighting such changes for more than 5
years. Furthermore, FPI's reluctance to increase the micropurchase
threshold points to FPI's unwillingness to recognize the legitimate
needs of its Federal agency customers.
Lastly, I want to point out that this amendment does nothing to
address the numerous other competitive advantages that FPI enjoys. As I
pointed out

[[Page S10041]]

on the Senate floor last week, FPI will retain advantages such as:
paying inmates between $.23--$1.15 per hour; not having to pay Social
Security or Unemployment compensation; not having to pay for employee
benefits; exemption from paying Federal and State income tax, excise
tax, and State and local excise taxes; and utilities being provided by
the host prison.
Under this amendment FPI will continue to enjoy these, and other,
competitive advantages. In no way does this amendment shut down FPI. In
fact, FPI will continue to produce products for DOD contracts because
the private sector cannot compete against not having to pay market
wages, employee benefits, and Federal and State taxes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend the chairman, Senator Thomas,
and the senior Senator from Texas for reconciling differences on an
issue which was of great importance to all parties. I urge adoption of
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1834) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 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 Illinois is recognized.

amendment no. 1805

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment that
would allow a needed land transfer agreement to take place in North
Chicago among the Navy, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the
Finch Medical School.
The managers of this bill accepted my amendment and I thank them for
their help. I want to take this opportunity to explain what the
amendment does.
The Navy's only boot camp facility is at the Great Lakes Naval
Training Center in North Chicago, IL. Its Recruit Training Center area
is a very long, thin stretch of land hemmed in by railroad tracks and
by land that the Navy transferred to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, VA, many years ago. This layout forces recruits to do so much
marching simply in the course of moving about the area in a normal day
of training that these 19-year-olds have been suffering from overuse
injuries.
Both the barracks and the large drilling facilities used by recruits
were built hastily during World War II and are in desperate need of
replacement. These military construction projects have been endorsed by
the Navy and by Congress, but the layout of the Recruit Training Center
must be modified before all the buildings needing replacement can be
built.
The VA land adjacent to the Recruit Training Center was leased to the
Finch Medical School, which is affiliated with the North Chicago
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The VA also has more
land and buildings than it needs for veterans health care delivery
today.
The Navy, the VA, and the Finch Medical School have been in
negotiations to set up a land swap that would benefit all concerned.
The Finch Medical School is amenable to giving up the land on which it
carries a 99-year lease so that the Navy can use that land. The VA is
willing to transfer the land the medical school has leased for other VA
property that the VA no longer needs. I commend all the parties for
their willingness to work together, compromise, and find a solution
that benefits all parties. The details of this agreement are still
being worked out, and a public hearing will be held on it as well.
This amendment simply authorizes the Navy to use up to $2 million of
Operations and Maintenance funds to fulfill its obligations, once a
final agreement is reached.
I appreciate the support from the bill's managers on this amendment.
The rebuilt Recruit Training Center area will allow a major improvement
in the training environment as well as the quality of life for new
recruits. This amendment is absolutely necessary for the Navy to carry
out the plans for its new Recruit Training Center.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now the understanding that we will recess until 2:15
and that we will be back at that time. We hope to be able to work out a
pending amendment or two so we can complete consideration of this bill,
hopefully before the briefing which has been scheduled for, I believe,
2:30. It would be our goal that we can use that 15 minutes to resolve
these pending amendments, that we can then go to final passage right
after the 2:30 briefing. That would be my goal.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share that goal. After carefully
offering opportunity to my colleagues, I understand, if we resolve the
matters with Senator Allard, that may conclude the amendments. It won't
seal them off, but we have made a great deal of progress.
Mr. LEVIN. Senator Allard, Senator Nelson of Florida and others,
Senator Dodd, are working hard to see if we can come up with something
which moves in the direction we all want to move in terms of voting
rights for our military personnel and that does so in a way that we can
protect against any unintended consequences. That is our hope over the
lunch period. We will come back at 2:15 with high hopes and, if not, we
will have to resolve it in other ways.

____________________