[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13865-S13868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
agreement, I would like to proceed with my statements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I am happy to rise today to offer my 
unqualified support for the conference agreement on H.R. 3338, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002.
  I am pleased to present the recommendations to the Senate today, as 
division A of this bill.
  The recommendations contained herein are 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 302b allocations.
  As in all conference agreements, neither side, nor any individual 
member had every issue go his or her way. It represents a compromise.
  It is one that protects the interests of both houses while clearly 
meeting our national defense reponsibilities.
  For the information of all Senators, I should point out that the bill 
provides more funding for our men and women in uniform than was 
recommended by either body.
  I want to note to all my collegues that this would not have been 
possible without the tremendous cooperation that I have received from 
Senator Stevens and his able staff led by Steve Cortese with Ms. 
Margaret Ashworth, Kraig Siracuse, Alycia Farrell, and Mr. John Kem, on 
detail from DOD.

[[Page S13866]]

  The Senate owes all of them a debt of gratitude. I want to also note 
the efforts of my staff, Charlie Houy, David Morrison, Gary Reese, 
Susan Hogan, Tom Hawkins, Bob Henke, Lesley Kalan, and Mazie Mattson 
who have devoted so much time to preparing the committee's 
recommendations for this bill.
  The Defense appropriations bill as recommended by the conference 
committee provides a total of $317,623,747,000 in budget authority for 
mandatory and discretionary programs for the Department of Defense. 
This amount is $1,923,633,000 below the President's request.
  The recommended funding is below the President's request by nearly $2 
billion because the Congress has already acted to reallocate $500 
million for military construction and $1.2 billion for nuclear energy 
programs under the jurisdiction of the Energy Water Subcommittee.
  The total discretionary funding recommended in division A of this 
bill is $317,206,747,000. This is less than $2 million below the 
subcommittee's 302B allocation.
  This measure is consistent with the objectives of this administration 
and the Defense Authorization Conference Report which passed the 
Senate.
  In addition, we believe we have accommodated those issues identified 
by the Senate which would enhance our nation's defense while allowing 
us to stay within the limits of the budget resolution.
  Our first priority in this bill is to provide for the quality of life 
of our men and women in uniform.
  In that vein, we have fully funded a five percent pay raise for every 
military member as authorized.
  We recommend additional funding for targeted pay raises for those 
grades and particular skills which are hard to fill.
  We believe these increases will significantly aid our ability to 
recruit, and perhaps more importantly, retain much needed military 
personnel.
  We have also provided $18.4 billion for health care costs. This is 
46.3 billion more than appropriated in FY 2001 and nearly $500 million 
more than requested by the president.
  This funding will ensure that tricare costs are fully covered.
  It will also increase our military hospital funding to better provide 
for their patients and, by providing funding for ``TRICARE FOR LIFE'', 
we fulfill a commitment made to our retirees over 65.
  This will ensure that those Americans who were willing to dedicate 
their lives to the military will have quality health care in their 
older years.
  This is most importantly an issue of fairness.
  It fulfills the guarantee our nation made to the men and women of our 
military when they were on active duty.
  We also believe it will signal to those willing to serve today that 
we will keep our promises. In no small part we see this as another 
recruiting and retention program.
  In title two, the bill provides $105 billion for readiness and 
related programs. This is $8.2 billion more than appropriated for 
fiscal year 2001. The bill reallocates funding from the Secretary of 
Defense to the military services for the costs of overseas deployments 
in the Balkans.
  This is the way the Pentagon funds the Middle East deployments. The 
conferees have agreed to leave a small amount in the appropriation for 
unforeseen emergencies.
  For our investment in weapons and other equipment, the recommendation 
includes $60.9 billion for procurement, nearly $500 million more than 
requested by the President. The funding here will continue our efforts 
to recapitalize our forces.
  The agreement fully supports the Army's transformation goals and 
purchases much needed aircraft, missiles and space platforms for the 
Air Force.
  For the Navy, the bill provides full funding for those programs that 
are on track and ready to move forward.
  In the case of shipbuilding, the conferees strongly support the need 
to address our growing shortfalls in ship construction. The agreement 
provides more funding that in either House or Senate bill and $150 more 
than requested.
  In some cases, contract delays have allowed the conferees to 
recommend reallocating funds for other critical requirements.
  Included in that, the committee has recommended $700 million for 
procurement to support our national guard and reserve forces.
  The conference funds 10 UH-60 helicopters for the National Guard and 
Army Reserve. It also provides four C-130's for our Air National Guard 
and Reserves.
  The agreement adds funding for additional trainer aircraft for the 
Navy. It fully funds the requirements for the F-22, the JSF and the F/
A-18.
  In funding for future investment for research and development, the 
measure recommends $48.9 billion, nearly $1.5 billion more than the 
amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2001. Regarding missile defense, 
the bills is very close to the level requested by the President.
  Last week, the Pentagon announced that it was terminating the Navy' 
area wide missile defense program. Additionally, we were informed that 
the Pentagon is restructuring its space based on infrared--low program. 
These two adjustments allowed the conferees to reduce funding for 
missile defense.
  However, similar to the provision in the Senate and the authorization 
bill, the committee provides $478 million in additional funding that 
can be used for counter terrorism programs.
  This is a balanced bill that supports the priorities of the 
administration and the Senate.
  In order to cut spending by nearly $2 billion, some difficult 
decisions were required. The bill reduces funding for several programs 
that have been delayed or are being reconsidered because of the 
secretary's strategic review, the nuclear posture review, and the 
quadrennial defense review.
  The bill also makes adjustments that are in line with the reforms 
championed by the administration:
  A concerted effort was made at reducing reporting requirements in the 
bill;
  The bill also reduces funding for consultants and other related 
support personnel as authorized by the Senate.
  As requested, the bill provides $100 million for DOD to make 
additional progress in modernizing its financial management systems.
  Finally, the bill places a cap on legislative liaison personnel which 
the Secretary of Defense has indicated are excessive.
  I would like to take a few minutes to discuss an item that some have 
mis-characterized.
  The bill provides discretionary authority to the Defense Department 
to lease tankers to replace the aging KC-135 fleet. This is a program 
that is strongly endorsed by the Air Force as the most cost effective 
way to replace our tankers.
  Despite what has been claimed, the language in the bill requires that 
the lease can only be entered into if the Air Force can show that it 
will be 10 percent cheaper to lease the aircraft than to purchase them. 
In addition, it stipulates that the aircraft must be returned to the 
manufacturer at the end of the lease period.
  No business sector has suffered more from the events of 9-11 than has 
our commercial aircraft manufacturers. The tragic events of that day 
have drastically reduced orders for commercial aircraft.
  We have been informed that Boeing, for example, will have to lay off 
approximately 30,000 people as a direct consequence of the terrorist 
attack. We have provided funding to support the aircraft manufacturers 
as a result of that tragedy.
  We are including funds elsewhere in this bill to help in the recovery 
in New York and the Pentagon. The leasing authority which we have 
included in Division A allows us to help assist commercial airline 
manufacturers while also solving a long-term problem for the Air Force.
  I strongly endorse this initiative which was crafted by my good 
friend Senator Stevens with the support of several other Members, 
including Senators Cantwell, Murray, Roberts, and Durbin. I believe it 
deserves the unanimous support of the Senate.
  Today is December 20th. Nearly one quarter of the fiscal year has 
passed.
  The Defense Department is operating under a continuing resolution 
which significantly limits its ability to efficiently manage its 
funding.
  I don't need to remind any of my colleagues that we have men and 
women

[[Page S13867]]

serving half way around the world defending us.
  Less than one percent of Americans serve in today's military. These 
few are willing to sacrifice themselves for us. They deserve our 
support.
  One hundred days ago our Nation was shocked and hurt by a surprise 
attack. This is the bill, Mr. President, that allows us to respond to 
that attack.
  It is also the measure we need to show our military forces that we 
support them.
  This bill is urgently needed to fight and win this war and to 
demonstrate to the world our resolve.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I add my congratulations to the chairman 
of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their hard work on a 
very important piece of legislation.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
by Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper and Secretary of the Air Force 
James Roche basically explaining in detail their need for the 767 
tanker fleet and why the activities and events after September 11 have 
accelerated the interest in the replacement options that were a part of 
this legislation.

                                                December 18, 2001.
     Editor-in-Chief,
     The Washington Post,
     Washington, DC.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in 
Record, as follows:

       Dear Editor: Robert Novak's Dec 16, 2001 column, ``Boeing 
     Boondoggle,'' wrongly implies the Air Force doesn't have a 
     position on leasing Boeing 767s for use as tanker aircraft. 
     Our position, previously explained to Mr. Novak, is clear: we 
     need to modernize our aging tanker fleet, and we owe it to 
     our warfighters and taxpayers to consider all reasonable 
     options, including leasing or buying 767s.
       Air refueling enables America to project power anywhere in 
     the world. Today, in the US-led global war on terrorism, that 
     mission is mostly done with an aircraft designed and first 
     built during the Eisenhower administration. We have flown 
     more than 3500 refueling sorties in Operation Enduring 
     Freedom and more than 2700 refueling sorties in support of 
     air patrols over American cities since the September 11 
     attacks. These operations, along with a mission focus on 
     homeland security, are forcing the Air Force to assess 
     accelerating replacement options.
       Incorporating new 767 aircraft into our fleet will 
     dramatically enhance America's aerial refueling capability. 
     Benefits include increased fuel offload, near-term aircraft 
     availability, and mission realiability--all with far lower 
     support costs. The 767 has also attracted the interest of 
     Italy and Japan, allies with similar needs.
       Should Congress approve a leasing option to put new tankers 
     in service, we will analyze business conditions and determine 
     the most cost-effect modernization path available. Leasing 
     may enable the Air Force to avoid significant up-front 
     acquisition cash outlays, and it could allow us to accelerate 
     retirement of the oldest, least reliable tankers in the 
     fleet, saving more than $3 billion in repair and maintenance 
     costs. If a cost-benefit analysis favors another approach, we 
     would pursue that alternative.
       America's air refueling fleet is indispensable, and 
     modernization is essential to future mission success. The 767 
     is the right platform to jumpstart tanker modernization, and 
     we are committed to leveraging our resources to make the best 
     overall arrangement for our citizens.

     John P. Jumper,
       General, USAF, Chief of Staff.
     James G. Roche,
       Secretary of the Air Force.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record information about how the DOD process for 
reviewing the need for the 767 tanker replacement was started over 2 
years ago, culminating in a report and analysis of, February 2001 that 
these tankers were in fact needed and not done behind closed doors but 
the process was followed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record. as follows:

       Planning for the Air Force replacement of its KC-135 tanker 
     fleet has been ongoing for years. The DoD's Joint 
     Requirements Oversight Committee (JROC) has validated a 
     Mission Needs Statement for this replacement, culminating a 
     two year DoD review process.
       In response, Boeing in February of 2001 submitted a 
     proposal to the Air Force for the purchase of new 767 
     tankers--this is neither a new, nor a ``behind closed doors'' 
     issue.
       The Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff have been 
     visible and vocal (letters, press statements) is their 
     support for the need to begin to modernize the tanker fleet. 
     More specifically, they have been clear on the desirability 
     of leasing 767 tankers in order to get them deployed (and old 
     high cost tankers retired) in operationally significant 
     quantities and within projected budgets over the next decade.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise because we have passed the 13th 
conference report on the 13 appropriations bills.
  As we prepare to return to our home States, everyone here in the 
Chamber and everyone in the Senate can find some aspect of the 
conference report on Defense to which to object.
  In the end, what we have to do is consider the work as a whole--as a 
complete body of work--and make our judgments on it as not any one 
single item or issue but the whole notion of how we protect our 
Nation's interests across the globe. On that, this measure deserves my 
support, and has gotten my support, and obviously the support of a 
majority of our colleagues.
  As we dispose of the conference report on the Defense appropriations 
bill, I regret that we leave behind other issues involving security for 
our country at home. I want to mention those today.
  I hope before we adjourn at the end of this day, we will have had the 
opportunity to bring to this floor several measures that will be 
brought up by unanimous consent, and I hope with no objection. One of 
those deals with the security of our ports. As it turns out, for the 
hundreds of ports across and around our Nation where ships travel in 
and out of them every single week, the security we provide for those 
ports and for the people who live in the areas around those ports is 
inadequate.
  The opportunity for someone to bring terrorist devices into our ports 
and into heavily populated areas possibly is very real. It is one that 
we currently do not address well, and we need to.
  The Senate Commerce Committee, under the leadership of Senator 
Hollings, has reported out legislation, I believe unanimously, on port 
security. It needs to come before this body and to be considered before 
we ultimately adjourn.
  Secondly, on the issue of airport security, aircraft security has 
been debated and I think satisfactorily addressed by the House and 
Senate and by the President.
  Many people in this part of the country, and around the country, 
travel by railroad. We leave undone, at least at this moment, issues 
that ought to be addressed with respect to rail security, the security 
of people who are traveling on railroads as passengers around our 
Nation.
  Again, the Commerce Committee, under the leadership of Senator 
Hollings, has reported out, I believe unanimously, legislation dealing 
with rail security. It is an important issue, and not just for those of 
us in the Northeast corridor; it is an important issue for our Nation. 
And we know, as the Presiding Officer does, there are hundreds of 
thousands of people who travel literally every day through tunnels that 
go in and out of New York, under Baltimore, and under this city that 
are not too secure, are not well ventilated or well lit, and are not 
well protected.
  This measure would help to address that, along with better 
surveillance of our bridges, providing better and more adequate 
security aboard our trains. My hope is that before we leave this day, 
before the Senate sets this day, we will have taken up this measure by 
unanimous consent and approve it in the Senate.
  There was objection a few moments ago to another unanimous consent 
request which was made with respect to antiterrorism reinsurance. Other 
nations around the globe have been the target of terrorist attacks, and 
damage has been suffered from those attacks for many years. For us, 
fortunately, the experience of September 11 had never visited this 
country before. We have not had to trouble ourselves with determining 
how we provide adequately for insurance in the event of a terrorist 
attack.
  Other countries deal with this differently. In Israel and the United 
Kingdom, which have had terrorist attacks

[[Page S13868]]

for many years, those countries have their own approach. In Israel, for 
example, the country provides the insurance for the terrorist attacks. 
The Banking Committee and the Commerce Committee both have sought to 
craft legislation to say there ought to be a backstop with respect to 
antiterrorism legislation, that initially the insurance companies 
themselves should put up money and absorb the losses, to the tune of 
$10 or $15 billion, but after that there should be a sharing of the 
costs that grow out of terrorist attacks. The Federal Government should 
share that. It is unfortunate we were not able to proceed with this 
legislation today, and it is imperative we take it up as soon as we 
return.
  The last point is with respect to other unfinished business. When 
terrorists attacked us on September 11, they didn't just take people's 
lives in New York, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania; they struck a 
body blow to our economy. We are still reeling, to some extent, from 
that body blow. The work of the Federal Reserve on monetary policy 
helps us with respect to that body blow.
  The fact that energy prices have fallen so much helps us with respect 
to that body blow. The fact that we are spending, frankly, a lot of 
money with deficit spending, in order to fight terrorism here and 
across the country and around the world, provides stimulus to the 
economy and helps to reduce the length of time under which we will 
likely have a recession.

  There is one other thing we could have done, and ought to have done, 
besides the terrorism reinsurance proposal that has been objected to, 
and that was to pass an economic recovery plan. That, I think, had 
broad bipartisan support by Democrats and Republicans. It would have 
accelerated depreciation and gotten businesses back into the business 
of making capital investment. It would have provided a payroll tax 
holiday for businesses and employees as well. It would have provided 
extensions of unemployment insurance and helped folks on the health 
insurance side. It would have helped States that are reeling at this 
point in time. Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity to debate 
that today and to pass a true bipartisan plan.
  So we go home with half a loaf. We go home with half a loaf, but, as 
the Presiding Officer knows, we will come back next month. And as we 
come back next month, my hope is, if we have not dealt satisfactorily 
with railroad security and port security today, if we have not dealt 
with antiterrorism reinsurance today, as it appears we will not, that 
once we return we will take that up.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I complete 
my request for the unanimous consent, the Senator from West Virginia be 
recognized. He has time under the previous bill already, but I would 
like him to be recognized as soon as I finish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, I have one unanimous 
consent request I would like to make regarding an immigration bill 
before, if possible, the Senator from West Virginia speaks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, the Senators may be unaware, 
but under the previous order, I was to be recognized after the vote; 
right?
  Mr. REID. Right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was the understanding of the Chair that 
Senators Inouye and Stevens were to be recognized after the vote. And 
the Senator agreed to delay his statement, but the time had not been 
allotted to him specifically.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know what my rights are, and I know what 
the order said. I just have not pressed my rights. But I have no 
objection to the Senator making his request. I will not, however, stand 
aside for the Senator's request, but I will be here when he makes his 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Is my consent granted then, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________