Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13832-S13856]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dodd). The clerk will report the
conference report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
3338) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other
purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, agree to the
same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same,
signed by all conferees on the part of the two Houses.

(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of December 19, 2001.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to offer my
unqualified support for the conference agreement that was just
reported. I am pleased to present the recommendations to the Senate
today as division A of this measure. The recommendations contain the
result of lengthy negotiations between the House and Senate managers
and countless hours of work by our staffs acting on behalf of all
Members.
The agreement provides $317.2 billion, the same as the House and
Senate levels, consistent with our 302(b) allocations.
In order to accommodate Members of the Senate, may I request that I
be given the opportunity to now set aside my statement and yield to the
Senator from Arizona for his statement. Upon his conclusion, I will
resume my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am not ready to give my statement yet. I
am still having my people come over with information. As a matter of
fact, we haven't even gotten through the entire bill yet. I will be
ready shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join the distinguished chairman of the
defense subcommittee, Senator Inouye, in presenting the fiscal year
2002 Department of Defense conference report to the Senate.
This bill enjoys my total support, and I urge all my colleagues to
support this conference report, and the funds provided herein that are
vital to our national security.
In addition to the base funding for the current fiscal year, this
bill also includes the allocation of $20 billion in emergency
supplemental funding provided by Congress immediately after the
September 11 attack.
These funds fulfill the commitment made by Congress to respond to the
needs of the victims of the September 11 attack. I commend the Governor
of New York, the Mayor of New York City, and the two Senators from New
York, for their stalwart work to ensure these funds meet the needs of
their constituents.
The enhanced funding provided in Division B of this bill for homeland
defense will also have a significant effect on the security of this
nation.
It is appropriate that the homeland defense funding be included in
this bill--in the war against terrorism, there are no boundaries.
The money in this bill to secure our borders, our airports, our
ports, to protect against bioterrorism and to assist first responders
will send a strong signal to our citizens, and our potential
adversaries, of our determination to win this war on terrorism on every
front.
Turning more specifically to the underlying defense bill in Division
A, there are two matters in particular I wish to address today: missile
defense and the tanker leasing initiative.
The Senate version of the bill provided the full $8.3 billion
requested by Secretary Rumsfeld for missile defense programs. The House
bill provided approximately $7.8 billion.
During our conference, we were informed of two major program changes
in missile defense.
The Undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, on behalf of Secretary
Rumsfeld, reported that the department would terminate the Navy area
defense system, and the SBIRS-low satellite program.
Funding for these two programs, totaling more than $700 million, was
realigned to other defense priorities within and outside missile
defense.
For example, of the Navy area program funds, $100 million was
reserved for termination liabilities for the program and $75 million
was transferred to the airborne laser program.
From the SBIRS-low termination, $250 million is reserved for
satellite sensor technology development--which could all be used for
further work under the existing SBIRS-low contracts, if the department
so chooses.
Addressing the significance of protecting our deployed forces, the
conference agreement provides an additional $60 million over the budget
request to accelerate production of the Patriot PAC-3 missile.
In his statement, the chairman of the subcommittee articulated his
support for the air refueling tanker initiative, and I appreciate his
kind words on my role in that effort.
Contrary to some reports, this provision was not a last minute
industry bailout, hidden from public view. In fact, this responds to
military need,

[[Page S13833]]

and unforeseen economic circumstances--and opportunities.
The effort to lease these aircraft reflects an extensive review of
the Air Force's needs, and the crisis it faces in the air refueling
fleet.
This lease provision, provides permissive authority for the Secretary
of the Air Force to replace the 134 oldest KC-135E aircraft with new
tankers.
These aircraft average 42 years of age, and have not received the
comprehensive ``R'' model refurbishment.
All of these aircraft are operated by the Air National Guard, at
bases throughout the Nation. The lease will provide the new tankers to
the Air Force, and permit recently refurbished ``R'' models to cascade
to the Guard.
This permits the National Guard to have a common fleet of aircraft,
providing significant training and maintenance cost savings. They daily
do the refueling operations for our Air Force planes nationally and
throughout the world.
The KC-135E aircraft require extensive depot maintenance. Once every
5 years, we lose that aircraft for an average of 428 days, and many
more than 600 days.
That means a squadron loses that aircraft for at least 15 months, up
to 2 years.
At any one time, one third of the fleet is unavailable for service--
redlined--putting that much more pressure on the rest of the force.
During peacetime, one might argue we can survive with an inadequate
air refueling fleet. Now, in wartime, the price for that failure
becomes clear.
Every sortie flown into Afghanistan requires at least two, and
sometimes as many as four, aerial refuelings. This is the highest rate
of sustained operations we have maintained since the gulf war.
In the 10 years since that conflict, we have not purchased one new
tanker--we've watched the fleet age and deteriorate. I know the feeling
of watching a fuel gauge determine the fate of an aircraft and crew. It
is not a comfortable or pleasant one. I remember one time I ran out of
fuel on landing and had to have the aircraft towed off the field.
This may sound like an arcane discussion, compared to the allure of
new F-22's, or B-2 bombers, but let me give you an old transport
pilot's perspective.
Our forces today have virtually no margin for error--an F-15 doesn't
glide very long, and an F-18 that cannot make the carrier deck has
little hope for survival.
We can buy the exciting, and needed, new weapons platforms but
without the gas they'll never get home after the fight.
Some have suggested the leasing approach is not a good deal for the
Government. That is simply wrong. This provision includes the most
stringent requirements ever set for an aircraft leasing program.
The law states that the cost to the Air Force for the lease cannot
exceed 90 percent of the fair market value of the aircraft. That means
the Secretary cannot sign a contract if the lease cost would exceed
that threshold.
The Secretary must report to the Congress all the details of any
proposed contract in advance of signing any agreement. We will get to
look at this contract before the deal is set.
Mr. President, nothing in the leasing authority provided in this bill
is directive--the discretion rests solely with the Secretary of the Air
Force.
I have had extensive discussions about this initiative with the
Secretary, with the former Commander of the Transportation Command,
Gen. Robertson, and other DOD officials.
All have endorsed this approach.
The language in this bill is the product of extensive discussions
with CBO and OMB. No objection has been raised.
Secretary Rumsfeld's letter on the bill did not object to this
initiative, nor did the Department's detailed appeals to the
Appropriations Conference.
Since taking office, Secretary Rumsfeld has sought to chart a course
to manage the Pentagon consistent with the best practices in the
private sector.
This initiative seeks to do just that--give the Secretary all the
tools we can to meet the Department's modernization needs, within the
tight budget constraints he will face.
The airlines lease aircraft, private businesses lease aircraft, our
ally Great Britain currently leases U.S. built C-17 aircraft.
In addition, Great Britain has issued a solicitation to lease air
refueling tankers, and the Boeing 767 is the lead candidate.
We did not decide to choose the 767. The Air Force told us this is
the right aircraft for the mission.
Gen. Jumper, the Air Force Chief, envisions moving the Air Force to a
common wide body platform for a range of missions--he determined the
767 is the best platform.
Interestingly, two of our closest allies--Italy and Japan--have
already signed contracts to purchase 767 tankers on a commercial basis.
Some have suggested that this provision should have opened the door
to competition with Airbus.
The problem is that Airbus does not have a tanker on the world
market. More telling, two of the Airbus founding partners--Britain and
Italy--have both opted for the American-built tanker for their
military.
Personally, I have complete confidence we can extend this authority
to the Secretary of the Air Force, and he will only use it if he
believes it is absolutely in the best interest of the Air Force.
I want to close by thanking again our Chairman, Senator Inouye, for
his leadership in moving this bill through committee, the floor and
conference in only 15 days--an incredible achievement.
Also, our partners in the House, Chairman Lewis and Mr. Murtha, and
the full committee chairman, Congressman Bill Young and ranking member,
Dave Obey, deserve tremendous credit for managing their bill in the
House, and working out this package in conference.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator
Inouye for the hard work they did on this bill. Since this bill was
left to be the last appropriations bill passed this year, it had many
difficulties. During this time, our Armed Forces were prosecuting a war
on last year's budget. That is very serious and it is unacceptable. We
must pass this bill today. It is a good bill.
Our armed services need the extra help that is in this bill. It
provides $26 billion more in spending for the Department of Defense
than was appropriated last year. That gives us the added equipment we
need to be in Afghanistan and throughout the world, as we are today. It
also reduces the military/civilian paygap by funding a pay raise of 5
percent across the board and up to 10 percent for targeted ranks with
low-retention rates.
Thank goodness we are trying to address people who are leaving the
armed services because we just can't compete with the private sector.
Also, I want to mention the TRICARE For Life; $3.9 billion in this bill
implements TRICARE For Life. This is something I worked on for a long
time to make sure that those who have served in our military, who have
done what we asked them to do for our country, will never be left
without full medical care. That is something they deserve, it is
something we promised, and it is a promise we must keep.
I am very pleased that, finally, Desert Storm veterans are getting
the notice they deserve for the symptoms that one in seven of them have
shown after returning to our country after serving in Desert Storm. One
in seven of the people who served in the Desert Storm operation came
back with symptoms and different stages of debilitation that they did
not have when they went to serve our country.
But for years, the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs have denied there was any kind of causal connection
between these symptoms and their service. It just wasn't plausible.
I happened to learn about some research that was being done at the
University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, that did find a
causal connection in a very small unit; it was the first research that
really showed the causal connection between actual brain damage and
service in the gulf war.
This last week, I am proud to say, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Secretary Principi, released a study indicating that gulf war vets are
twice as

[[Page S13834]]

likely to get ALS; that is, Lou Gehrig's disease. To his credit,
Secretary Principi immediately widened the gulf war presumption to
cover victims of Lou Gehrig's disease. I have also extended for 5
years--and the President has signed the bill--the presumption that the
people with these symptoms would still be able to get the benefits to
which they are entitled, even though it hasn't been settled exactly
what Desert Storm disease is.
So the bill before us today does have $5 million to continue the
research that shows that causal connection. That will not only help
keep our promise to the people who served in Desert Storm, but it will
also help us understand those whom we are sending today into places
where there could be chemical warfare and what we might do to give them
the best protection against that chemical warfare. It will also help us
to inoculate and treat those who might be affected by chemical warfare
in the future. This is something I worked on in the bill, and I
appreciate so much Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens supporting this
particular cause because I think these veterans have been ignored for
too long. It is time we treated them the way they deserve to be
treated, and that is to give them the medical care and the research to
find the cause of the debilitating disease that we see in so many of
the people.

Finally, I am very pleased that the bill provides for missile
defense. Clearly, we now have a cause to go forward on missile defense.
I have always thought it was better to err on the side of doing more
for defense, even if we weren't sure what the threats were. Now we know
there are people throughout the world who will attack Americans just
because we are Americans. So we must defend against that. That is what
the missile defense system will prepare our country to do.
This bill provides for that. I close by saying there may be small
things in this bill that people don't like. I am sure there are some
things in this bill that some people would not support. But the big
things are done right. It would be inexcusable for us not to fully fund
the war, while we have troops on the ground fighting for the very
freedom that we have in this country and that we enjoy in this country.
As we are leaving Congress to go home for the holidays with our
families, we must show our appreciation to those who are in the caves
in Afghanistan, in Uzbekistan and Pakistan, and who are on missions in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who are ready to go at the call of our
country, if need be. We want to remember them. I think the most
important way we can say thank you to those people is to fully fund
their training, their equipment, and the support they deserve as they
are going forward in the name of freedom and representing our country
in the best possible way.
I thank Senator Inouye for being the great leader that he is and
Senator Stevens for working in a bipartisan way to assure our troops
that we appreciate them and we are going to give them everything they
need to do the job they are doing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. On behalf of Senator Stevens and I, I express our
gratitude to the Senator from Texas for her kind remarks.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1214

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate considers Calendar No. 161, S. 1214, the port security bill, the
only amendment in order be the Hollings-McCain-Graham substitute
amendment, which is at the desk; that there be a time limitation for
debate of 17 minutes to be divided as follows: 5 minutes each for
Senators Hollings, McCain, and Murkowski, and 2 minutes for Senator
Hutchison; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the substitute
amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time
and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with
no further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise to applaud a provision in the supplemental
portion of the Defense appropriations conference report. This
conference report includes a bill authored by myself and Senator Kyl
that will help honor the victims of the September 11 attacks. It is
called the Unity in the Spirit of America Act, or the USA Act.
We all witnessed a great national tragedy 3 months ago. While the
deaths and damage occurred in New York, Washington, and in the fields
of Pennsylvania, a piece of all of us died that day. Many people came
up to me in Michigan after the attacks and asked: What can I do? I have
given blood, I have donated to relief efforts, but I want to do more.
We all shared in the horror and now everyone wants to share in the
healing, but how? Then a constituent of mine, Bob Van Oosterhout, wrote
me with an idea: Why not have the Federal Government devise a program
that will encourage communities throughout the Nation to create
something that will honor the memory of one of the victims lost in the
attack, one by one by one. Together these local memorials to honor
individuals would dot our Nation and collectively honor all of those
who were lost in the attacks. What could be simpler or more moving?
From that idea came the Unity in the Spirit of America Act. Here is
how it works:
Communities--they can be as small as a neighborhood block or
nonprofit organizations, houses of worship, businesses or local
governments--are encouraged to choose some kind of project that will
unite and help their communities. It is a way they can give back to
their community.
Applications and the assigning of names for each project will be
handled by the Points of Light Foundation. Basically, we will see a
project in a local community dedicated to one of the victims of
September 11. The Points of Light Foundation will set up a Web site,
applications, and procedures for this. This is privately funded. It is
an opportunity for our neighbors, coworkers, and communities across the
United States to decide what will be a living legacy to those who died
by helping each other.
The Points of Light Foundation will track each project's progress on
their Web site. The only rule is that qualified projects should be
started by September 11, 2002. Then on that day, as all over America we
gather to grieve over the first anniversary of the attack that enraged
the world, we will be able to look over thousands and thousands of
selfless acts that made our country better.
In our sadness, we can create thousands of points of light across our
Nation and show the world that our resolve was not fleeting and our
memories are not short. They will see the unity in the spirit of
America.
I have many Members to thank for making the USA Act happen. First and
foremost, I thank my chief cosponsor, Senator Jon Kyl, for his
commitment and hard work. I thank the chairman and ranking member of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Senators Inouye and
Stevens, for their support. I also express my gratitude to Senators
Mikulski and Bond for their guidance in moving this legislation through
the process. Finally, I thank all the cosponsors, who include our
Senators from New York and Virginia.
I am very pleased we have come together on our last day in a
bipartisan way to put forward this important living legacy to the
victims of September 11.
Mr. President, I now yield to my colleague and friend who has been my
partner in the USA Act, and that is Senator Jon Kyl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for her
leadership in this effort. It has been a pleasure to work with her on
this legislation. It demonstrates a couple of things: First, that all
Americans care about the victims of the tragedy of September 11.
Second, that the U.S. Government can be a facilitator but does not have
to be the financier of good works on behalf of the people of the
country.
At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask to print in the Record a
letter

[[Page S13835]]

from Robert K. Goodwin who is the president of the Points of Light
Foundation.
The president of the Points of Light Foundation points out that there
are no Federal funds used in this project but, rather, that money has
been raised by people from around the country to support these projects
that literally will exist in every corner of this great country. Each
one of these projects will be named for one of the victims of the
September 11 tragedy.
What the Points of Light Foundation will do is help coordinate so
there is a common listing of all the different projects, in which part
of the country they are located, and coordinating with the names of the
victims. This is a good project for the American people to demonstrate
their support for the country, to do good works at the same time, and
to memorialize the victims of the tragedy of September 11.
I compliment the cosponsor of the legislation and the chairman and
ranking member of the committee for including this legislation in the
Defense appropriations bill. I appreciate our colleagues' support for
this important project.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the
president of the Points of Light Foundation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Points of Light Foundation,

Washington, DC, December 20, 2001.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: The Points of Light Foundation would like
to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for your
support and leadership of the Unity in the Spirit of America
(USA). We were informed last evening that it will indeed be a
part of the FY 2002 Defense Appropriations Bill. We are
excited and humbled by this opportunity to create living
memorials through service and volunteering, to those who
perished as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Please also let me extend my gratitude to your Legislative
Director, Tom Alexander. His hard work in securing the
necessary support was particularly appreciated as the bill
made its way through several conference committees. His
continued accessibility and hands-on approach were
invaluable.
As the USA Act stipulates, no federal funds will be
utilized in carrying out its provisions. We are extremely
pleased to inform you that we have secured significant
private and corporate donations to fulfill this most worthy
project. In fact, The Walt Disney Company has made a
substantial commitment, paving the way for countless
community-based memorial service projects, as well as an
expansive national media campaign. We look forward to
continuing to work closely with yourself and Senator Stabenow
in cultivating this important initiative.
In closing, please accept our gratitude and best wishes for
a safe, happy and healthy holiday season.
Your very truly,
Robert K. Goodwin
President & CEO.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from
Michigan if I may be a sponsor of the amendment. It is a very exciting
amendment that we should be considering today.
Ms. STABENOW. It will be my honor, Mr. President, to add the
distinguished Senator's name.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, pursuant to the agreement, will the Chair
recognize the Senator from Arizona?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not yet seek recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since no one is seeking time, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be allowed to speak
for 5 minutes on the economic stimulus package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. What is the pending business? What is the request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has asked to speak
for up to 5 minutes on the economic stimulus package.
Mr. REID. I reserve the right to object and ask the Senator to amend
his request so that the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller, and the
Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, have 5 minutes to speak on the
economic stimulus package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time?
Mr. REID. Two Senators, 5 minutes each: Senators Nelson and Miller.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Economic Stimulus Package

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to express my sincere
disappointment with our seeming inability to consider a stimulus
package; that is, a job-creating piece of legislation, for our people.
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs over the last year. My
fellow New Mexicans, as do all Americans, want and deserve action on
this slowing economy.
Let me be very clear. While some would like a different stimulus
package than the one the House passed in the early morning hours today,
there are alternatives that were considered in this first session.
The House-passed bill will provide needed tax relief to millions of
working Americans. It will provide tax relief to those individuals who
make more than $28,000 and those who file joint returns making more
than $46,000.
These are not rich people. These are hard-working Americans.
Along with provisions to encourage business investment with 30
percent depreciation and extending businesses net operating losses
carry back for two years, and increasing expensing provisions for small
businesses, the House-passed bill provides nearly $60 billion in tax
relief to encourage growth in this weakened economy.
Further, addressing many of the concerns raised on the other side of
the aisle, the House-passed bill is a significant improvement over an
earlier bill in the area of providing needed help to the unemployed and
dislocated workers.
The House-passed bill provides significant support for those who for
reasons they do not control, find themselves without employment this
holiday season--all totaled nearly $32 billion would be provided in the
form of direct payments to low-income workers, extended unemployment
benefits and health insurance assistance.
The House-passed bill provides cash payments for those who filed a
tax return in 2000 but did not receive a rebate check earlier this
year. These payments will be $300 for individuals and $600 for married
couples.
The House-passed bill provides 13 weeks of extended unemployment
insurance going back to those displaced from work from the beginning of
this recession last March.
And including $8 billion in National Emergency Grants and Emergency
Medicaid funding to the states, over $21 billion would be assist
individuals and families with their health care costs immediately.
The House-passed bill is not perfect. But it is a major improvement
over an earlier version, largely because of the input of a group of
Senators know as the Centrists here and because of President Bush's
willingness to work with them in crafting this package.
I hope that we do not let ``one man rule'' prevent us from even
having a vote on this bill.
We need to pass something. But if we don't assure you I will be the
first to be back here in January asking that we consider the ``payroll
tax holiday'' proposal.
I will take the remaining few minutes and talk to my fellow Senators.
Whatever the case and whoever could not reach accord, I believe we have
to tell our fellow Americans we did not do them right in the waning
days of this session. While Christmas is upon us and good will is
everywhere, it is quite obvious the House and Senate, even with the
President nudging and participating, did not and will not produce a
stimulus package that will get America going again.
I wish we would have considered something in the Senate. I believe
there was time for us to consider amendments and even vote on a
stimulus package. I think that could have been worked out, and we could
have passed something. I regret we have not. I say to the leadership in
the Senate, they could have done better.
While I have great respect and, in some cases, admiration for our
leadership, I believe in this case one-man rule prevailed, the
Democratic majority

[[Page S13836]]

leader prevailed. He has what I would call a one-man rule because he
can keep us from debating and considering the House-passed measure. He
can do that all by himself. That is a very big undertaking by any one
Senator, to say we are not going to consider a stimulus package this
year in this Senate. That is one-man rule. That is a very big exercise
of power.
While the Democratic majority leader has a very difficult job in the
waning moments because of different ideas and different proposals and
obviously some politics, I think we should have done better and he
should have done better.
I close by saying I proposed, along with about 10 Senators, an idea
for a holiday from the Social Security taxes imposed on both employee
and employer, to do that for 1 month. Nobody suggested to me that is
not a very good stimulus, to put before the American people a month
that is picked in the near future to put $42 billion into the hands of
every working man and woman and every employer across this land in a
rather instant payment to them, or nonpayment to the Government, of
Social Security withholding.
I believe if we start over with good will, and in a nonpartisan way,
when we return because I do not believe the economy will improve and we
will be back at this--I urge we consider it at a high enough level to
let the country focus on this idea.
There is a lot of talk about the negative aspects of it, and most of
them are untrue. If we have a chance to get this issue before a
committee, or debate it in the Senate, we would have a great starting
point to which we could add the social welfare aspects of the
unemployment benefits, of some health care coverage, and all the other
issues we are talking about. We would have as a basis a single powerful
issue that would be building jobs and causing America to take a look
and say we know how to do something very positive.
So I do not give up. If we are doing nothing, I assume this idea will
come back and I assume, when we start thinking about it and analyze it
well, it will be high on the agenda.
I say to all of my friends in the Senate, they worked very hard. I
congratulate them. They worked either as a centrist member of the
committee or member of the leadership, put in a lot of time, a lot of
effort. I am hopeful even in the last moment it will work and somehow
it will come out of the forest and be sitting there for us to look at.
If not, then I urge when we come back and consider how we stimulate,
that we put this holiday back on the table with all the other things we
have been considering.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity
to address the Chamber today and speak on a very important issue we
have all been concerned about and we all have had comments about,
continue to have thoughts about, and will continue to have them into
the future. I speak of the stimulus package.
It is unfortunate we missed the opportunity to be able to conclude a
package of the type the centrists put together based on what was
supported by so many different individuals and groups. Unfortunately,
the blame has already begun. So we are in a position where we are
talking about would have, could have, should have. We will have an
opportunity as time goes by over this holiday break to continue to talk
and continue to look for solutions.
In January, something must in fact be done so we can move forward to
protect the jobs of those who currently have them, help those
individuals who have lost them, and help create new jobs. This is about
three things: Jobs, jobs, jobs. And it is about the people who support
them.

Terrorism Insurance

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. In addition to being concerned about the
future of the stimulus package, there is an aspect of stimulus that is
involved in another proposal that hopefully will be brought up today,
and that is the terrorism insurance issue. It is not about insurers, it
is about insureds. It is about the ability to be able to insure one's
property, one's house, one's home, one's apartment, one's automobile.
If one is a business owner, it is about insuring their storefront or
their business. It is about having workers compensation insurance and
liability insurance. It is about having insurance for the protection
one needs.
There is a very important timeframe we must in fact look at, and that
is January 1 of this coming year. I am hopeful we will be able to
settle today on a bill and be able to pass something and send it on for
reconciliation in conference, so we can match or in some way make it
close enough to the House version that a reconciliation of the
conference committee is possible, because if we fail to do that, there
is a possibility, and perhaps even a strong likelihood, that on January
1 of this coming year 70 percent of the reinsurance that is currently
available to direct writers will be affected. It may not provide for
terrorism in the future.
I know for many people it seems sort of esoteric. It seems sort of
complex and perhaps eyes-glazed-over thinking about insurance and
reinsurance and whether there will be protection for terrorism or not,
but it is a very real issue, a very real and present concern we must in
fact have. It is not about simply insuring skyscrapers. It is about
insuring small businesses. It is about apartment buildings,
storefronts, and people's own personal residences, as well as their
automobiles. It is about whether or not money will be available for
lending or whether or not it will continue to be available for
construction.
If we are concerned, as I think we are, about a worsening economy and
at what point we will be able to see the economy turn around and be
stimulated so it can be a robust economy, one of the things we must in
fact be concerned about is anything that tips the scales against the
economy we have today that can make it worse. In fact, failure to take
action can make it worse by not taking the appropriate action to
undergird and support it.
If we are unable to come together and make sure insurance continues
to be available, as well as affordable, but certainly available to the
public, if we fail to take that opportunity, then we might expect
construction will be impeded, if not stopped, and that we may in fact
see housing starts and other building starts stopped.
Unemployment can be affected. We could end up with more people
unemployed, and the economic downturn could be accelerated. I say these
things not to provide a scare tactic but simply to impress as to how
important it is we solve this problem of availability of terrorism
insurance in the near term so we can work for a longer term solution.

What has been offered to date is, in fact, a short-term solution, a
backup, a compromise to work in the immediate term, the short term,
with broad-based support. I hope we will take this up and move forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I, too, will have a few remarks on the
economic stimulus bill. I think a decision not to have a straight up-
or-down vote on it and let the majority of this Senate prevail,
regardless of the makeup of the majority, is a mistake. I know it is a
loss for the country and the folks who need our help and need it
immediately.
Why do we always have to act as if we are in a football game where
one side, one team, has to win and the other team has to lose? Why
can't we have both parties the winners, along with the American people?
Myself, when it gets down to the block, I am kind of a half-a-loaf
man. Whether it is 75 percent, 65 percent, or 50 percent, when you get
right down to it, that is always better than zero percent. You can eat
half a loaf. Having no loaf at all may make a political point, but in
the end somebody goes hungry.
This is not the House bill. I could never have supported that bill. I
would never have voted for it. This compromise package does not include
everything either side wanted. Instead, it represents a reasonable
compromise.
Some say speeding up the reduction of the tax rates from 27 percent
to 25 percent is just helping the wealthy. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The folks who benefit from this are folks who earn as
little as $27,000 a year, going up to $67,000 a year. For married
couples, this rate reduction would help those who earn between $47,000
to $120,000 a year. Those are not the wealthy or the rich. Those are
middle-income Americans. Many are our

[[Page S13837]]

friends and organized labor. This bill also includes a $300 rebate for
those who did not get anything from the earlier tax cut.
On the health insurance area, we recognize the need to help the
unemployed by providing health insurance for them. This is a very
significant change. This is a dramatic change and should be welcomed by
both Republicans and Democrats alike.
Some argue that the best way to give laid-off workers access to
health care is to provide a 75-percent subsidy for COBRA premiums, as
well as access to State Medicaid Programs. Others disagreed and
preferred a broader tax credit for health insurance premiums. This
package falls somewhere in between, providing a 60-percent advanceable,
refundable tax credit for all health insurance.
It is not a whole loaf for anyone, but it represents a practical
solution, and it is the best way to do what we all want; that is, to
help the workers and help them before it is too late.
The package also includes help for State governments, something our
Governors and legislators desperately need right now. It provides
almost $5 billion in payments to State Medicaid Programs. This does not
represent everything States or many of us wanted. I was hoping to get a
fix for the upper payment limit but, again, it is half a loaf.
As it is, we have no loaf. We have no loaf at all. We do not even
have a slice. Who was it who said, Let them eat cake?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Arizona.

Defense Appropriations

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise, once again, to address the issue
of wasteful spending in appropriations measures; in this case, the bill
funding the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002.
In provisions too numerous to mention in detail, this bill, time and
again, chooses to fund porkbarrel projects with little, if any,
relationship to national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget
deficits, and underfunded urgent defense priorities.
The Web site of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in its
opening sentence, states the following:

Authorization laws have two basic purposes. They establish,
continue, or modify Federal programs, and they are a
prerequisite under House and Senate rules . . . for the
Congress to appropriate budget authority for programs.

I will not go through all of the unauthorized programs that are in
this legislation. I only mention those that relate to the committee of
which I am proud to serve and be the ranking member, formally the
chairman, the Commerce Committee. I and Senator Hollings and members of
my committee take our responsibilities very seriously.
Now we have seen, despite what apparently is the mission or the
obligation of the Appropriations Committee--and that is to not
appropriate funds for programs that are not authorized--just in the
Commerce Committee alone, we have for the 2002 Winter Olympics, $93.3
million; port security grants, $90 million; airport and airways trust
fund, payment to air carriers, $50 million; DOT Office of the Inspector
General, $1.3 million; FAA operations, taken from the aviation trust
fund, without authorization, $200 million.
Just as the appropriators are now taking away highway money
appropriated under a formula passed by the full Senate and House and
violating TEA-21, we are now taking away from the aviation trust fund
for pet projects $200 million worth, to pet projects of the
appropriators.
We have FAA facilities and equipment, $108.5 million; Federal Highway
Administration, proposed operations, $10 million was requested by the
administration, $100 million; capital grants to the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, $100 million; Federal Transit Administration
capital investment gains, $100 million; restoration of broadcasting
facilities, $8.25 million; National Institutes of Standards and
Technology, $30 million; Federal Trade Commission, $20 million; FAA
grants and aid for airports, $175 million; Woodrow Wilson Bridge
project, $29 million.
Why did they have to do that? Because they took the money out of the
highway funds in the Transportation appropriations bill, thereby
shorting the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, so they had to add another $30
million to make up for the shortfall. Unfortunately, that was about
$500 million that they took, and every other State in America--by the
way, not represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee--had
highway funds taken away from them.
Provision relating to Alaska in the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st century--it will be interesting to see the impact that has on the
rest of America. We have the U.S. 61 Woodville widening project in
Mississippi, $300,000; Interstate Maintenance Program for the city of
Trenton, $4 million; international sports competition, $15.8, million,
emergency planning assistance for 2002 Winter Olympics.
I have to talk for a minute before I get into the major issue, and
that is the Boeing lease, and discuss the Olympics issue. It is now up
to well over $1.5 billion that the taxpayers have paid.
I refer my colleagues to an article that was in Sports Illustrated
magazine, December 10, 2001. The title of it is, ``Snow Job.''
I will not read the whole article. It is very instructive to my
colleagues in particular and to our citizens about what has happened in
the Utah Olympics. The headline is ``Snow Job.''

Thanks to Utah politicians and the 2002 Olympics, a
blizzard of federal money--a stunning $1.5 billion--has
fallen on the state, enriching some already wealthy
businessessmen.
Is this a great country or what? A millionaire developer
wants a road built, the federal government supplies the cash
to construct it. A billionaire ski-resort owner covets a
choice piece of public land. No problem. The federal
government arranges for him to have it. Some millionaire
businessmen stand to profit nicely if the local highway
network is vastly improved. Of course. The federal government
provides the money.
How can you get yours, you ask? Easy. Just help your
hometown land the Olympics. Then, when no one's looking
persuade the federal government to pay for a good chunk of
the Games, including virtually any project to which the magic
word Olympics can be attached.
Total federal handouts. The $1.5 billion in taxpayer
dollars that Congress is pouring into Utah is 1\1/2\ times
the amount spent by lawmakers to support all seven Olympic
Games held in the U.S. since 1904--combined. In inflation-
adjusted dollars.
Enrichment of private interests. For the first time,
private enterprises--primarily ski resorts and real estate
developments--stand to derive significant long-term benefits
from Games-driven congressional giveaways.
Most government entities tapped for cash. With all that
skill, grace and precision of a hockey team on a power play,
Utah's five-member congressional delegation has used the
Olympics to drain money from an unprecedented number of
federal departments, agencies and offices--some three dozen
in all, from the Office of National Drug Control to the
Agriculture Department.
Most U.S. tax dollars per athlete. Federal spending for the
Salt Lake City City Games will average $625,000 for each of
the 2,400 athletes who will compete. (Not a penny of it will
go to the athletes.) That's a 996% increase from the $57,000
average for the 1996 Olympics. It's a staggering 5,582% jump
from the $11,000 average for the 1984 Summer Games in Los
Angeles.
Parking lots are costing you $30 million. Some $12 million
of that is paying for two 80-acre fields to be graded and
paved for use as two temporary lots, then returned to meadows
after the flame is extinguished.
Housing for the media and new sewers are each costing you
$2 million.
Repaved highways, new roads and bridges, enlarged
interchanges and an electronic highway-information system are
costing you $500 million.
Buses, many brought in from others states, to carry
spectators to venues are costing you $25 million.
Fencing and other security measures at the Veterans
Administration Medical Center in northeast Salt Lake City--to
protect patients and staff from the Olympia hordes--are
costing you $3 million.
A light-rail transit system that will ferry Olympic
visitors around Salt Lake City is costing you $326 million.
Improvement at Salt Lake City-area airports are costing you
$16 million.

The list goes on and on:

Recycling and composting are costing you $1 million, and
public education programs for air, water and waste management
are costing you another $1 million.
A weather-forecasting system being set up for SLOC is
costing you $1 million. The money is going to the University
of Utah to enable its Meterorology Department to provide data
that will supplement forecasts provided to SLOC by the
National Weather Service.
New trees planted in Salt Lake City and other communities
``impacted'', as the funding legislation put it, by the
Olympics are

[[Page S13838]]

costing you $500,000. Said Utah Senator Robert Bennett, who
arranged for the money. ``We do the Olympics because it gets
us together doing thinks like planting trees.''

``We do the Olympics because it gets us together, doing things like
planting trees.''
Wow.
I want to repeat, I am all for whatever expenditure for security for
the Salt Lake City Olympics. A good part of this $1.5 billion--and
there is more in this appropriations bill--has nothing to do with
security. It has to do with roadbuilding. It has to do with land swaps,
worthless land for valuable land. It has to do with wealthy developers;
it has to do with the enrichment of billionaires; and it really is
quite a story. I hope every American will read that story that is in
Sports Illustrated dated December 10 entitled ``Snow Job''--aptly
entitled ``Snow Job.''
As I pointed out before, our nation is at war, a war that has united
Americans behind a common goal--to find the enemies who terrorized the
United States on September 11 and bring them to justice. In pursuit of
this goal, our service men and women are serving long hours, under
extremely difficult conditions, far away from their families. Many
other Americans also have been affected by this war and its economic
impact, whether they have lost their jobs, their homes, or have had to
drastically cut expenses this holiday season. The weapons we have given
them, for all their impressive effects, are, in many cases, neither in
quantity nor quality, the best that our government can provide.
For instance, stockpiles of the precision guided munitions that we
have relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear so effectively on
difficult, often moving targets, with the least collateral damage
possible, are dangerously depleted after only 10 weeks of war in
Afghanistan. This is just one area of critical importance to our
success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be
allocating scarce resources to our national defense.
Yet, despite the realities of war, and the responsibilities they
impose on Congress as much the President, the Senate Appropriations
Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its usual blatant
use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some
worthy purpose, but that certainly impair our national defense by
depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding.
Even in the middle of a war, a war of monumental consequences and
with no end in sight, the Appropriations Committee, Mr. President,
still is intent on using the Department of Defense as an agency for
dispensing corporate welfare. It is a terrible shame that in a time of
maximum emergency, the U.S. Senate would persist in spending money
requested and authorized only for our Armed Forces to satisfy the needs
or the desires of interests that are unrelated to defense needs.
The Investor's Business Daily, on December 18, 2001, had this to say
in an article titled At the Trough: Welfare Checks to Big Business Make
No Sense:

Among the least justified outlays is corporate welfare.
Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that business
subsidies will run $87 billion this year, up a third since
1997, Although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to
corporate welfare this year, Congress has proved resistant.
Indeed, many post-September 11 bailouts have gone to big
business. Boeing is one of the biggest beneficiaries.
Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat from Washington, is
pushing a substantial increase in research and development
support for Boeing and other defense contractors, the
purchase of several retrofitted Boeing 767s and the leasing
of as many as 100 767s for purposes ranging from surveillance
to refueling. Boeing has been hurt by the storm that hit
airlines, since many companies have slashed orders. Yet China
recently agreed to buy 30 of the company's planes, and
Boeing's problems predate the September 11 attack. It is one
thing to compensate the airlines for forcibly shutting them
down; it is quite another to toss money at big companies
caught in a down demand cycle. Boeing, along with many other
major exporters, enjoys its own federal lending facility, the
Export-Import Bank. ExIm uses cheap loans, loan guarantees
and loan insurance to subsidize purchases of U.S. products.
The bulk of the money goes to big business that sell
airplanes, machinery, nuclear power plants and the like. Last
year alone, Boeing benefitted form $3.3 billion in credit
subsidies. While corporate America gets the profits,
taxpayers get the losses. . . .

As I mentioned last week when the Senate version of the Defense
Appropriations bill was being debated--and now carried through the
Conference Committee--is a sweet deal for the Boeing Company that I'm
sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to the
other. Attached is a legislative provision to the Fiscal Year 2002
Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would require the Air
force to lease one hundred 767 aircraft for use as tankers for $26
million apiece each year for the next 10 years. Moreover, in Conference
Committee the appropriators added four 737 aircraft for executive
travel--mostly benefitting Members of Congress. We have been told that
these aircraft will be assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air
Force Base.
Since the 10-year leases have yet to be signed, the cost of the
planes cannot be calculated, but it costs roughly $85 million to buy
one 737, and a lease costs significantly more over the long term.
The cost to taxpayers?
$2.6 billion per year for the aircraft plus $1.2 billion in military
construction funds to modify KC-135 hangars to accommodate their larger
replacements, with a total price tag of more than $30 billion over 10
years when the costs of the 737 leases are also included. This leasing
plan is five times more expensive I repeat, five times more expensive
to the taxpayer than an outright purchase, and it represents 30 percent
of the Air Force's annual cost of its top 60 priorities. But the most
amazing fact is that this program is not actually among the Air Force's
top 60 priorities--it was not among their top 60 priorities--nor do new
tankers appear in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Service!
That's right, when the Air Force told Congress in clear terms what
its top priorities were tankers and medical lift capability aircraft
weren't included as critical programs. In fact, within its top 30
programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that
would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet
fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and
fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and
rescue helicopters for downed pilots.
Let me say that again, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has
asked for several essential items that would directly support our
current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement
parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self
protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for
downed pilots.
This leasing program also will require $1.2 billion in military
construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are
too small for the new 767 aircraft. The taxpayers also will be on the
hook for another $30 million per aircraft on the front end to convert
these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the
end of the lease, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for $30
million more, to convert the aircraft back--pushing the total cost of
the Boeing sweetheart deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease. Mr.
President, that is waste that borders on gross negligence.
I wrote a letter to the Director of OMB. Here is the answer I
received:

Dear Senator McCain:
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the costs associated
with the conversion of 767 aircraft tankers. According to the
Air Force, the total cost for a program to lease 100 tankers
is approximately $26 billion.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Mitchell Daniels,
Director of OMB, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, December 18, 2001.
The Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your inquiry regarding
the costs associated with the conversion of 767 aircraft to
tankers. According to the Air Force, the total cost for a
program to lease 100 tankers is approximately $26 billion. I
have attached a summary of assumptions and costs they have
identified. Please let me know if you require any additional
information.
Sincerely,
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
Director.

[[Page S13839]]

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to read a letter that I received
recently. This letter is from the Americans for Tax Reform, Council for
Citizens Against Government Waste, Congressional Accountability
Project, Ronnie Dugger, Ralph Nader, National Taxpayers Union, Project
on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, and Taxpayers for Common
Sense.
All of these organizations are on the right and the left of the
political spectrum.
They wrote the following letter:

December 19, 2001.
Dear Senator: Even as veteran observers of the
Congressional appropriations process, we are shocked, and
outraged, by the provision in the Defense Appropriations bill
that would have the Air Force lease Boeing 767s at a price
dramatically higher than the cost of direct purchase. We are
writing to urge you to take to the floor to speak and vote
against this specific siphoning of taxpayer money to the
Boeing company.
Leave aside the serious questions about whether the Air
Force wants or needs the 767s, and simply consider the
economics of this sugar-coated deal:
Under the Boeing lease provision, the Air Force will lease
100 Boeing 767s for use as tankers, at a pricetag of $20
million per plane per year, over a 10-year period. This $20
billion expenditure is far higher than the cost of direct
purchase. The government will accrue extra expenses because
it will be obligated not only to convert the commercial
aircraft to military configurations; when the 10-year lease
is over, it will be required to convert them back to
commercial format, at an estimated cost of $30 million
apiece. Senator John McCain says the cost of the lease plan
is five times higher than an outright purchase would be.
Senator Phil Gramm says, ``I do not think, in the 22 years I
have been here, I have ever seen anything to equal this.''

``I don't think, in the 22 years I have been here, I have ever seen
anything to equal this.''
The letter goes on to say:

There is no conceivable rationale for such a waste of
taxpayer resources. If some in Congress believe Boeing needs
to be subsidized, then they should propose direct subsidies
to the company, and let Congress fully debate and vote on the
issue before the American people, following comprehensive
public hearings on the proposal.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a basic test of whether
Congress views itself as fundamentally accountable to the
public interest, both procedurally and substantively.
There will obviously be a Defense Appropriations bill
passed for the coming fiscal year. But it must not be one
that includes such a gross exhibition of corporate welfare.
We urge you to speak and vote against the bill; and to force
consideration of a revised bill, stripped of this
grotesquery.
Sincerely,

Ralph Nader,

Grover Norquist,
President, Americans for Tax Reform.

I have never seen Ralph Nader and Grover Norquist on the same letter
in all the years I have been in this town.
The letter is also signed by the following:

Thomas A. Schatz,
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

Gary Ruskin,
Director, Congressional Accountability Project.

Ronnie Dugger,
Alliance for Democracy (organization listed for
identification only).

Pete Sepp,
Vice President for Communications, National Taxpayers
Union.

Danielle Brian,
Executive Director, Project on Government Oversight.

Joan Claybrook,
President, Public Citizen.

Joe Theissen,
Executive Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Mr. President, I guess the obvious question that would then be asked
is, How did this happen? On its face it is incredible.
Let me try to illuminate my colleagues on an article of December 12
in the New York Times entitled ``Boeing's War Footing; Lobbyists Are
Its Army, Washington Its Battlefield.''
I will not read the entire article.
It says:

It talks about losing the joint strike fighter to Lockheed Martin.

Those events sent Boeing reeling. But like battle-tested
generals on the retreat, Boeing executives swiftly moved to
recover their losses in a time-tested Washington way: wooing
Congress and the Pentagon to support other contracts.
Few companies can rival Boeing influence in the capital.
Its Washington office, headed by Rudy F. de Leon, the deputy
secretary of defense in the final year of the Clinton
administration, employs 34 in-house and more than 50 outside
lobbyists.
One of the Boeing lobbyists' first moves after Sept. 11 was
to prod the Air Force to reconsider the 767 lease deal, which
had stalled months before. Though the Air Force has said it
plans to replace its 40-year-old KC-135 tankers in the next
decade or two, it has preferred to spend its money on elite
fighter jets like the F-22.
But the war in Afghanistan has kept dozens of KC-135's in
the air almost constantly, putting pressure on the Air Force
to accelerate its replacement program. James Roche, the
secretary of the Air Force, and Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air
Force chief of staff, signed into the lease-purchase idea
because it would spread the cost out into the future,
Pentagon documents show.
Boeing next had to break down resistance to lease
arrangements in Congress. According to one internal Pentagon
study, a lease-purchase deal for 100 767's would cost 15
percent more than simply buying the planes. Moreover, federal
rules discourage such deals by requiring that most of the
entire contract cost be paid in the first year. To get around
that, Boeing proposed having the Air Force simply lease the
aircraft without a purchase option. But that would not cover
the cost of adapting them for refueling and surveillance, or
of ultimately buying them, as the Air Force is expected to
do.
The company recruited the Congressional delegations from
Washington and Missouri--the two states where it assembles
most of its aircraft--to support the plan. And in the Senate,
it found a powerful ally in Ted Stevens of Alaska, the
ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, who is a
fan of lease-purchase deals for the military.
Boeing lobbyists with Congressional experience--including
Mr. de Leon, who also was a staff director for the House
Armed Services Committee, and Denny Miller, a former chief of
staff to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington--
help negotiate the lease language.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Staggered by the loss of the largest military contract in
history and the collapse of the commercial airline market,
Boeing has sharply intensified its efforts in Congress and
the Pentagon to win an array of other big-ticket military
contracts.
Mobilizing an armada of well-connected lobbyists,
sympathetic lawmakers and Air Force generals, the company
argues that by financing its contracts Congress would reduce
the need for thousands of layoffs and help keep Boeing, the
second-largest military contractor, healthy in a time of war.
``You've got the nation's leading exporter, and one of its
leading military contractors, who has been hit hard,'' said
Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington State Democrat who
has led the charge for Boeing on Capitol Hill. ``We can
really help them.''
The push underscores a broader trend for Boeing, company
officials and analysts say. The company, with most of its
production in the Seattle area, has suffered a sharp downturn
in commercial aircraft business, which last year generated
two-thirds of its $51.3 billion in sales. Boeing is expected
to announce this week that production of its 717 commercial
airliners will be cut by half, to as little as one plane a
month from two, company executives said. As recently as a
month ago, analysis predicted that the company would end all
717 production, in part because the Sept. 11 attacks have
slowed demand for commercial jets.
As a result, Boeing is looking more than ever to its
military and space divisions to bolster sagging revenue.
Last week, it won a big lobbying battle when the Senate
approved a sharply contested plan for Boeing to lease to the
Air Force 100 new 767 wide-body jets for use as refueling
tankers and reconnaissance planes. The proposal next goes
before a House-Senate conference committee.
At an estimated cost of more than $20 billion over 10
years, that plan has been attacked as a costly corporate
bailout by critics led by Senator John McCain, a Republican
from Arizona. But supporters say that it would not only
significantly offset Boeing's loss of orders from ailing
commercial airlines but also help the Pentagon by
accelerating the replacement of aging midair refueling
tankers and reconnaissance aircraft that both have been worn
down by heavy use in the war in Afghanistan.
``Near term, it's a very nice financial salve to an
immediate wound,'' said Howard Rubel,

[[Page S13840]]

a military industry analysis at Goldman Sachs.
The 767 plan is just one of several major Pentagon programs
that Boeing is prodding Congress to sustain, expand or
accelerate. The company is the lead contractor on more than a
dozen major contracts accounting for well over $10 billion in
the 2002 Pentagon budget alone. Those include the F/A-18
fighter jet for the Navy, the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft
for the Marine Corps, the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter for
the Army and the airborne laser for the Pentagon's Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization.
In addition, Boeing has been trying for years to become the
dominant player in an array of new businesses, including
unpiloted aircraft, battlefield and cockpit communications,
surveillance technology and precision-guided numitions. The
war on terrorism has only underscored the Pentagon's need for
more of those systems, Boeing and its allies assert.
``What we're about to see was the reason for the merger
with McDonnell Douglas in the first place,'' said Gerald E.
Daniels, president of Boeing's military aircraft and missile
systems division. ``With the cyclical nature of the
commercial business, building strong military and space units
serves to tamp down those gigantic swings.''
In 1999, two years after the merger with McDonnell Douglas,
Boeing delivered 620 commercial aircraft, for revenue of
$38.5 billion. By next year, analysts estimate, deliveries
are expected to tally only 367, with revenue down to $26
billion.
The collapse in the commercial market resulted, of course,
from the suicide hijacking attacks of Sept. 11. Air travel
plummeted and airlines canceled dozens of jet orders,
prompting Boeing to announce plans to lay off 30,00
workers over the next two years.
Just when it seemed Boeing's fortunes could not be worse,
in October the Pentagon awarded a $200 billion contract for
the Joint Strike Fighter to Boeing's larger rival, Lockheed
Martin. The stealthy jet is expected to become the mainstay
fighter for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps in the next
two decades, raising doubts about Boeing's future in the
tactical fighter business.
Those events sent Boeing reeling. But like battle-tested
generals on the retreat, Boeing executives swiftly moved to
recover their losses in a time-tested Washington way: wooing
Congress and the Pentagon to support other contracts.
Few companies can rival Boeing's influence in the capital.
Its Washington office, headed by Rudy F. de Leon, the deputy
secretary of defense in the final year of the Clinton
administration, employs 34 in-house and more than 50 outside
lobbyists.
One of the Boeing lobbyists' first moves after Sept. 11 was
to prod the Air Force to reconsider the 767 lease deal, which
had stalled months before. Though the Air Force has said it
plans to replace its 40-year-old KC-135 tankers in the next
decade or two, it has preferred to spend its money on elite
fighter jets like the F-22.
But the war in Afghanistan has kept dozens of KC-135's in
the air almost constantly, putting pressure on the Air Force
to accelerate its replacement program. James Roche, the
secretary of the Air Force, and Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air
Force chief of staff, signed onto the lease-purchase idea
because it would spread the cost out into the future,
Pentagon documents show.
Boeing next had to break down resistance to lease
arrangements in Congress. According to one internal Pentagon
study, a lease-purchase deal for 100 767's would cost 15
percent more than simply buying the planes. Moreover, federal
rules discourage such deals by requiring that most of the
entire contract cost be paid in the first year. To get around
that, Boeing proposed having the Air Force simply lease the
aircraft without a purchase option. But that would not cover
the cost of adapting them for refueling and surveillance, or
of ultimately buying them, as the Air Force is expected to
do.
The company recruited the Congressional delegations from
Washington and Missouri--the two states where it assembles
most of its aircraft--to support the plan. And in the Senate,
it found a powerful ally in Ed Stevens of Alaska the ranking
Republican on the Appropriations Committee, who is a fan of
lease-purchase deals for the military.
Boeing lobbyists with Congressional experience--including
Mr. de Leon, who also was a staff director for the House
Armed Services Committee, and Denny Miller, a former chief of
staff to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington--
helped negotiate the lease language.
With Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, the
Boeing president, Philip A. Condit, has repeatedly met with
senior lawmakers like Daniel Inouye, the chairman of the
Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the military, and the
Senate majority leader, Thomas Dashle. Last week, Mr. Condit
returned to discuss the deal with several leading skeptics in
the House, including the speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, and
Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the influential
chairman of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations.
A spokesman for Mr. Lewis, Jim Specht, said the Congressman
remained undecided on the lease deal, but added: ``There is
the concern that because of the Joint Strike Fighter
contract, something has to be done to make sure we support
all of our industrial base.''
All the work, however, did not win over Senator McCain, who
last week accused Boeing of ``playing victim, blaming its own
job cuts, many of which occurred before Sept. 11, on the
tragedy itself.''
Boeing seems to have won Congressional support for
accelerating purchases of C-17's, the all-purpose cargo
planes it builds in Long Beach, Calif., at a former McDonnell
Douglas plant. Last spring, Boeing formally asked that the
Pentagon buy 60 more planes at a cost of about $150 million
each. Without that increase, the Long Beach production line
is scheduled to close later this decade.
Boeing has also tried to wiggle its way into the Strike
Fighter deal. The company has quietly hinted that it could
urge Congress to buy more unmanned aircraft or its F/A-18 to
take the place of Navy and Air Force versions of the Joint
Strike Fighter if Lockheed did not agree to give it a
substantial piece of the work.
It has urged Senator Christopher S. Bond, a Missouri
Republican, to continue promoting legislation requiring
Lockheed to split the Strike Fighter work with Boeing.
Senator Bond withdrew his bill for lack of support, but on
Friday he won Senate funds for a study into whether the
Pentagon should have two manufacturers of tactical fighter
aircraft.
``I want to make sure we maintain that production line in
St. Louis, because it's in the national interest,'' Mr. Bond
said in an interview.
Lockheed, however, notes that it already has two major
partners, the British military contractor BAE Systems and
Northrop Grumman. ``There is only so much work to go
around,'' said Charles Thomas Burbage, director of the
fighter project for Lockheed.
Boeing, with the help of Senator Bond and Representative
Richard A. Gephardt, the House Democratic leader, who comes
from the St. Louis area, is also pushing the Navy to replace
its aging EA6-B Prowler radar-jamming planes with an
electronic-warfare version of the F-18, a move that could
help keep Boeing's St. Louis plant open longer.
Unmanned aircraft are another focus of Boeing lobbying.
Last month, Boeing organized a new division headed by a
senior executive from its Strike Fighter program, Mike Heinz,
to help it expand into a market the company estimates will
top $1 billion a year.
Boeing is already building a prototype unmanned fighter for
the Air Force, a project that many industry officials say is
Boeing's to lose. At a recent meeting of industry executives,
Darleen A. Druyun, the principal deputy assistant secretary
of the Air Force for acquisition and management, spoke
glowingly about the future of unmanned aerial vehicles.
``I see a very bright future for Boeing when it comes to
aviation,'' she said, ``particularly in the areas of UAV's
and in sales of C-17's.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when the Department of Defense
appropriations bill was on the floor, Senator Gramm of Texas, I, and
others decided that we would do what we could to oppose this being
included in the legislation.
We were prepared to engage in extended debate on this and many of the
other provisions of the Defense appropriations bill. After
conversations with Senator Gramm and Senator Stevens, I agreed to an
amendment on my behalf along with Senator Gramm that would give the
President the authority not to spend the money if we found other more
compelling needs for national defense, which seems like a reasonable
solution to the dilemma in which we found ourselves.
(Mr. CLELAND assumed the Chair.)
Mr. McCAIN. I will admit to a certain degree of naivety. I believed
that provision would be held in conference. Obviously, I was incredibly
naive. That provision, I am told, was the first to go.
So now we have a situation--even though the Air Force in its top 60
priorities did not request additional tankers, but did have plans in
the next 10 years or so to purchase aircraft with refueling
capability--we now have a provision in law, which I obviously will not
be able to reverse, without competition.
Maybe Airbus could have provided some tankers. Maybe some airlines
with excess aircraft could have provided some tankers. But no
competition is allowed. It directs that it be 767s.
Now, of course, to sweeten the pot, we have four 737s which will go
out to Andrews Air Force Base and be part of the aircraft that are used
for ferrying VIPs and Members of Congress around the world.
I think you could make an argument that Boeing needs to be bailed
out, that they are in trouble. They are a major manufacturing company.
They lost out on a new fighter aircraft competition. There may be some
argument to that. I might even consider cutting them a check for some
money. We cut checks for a lot of other interests around here.
But there was never a hearing in the Armed Services Committee--never
a

[[Page S13841]]

hearing in the Armed Services Committee--of a $30 billion purchase
here. It was never considered by the Armed Services Committee--not
once. Never did it come up. No. No, Mr. President. Again, it was stuck
in an appropriations bill, stuck into an appropriations bill without a
single hearing. Not even in the Appropriations Committee did they have
a hearing on this.

What I am saying is, this system has run amok. This system has run
amok. We are now in the situation where anyone who is not on the
Appropriations Committee becomes irrelevant, particularly at the end of
the year.
Where is the relevancy of the Commerce Committee when $310 million in
appropriations is added on a Defense appropriations bill? Where is the
relevancy when billions of dollars on a Defense appropriations bill are
put in that have nothing to do with defense?
Where is the relevancy of the authorizing committees when billions
and billions and billions of dollars are added without a hearing,
without consideration, and without authorization?
I suggest that the Appropriations Committee change their Web site,
the one I quoted earlier, that says that only authorized appropriations
will be made. It says:

Authorization laws have two basic purposes. They establish,
continue, or modify federal programs, and they are a
prerequisite under House and Senate rules . . . for the
Congress to appropriate budget authority for programs.

I strongly recommend that the Appropriations Committee remove that
from or at least add: However, in practice, that is not the case.
We now have disabled veterans who are not receiving the money that
they need. It is an effort that I and the Presiding Officer have
engaged in for several years now. They do not have a very big lobby
around here. They do not have Rudy de Leon and Denny Miller, and a lot
of high-priced lobbyists. So veterans who have disabilities are being
deprived money they should rightly have, that any other person stricken
with a similar disability, under any other circumstance, would receive.
We still have men and women in the military living in barracks that
were built during World War II and the Korean war.
We still have a situation, at least up until the surge of patriotism
as of September 11, where there has been enormous difficulty in
maintaining our noncommissioned officers and our midlevel career
officers.
A recent study by the U.S. Army showed the greatest exodus of Army
captains in the history of the U.S. Army, which is quite interesting,
to say the least.
We will not take care of these veterans, but we will put about $3
billion out of the Commerce Committee--under the Commerce Committee
jurisdiction--into this Department of Defense appropriations bill. We
will take care of the special interests. We will take care of the big
campaign contributors.
I am sure Boeing will be extremely generous at the next fundraisers
that both the Republican and Democrat Parties have. They have already
been incredibly generous. And, by the way, they are very schizophrenic
in their political outlook because they give pretty much the same
amount of money to both parties, which shows how ideologically driven
they are.
And we will get 767s. I am sure they are nice airplanes. But who is
going to pay? Who is going to pay for it? The average taxpayer, because
the cost to the taxpayer of this little backdoor, backroom maneuver is
billions of dollars more than it should have been.
I remind you, the average lifespan of a tanker is around 35 to 40
years. That is the average lifespan because they are relatively simple
airplanes. They are really flying gas stations. So they last a long
time.

So what are we going to do? Pay 90 percent of the cost of the
airplane and, after 10 years, pay to have it de-engineered as a tanker
and give it back to Boeing, at a minimum of one-third of the life of
the tanker. With a straight face, how can we possibly do this?
I had a lot of other concerns about the porkbarreling, but I want to
say this. One of two things is going to happen around here in the
Senate: Either the Appropriations Committee controls the entire agenda
and does the things that we continue to see in ever increasing
numbers--and I have been tracking it for many years; every year the
Appropriations Committee adds more and more projects that are not
authorized every year; and this year it is a big jump--or we are going
to stop it; or we are going to have a change in the rules that comports
with the Web site of the Appropriations Committee; that is, that no
appropriation will be made that is unauthorized and no appropriation
will exceed the authorized level either in an appropriations bill or in
a conference report.
It is a pretty simple rule. And it would be subject to a point of
order.
Now, there are times where appropriations have to be made, and that
is where the point of order would come in. But unless we change the
rules the way this body goes--I suggest to my colleagues that they
understand we can have nice hearings.
We have some very interesting hearings in the Commerce Committee on a
broad variety of subjects. It is great. It is the most intellectually
stimulating experience I have ever had in my service on the Commerce
Committee and on the Armed Services Committee, of which I have been a
member since 1987.
I find it extremely enjoyable. The discussions are wonderful. I learn
more about how our military is conducting their operations, how we are
planning for the future. But do not think, as members of the
authorizing committee, you will have the slightest effect on what is
done in this body.
I am not going to take too much longer, but I will just make a
reference. In 1997--since the Senator from Hawaii is here--there was a
proposal put in an appropriations bill to build two ships in
Mississippi. And certain waivers were made in those requirements. In
return for that, those ships would operate from the State of Hawaii.
About $1 billion worth of taxpayers' money was on the line.
I said, this is crazy. You can't do this. This is outrageous. Do you
know what happened a few weeks ago? The company went bankrupt. There
are two hulls sitting in the State of Mississippi. The taxpayers are
already on the hook for $300-some million, and it will probably rise to
$1 billion.
If that proposal had gone through the Commerce Committee, it never
would have seen the light of day because, on its face, it was crazy. To
give a 30-year or 20-year, or whatever it is, exclusivity to a cruise
line in return for them being built with taxpayers' dollars, there was
no way it was going to succeed. And I said so at the time.
So now the taxpayers are on the hook for $1 billion.
We are talking about real money. What is going on here? It is because
we are violating the process and the rules for the way we should
operate. Perhaps this Boeing deal would have gotten some consideration
in a very different fashion. Probably what would have resulted is that
we would have authorized the purchase of three or four 767s and then in
the following year we would have authorized some more, depending on
what the administration wanted. But now we are putting in 100 airplanes
that weren't in the top 60 requirements the Air Force told the Congress
and the American people they needed. After 10 years, one-third to one-
fourth of their lifespan, we give them back. How does anybody justify
this kind of procedure?
I suggest that the Senate look at itself. I can't speak for the
House. The Senate ought to look at itself. What are we doing? What do
we do here? I think I may be one of four or five Senators who has
examined this bill. I may be one of four or five who has looked at this
bill because I have about 10 staffers leafing through it trying to
figure out what is in it. Everybody certainly wants to go home. I
understand that. That is why I will not talk too much longer.
I said on the floor of the Senate that the Department of Defense
appropriations bill would be the last bill we considered because it
would have the most pork in it because everybody would want to go home
and nobody would want to look at it. This is a bill that we received
sometime this afternoon or late morning, this is the legislation, $343
billion. What is it full of? Does anybody know? I have had about 10
staffers trying to leaf through it and find out. We have already found
billions of dollars of unauthorized projects.

[[Page S13842]]

This kind of behavior cannot go on. It can't go on. You will lose the
confidence of the American people. You will lose their faith that you
are representing them and their tax dollars and their priorities.
This is called war profiteering: On the 21st of December, the last
bill, the last train loaded up, nobody has read it, and we vote for it.
We all vote for it because, of course, we are in a war. We can't not do
that. I won't. But the fact is, we better change the way we are doing
business, and we ought to look at ourselves and see if we are proper
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
More importantly, are we proper stewards of our Nation's defense? Are
we placing our national priorities for our military and the men and
women in the military and their needs first?
This is going to be a long war on terrorism. We can't afford to put
all this stuff in a Defense appropriations bill that has nothing to do
with defense. We can't load it up with all this pork for the Salt Lake
City Olympics. We can't give sweetheart deals to cruise lines.
Early next year when we come back, I will propose a change in the
rules of the Senate. I hope it will be considered by many of my
colleagues. I know it probably won't be considered by those on the
Appropriations Committee because now they have all the power. But I
believe that this is a body of equals, of 100 equal Senators. Some are
elected to our majority; some are chairmen and ranking members of
committees and, obviously, have more power than others. But we are
equals when it comes time to do what we should be able to do with the
taxpayers' dollars.
The power is now in the hands of the Appropriations Committee and
those members of the Appropriations Committees. You read these things.
First you laugh, and then you cry. It is really unbelievable. I laughed
when I saw $75,000 for the Reindeer Herders' Association. I cried when
I saw $6 million for the airport in Juneau. We need to upgrade airports
all over America.

I was very disturbed when I saw that for the byways program, last
year 40 States got money for the Scenic Byways Program; this year it is
11. I was very disturbed when I saw the Transportation Appropriations
Committee took $453 million out of the formula for highway fund
distribution to the States and distributed it among the States of the
appropriators. How do you justify that?
We debated for a week in the Senate on that formula. I didn't like
the result because Arizona receives less money from Washington in our
taxpayers' dollars than we send, but I accepted the verdict of the
entire 100 Senators. Now hundreds of millions of dollars that should be
fairly distributed under that formula were taken by the Transportation
appropriators without a debate, without a hearing, and distributed to
the States of the appropriators.
That kind of thing cannot continue. It cannot continue or it renders
meaningless not only the nonappropriators but the debate we had. Why
did we waste a week debating the TEA-21 formula. Because we thought it
was important. We thought that was the way the money would be
distributed. Then the Appropriations Committee takes that money and
redistributes it, coincidentally, to the States of the members of the
Appropriations Committee. We can't continue doing this.
I know the hour is late. I apologize to my colleagues if I have
inconvenienced them. But I warned them weeks ago that the last train
would be the Defense appropriations bill, and everybody would want to
vote for it and leave.
I just hope that a document this big, with this much money, $343
billion in taxpayers' money, that before we vote on something such as
this again, at least let's look at it and see what it contains.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to set the
record straight with respect to a good deal of misinformation which has
been circulating about Federal support for the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. In fact, earlier today, one of our
colleagues took the floor to condemn the funding Congress has provided
for the 2002 Olympics. I listened carefully to his remarks. I have to
say that if his understanding of the situation were true, I could
understand how he feels. Unfortunately, however, I believe he and
others have relied on incomplete and distorted press accounts which
are, simply, a disservice to the Olympic spirit that a majority of
Americans have raced to embrace. Most of these distortions seem to have
originated with an article in the December 10, 2001 edition of Sports
Illustrated. The article, ironically entitled ``Snow Job,'' is in fact
a snow job itself.
The thrust of the criticisms to which I refer appears to be an
incorrect assumption that, in seeking support for the Olympic Games,
the State of Utah is somehow attempting to enrich itself unfairly at
the expense of American taxpayers. Nonsense. Poppycock. Malarky. What
those who race to criticize our Olympic games fail to consider is that
these are the world's Olympic Games, a time-honored tradition which our
nation is so fortunate to be hosting in February. I find these slams
against the Olympic Games particularly discouraging given the fact that
tomorrow the Olympic torch will arrive on Capitol Hill. And I cannot
fail to note that it was this very body, only days ago, that
unanimously authorized the torch to be carried to our Capitol, and some
are here today questioning our support for that effort.
Enthusiasm has been building across the country as the torch makes
its way from Athens to Atlanta, and now from Atlanta to Washington to
Salt Lake. Hundreds of thousands of spectators have been lining the
streets, cheering on the torch-bearers as they carry the Olympic flame
throughout the country. We have all been so heartened to see citizens
from all walks of life passing the torch, honoring everyday heroes. The
message of the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Torch Relay is ``Light the Fire
Within.'' The flame symbolizes the spirit and passion of individuals
who inspire others. The young people who make great sacrifices to
become Olympic champions are certainly heroes. The flame celebrates not
only the Olympians, but people of all walks of life who have inspired
others.
While the Torch Relay is only a part of the Olympics, it is symbolic
of the fire and passion for excellence that the games are all about. it
is ironic that a publication which has staked its reputation on
America's passion for athleticism now just weeks before the opening
ceremony seeks to diminish the glory of the games by sensationalizing
an issue that has been scrutinized and laid to rest months ago. It is
also personally discouraging to me that one of our colleagues would
seize this one article, one story among a vast sea of positive
journalism on the Olympics, as a populist club in a years-long crusade
to curb unwise and unneeded Federal spending. Good motive. Wrong
target.
Those of our colleagues who are interested in a fair and balanced
analysis of Olympic spending should consult the November, 2001 General
Accounting Office, GAO, report, ``Olympic Games Costs to Plan and Stage
the Games in the United States.'' And if you have any problem getting a
copy of the report, let me know and I'll send it right over. The GAO
study debunks many of the criticisms and draws an accurate picture
which should put into proper perspective many of the misconceptions
that are circulating. As any fair-minded reader can glean from the
extensive GAO analysis, the Sports Illustrated article compares apples
to oranges when calculating the costs of the various Olympic planning
events that have taken place in this country. For example, critics of
Olympic spending often compare transportation improvements in Utah to
those in Lake Placid, a small rural community.
The article also fails to take into consideration the passage of time
and the changing scope of the Olympics as the international
communities' participation in the Olympics has grown. Most
disappointing, the article to fails to demonstrate an understanding of
federal funding of state highway projects and the costs associated with
highway projects already in the planning stages for federal funding.
Earlier, our colleague decried that the Olympic Games will cost about
$1.5 billion. Wrong again. Actually, it is over that amount. But as the
GAO report makes perfectly clear, Federal support only accounts for 18
percent of that total. In truth, as the GAO analysis makes clear, the
total projected cost, both public and private, of staging the 2002
Winter Olympic and

[[Page S13843]]

Paralympic Games, excluding additional security requirements resulting
from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, is $1.9 billion. Of this
total, GAO estimates that $342 million will be provided by the federal
government, 18 percent. GAO also documents that the State of Utah will
provide $150 million. That is eight percent, or almost half the Federal
amount provided by the 50 States for this international effort.
Local governments alone are providing four percent, or $75 million.
And the Salt Lake Organizing Committee has raised the vast majority of
the funding, $1.3 billion. That is 70 percent. This represents the hard
work of hundreds of people who have spent weeks and months raising
private donations. This is a true public-private partnership, which
shows America at its best. So why are we not racing to praise this
effort, rather than condemn it? The GAO report levels the playing field
by making more accurate funding comparisons with previous Olympic Games
held in the United States. Rather than using a dollar to dollar
comparison, a distorted calculation, the GAO report uses a percentage
comparison, a better gauge to assess the true costs to the Federal
government.
For the edification of my colleagues, I would like to point out that
a second report will be published shortly that compares the 2002 Winter
Salt Lake Winter Olympics with Olympic games in other countries. This
report will be even more enlightening with regard to total cost growth
for the Olympic games and to the extent other governments have
subsidized the Olympics. The GAO report indicates that while the total
costs for staging the U.S. Olympic games, particularly the winter
games, have grown, the percentage of federal participation has remained
fairly constant taking into consideration increasing security
requirements due to the bomb incident in Atlanta and events since
September 11, 2001.
In fact, the Sports Illustrated article attempts to throw a negative
spin on security spending for the Olympics by stating that
``Surprisingly, all but $40 million of the $240 million in security
spending was approved before September 11.'' Authors of the article
fail to appreciate that a great majority of the security money was
dedicated before September 11 because the intelligence community had
knowledge of the growing terrorist threat in the world.
After September 11, the fact that security required little revision
is testimony to the thoroughness in Olympic security planning and
preparation. For any of my colleagues who still remain unconvinced, I
urge you to review the GAO report and obtain a true picture of federal
support for the Olympic Games.
I also want to address specifically the issue of federal funding for
an area that has received the most attention in the press and
elsewhere, yet is perhaps the least understood. This concerns federal
funding for Utah transportation projects over the last five years. It
has been a popular parlor game to criticize funding for Olympic
transportation costs. Many naysayers have rushed to judgment incorrect
judgment I might add assuming that any construction project underway in
Utah must be a direct result of the Olympic Games and that the funding
must be coming from sources outside Utah.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The indiscriminate and
arbitrary inclusion of all transportation costs in federal funding
figures for the 2002 Olympics have dramatically skewed the numbers to
incorrectly support the allegation that Utah has gotten more than its
fair share of Federal transportation dollars because of the Olympics.
In fact, the Sports Illustrated article is particularly guilty of this
erroneous assumption.
The article's $1.5 billion price tag for the Salt Lake Olympics
includes well over $800 million in transportation projects that were
not designed specifically for the Olympics. Let me address the three
largest projects that have attracted considerable attention and set the
record straight.
First, let me address the North/South Light Rail in Salt Lake City.
Since 1983, the Utah Transit Authority has planed a light rail system
to handle the increased traffic in and around Salt Lake City on a daily
basis. The system design calls for two connected light rail lines one
running north and south from downtown Salt Lake City south to Sandy
City, and a second east/west line connecting downtown with Salt Lake
International Airport and the University of Utah. The system is
designed to be built in phases with the first phase winning approval by
the Federal Transit Administration, FTA, through a rigorous competitive
process, in 1996.
Under this process, FTA is required to rank proposed projects
according to a number of objective criteria and to select those
projects that are ranked highest. The criteria address such areas as
ridership, mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operational
efficiencies, and cost effectiveness. It is important to remember that
the project must meet the FTA criteria before it is ever considered for
federal funding and must compete with other projects. The first phase
of the program, the North/South line, was found worthy and funded by
both Federal and state transportation monies. This action was
completely independent of the Olympics.
The North/South line was completed in December 1999 at a total
project cost of $312.5 million, of which $241.3 million was paid by the
federal government. The State of Utah paid $61.2 million which
represents 20 percent of the bill. This is in keeping with the
traditional split for state transportation projects, the state can fund
as little as 20 percent and the federal as much as 80 percent of the
project costs.
It is important to note that this light rail project benefits all
Salt Lake City citizens. Not only does it help the poor who are unable
to afford cars but it also draws commuters out of cars thus helping the
environment. Everyone benefits from greater mobility and better air
quality. From the opening of the line in 1999, ridership has far
exceeded expectations and it has continued to rise. Again, this project
was not built or funded as an Olympic project--it was approved by the
Administration and Congress based on a detailed analysis of the merits
of the project itself and the long-term transportation needs of the
Salt Lake Valley.
The University Connector Light Rail is the second phase of the light
rail program. It will run from downtown Salt Lake City to the
University of Utah. In 2000, the Administration and Congress approved a
full funding grant agreement, allowing the Utah Transit Authority to
begin construction. The tremendous success of the North/South light
rail line was a key factor in the decision by Congress and the
Administration to approve construction. Like the first phase, this
phase was approved by FTA pursuant to a rigorous evaluation process.
However, once the project was deemed to qualify under the normal
Federal guidelines, the Administration did choose to accelerate it
based on a possibility that it could be completed before the Olympics.
Nevertheless, everyone, including the Congress, recognized that there
was a possibility that the segment would not be completed in time for
the Olympic Games and, therefore, the agreement included provisions
allowing for the temporary halt of construction with resumption
following the Games.
Fortunately, UTA is on schedule to complete the project and therefore
the extension will be operating during the Olympics. However, it is
important to note that this project was never deemed necessary for the
Olympic Games by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee; in fact,
operations on the line will be suspended for opening and closing
ceremonies at Rice-Eccles Olympic Stadium, which is served by the
University Connector. The cost of the project will be $118.5 million
with $84.0 million federally funded. Without a doubt, the most
misunderstood of all the Utah transportation projects is the I-15
reconstruction. This $1.59 billion project has been characterized as an
Olympic project funded by the Federal government. Not true.

It must be remembered that Utah is a crossroads of the West and the
I-15 interstate highway is critical to regional shipping and other
transportation needs. It benefits everyone in the region, including
those in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Idaho. The
project was planned long before the Games, in the mid-1980s in fact.
The I-15 improvements address additional capacity needs resulting from
normal growth in the Salt Lake Valley and correct some deplorable
infrastructure problems such as cracks in

[[Page S13844]]

roadbeds and crumbling bridges. Critics also fail to recognize that the
I-15 project has been a bargain for the Federal government by any
analysis. The Federal taxpayer is only funding $210 million out of a
$1.59 billion project. While the Federal government has authorized
another $243 million in spending for this project in Utah for advance
construction authority, these additional Federal funds may not be used.
Based on current projections, the most the Federal government may
contribute is 25-30 percent of the project cost well below the
customary 80 percent Federal share. Instead of criticizing our State,
we should be applauded. Some here today might ask, ``Why did Utah pick
up the lion's share of the I-15 reconstruction?''
Utah, though a relatively small state, is seriously committed to
transportation improvements as demonstrated by the dedication of state
funds for transportation projects. The Utah State Legislature, during
the 1997 session, established an aggressive state funding program. The
program, known as the Centennial Highway Fund, CHF, will provide for
over $3 billion for transportation improvements across the entire state
over a ten year period. The I-15 reconstruction project is the premier
project funded under the CHF program. Clearly, the annual allocation of
about $200 million per year in federal highway funds is insufficient to
address all of the transportation needs of the state.
I want to point out that these three transportation projects, rather
than a grab of federal money based on some loose association with the
Olympics, are in fact long-planned and well thought-out projects to
benefit the local community. The light rail system has been nationally
noted as a shining example of urban/suburban Smart Growth. And
interestingly, all three projects were considered and planned as a
Joint Transportation Corridor which was one of the first in the country
submitted for an environmental impact assessment. Today such joint
corridors are common, but the Utah projects were first among this
trend.
Finally, I take great exception with the Sports Illustrated article's
sensational innuendos about some Utah businessmen. Did these
businessmen benefit from road improvements due to the Olympic venues
held on or near their property? Undoubtedly. However, we must remember
that these are businessmen who have invested in property and
infrastructure over the course of many years. They have taken risks by
investing in the growth of the community.
As a result, many others have benefitted from their efforts. When
federal money is spent on any state transportation project, the
citizens of that state benefit. Some are richer; some are poorer than
others. The Sports Illustrated article holds the rest of the United
States to one standard and Utah to another. I do not consider this
responsible journalism.
In closing, I want to express to my colleagues and the American
people my appreciation for their overwhelming support of the Olympic
Games. The Salt Lake Games promise to be a fantastic family event, one
that I hope that the whole nation will enjoy. We should not let
populist politics in Washington douse the Olympic flame in Utah.

Procurement of Smokeless Nitrocellulose

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Senator
Inouye and Senator Stevens and the Defense Appropriations Staff for
their cooperation in securing $2 million for the procurement of
smokeless nitrocellulose in this year's Department of Defense, DoD,
Appropriations Bill. Indeed, the provision included in this legislation
will help ensure that our nation will continue to have at least two
domestic suppliers of smokeless nitrocellulose.
The $2 million direct procurement for this vital product will
reestablish Green Tree Chemical Technologies of Parlin, New Jersey as a
viable competitor for the DoD industrial base. Furthermore, this
purchase will enable Green Tree to be viable for the long term. It will
continue to produce the qualified material for DoD programs and provide
the only other production base in the United States for what is a
volatile product.
Mr. CORZINE. I concur with my colleague with regard to the importance
of the smokeless nitrocellulose provision included in this year's
defense spending bill. In fact the importance of this provision cannot
be overemphasized because Green Tree now produces the qualified
nitrocellulose for the Trident II, LOSAT, TOW and HELLFIRE missile
programs. Had the provision providing the $2 million procurement of
nitrocellulose been omitted, these important missile programs could
have been disrupted because re-qualifying DoD materials can be costly
and time consuming.
Mr. CARPER. My two colleagues from New Jersey are correct in their
assessment of the importance of this $2 million appropriation for
smokeless nitrocellulose. Earlier this year, an anti-competitive joint
venture, which would have centralized the production of this key
ingredient in Defense Department programs, threatened Green Tree.
Indeed, had the Federal Trade Commission not found the joint venture to
be monopolistic, Green Tree would have been forced to close its New
Jersey plant. The provision was inserted to the conference report to
serve the same purpose as an amendment added to the Senate DoD
appropriations bill to provide Green Tree with a $2 million production
grant.
By including this vital provision, Congress will ensure the survival
of Green Tree and enhance and sustain the competitive domestic
production base for smokeless nitrocellulose which plays a key role in
many DoD weapons programs.
Mr. BIDEN. I join my colleagues in thanking Senator Inouye and
Senator Stevens for their assistance in keeping this funding in the
final bill. As my colleagues have indicated, smokeless nitrocellulose
is a critical precursor for the ammunition of a number of vital weapons
systems. By ensuring that more than one company produces it here in the
United States, we are being both fiscally responsible and prudent.

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN HEALTH ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT OF A HAND HELD WATER
QUALITY DETECTION DEVICE

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year
2002 Appropriations Act for the Department of Defense, I would like to
emphasize the importance of portable water quality detection equipment
in homeland security. Such devices are a important tools for ensuring a
safe water supply for all Americans.
In Michigan, like the rest of the country, there is a vital need to
implement responsible water quality monitoring and tracking due to
serious threats to public health through raw sewage discharges into its
lakes and the industrial outfalls that pollute lakes such as Lake St.
Clair. Since September 11, this need is even more important. We must
protect sources of drinking and recreational water for our citizens by
developing technologies that can identify and quantify hazardous water
pollutants in near ``real time''.
Four county health departments, Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and St. Clair,
together with the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research and Development
Center, TARDEC, and Wayne State University, along with the support of
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, comprise a consortium
that is proposing to prove/develop methodologies to develop field
portable equipment to detect chemical and biological contaminants
including warfare agents. These technologies will accomplish the
objectives of protecting public health and the health of our military
by providing a valuable tool that can determine water quality.
September 11 has placed a new urgency on the need to implement a
field detection program to ensure safe potable drinking water supplies
for civilians as well as military personnel. Funding provided in this
bill is essential to the Southeast Michigan Health Association's
research and I would urge the Environmental Protection Agency to make
this project a priority when distributing the funds provided in this
bill.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Michigan has a very important point. I
hope that the people at the Environmental Protection Agency will take
note of his remarks.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from West Virginia and the committee for
their hard work in putting together this important legislation.

[[Page S13845]]

office of justice programs

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the supplemental spending portion of the
Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, H.R.
3338, including funding for the Department of Justice Office of Justice
Programs' Justice Assistance account. Among the authorized uses of
these funds are research and development to support counter-terrorism
technologies, training for first responders, and grants for State and
local domestic preparedness support. The scope of events for which our
communities are attempting to prepare is broad, including release of
radiological, chemical or biological agents, explosions, armed
confrontations, and hostage-taking. While the details of how these
situations would affect a community and the appropriate responses
differ due to local circumstances, weather, and topography, similar
methods for planning for, detecting, and monitoring these events may
apply nationwide.
It has come to my attention that technology and supporting online
services are available to communities to provide emergency responders
with the information necessary to manage and mitigate damage from such
terrorist acts that have the potential to endanger individuals and
entire communities. These systems are capable of monitoring from a
remote location the release of radiological, chemical, and biological
agents over open terrain or urban environments. Taking into
consideration real-time weather conditions from multiple meteorological
sensors, these systems can assess the need for evacuations and the
potential for human loss or harm and physical damage.
I appreciate that the Office of Justice Programs works hard, both
within its research and development arm, the National Institute for
Justice, and in coordination with other Departments and agencies, to
develop new technologies and standardized equipment and training to
assist State and local responders with their preparations for these
type of events. It seems an appropriate use the funds provided by this
bill to the Office of Justice Programs to assess the capabilities of
such systems and their utility for State and local entities with
domestic terrorism responsibilities, and to work with other departments
and agencies to include such systems in standard equipment lists for
domestic terrorism response. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, who
is the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee overseeing the
Department of Justice, whether he agrees with that assessment.
Mr. GREGG. I agree that new technologies of the type described by the
Republican Leader may indeed prove useful to local responders. I
encourage the Office of Justice Programs to consider such systems and
work to include such systems in its standard equipment list for
domestic terrorism response if such systems prove effective.
Mr. LOTT. I thank my distinguished colleague for his assistance in
this matter.

boeing 767 leasing provision

Mrs. MURRAY. I rise to engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the
Boeing 767 leasing provision included in the fiscal year 2002 Defense
Appropriations bill.
Ms. CANTWELL. I rise to join my colleague from the State of
Washington to discuss this matter.
Mr. INOUYE. I would be pleased to discuss this matter with the
Senators.
Mr. STEVENS. As would I.
Mr. ROBERTS. This is a matter that is important to the Nation, our
national security, and the great State of Kansas. I, too, would like to
join with my colleagues to review the leasing issue.
Mrs. MURRAY. I agree with my colleague from Kansas. The aging of our
military air refueling tanker fleet has become a critical military
operations issue-one that requires a bold solution now. The Air Force's
fleet of over 500 KC-135 air refueling tankers is, on average, more
than 40 years old. In fact, the oldest of these tankers--100 KC-135E
models--are close to 45 years in age. New 767 air refueling tankers are
already under development and could begin replacing the KC-135 Es
within 2 years. There would be no up-front development costs to the
military.
Ms. CANTWELL. Of equal importance is the need to support our
commercial and military industrial base in the wake of the September 11
terrorist attacks. The provision included in the fiscal year 2002
Defense Appropriations bill will allow the Air Force to meet a pressing
military need and ensure continued, strong demand for the Boeing 767
aircraft. In this regard, it is my understanding that the provision
included in the bill permits the leasing of up to 100 purpose Boeing
767 aircraft in a commercial configuration for up to 10 years. Is that
correct?
Mr. INOUYE. That is correct. And contrary to some reports, this
provision is permissive in nature. I believe this provision provides
the right solution at the right time to address the Air Force's needs.
Mr. STEVENS. I agree with Senator Inouye's remarks. Not only with
this provisions allow for timely delivery of critical military assets,
but it requires that the leasing costs be 10 percent less than the life
cycle costs of the aircraft were they to be purchased outright.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is my understanding that Italy and Japan have
selected the 767 tanker for their air forces and that 767s are being
modified in Wichita already. Italy intends to buy four of the tankers
and Japan intends to purchase at least one. I also know that this same
tanker configuration is being offered commercially to other countries
to meet their in-flight fueling requirements. Is that the Senator from
Alaska's understanding as well?
Mr. STEVENS. It is. There are a number of other nations and at least
one private company who have expressed an interest in procuring general
purpose, commercially configured tanker aircraft.
Mrs. MURRAY. Then would you say that a commercial market exists for
these aircraft?
Mr. STEVENS. I would.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from Hawaii, would you agree that a
general purpose aircraft that will meet the general requirements of
many customers; that can operate as a passenger aircraft, a freighter,
a passenger/freighter ``combination'' aircraft, or as an aerial
refueling tanker; and is available to either government or private
customers meets the definition of a general purpose, commercially
configured aircraft?
Mr. INOUYE. I believe that assessment makes sense.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.
Ms. CANTWELL. The opportunity has been presented to the Air Force and
the Boeing company to come together to make this leasing provision work
for the benefit of our national security and our industrial base. I
urge them to do so quickly and cooperatively.
Mr. ROBERTS. I agree and pledge my support to making this effort a
successful one.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senators for their remarks and for their
pledges of support.
Mr. INOUYE. I join with my friend, the Senator from Alaska, to thank
you for your remarks and let you know that Senator Stevens and I will
closely follow the progress of this new program.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record a
preliminary scoring by the Budget Committee of the conference report to
H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2002. I will be submitting a final, official statement for the record
after CBO completes its scoring of the conference report.
Preliminarily, the conference report provides $317.207 billion in
nonemergency discretionary budget authority, almost all of which is for
defense activities. That budget authority will result in new outlays in
2002 of $212.907 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority
are taken into account, nonemergency discretionary outlays for the
conference report total $309.256 billion in 2002. By comparison, the
Senate-passed bill provided $317.206 billion in nonemergency budget
authority, which would have resulted in $309.365 billion in outlays.
In addition, H.R. 3338 includes $20 billion in emergency-designated
funding. That funding represents the second $20 billion previously
authorized by and designated as emergency spending under Public Law
107-38, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from
and Response to Attacks on the United States. An estimate of the impact
on outlays from the

[[Page S13846]]

emergency funding is not available at this time.
The conference report to H.R. 3338 violates section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 because it exceeds the subcommittee's
Section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays.
Similarly, because the committee's allocation is tied to the current
law cap on discretionary spending, H.R. 3338 also violates section
312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. The bill includes language that
raises the cap on discretionary category spending to $681.441 billion
in budget authority and $670.206 billion in outlays and the cap on
conservation category outlays to $1.473 billion. However, because that
language is not yet law, the budget committee cannot increase the
appropriations committee's allocation by the amount of the pending cap
increase at this time, putting it in violation of the two points of
order.
In addition, by including language that increases the cap on
discretionary spending, adjusts the balances on the pay-as-you-go
scorecard for 2001 and 2002 to zero, and directs the scoring of a
provision in the bill, H.R. 3338 also violates section 306 of the
Congressional Budget Act. Finally, the bill violates section
311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act by exceeding the spending
aggregates assumed in the 2002 budget resolution for fiscal year 2002.
The conference report to H.R. 3338 violates several budget act points
of order; however, it is good bill that addresses the Nation's defense
needs, including the defense of our homeland. The President and
Congressional leaders from both parties agreed in the wake of the
September 11 attack that more money was needed to respond to the
terrorists and to protect our homeland. This report follows that
bipartisan agreement and includes language that raises the cap on
discretionary spending. I urge its adoption.
I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee
scoring of H.R. 3338 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 3338, CONFERENCE REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2002 PRELIMINARY SCORING
[Spending comparisons--Conference Report, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose \2\ Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:
Budget Authority............... 317,207 282 317,489
Outlays........................ 309,256 282 309,538
Senate 302(b) allocation:\1\
Budget Authority............... 181,953 282 182,235
Outlays........................ 181,616 282 181,898
President's request:
Budget Authority............... 319,130 282 311,224
Outlays........................ 310,942 282 311,224
House-passed:
Budget Authority............... 317,207 282 317,489
Outlays........................ 308,873 282 309,155
Senate-passed:
Budget Authority............... 317,206 282 317,488
Outlays........................ 309,365 282 309,647

CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO

Senate 302(b) allocation:\1\
Budget Authority............... 135,254 0 135,254
Outlays........................ 127,640 0 127,640
President's request:
Budget Authority............... (1,923) 0 (1,923)
Outlays........................ (1,686) 0 (1,686)
House-passed \2\
Budget Authority............... 0 0 0
Outlays........................ 383 0 383
Senate-passed \2\
Budget Authority............... 1 0 1
Outlays........................ (109) 0 (109)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the
conference report to the Senate 302(b) allocation.
\2\ All but $3 million of the nonemergency budget authority provided in
the conference report is for defense activities.

Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions. In addition, the
conference report includes $20 billion in emergency funding related to
the September 11th attacks. An estimate of the outlay impact from the
emergency spending is not available at this time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise once again to address the issue of
wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case the bill
funding the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002. In provisions
too numerous to mention in detail, this bill, time and again, chooses
to fund pork barrel projects with little if any relationship to
national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and
underfunded, urgent defense priorities.
As I pointed out previously to this body on December 7th, the massive
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill Conference Report, totaling
$343 billion, would be the last business in the Senate and so it is.
Not because of its level of difficulty, but because it is so easy to
hide the mother of all pork projects in a large massive bill or maybe
it wasn't because we found it as well as many other groups. For
example, let me read a few comments.
Our Nation is at war, a war that has united Americans behind a common
goal--to find the enemies who terrorized the United States on September
11th and bring them to justice. In pursuit of this goal, our servicemen
and women are serving long hours, under extremely difficult conditions,
far away from their families. Many other Americans also have been
affected by this war and its economic impact, whether they have lost
their jobs, their homes, or have had to drastically cut expenses this
holiday season. The weapons we have given them, for all their
impressive effects, are, in many cases, neither in quantity nor
quality, the best that our government can provide.
For instance, stockpiles of the precision guided munitions that we
have relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear so effectively on
difficult, often moving targets, with the least collateral damage
possible, are dangerously depleted after only 10 weeks of war in
Afghanistan. This is just one area of critical importance to our
success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be
allocating scarce resources to our national defense.
Yet, despite the realities of war, and the responsibilities they
impose on Congress as much the President, the Senate Appropriations
Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its usual blatant
use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some
worthy purpose, but that certainly impair our national defense by
depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding.
Even in the middle of a war, a war of monumental consequences, the
Appropriations Committee is intent on using the Department of Defense
as an agency for dispensing corporate welfare. It is a terrible shame
that in a time of maximum emergency, the United States Senate would
persist in spending money requested and authorized only for our Armed
Forces to satisfy the needs or the desires of interests that are
unrelated to defense needs.
The Investor's Business Daily, on December 18, 2001, had this to say
in an article titled At the Trough: Welfare Checks To Big Business Make
No Sense, ``Among the least justified outlays is corporate welfare.
Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that business subsidies will
run $87 billion this year, up a third since 1997, Although President
Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate welfare this year,
Congress has proved resistant. Indeed, many post-September 11 bailouts
have gone to big business. Boeing is one of the biggest beneficiaries.
Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat from Washington, is pushing a
substantial increase in research and development support for Boeing and
other defense contractors, the purchase of several retrofitted Boeing
767s and the leasing of as many as 100 767s for purposes ranging from
surveillance to refueling. Boeing has been hurt by the storm that hit
airlines, since many companies have slashed orders. Yet China recently
agreed to buy 30 of the company's planes, and Boeing's problems predate
the September 11 attack. It is one thing to compensate the airlines for
forcibly shutting them down; it is quite another to toss money at big
companies caught in a down demand cycle. Boeing, along with many other
major exporters, enjoys its own federal lending facility, the Export-
Import Bank. ExIm uses cheap loans, loan guarantees and loan insurance
to subsidize purchases of U.S. products. The bulk of the money goes to
big business that sell airplanes, machinery, nuclear power plants and
the like. Last year alone, Boeing benefitted from $3.3 billion in
credit subsidies. While corporate America gets the profits, taxpayers
get the losses. . . .The Constitution authorizes a Congress to promote
the general welfare, not enrich Boeing and other corporate behemoths.
There is no warrant to take from Peter so Paul can pay higher corporate
dividends. In the aftermath of September 11, the American people can
ill afford budget profligacy in Washington. If Congress is not willing
to cut corporate welfare at a time of national crisis, what is it
willing to cut?''

[[Page S13847]]

As I mentioned last week when the Senate version of the Defense
Appropriations bill was being debated and--now carried through the
Conference Committee there is a sweet deal for the Boeing Company that
I'm sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to
the other. Attached is a legislative provision to the Fiscal Year 2002
Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would require the Air
Force to lease one hundred 767 aircraft for use as tankers for $26
million apiece each year for the next 10 years. Moreover, in Conference
Committee the appropriators added four 737 aircraft for executive
travel mostly benefitting Members of Congress. We have been told that
these aircraft will be assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air
Force Base. Since the 10-year leases have yet to be signed, the cost of
the planes cannot be calculated, but it costs roughly $85 million to
buy one 737, and a lease costs significantly more over the long term.
The cost to taxpayers?
Two billion and six hundred million dollars per year for the aircraft
plus another $1.2 billion in military construction funds to modify KC-
135 hangars to accommodate their larger replacements, with a total
price tag of more than $30 billion over 10 years when the costs of the
737 leases are also included. This leasing plan is five times more
expensive to the taxpayer than an outright purchase, and it represents
30 percent of the Air Force's annual cost of its top 60 priorities. But
the most amazing fact is that this program is not actually among the
Air Force's top 60 priorities nor do new tankers appear in the 6-year
defense procurement plan for the Service!

That is right, when the Air Force told Congress in clear terms what
its top priorities were tankers and medical lift capability aircraft
weren't included as critical programs. In fact, within its top 30
programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that
would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet
fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and
fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and
rescue helicopters for downed pilots.
Let me say that again, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has
asked for several essential items that would directly support our
current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement
parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self
protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for
downed pilots.
This leasing program also will require $1.2 billion in military
construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are
too small for the new 767 aircraft. The taxpayers also will be on the
hook for another $30 million per aircraft on the front end to convert
these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the
end of the lease, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for $30
million more, to convert the aircraft back--pushing the total cost of
the Boeing sweetheart deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease. Mr.
President, that is waste that borders on gross negligence.
But this is just another example of Congress' political meddling and
of how outside special interest groups have obstructed the military's
ability to channel resources where they are most needed. I will repeat
what I've said many, many times before--the military needs less money
spent on pork and more spent to redress the serious problems caused by
a decade of declining defense budgets.
This bill includes many more examples where congressional
appropriators show that they have no sense of priority when it comes to
spending the taxpayers' money. The insatiable appetite in Congress for
wasteful spending grows more and more as the total amount of pork added
to appropriations bills this year--an amount totaling over $15 billion.
This defense appropriations bill also includes provisions to mandate
domestic source restrictions; these ``Buy America'' provisions directly
harm the United States and our allies. ``Buy America'' protectionist
procurement policies, enacted by Congress to protect pork barrel
projects in each Member's State or District, hurt military readiness,
personnel funding, modernization of military equipment, and cost the
taxpayer $5.5 billion annually. In many instances, we are driving the
military to buy higher-priced, inferior products when we do not allow
foreign competition. ``Buy America'' restrictions undermine DoD's
ability to procure the best systems at the least cost and impede
greater interoperability and armaments cooperation with our allies.
They are not only less cost-effective, they also constitute bad policy,
particularly at a time when our allies' support in the war on terrorism
is so important.
Secretary Rumsfeld and his predecessor, Bill Cohen, oppose this
protectionist and costly appropriation's policy. However, the
appropriations' staff ignores this expert advice when preparing the
legislative draft of the appropriations bills each year. In the defense
appropriations bill are several examples of ``Buy America'' pork--
prohibitions on procuring anchor and mooring chain components for Navy
warships; main propulsion diesel engines and propellers for a new class
of Navy dry-stores and ammunition supply ships; supercomputers; carbon,
alloy, or armor steel plate; ball and roller bearings; construction or
conversion of any naval vessel; and, other naval auxiliary equipment,
including pumps for all shipboard services, propulsion system
components such as engines, reduction gears, and propellers, shipboard
cranes, and spreaders for shipboard cranes.
Also buried in the smoke and mirrors of the appropriations markup is
what appears to be a small provision that has large implications on our
warfighting ability in Afghanistan and around the world. Without debate
or advice and counsel from the Committee on Armed Services, the
appropriators changed the policy on military construction which would
prohibit previous authority given to the President of the United
States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Service Secretaries to shift
military construction money within the MILCON account to more critical
military construction projects in time of war or national emergency.
The reason for this seemingly small change is to protect added pork in
the form of military construction projects in key states, especially as
such projects have historically been added by those Members who sit on
the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, at the expense,
Mr. President, of projects the Commander-in-Chief believes are most
needed to support our military overseas.
Does the appropriations committee have any respect for the
authorizing committees in the Senate?
I look forward to the day when my appearances on the Senate floor for
this purpose are no longer necessary. There is nearly $2.5 billion in
unrequested defense programs in the defense appropriations bill and
another $1.1 billion for additional supplemental appropriations not
directly related to defense that have been added by the Chairman of the
Committee. Consider what $3.6 billion when added to the savings gained
through additional base closings and more cost-effective business
practices could be used for. The problems of our armed forces, whether
in terms of force structure or modernization, could be more assuredly
addressed and our warfighting ability greatly enhanced. The public
expects more of us.
But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, blind to our
responsibilities in war, going about our business as usual.
I ask unanimous consent that the list of earmarks from the fiscal
year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill Conference Report
be placed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

FY 2002 Defense appropriations pork

[In millions]

DIVISION A....................................................

Operation and Maintenance, Army:
Fort Knox Distance Learning Program...............................2.1
Army Conservation and Ecosystem Management........................4.3
Fort Richardson, Camp Denali Water Systems........................0.6
Rock Island Bridge Repairs........................................2.0
Memorial Tunnel, Consequence Management..........................16.5
FIRES Programs Data...............................................6.8
Skid Steer Loaders................................................7.5
USARPAC Transformation Planning...................................8.5

[[Page S13848]]

USARPAC Command, Control, and Communications Upgrades.............3.2
Hunter UAV........................................................2.5
Field Pack-up Systems.............................................2.5
Unutilized Plant Capacity........................................17.5
SROTC--Air Battle Captain.........................................1.0
Joint Assessment Neurological Examination Equipment...............2.6
Repairs Ft. Baker.................................................1.0
Fires Program Data Capt...........................................6.8
Mobility Enhancement Study........................................0.5
Classified Programs, Undistributed...............................0.35
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
Naval Sea Cadet Corps.............................................1.0
Shipyard Apprentice Program.......................................7.8
PHNSY SRM........................................................12.8
Warfare Tactics PMRF.............................................20.4
Hydrographic Center of Excellence.................................2.5
UNOLS.............................................................1.5
Center of Excellence for Disaster Management and Humanitarian
Assistance......................................................4.3
Biometrics Support................................................2.5
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
Pacific Server Consolidation......................................8.5
Grand Forks AFB ramp refurbishment................................5.0
Wind Energy Fund..................................................0.5
University Partnership for Operational Support....................3.4
Hickam AFB Alternative Fuel Program...............................1.0
SRM Eielson Utilidors.............................................8.5
Civil Air Patrol Corporation......................................3.2
PACAF Strategic Airlift planning..................................1.7
Elmendorf AFB transportation infrastructure......................10.2
MTAPP.............................................................2.8
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
Civil Military programs, Innovative Readiness Training............8.5
DoDEA, Math Teacher Leadership....................................1.0
DoDEA, Galena IDEA................................................3.4
DoDEA, SRM........................................................5.0
OEA, Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor.................4.0
OEA, Fitzsimmons Army Hospital....................................3.8
OEA Barrow landfill relocation....................................3.4
OEA, Broadneck peninsula NIKE site................................1.0
OSD, Clara Barton Center..........................................1.0
OSD, Pacific Command Regional initiative..........................6.0
OEA, Adak airfield operations.....................................1.0
OSD, Intelligence fusion study....................................5.0
Free Markets......................................................1.4
Trustfund for demining and mine eviction.........................14.0
Impact aid.......................................................30.0
Legacy...........................................................12.9
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
Distributed Learning Project.....................................25.5
ECWCS.............................................................2.5
Camp McCain Simulator Center, trainer upgrades....................3.2
Fort Harrison Communications Infrastructure.......................1.0
Communications Network Equipment................................0.209
Multimedia classroom.............................................0.85
Camp McCain Training Site, roads..................................2.2
Full Time Support, 487 additional technicians....................11.2
Emergency Spill Response and Preparedness Program................0.79
Distance Learning................................................30.0
SRM reallocation.................................................25.0
Army Guard Education Program at NPS...............................2.0
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard:
Extended Cold Weather Clothing System.............................2.5
Defense Systems Evaluation........................................1.7
Eagle Vision (Air Guard)..........................................8.5
Bangor International Airport repairs..............................5.0
Military Techniques Costing Model.................................6.3
Angel Gate Academy................................................1.5
GSA Leased Vehicle Program.......................................1.75
Camp Gruber Regional Trade Center.................................2.4
Information Technology Management Training........................1.0
Rural Access to Broadband Technology..............................3.4
National Guard State Partnership Program..........................1.0
Aircraft Procurement, Army:
Oil debris detection and burn-off system..........................3.5
ATIRCM LRIP.......................................................7.0
Guardrail Mods....................................................5.0
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: Bradley
Reactive Armor Tiles.............................................20.0
Other Procurement, Army:
Automated Data Processing Equipment..............................14.0
Camouflage: ULCANS................................................4.0
Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner..........................................3.5
AN/TTC Single Shelter Switches w/Associated Support..............26.5
Blackjack Secure Facsimile........................................7.0
Trunked Radio System..............................................1.4
Modular Command Post..............................................2.5
Laundry Advance Systems (LADS)....................................3.0
Abrams & Bradley Interactive Skills Trainer.......................6.3
SIMNET...........................................................10.5
AFIST.............................................................8.3
Ft. Wainwright MOUT Instrumentation...............................6.5
Target Receiver Injection Module Threat Simulator.................4.0
Tactical Fire Trucks..............................................4.0
IFTE.............................................................15.0
Maintenance Automatic Identification Technology...................3.0
National Guard Distance Learning Courseware.......................8.0
Smart Truck.......................................................3.4
ULCANS............................................................4.0
Floating Crane....................................................7.0
2KW Military Tactical Generator...................................2.5
Firefighting Training System......................................1.2
Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure.................................1.2
GUARDFIST.........................................................3.0
Army Live Fire Ranges.............................................3.5
USARPAC C-4 suites................................................7.2
Aircraft Procurements, Navy:
JPATS (16 aircraft)..............................................44.6
ECP-583..........................................................24.0
PACT Trainer......................................................6.0
Direct Support Squadron Readiness Training........................4.5
UC-45.............................................................7.5
Other Procurement, Navy:
JEDMICS..........................................................11.5
Pacific Missile Range Equipment...................................6.0
IPDE Enhancement..................................................4.2
Pearl Harbor Pilot................................................4.3
AN/BPS-15H Navigation System......................................6.3
Tactical Communication On-Board Training..........................4.5
Air Traffic Control On-Board Trainer..............................2.8
WSN-7B............................................................7.0
Naval Shore Communications.......................................48.7
Missle Procurement, Air Force: NUDET Detection System............19.066
Other Procurement, Air Force:
CAP COM and ELECT.................................................7.0
Pacific AK Range Complex Mount Fairplay...........................6.3
UHF/VHF Radios for Mont Fairplay, Sustina.........................3.0
National Guard and Reserve Equipment:
Navy Reserve Misc. Equipment.....................................15.0
Marine Corps Misc. Equipment.....................................10.0
Air Force Reserve Misc. Equipment................................10.0
Army National Guard Misc. Equipment..............................10.0
Air Guard C-130.................................................219.7
Lasermarksmenship Training Center.................................8.5
UH-60 Blackhawk...................................................8.7
Engage Skills Training............................................4.2
Multirole Bridging Compound......................................15.7
Braley ODS.......................................................51.0
Heavy Equipment Training System...................................2.5
Reserve Composition System.......................................15.5
P19 Truck Crash...................................................3.5
Weapons Procurement, Navy: Drones and Decoys.......................14.9
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy:
Minehunter Swath..................................................1.0
Yard Boilers......................................................3.0
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army:
Environmental Quality Technology Dem/Val........................10.36
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities......................20.6
Defense Research Sciences Cold Weather Sensor Performance........1.0
Advanced Materials Processing.....................................3.0
FCS Composites Research...........................................2.5
AAN Multifunctional Materials.....................................1.5
HELSTF Solid State Heat Capacity..................................3.5
Photonics.........................................................2.5
Army COE Acoustics................................................3.5
Cooperative Energetics Initiatives................................3.5
TOW ITAS Cylindrical Battery Replacement..........................1.5
Cylindrical Zinc Air Battery for LWS..............................1.8
Heat Actuated Coolers.............................................1.0
Improved High Rate Alkaline Cells.................................1.0
Low Cost Reusable Alkaline (Manganese-Zinc) Cells.................0.6
Rechargeable Cylindrical Cell System..............................1.5
Waste Minimization and Pollution Research.........................2.0
Molecular and Computational Risk Assessment (MACERAC).............1.4
Center for Geosciences............................................1.5
Cold Regions Military Engineering.................................1.0
University Partnership for Operational Support (UPOS).............3.4
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS).............................3.0
DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility..............................15.0
Starstreak.......................................................16.0
Center for International Rehabilitation...........................1.4
Dermal Phase Meter................................................0.6
Minimally Invasive Surgery Simulator..............................1.4

[[Page S13849]]

Minimally Invasive Therapy........................................5.0
Anthropod-Borne Infectious Disease Control........................2.5
VCT Lung Scan.....................................................3.2
Tissue Engineering Research.......................................4.7
Monocional Anti-body based technology (Heteropolymer System)......3.0
Dye Targeted Laser Fusion.........................................3.4
Joint Diabetes Program............................................5.0
Center for Prostate Disease Research..............................6.4
Spine Research....................................................2.1
Brain Biology and Machine Initiative..............................1.8
Medical Simulation training initiative...........................0.75
TACOM Hybrid Vehicle..............................................1.0
N-STEP............................................................2.5
IMPACT............................................................3.5
Composite Body Parts..............................................1.4
Corrosion Prevention and Control Program..........................1.4
Mobile Parts Hospital.............................................5.6
Vehicle Body Armor Support System.................................3.3
Casting Emission Reduction Program................................5.8
Managing Army Tech. Environmental Enhancement.....................1.0
Visual Cockpit Optimization.......................................4.2
JCALS............................................................10.2
Electronic Commodity Pilot Program................................1.0
Battle Lab at Ft. Knox............................................3.5
TIME.............................................................10.0
Force Provider Microwave Treatment................................1.4
Mantech Program for Cylindrical Zinc Batteries....................1.8
Continuous Manufacturing Process for Mental Matrix Composities....2.6
Modular Extendable Rigid Wall Shelter.............................2.6
Combat Vehicle and Automotive technology.........................14.0
Auto research center..............................................2.0
Hydrogen DEM fuel cell vehicle demonstration......................5.0
Electronic Display Research.......................................9.0
Fuel Cell Power Systems...........................................2.5
Polymer Extrusion/Multilaminate...................................2.6
DoD Fuel Cell Test and Evaluation Center..........................5.1
Ft. Meade Fuel Cell Demo..........................................2.5
Biometrics........................................................5.1
Diabetes Project, Pittsburgh......................................5.1
Osteoporois Research..............................................2.8
Aluminum Reinforced Metal Matrix Composition......................2.5
Combat Vehicle Res Weight Reduction...............................6.0
Ft. Ord Celanup Demonstration Project.............................2.0
Vanadium Tech Program.............................................1.3
ERADS.............................................................2.0
Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutic Digital Tech.................1.3
Artifical Hip.....................................................3.5
Biosensor Research................................................2.5
Brain Biology and Machine Initiative..............................1.8
Cancer Center of Excellence (Notre Dame)..........................2.1
Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology......8.5
Center for Untethered Healthcare at Worcester Polytechnic
Institute.......................................................1.0
Continuous Expert Care Network Telemedicine Program...............1.5
Disaster Relief and Emergency Medical Services (DREAMS)...........8.0
Hemoglobin Based Oxygen Carrier...................................1.0
Hepatitas C.......................................................3.4
Joslin Diabetes Research-eye Care.................................4.2
LSTAT.............................................................2.5
Secure Telemedicine Technology Program............................2.0
Memorial Hermann Telemedicine Network.............................9.0
Monoclonal Antibodies.............................................1.0
Emergency Telemedicine Response and Advanced Technology Program...1.5
National Medical Testbed..........................................7.7
Neurofibromatosis Research Program...............................21.0
Neurology Gallo Center-alcoholism research........................5.6
Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research Program...................17.0
Polynitroxylated Hemogolbin.......................................1.0
SEAtreat cervical cancer visualization and treatment..............1.7
Smart Aortic Arch Catheter........................................1.0
National Tissue Engineering Center................................2.0
Center for Prostate Disease Research at WRAMC.....................6.4
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy:
Southeast Atlantic Coastal Observing System (SEA-COOS)............4.0
Marine Mammal Low Frequency Sound Research........................1.0
Maritime Fire Training/Barbers Point..............................2.6
3-D Printing Metalworking Project.................................2.5
Nanoscale Science and Technology Program..........................1.5
Nanoscale devices.................................................1.0
Advanced wateriet-21 project......................................3.5
DDG-51 Composite twisted rudder...................................1.0
High Resolution Digital mammography...............................1.5
Military Dental Research..........................................2.8
Vector Thrusted Ducted Propeller..................................3.4
Ship Service Fuel Cell Technology Verification & Training Program.2.0
Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner..........................................1.5
AEGIS Operational Readiness Training System (ORTS)................4.0
Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology...................19.3
Human Systems Technology..........................................2.6
Undersea Warfare Weaponry Technology..............................1.7
Medical Development..............................................59.0
Manpower, Personell and Training ADV Tech DEV.....................2.0
Environmental Quality and Logistics AD Tech.......................1.4
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide:
Bug to Drug Identification and CM.................................2.0
American Indian higher education consortium.......................3.5
Business/Tech manuals R&D.........................................1.5
AGILE Port Demonstrations.........................................8.5
Defense Health Program:
Hawaii Federal healthcare network................................15.3
Pacific island health care referral program.......................4.3
Alaska Federal healthcare Network...............................2.125
Brown Tree Snakes.................................................1.0
Tri-Service Nursing Research Program..............................6.0
Graduate School of Nursing........................................2.0
Health Study at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant....................1.0
Coastal Cancer Control............................................5.0
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense:
Mississippi National Guard Counter Drug Program...................1.8
West Virginia Air National Guard Counter Drug Program.............3.0
Regional Counter Drug Training Academy, Meridian MS...............1.4
Earmarks:
Maritime Technology (MARITECH)....................................5.0
Metals Affordability Initiative...................................5.0
Magnetic Bearing cooling turbin...................................5.0
Roadway Simulator................................................13.5
Aviator's night vision imaging system.............................2.5
HGU-56/P Aircrew Integrated System................................5.0
Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center................5.0
National D-Day Museum.............................................5.0
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission..........................3.0
Clean Radar Upgrade, Clean AFS, Alaska............................8.0
Padgett Thomas Barracks, Charleston, SC..........................15.0
Broadway Armory, Chicago..........................................3.0
Advancer Identification, Friend-or-Foe...........................35.0
Transportation Mult-Platform Gateway Integration for AWACS.......20.0
Emergency Traffic-Management.....................................20.7
Washington-Metro Area Transit Authority..........................39.1
Ft. Knox MOUT site upgrades.......................................3.5
Civil Military Programs, Innovative..............................10.0
ASE INFRARED CM ATIRCM LRIP......................................10.0
Tooling and Test Equipment.......................................35.0
Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFIE).......................15.0
T-AKE class ship (Buy America)
Welded shipboard and anchor chain (Buy America)
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial
Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation lands
Air Forces's lease of Boeing 767s
Enactment of S. 746
2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah
Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children..............39.0
International Sports Competition.................................15.8
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Survey.......................105.5
Food and Safety Inspection.......................................15.0
Total Pork in Division A (FY 2002 Defense Approps): $2.5 Billion....

DIVISION B....................................................

Commerce related earmarks:
Port Security....................................................93.3
Airports and Airways Trust Fund, payment to air carriers.........50.0
DoT Office of the Inspector General...............................1.3
FAA Operations (from aviation Trust Fund).......................200.0
FAA Facilities and Equipment....................................108.5
Passenger Bag Match Demonstration at Reagan National Airport......2.0
Federal Highway Administration misc. appropriations ($10 m
requested)....................................................100.0
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation...100.0
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants........100.0

[[Page S13850]]

Restoration of Broadcasting Facilities...........................8.25
National Institute of Standards and Technology...................30.0
Federal Trade Commission.........................................20.0
FAA Grants-in-AID for Airports..................................175.0
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project..................................29.542
Provision relating to Alaska in the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century................................................
US-61 Woodville widening project in Mississippi...................0.3
Interstate Maintenance Program for the city of Trenton/Port
Quendall, WA....................................................4.0
Interstate Sports Competition Defense............................15.8
Utah Olympics Public Safety Command..............................0.02
FEMA support of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Games.................10.0
Relocation costs and other purposes for 2002 Winter Olympics.....15.0
Chemical and Biological Weapons Preparedness for DC Fire Dept...0.205
Response and Communications Capability for DC Fire Dept..........7.76
Search and Rescue and Other Emergency Equip. and Support for DC
Fire..........................................................0.208
Office of the Chief Technology Officer of the DC Fire Dept........1.0
Training and Planning for the DC Fire Dept........................4.4
Protective Clothing and Breathing Apparatus for DC Fire Dept....0.922
Specialized Hazardous Materials Equipment for the DC Fire Dept..1.032
Total Commerce Related Earmarks:...........................$1.1 Billion
Total Pork in FY 2002 Defense Appropriations Conference Rep$3.6 Billion
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President. I rise to lend my strong support to the
Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report.
And I do so with great admiration and respect for the leadership
demonstrated by Chairman Daniel Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens. They
have done great work, and I encourage the Senate to embrace this
appropriations conference report.
I do want to briefly address the issue of tanker replacement which
has been hotly debated here on the floor. I support the tanker leasing
provisions in the bill, and I am again grateful to Senator Inouye and
Senator Stevens for their work on the Boeing 767 leasing provisions.
Many Senators worked on this issue. There were many hurdles to address
and overcome. And we worked through them all together in a bipartisan
fashion.
I want to again quote the Secretary of the Air Force from a letter he
wrote to me in early December. Secretary James Roche says and I quote,

The KC-135 fleet is the backbone of our Nation's Global
Reach. But with an average age of over 41 years, coupled with
the increasing expense required to maintain them, it is
readily apparent that we must start replacing these critical
assets. I strong endorse beginning to upgrade this critical
warfighting capability with new Boeing 767 tanker aircraft.

The record is clear. The Air Force has been a contributing partner
and fully supports the tanker replacement program contained in this
appropriations bill.
The existing tankers are old and require costly maintenance and
upgrades. The K-135s were first delivered to the Air Force in 1957. On
average, they are 41 years old. KC-135s spend about 400 days in major
depot maintenance every 5 years.
The tanker replacement program contained in this bill will save
taxpayers $5.9 billion in upgrade and maintenance costs.
The record is clear. We need to move forward on tanker replacement.
Our aging tankers have flown more than 6000 sorties since September 11.
Our ability to project force depends on our refueling capabilities. We
can no longer ignore these old and expensive aircraft.
The record is also clear on my State of Washington. This will help
the people of my state. Washington now has the highest unemployment
rate of any state in the nation. I am here to do everything I can to
help my constituents. Any Senator, including critics of the leasing
provisions in this bill, would do the same thing.
But this is not just about my State. Every state involved in aircraft
production will benefit.
In addition, it is in our national interest to keep our only
commercial aircraft manufacturer healthy in tough times, to keep that
capacity and to keep that skill set.
The Air Force has identified this as a critical need. We rely on
refueling tankers. Now is the time to move forward with tanker
replacement. I again commend Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator
Cantwell, Senator Conrad, Senator Roberts and the many others who
worked so hard to move this program forward.
Shortly, we are all going to go home for the holidays to be with our
families. Senators can go home knowing that they have sent a very
powerful message to the families of our service members. We have acted
today with this bill to equip our personnel now and in the future with
best equipment and the best technology available to our armed forces. I
will proudly vote for this conference report.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my Senate colleagues
for their support of two important aviation needs and to express my
disappointment that the House did not support those decisions. I know
that it is always difficult to reconcile the decisions made in the
Senate with those made in the House, but this case, I am very sorry to
see that the Senate's wisdom was not sustained.
When the Defense Appropriations bill left the Senate, it included
full-funding for two important aviation assets--C-5 avionics
modernization and 10 additional Blackhawks for the Amy National Guard.
Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us does not include those
items. Instead, the C-5 avionics funding is cut by $70.50 million and
there are only 4 Blackhawks going to the Army National Guard.
Let me first review the importance of the C-5 Avionics Modernization
Program which was not only fully funded in the Senate's Defense
Appropriations bill, but which both the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees fully supported in their bills.
The C-5 is what the military uses when it needs to deploy quickly
with as much equipment as possible. This was confirmed once again in
Operation Enduring Freedom where the Air Force reports that C-5s have
hauled forty-six percent of the cargo during the operation while only
flying approximately twenty-eight percent of the sorties. This plane is
a vital part of our military success. It is also a key player in our
nation's humanitarian efforts, so critical to the long-term success of
our national security strategy.
Taking $70.5 million from the President's funding request means that
critical Secretary of Defense directed Flight and Navigation Safety
modifications and Global Air Traffic Management modifications will be
delayed by up to a year or more. Delays in installing the safety
equipment continue to place aircrews at risk at a time when they are
engaged around the world in the war on terrorism and humanitarian
missions. Delays also prevent the C-5 from being fully employed in
certain parts of the world as AMP modifications are necessary to comply
with new GATM regulations.

At a time when we are asking our military to do so much, to deny our
aircrews and military planners C-5s that have the safety upgrades and
operational improvements that the AMP will provide does not make sense.
Again, I am sorry that the House did not agree with the Senate. I hope
we can reverse this problem next year by accelerating the program with
increased funding. I will certainly fight to do that and I hope that
other colleagues who have been supportive in the past will join me in
that fight next year.
My other concern with this bill is that the Army National Guard's
need for additional UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters has not been properly
addressed. Today, the Army National Guard comprises fifty percent of
the Army's total utility airlift capability. Unfortunately, only
twenty-seven percent of the fleet is usually flyable. On a regular
basis a full seventy-three percent of the utility helicopters in the
Guard are grounded because of a lack of parts or safety of flight
concerns! Virtually every state confronts significant shortages, and
some states, like Delaware, have absolutely no modern helicopters,
relying instead on one or two Vietnam-era helicopters.
This means that regular state missions cannot be executed. Pilots and
maintenance personnel cannot remain proficient. These skilled personnel
are

[[Page S13851]]

not able to do their job, get frustrated, and decide not to stay in the
military. Meanwhile, the Army is simply unready in this area. In normal
times, these are unacceptable realities. Today, when the Guard has been
asked to do so much more, it is unfathomable to me that we would not do
more to fix these problems.
The Senate recognized the need to do more and provided a first
installment of ten new Blackhawk helicopters for the Army Guard.
Unfortunately, this bill only provides four. Today, many in utility
aviation units do not have even the bare minimum they need to stay
proficient, let alone do their missions. This is certainly true in
Delaware and I know it also true for at least five other states. This
bill does not even allow the Guard Bureau to put one new Blackhawk in
each state that needs seven to ten!
The men and women who serve in the Guard every day, both in their
states and overseas, deserve to have the equipment they need to perform
their missions. I am sorry the House did not agree to do more to
address their aviation needs this year and I will work with my
colleagues again next year to try to improve this situation.
Mr. President, this bill includes a number of important items that
will benefit our military and I support it. But, I want to put my
colleagues on notice that next year I will be fighting to accelerate C-
5 modernization and to get additional UH-60s for the Army National
Guard. The Senate spoke wisely last week in fully funding both of these
aviation needs and I am sorry that the House was unwilling to sustain
that wisdom.
Mr. Allard. Mr. President, being that I was not able to discuss the
Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act last Thursday, I wanted to
take a few minutes to discuss a few aspects of this very important
bill.
I strongly support the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act. I
want to congratulate Chairman Levin and the Ranking Member Warner for
the good work and the way they have moved this important bill for our
men and women in the military. I believe this is a balanced bill which
provides a much needed and deserved increase for our military men and
women. After years of declining budgets, this bill continues the
increase in resources which started 2 years ago.
The bill provides $343.3 billion in budget authority, plus authorizes
the $21.2 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations as requested
by the President in order to respond to the terrorist attacks. The bill
also adds over $779.4 million above the request for the Department of
Energy's environmental cleanup programs and nuclear weapons activities.
When I became the Personnel Subcommittee Chairman in 1999, the
subcommittee provided the first major pay raise for our troops in over
20 years and I am glad that this year's bill continues this trend. The
bill provides a targeted pay raise effective January 1, 2002, ranging 5
to 10 percent, with the largest increase going to junior officers and
non-commissioned officers.
While no member enjoys having bases closed in their State, or even
the possibility of closure, it is that time that we recognize we do
have excess capacity and that is time to consider another round of base
closings as requested by the administration. After much negotiating,
the conferees authorized a round of base closings in 2005, with
established criteria based on actual and potential military value that
the Secretary of Defense must use to determine which bases to
recommend.
As the rulemaking member of the Strategic Subcommittee, I would like
to congratulate my chairman, Senator Reed, for his good work on this
bill. He worked in a bipartisan and even handed manner. While we
disagreed on the missile defense programs, Senator Reed and I were in
agreement on most of the remaining major issues before the
subcommittee.
While many in Congress may disagree on funding levels of missile
defense, no one can argue that ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear,
biological, or chemical warheads, present a considerable threat to U.S.
troops deployed abroad, allies, and the American homeland. The
consequences of such an attack on the United States would be
staggering; yet the United States currently has no system capable of
effectively stopping even a single ballistic missile headed toward the
American homeland or depolyed U.S. troops.
To end this vulnerability, the President requested a significant
increase in funding for ballistic missile defense programs which was an
important first step toward protecting all Americans against ballistic
missile attack. The conference provided up to $8.3 billion, $3 billion
more than the fiscal year 2001 level, for the continued development of
ballistic missile defenses. In addition, the conferees provided
flexibility for the President to use up to $1.3 billion of these funds
for programs to combat terrorism.
In an effort to increase the efficiency and productivity of the
missile defense programs, the administration requested to fundamentally
restructure the nation's ballistic missile defense programs into six
primary areas: Boost, Midcourse, Terminal Defenses, Systems
Engineering, Sensor, and Technology Development. This new approach will
provide the flexibility to allow programs that work to mature but the
ability to cancel programs that do not. Plus, the program will provide
enhanced testing and test infrastructure.
A major testing initiative included in the President's request is the
2004 Pacific missile defense test bed, the conferees supported the
request, for $786 million for the including $273 million for
construction primarily at fort Greely, Alaska and other Alaska
locations. Beginning in 2004, the Pacific missile test bed will allow
more challenging testing in a far wider range of engagement scenarios
than can be accommodated today.
The conferees provided the following levels for the restructured
programs: $780 million for BMD system activities including battle
management, communications, targets, countermeasures, and system
integration; $2.2 billion (matching the President's request) for
terminal defense systems, including Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-
3), Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), Navy Area (which has
now been cancelled by the Administration), Theater High Altitude Air
Defense (THAAD), and international missile defense programs, including
the Arrow program; $3.9 billion (matching the President's request) for
mid-course defense systems, including ground-based (formerly known as
national Missile Defense) and sea-based (formerly known as Navy Theater
Wide Defense) missile defense programs; $685 million (matching the
President's request) for boost phase systems, including the Airborne
Laser (ABL) and Space-Based Laser (SBL); $496 million (matching the
President's request) for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and
international sensor programs, including the Russian-American
Observation Satellite project; $113 million (matching the President's
request) for development of technology and innovative concepts
necessary to keep pace with evolving missile threats;
However, the conferees did not support the President's request to
transfer PAC-3, Medium Extended Air Defense System, and Navy Area
programs from BMDO to the military services. The bill requires the
Secretary of Defense to establish guidelines for future transfers, and
to certify that transferred programs are adequately funded in the
future year defense program.
Just as the President moves to reduce our nuclear forces the
conferees repealed the statute that prohibits the U.S. from retiring or
dismantling certain strategic nuclear forces until START II enters into
force. As part of this effort, the conferees increased funding for the
retirement of the Peacekeeper ICBM.
The Strategic Subcommittee also has oversight over two-thirds of the
Department of Energy's budget as it relates to our nuclear forces and
defense nuclear cleanup programs.
During the subcommittee's hearings, we heard from DOE that one of the
major shortfalls of the Department is the conditions of the
infrastructure of our DOE labs and plants, the need for a principal
deputy administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration,
and an increase in DOE's environmental cleanup programs and nuclear
weapons activities.
Therefore the conferees provided $6.2 billion for DOE environmental
cleanup and management programs including: $3.3 billion for work at
facilities with

[[Page S13852]]

complex and extensive environmental problems that will be closed after
2006; $1.1 billion for the Defense Facilities Closure Project; $959.7
million for construction and site completion at facilities that will be
closed by 2006; $216 million ($20 million more than the President's
request) for the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Science and Technology programs; and $153.5 million ($12 million more
than the President's request) for Defense Environmental Management
Privatization.
In regards to the National Nuclear Security Administration conferees
provided $7.1 billion for managing the nation's nuclear weapons,
nonproliferation and naval reactor programs, including: $1 billion for
stockpile life extension and evaluation programs; $2.1 billion for
focused efforts to develop the tools and knowledge necessary to ensure
the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear stockpile in
the absence of underground nuclear weapons testing. Included in this,
the conferees provided $219 million to fully fund plutonium pit
manufacturing and certification; $200 million to begin to recapitalize
the nation's nuclear weapons complex infrastructure, much of which
dates to the post-World War II era; $688 million for the naval reactors
program, which supports operation, maintenance and continuing
development of Naval nuclear propulsion systems.

There is one issue that I am very proud to say is included in this
bill and that is the creation of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife
Refuge. This effort has been done in a bipartisan manner with
Congressman Udall and more than 2 years worth of work by local
citizens, community leaders, and elected officials. Its passage has
ensured that our children and grandchildren will continue to enjoy the
wildlife and open space that currently exists at Rocky Flats. However,
even with its passage, my primary goal remains the safe cleanup and
closure of Rocky Flats.
I would like to mention a few of the following high points of the
bill.
Rocky Flats will remain in permanent federal ownership through a
transfer from the Department of Energy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service after the cleanup and closure of the site is complete;
Secondly, we understand the importance of planning for the
transportation needs of the future and have authorized the Secretary of
Energy and the Secretary of the Interior the opportunity to grant a
transportation right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site for
transportation improvements along Indiana Street;
The third point is one of the most important directives in this Act
and it states that ``nothing . . . shall reduce the level of cleanup
and closure at Rocky Flats required under the RFCA or any Federal or
State law.'' I believe it is important to reiterate that the cleanup
levels for the site will be determined by the various laws and
processes set forth in the Rock Flats Cleanup Agreement and State and
Federal law; and
Fourth, we firmly believe that access rights and property rights must
be preserved. Therefore, this legislation recognizes and preserves all
mineral rights, water rights and utility rights-of-ways. This act does,
however, provide the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Interior
the authority to impose reasonable conditions on the access to private
property rights for cleanup and refuge management purposes.
I would also like to highlight another section of the bill which
encourages the implementation of the recommendations of the Space
Commission, which concluded that the Department of Defense is not
adequately organized or focused to meet U.S. national security space
needs. There are four major sections of the provision.
The first provision requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report on steps taken to improve management, organization and oversight
of space programs, space activities, and funding and personnel
resources.
The second provision requires the Secretary of Defense to take
actions that ensure space development and acquisition programs are
jointly carried out and, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that
offers of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are assigned to
and hold leadership positions in such joint program offices.
Third, the conferees request that the Comptroller General report back
to Congress on the actions taken by the Secretary of Defense to
implement the recommendations contained in the Commission report.
Fourth, due to the concerns of the ``tripled hatted'' nature of the
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Air Force Space Command, the bill states that
the position should not serve concurrently as commander of the North
American Air Defense Command and as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space
Command. Plus, the bill provides the needed flexibility in general
officer limits to ensure that the commander of Air Force Space Command
will serve in the grade of general.
Finally, even though I strongly support the Fiscal Year 2002
Authorization Act, I am very disappointed that this bill ignored real
shortcoming as it relates to our military's voting rights.
While my original bill went much further in implementing the Space
Commission report, I believe this is a first good step and, if needed,
I hope we can revisit this issue next year to ensure that space
management and programs get the senior level support it deserves.
Finally, even though I strongly support this bill, I am very
disappointed that this bill ignored a real shortcoming as it relates to
our military voting rights.
When I introduce S. 381, my Military Voting Rights Bill, I sought to
improve the voting rights of overseas military voters in six key ways.
And this Senate agreed to include that bill in our version of the
defense authorization. But I am severely dismayed that the conference
report contained none of the most important provisions relating to
military voting.
Considering the egregious acts of last November, with the memory of
campaign lawyers standing ready with pre-printed military absentee
ballot challenge forms, we needed to respond. And yet the House of
Representatives, led by the House Administration Committee, refused to
accept the sections of the Senate passed bill that would most
effectively ensure the voting rights of our military men and women and
their families.
In September, the GAO released a 92-page report entitled ``Voting
Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be Improved.'' I
will not read the entire thing, but let me read one of the summary
headers: ``Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots in Small Countries
Were Disqualified at a Higher Rate Than Other Absentee Ballots.''
I also have an article from the Washington Post, page A17, November
22, 2000 that reads in part `` . . . lawyers spent a contentious six
hours trying to disqualify as many as possible of the absentee ballots
sent in by overseas military personnel.''
Let me also read from a Miami Herald article, November 19, 2000:
``Forty percent of the more than 3,500 ballots in Florida were thrown
out last week for technical reasons, and elections observers are
wondering whether the State's election laws are fair, especially to
military personnel.''
Two main flaws in the military voter system--flaws that we have
concrete proof were exploited--could have been fixed last week by
sections of the Military Voting Rights bill that the House refuses to
accept.
The first section prohibits a State from disqualifying a ballot based
upon lack of postmark, address, witness signature, lack of proper
postmark, or on the basis of comparison of envelope, ballot and
registration signatures alone--these were the basis for most absentee
ballot challenges.
There has been report after report of ballots mailed--for instance
form deployed ships or other distant postings--without the benefit of
postmarking facilities. Sometimes mail is bundled, and the whole group
gets one postmark, which could invalidate them all under current law.
Military ``voting officers'' are usually junior ranks, quickly trained,
and facing numerous other responsibilities. We can not punish our
service personnel for the good faith mistakes of others.
And military voters who are discharged and move before an election
but after the residency deadline cannot vote through the military
absentee ballot system, and sometimes are not able

[[Page S13853]]

to fulfill deadlines to establish residency in a State. There are
roughly 20,000 military personnel separated each month. Our section
allowed them to use the proper discharge forms as a residency waiver
and vote in person at their new polling site. This brings military
voters into their new community quicker. But the House rejected this
section as well.
The Senate moved to address these problems. The Houses refuses to do
so. This is an issue I, and those who feel as strongly as I do, such as
our nation's veteran and active duty service organizations, will
continue to press.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise to raise some significant concerns
about S. 1389, the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001, which has
been attached to the Department of Defense-Supplemental conference
report.
This legislation will have serious adverse implications for the
Federal Government most notably, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--due to its unprecedented
legal protections provided to the State and the Homestake Mining
Company and its potentially significant budgetary costs.
While some modifications to the original have been made to the bill
to address many of the problematic legal and programmatic issues, these
changes were modest at best and the bill as a whole still has
significant legal, budgetary, and policy implications that could
negatively impact NSF and EPA. This bill is an improvement over the
original legislation introduced by the senators from South Dakota, but
it is still problematic and troubling.
As the ranking member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I
believe in deferring to the scientific expertise and judgment of the
NSF and its Science Board in determining which projects had scientific
merit and deserved funding. The Congress should not be in the business
of legislating what is scientifically meritorious. The Homestake
legislation totally circumvents the merit review process long-
established and followed by the agency.
The reality of this matter is that the South Dakota Senators are
using NSF as a means to save jobs that will be lost from the closing of
the mine. While I appreciate the effort to save people's jobs, it
should not be done by undermining the scientific merit review process.
This is simply the wrong approach and creates a new, dangerous
precedent.
Further, the broad indemnification provisions in the bill, even with
the proposed modifications, are sweeping. The Federal Government would
also be required to provide broad indemnification to both the Homestake
Mining Company and the State for PAST and FUTURE claims related to the
site. The sweeping and unprecedented language is in conflict with, and
greatly expands, the Federal Government's potential tort liability well
beyond provided in the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Federal
Government's liability with respect to environmental claims would also
be potentially unlimited. It is unclear whether the bill affects
Homestake's obligations under court-approved Consent Decrees (CD) that
the Federal Government has already entered into. These CDs address
certain remediation and natural resource damage claims. There are
additional legal issues related to the Anti-Deficiency Act and tort law
concerning compensation after the fact of injury.
Funding this costly project would also potentially sap funding for
other current and new initiatives that have scientific merit and which
the Congress and Administration fully support. Critically important
scientific research initiatives such as nanotechnology, information
technology, and biotechnology initiatives may be significantly
impaired. Major research projects related to astronomy, engineering,
and the environment could be cut back or not funded.
I hope my colleagues will be sensitized to the dangerous legal,
budgetary, and policy implications of the Homestake legislation. I am
extremely troubled by this legislation and hope that political pressure
does not influence the ultimate outcome of the proposed project in the
Homestake bill.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Congress has
incorporated S. 1389, the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001, as
amended, into the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations
conference report.
This important legislation will enable the construction of a new,
world-class scientific research facility deep in the Homestake Mine in
Lead, SD. Not only will this facility create an opportunity for
critical breakthroughs in physics and other fields, it will provide
unprecedented new economic and educational opportunities for South
Dakota.
Just over a year ago, the Homestake Mining Company announced that it
intended to close its 125-year-old gold mine in Lead, SD, at the end of
2001. This historic mine has been a central part of the economy of the
Black Hills for over a century, and the closure of the mine was
expected to present a significant economic blow to the community.
In the wake of this announcement, you can imagine the surprise of
South Dakotans to discover that a committee of prominent scientists
viewed the closure of the mine as an unprecedented new opportunity to
establish a National Underground Science Laboratory in the United
States. Because of the extraordinary depth of the mine and its
extensive existing infrastructure, they found that the mine would be an
ideal location for research into neutrinos, tiny particles that can
only be detected deep underground, where thousands of feet of rock
block out other cosmic radiation.
Earlier this year, I met with several of these scientists to
determine how they planned to move forward. They told me they intended
to submit a proposal to the National Science Foundation for a grant to
construct the laboratory. After a thorough peer review, the National
Science Foundation would determine whether or not it would be in the
best interests of science and the United States for such a laboratory
to be built. The scientists also explained that since the National
Science Foundation normally does not own research facilities, the mine
would need to be conveyed from Homestake Mining Company to the State of
South Dakota for construction to take place. For the company to be
willing to donate the property, and for the state to be willing to
accept it, both would require the Federal Government to assume some of
the liability associated with the property.
The purpose of the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001 is to meet
that need. It establishes a process to convey the mine to the State of
South Dakota, and for the Federal Government to assume a portion of the
company's liabilities. This Act will only take effect if the National
Science Foundation selects Homestake as the site for an underground
laboratory. Only property needed for the construction of the lab will
be conveyed, and conveyance can only take place after appropriate
environmental reviews and after the Environmental Protection Agency
certifies the remediation of any environmental problems. If the mine is
conveyed, the State of South Dakota will be required to purchase
environmental insurance for the property and set up an environmental
trust fund to protect the taxpayers against any environmental liability
that may be incurred.

I believe this process is fair and equitable to all involved. It will
enable the laboratory to be constructed and the environment to be
protected.
I am not a scientist, and the decision to build this laboratory must
be made by the scientific community. However, it is helpful to review
some of the information I have received from the team of scientists
supporting this project to better understand why we would take the
unusual step of conveying a gold mine to a state with federal
indemnification.
Dr. John Bahcall is a scientist at the Institute for Advanced Study
in Princeton, NJ. He was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1998.
He is a widely recognized expert in neutrino science and an authority
on the scientific potential of an underground laboratory. Recently, I
received a letter from him explaining the research opportunities
created by an underground laboratory. In the letter, he explained,
``There are pioneering experiments in the fields of physics, astronomy,
biology, and geology that can only be carried out in an environment
that is

[[Page S13854]]

shielded from the many competing phenomena that occur on the surface of
the earth. These experiments concern such fundamental and applied
subjects as: How stable is ordinary matter? What is the dark matter of
which most of our universe is composed? What new types of living
organisms exist in deep underground environments from which sunlight is
excluded? How are heat and water transported underground over long
distances and long times?''
As Dr. Bahcall's letter makes clear, the laboratory would provide an
opportunity for a wide variety of important research. For that reason,
it is receiving strong support in the scientific community. For
example, every six to seven years, the Nuclear Science Advisory Board
and the Nuclear Physics Division of the American Physical Society
develop a Long Range Plan that identifies that the major priorities of
American nuclear physicists for coming years. After a series of
meetings, these scientists ranked the creation of a National
Underground Science Laboratory as one of their top priorities in their
Long Range Plan.
In a recent letter to the National Science Foundation, members of the
Nuclear Science Advisory Committee explained their support for the
creation of an underground laboratory at Homestake: ``[T]here is
presently an outstanding opportunity for the United States to assume
world leadership at the frontier of underground science through the
acquisition and development by the National Science Foundation of the
Homestake mine in South Dakota to create a deep underground (7000 meter
of water equivalent (m.w.e.)) laboratory. . . . In the last decade,
fundamental progress has been made in underground experiments in such
diverse areas as nucleon decay, atmospheric neutrino oscillations,
solar neutrino oscillations, and searches for dark matter. These
studies not only have increased our understanding of the fundamental
properties of the universe, but have pointed to new and even more
challenging frontiers of compelling scientific interest. To explore
these frontiers, the next generation of experiments (e.g. solar
neutrino, double beta decay, etc.) will require a deep underground
laboratory to reduce cosmic ray-related backgrounds, which constitute
the limiting factor for high sensitivity experiments. A National
Underground Science Laboratory at a depth of 7000 m.w.e., at the
Homestake Mine site would constitute a world class facility, with a
dedicated infrastructure to insure [sic] U.S. leadership in underground
studies well into the next century.''

While there are two other locations under consideration in the United
States for the construction of an underground laboratory, scientists
have stated that the Homestake Mine, because of its unique
characteristics, is the best location in the country to conduct this
research. Dr. Wick Haxton of the Institute for Nuclear Theory put
together the team's findings in a report entitled, ``The U.S. National
Underground Science Laboratory at Homestake: Status Report and
Update.''
I'd like to share some of their report: ``The announcement on
September 11, 2000, that the historic Homestake Gold Mine would soon
close presented a remarkable opportunity for creating a dedicated
multipurpose deep underground laboratory in the U.S. Among its
attributes are:
Homestake has very favorable physical properties. It is the deepest
mine in the U.S. The rock is hard and of high quality: even at depth
there is an absence of rock bursts common at sites of comparable depth.
Large cavities built at depths of 7400 and 8000 feet have been shown to
be stable over periods of a decade or more. The mine is dry, producing
only 500 gallons/minute of water throughout its 600 km of drifts.
Homestake has shafts that can be adapted to provide unprecedented
horizontal access. The replacement cost of the Ross and Yates shafts
and the No. 6 winze, which access the proposed laboratory site, is
approximately $300 million. The shaft cross sections are unusually
large, 15 x 28 feet, and the Yates hoist, powered by two 1250 hp
Nordberg motors, can lift nearly 7 tons. This makes it possible to
lower cargo containers directly to the underground site. Finally, there
are several existing ventilation shafts as well as an extensive set of
ramps that connect the levels, providing important secondary escape
paths.
Homestake is a site with remarkable flexibility. There are drifts
approximately every 150 feet in depth, allowing experiments to be
conducted at multiple levels and opening up possibilities for an
unusually broad range of science. Coupled with the extensive
ventilation system--including a massive cooling plant with four York
compressors and 2300 tons of refrigeration--this allows a wide range of
experiments to be mounted, including those involving flammables,
cryogens, or other substances best sequestered and separately vented.
The flexibility to accommodate a very wide range of science is
important because significant advantages will accompany a single
multipurpose national laboratory. There are economies of scale in
infrastructure and safety, including the development of common
specialized facilities (like a low-background counting facility). This
reduces costs and saves human scientific capital. Concentration also
produces a stronger scientific and technical environment. It allows
synergisms between disciplines to grow.
The proposed principle site of the laboratory is the region at 7400
ft between the Ross and Yates shafts. The site is accessible now:
extensive coring studies of the site will be performed to verify its
suitability, prior to any expenditures for major construction.
The mine is fully permitted for safety and rock disposal on site, and
is located in a state supportive of mining.
The mine includes surface buildings, extensive fiber optics and
communications systems, a large inventory of tools and rolling stock
that may be transferable to the laboratory, and skilled engineers,
geologists, and miners who know every aspect of the mine.''
This is not the first time that Homestake, or other mines, have been
used to support this kind of research. In fact, underground scientific
research at the Homestake mine dates back to 1965, when a neutrino
detector was installed in the underground mine at the 4850-foot level.
Research from that experiment is acknowledged as critical to the
development of neutrino astrophysics. Similar experiments have
continued in the Soudan mine in Minnesota, and in underground
laboratories outside of the United States, leading to important
discoveries and developments in particle physics and theory.
As I've stated, the purpose of the legislation passed by the Senate
is to allow the conveyance of the property needed for the construction
of the laboratory from Homestake Mining Company to the State of South
Dakota. I'd like to take a moment to explain why it is necessary for
the Federal Government to transfer the mine to the State, and to
indemnify the company and the State in order for this conveyance to
take place.
The National Science Foundation, which is reviewing a $281 million
proposal to construct this laboratory, does not operate its own
research facilities. Instead, it provides grants to other entities to
operate facilities or to conduct experiments. In keeping with this
tradition, the proposed laboratory would not be owned by the Federal
Government, but instead would need to be operated by an entity other
than the NSF. Since it is not practical for the company to retain
ownership of the site as it is converted into a laboratory, Homestake
expressed a willingness to donate the underground mine and
infrastructure to the State of South Dakota, together with certain
surface facilities, structures and equipment that are necessary to
operate and support the underground mine, provided that it could be
released from liabilities associated with the transfer and the future
operation of its property as an underground laboratory.
Relief from liability is necessary because the construction of the
lab will require the company to forgo certain reclamation actions that
it would normally take to limit its liability in the mine. For example,
in connection with closing the underground mine, Homestake planned to
remove electric substations, decommission hoists and other equipment,
turn off the pumps that dewater the mine, and seal all openings. Were
the pumps to be turned off, the mine workings would slowly

[[Page S13855]]

fill with water, rendering the mine unusable laboratory.
The Act establishes a specific procedure that will be followed in
order for conveyance to take place and Homestake to be relieved of its
liability. First, the Act does not become effective unless the National
Science Foundation selects Homestake Mine as the site for a National
Underground Science Laboratory. This means that conveyance procedures
will not begin until it is clear that the NSF supports the construction
of a laboratory. Second, a due diligence inspection of the property
will be conducted by an independent entity to identify any condition
that may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health
or the environment. Third, any condition of the mine that meets those
criteria must be corrected before conveyance takes place. Homestake may
choose to contribute toward any necessary response actions. However,
Section 4 of this Act includes a provision that limits Homestake's
contribution to this additional work, if necessary, to $75 million,
reduced by the value of the property and equipment that Homestake is
donating. In addition, the State, or another person, may also assist
with that action. Only after the administration of the Environmental
Protection Agency has certified that necessary steps have been taken to
correct any problems that are identified can the conveyance proceed.
Since some of the steps required to convert the mine into a
laboratory go above and beyond normal reclamation, the company is not
obligated to deliver the property in a condition that is suitable for
use as a laboratory. However, those portions of the mine that require
the most significant reclamation, including the tailings pond and waste
rock dumps, are specifically prohibited from being conveyed under this
Act and will remain Homestake's responsibility to reclaim.
Under normal circumstances, the mine would close in March of 2002.
Since it must be kept open beyond that date to leave open the option to
construct the laboratory, Congress has already appropriated $10 million
in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill to pay for expenses needed for that
purpose.
It is important that all aspects of the conveyance process be
completed in a timely fashion. To facilitate the construction of the
laboratory, the inspections, reports and conveyance will need to
proceed in phases, with the inspections being initiated after Homestake
has completed the reclamation work that may otherwise have been
required. While the Act sets no specific deadline for the completion of
these procedures, it is important that the entire process be completed
in no more than eight months from the date of passage of the Act. The
timeframes in the Act for public comment on draft reports and on EPA's
review of the report are intended to emphasize the need for timely
action.
S. 1389 also contains important provisions to protect taxpayers from
any potential liability once the transfer of the mine takes place.
First, South Dakota must purchase property and liability insurance for
the mine. It may also require individual experiments to purchase
environmental insurance. Second, the bill requires that South Dakota
establish an Environment and Project Trust Fund to finance any future
clean-up actions that may be required. A portion of annual Operations
and Maintenance funding must be deposited into the fund, and the state
may also require individual projects to make a deposit into the fund.
The insurance and trust fund provisions of this bill will help to
provide a firewall between the taxpayers and any future environmental
clean-up that may be required.
I want to thank all of those who have been involved in the
development of this legislation. I particularly appreciate the hard
work and support of Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota. I also want
to thank my colleague, Senator Johnson, a cosponsor of this bill, for
all of his work, particularly to secure the $10 million in transition
funds that will bridge the gap between Homestake's closure and the
establishment of the laboratory. And, I would like to thank officials
from Homestake and Barrick.
This legislation will provide an opportunity for the United States to
conduct scientific research and will provide important new educational
and economic opportunities for South Dakota. I thank my colleagues in
Congress for their support of this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that both a letter from the Nuclear Science
Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation and a section-by-
section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report

Division E--Miscellaneous Provisions

Title I--Homestake Mine Conveyance

Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 101. Short Title. Names bill as ``Homestake Mine
Conveyance Act of 2001.''
Section 102. Findings. States that Homestake Mine has been
selected by a committee of scientists as the preferred
location for a National Underground Science Laboratory. While
Homestake Mining Company is willing to transfer the mine to
the State of South Dakota, both must be indemnified against
future liability in order to do so.
Section 103. Definitions. Defines the following terms:
Administrator, Affiliate, Conveyance, Fund, Homestake,
Independent Entity, Laboratory, Mine, Person, Project
Sponsor, Scientific Advisory Board and State.
The term ``Mine'' refers to the property to be conveyed
from Homestake to South Dakota pursuant to the Act. This
property consists of only a portion of Homestake's property
in Lawrence County, South Dakota. The ``Mine'' is defined to
include the underground workings and infrastructure at the
Homestake Mine in Lawrence County, South Dakota and all real
property, mineral and oil and gas rights, shafts, tunnels,
structures, in-mine backfill, in-mine broken rock, fixtures,
and personal property to be conveyed for establishment and
operation of the laboratory, as agreed upon by Homestake and
the State. ``Mine'' is also defined to include any water that
flows into the Mine from any source. The real and personal
property that is to be conveyed will be subject to further
discussions among Homestake, the State and the laboratory.
The laboratory has identified parts of the surface, real
property, equipment, facilities and structures that will be
necessary or useful in the operation of the laboratory.
Homestake will determine if the identified property can be
included in the conveyance. The definition of ``Mine''
excludes certain features, including the ``Open Cut,'' the
tailings storage facility and existing waste rock dumps.
These are not part of the ``Mine'' and cannot be conveyed
under the Act. Homestake remains responsible for reclamation
and closure of all property that is not conveyed under this
Act.
Section 104. Conveyance of Real Property. The bill
establishes several requirements as conditions for
conveyance. Once conveyance is approved, the mine is
transferred to the state ``as-is'' via a quit-claim deed.
Inspection. Prior to the conveyance, the Act provides for a
due diligence inspection to be conducted by an independent
entity. The independent entity is to be selected jointly by
the Administrator of the EPA, the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and Homestake. In
consultation with the State and Homestake, the Administrator
of the EPA will determine the methodology and standards to be
used in the inspection, including the conduct of the
inspection, the scope of the inspection and the time and
duration of the inspection. The purpose of the inspection is
to determine whether there is any condition in the Mine that
may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health or the environment. The inspection will not attempt to
document all environmental conditions at the Mine, and will
not inspect or evaluate any environmental conditions on
property that is not part of the conveyance.
Report. After conducting the inspection, the independent
entity must prepare a draft report on its findings that
describes the results of its inspection and identifies any
condition of or in the mine that may pose an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health or the environment.
This draft report must be submitted to the EPA and made
available to the public. A public notice must be issued
requesting public comments on the draft within 45 days.
During the 45-day comment period, the independent entity
shall hold at least one public hearing in Lead, South Dakota.
After these steps are taken, the independent entity must
submit a final report that responds to public comments and
incorporates necessary changes.
Review to Report. Not later than 60 days after receiving
the report, the EPA shall review it and notify the state of
its acceptance or rejection of the report. The Administrator
may reject the report if one or more conditions are
identified that may pose an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or the environment and require
response action before conveyance and assumption by the
Federal Government of liability for the mine. The
Administrator may also reject the report if the conveyance is
determined to be against the public interest.
Response Action. If the independent entity's report
identifies no conditions that may pose an imminent and
substantial threat to human health or the environment, and
EPA

[[Page S13856]]

accepts the report, then the conveyance may proceed. If the
report identifies a condition in the Mine that may pose an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the
environment, then Homestake may, but is not obligated to,
carry out or permit the State or other persons to carry out a
response action to correct the condition. If the condition is
one that requires a continuing response action, or a response
action that may only be completed as part of the final
closure of the laboratory, then Homestake, the State or other
persons must make a deposit into the Environment and Project
Trust Fund established in Section 7 that is sufficient to pay
the costs of that response action. The amount of the deposit
is to be determined by the independent entity, on a net
present value basis and taking into account interest that may
be earned on the deposit until the time that expenditure is
expected to be made. Homestake may choose to contribute
toward the response actions. However, Section 4 includes a
provision that limits Homestake's contribution to this
additional work, if necessary, to $75 million, reduced by the
value of the property and equipment that Homestake is
donating. Funds deposited into the Fund to meet this
requirement may only be expended to address the needs
identified in the inspection.
Once any necessary response actions have been completed, or
necessary funds have been deposited, then the independent
entity may certify to the EPA that the conditions identified
in the report that may pose an imminent and substantial
threat to human health or the environment have been
corrected.
Final Review. Not later than 60 days after receiving the
certification, the EPA must make a final decision to accept
or reject the certification. Conveyance may proceed only if
the EPA accepts the certification.
Section 105. Assessment of Property. Section 5 sets forth
the process for valuing the donated property and services.
For purposes of determining the amount of Homestake's
potential contribution toward response actions identified in
Section 4(b)(4)(C), the property being donated by Homestake
is to be valued by the independent entity according to the
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition. To
the extent that some property, such as underground tunnels,
only has value for the purpose of constructing a laboratory,
that entity is directed to include the estimated costs of
replacing the facilities in the absence of Homestake's
donation, and the cost of replacing any donated equipment.
The valuation is to be submitted to the Administrator of the
EPA, the state and Homestake in a separate report that is not
subject to the procedures in Section 4(b). If it is
determined that the conveyance can most efficiently be
processed in several phases, then the valuation report is to
accompany each of the due diligence reports.
Section 106. Liability
Assumption of liability. Upon conveyance, the United States
shall assume liability for the mine and laboratory. This
liability includes damages, reclamation, cleanup of hazardous
substances under CERCLA, and closure of the facility. If
property transfer takes place in steps, then the assumption
of liability shall occur with each transfer for those
properties.
Liability protection. Upon conveyance, neither Homestake
nor the State of South Dakota shall be liable for the mine or
laboratory. The United States shall waive sovereign immunity
for claims by Homestake and the State, assume this liability
and indemnify Homestake against it. However, in the case of
any claim against the United States, it is only liable for
response costs for environmental claims to the extent that
response costs would be awarded in a civil action brought
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or any other Federal
environmental law. In addition, claims for damages must be
made in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Exceptions. Homestake is not relieved of liability for
workers compensation or other employment-related claims, non-
environmental claims that occur prior to conveyance, any
criminal liability, or any liability for property not
transferred, unless that property is affected by the
operation of the lab.
Section 107. Insurance Coverage
Requirement to Purchase Insurance for mine. To the extent
such insurance is available, the state shall purchase
property and liability insurance for the mine and the
operation of the laboratory to provide coverage against the
liability assumed by the United States. The requirement to
purchase insurance will terminate if the mine ceases to be
used as a laboratory or Operations and Maintenance funding is
not sufficient to operate the laboratory.
Terms of Insurance. The state must periodically consult
with the EPA and the Scientific Advisory Board and consider
the following factors to determine the coverage, type and
policy limits of insurance: the nature of projects in the
laboratory, the cost and availability of commercial
insurance, and the amount of available funding. The insurance
shall be secondary to insurance purchased by sponsors of
individual projects, and in excess of amounts available in
the Fund to pay any claim. The United States shall be an
additional insured and will have the right to enforce the
policy.
Funding of insurance purchase. The state may finance the
purchase of insurance with funds from the Fund or other funds
available to the state, but may not be compelled to use state
funds for this purpose.
Porject insurance. In consultation with the EPA and the
Scientific Advisory Board, the State may require a project
sponsor to purchase property and liability insurance for a
project. The United States shall be an additional insured on
the policy and have the right to enforce it.
State insurance. The State shall purchase unemployment
compensation insurance and worker's compensation insurance
required under state law. The State may not use funds from
the Fund for this purpose.
Section 108. Environment and Project Trust Fund
Establishment of fund. On completion of conveyance, the
State shall establish an environment and Project Trust Fund
in an interest-bearing account within the state.
Capitalization of Fund. There are several streams of money
that will capitalize the fund, some of which have
restrictions on the way they may be spent.
Annual Portion of Operation and Maintenance Spending. A
portion of annual O&M funding determined by the State in
consultation with the EPA and the Scientific Advisory Board
shall be deposited in the Fund. To determine the annual
amount, the State must consider the nature of the projects in
the facility, the available amounts in the Fund, any pending
costs or claims, and the amount of funding required for
future actions to close the facility.
Project Fee. The state, in consultation with NSF and EPA,
shall require each project to pay an amount into the Fund.
These funds may only be used to remove projects from the lab
or to pay claims associated with those projects.
Interest. All interest earned by the Fund is retained
within the Fund.
Other funds. Other funds may be received and deposited in
the Fund at the discretion of the state.
Expenditures from Fund. Funds within the Trust Fund may
only be spent for the following purposes: waste and hazardous
substance removal or remediation, or other environmental
cleanup; removal of equipment and material no longer used or
necessary for use with a project or a claim association with
that project; purchases of insurance by the State (except for
employment related insurance; payments for other costs
related to liability; and the closure of the mine.
Federal Authority. To the extent the United States is
liable, it may direct that amounts in the Trust Fund be
applied toward costs it incurs.
Section 109. Waste Rock Mixing. If the State, acting in its
capacity overseeing the laboratory, determines to dispose of
waste rock excavated for the construction of the laboratory
on land owned by Homestake that is not conveyed under this
legislation, then the State must first receive approval from
the Administrator before disposing such rock.
Section 110. Requirements for Operation of Laboratory. The
laboratory must comply with all federal laws, including
environmental laws.
Section 111. Contingency. This Act shall be effective
contingent upon the selection of the Mine by the National
Science Foundation as the site for the laboratory.
Section 112. Obligation in the Event of Nonconveyance. If
the conveyance does not occur, then Homestake's obligations
to reclaim the mine are limited to the requirements of
current law.
Section 113. Payment and Reimbursement of Costs. The United
States may seek payment from the Fund or insurance as
reimbursement for costs it incurs as the result of the
liability it has undertaken.
Section 114. Consent Decrees. Nothing in this title affects
the obligation of a party to two existing consent decrees.
Section 115. Offset. Offset for title.
Section 116. Authorization of appropriations. Such funds as
are necessary to carry out the Act are authorized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________