[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 87 (Wednesday, June 26, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6097-S6100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S6097]]
Senate
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
(Continued)
Amendments Nos. 4007 and 4046
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to reiterate my support for Senator
Levin's second-degree amendment. Senator Warner's amendment directs
that any savings from inflation should be used in one of two ways: for
the research and development of missile defense or for combating
terrorism. However, Senator Warner's amendment does not choose which
area is more worthy of attention, and therefore it risks compromising
both.
Our job in deciding the budget is about making hard choices. Senator
Levin's amendment simply sets priorities and it states that combating
terrorism should be this administration's top priority.
I do not think this is a difficult decision. We must remember that
this amendment only authorizes funding for fiscal year 2003. And in the
next 18 months, the citizens of the United States are going to be
anxious, and even afraid, of a car bomb, an explosion in a harbor, an
explosion in a mall, a dirty bomb, a biological attack. I think the way
to protect Americans is clear: put resources into counterterrorism.
The senior Senator from Virginia has been assured by the Office of
Management and Budget that there will be over $800 million in inflation
savings at the midsession review. At that time, the President will have
a choice. He can invest $800 million more into a missile defense
program that has already been robustly funded at $6.8 billion or the
President can invest the funds in the $1 billion of counterterrorism
requirements that the military has asked for and not received.
The Levin amendment expresses the views of Congress, and I believe
the views of the American people, that resources directed toward the
most immediate need, the most immediate threat, fighting terrorism,
will best protect the United States and its citizens.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would just like to take a moment to
express my thanks to Senator Levin and Senator Warner for working with
me to clear this amendment in such a timely fashion. I think special
thanks should also go to Senator Carnahan, a member of both the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the Senate Armed
Services Committee for her support of this amendment. Senator
Carnahan's work was vital to this amendment's acceptance by the Armed
Services Committee, and I thank her for her assistance as well as for
her continuing interest and advocacy for America's small business
Federal contractors. I would also like to thank Senator Bond for his
help on the Republican side. Concern for our Nation's Federal
contractors remains an important area of bipartisan interest on the
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, and I am pleased to have
his support on this amendment.
Briefly, our amendment requires the Secretary of the Army to conduct
a study on the impact the creation of an Army Contracting Agency will
have on small business participation in Army procurement, especially at
the local level where many small businesses provide support services to
Army installations. When we first received word of Secretary of the
Army Thomas E. White's plan to consolidate army procurement activities
into a central location, I was very concerned about its possible
affects on small businesses. And despite briefings from Army personnel
and assurances that small business participation will not be negatively
affected, I remain concerned as do my colleagues. This is a critical
time for our armed forces, and I do not wish to cause any confusion in
the procurement process that could affect our military preparedness.
Therefore, we are taking a ``wait and see'' approach to the Army's
plan.
Our amendment will help monitor the situation at the Army by
requiring them to keep track of small business participation in their
procurement, especially at the local level. The amendment requires the
Army to track any changes in the use of bundled contracts, sometimes
called consolidated contracts, as a result of this new procurement
agency, as well as track small business access to procurement
personnel.
Let me be clear. Removing contracting authority from Army
installations and centralizing it will result in less small business
participation, but steps can be taken to overcome this. These steps
must be proactive and represent a real commitment to maintaining small
business access to procurement opportunities. And while I do not
believe Congress should dictate every detail of how the Army chooses to
structure itself for procurement purposes, Congress must be concerned
about the consequences of that structure.
I look forward to working with the Secretary to ensure that an
appropriate level of small business participation in Army procurement
is maintained.
Once again, I would like to thank Senator Bond and Senator Carnahan
for their support on this issue, as well as Senator Levin and Senator
Warner for accepting this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am pleased that Chairman Levin and I
have been able to come to agreement on my amendment to restore $814
million that the President can allocate to ballistic missile defense
and to activities of the Department of Defense to counter terrorism and
on Chairman Levin's second-degree amendment.
Prior to their approval, I would like to offer some clarifying
remarks concerning the intent and effect of these two amendments.
[[Page S6098]]
The underlying Warner amendment takes advantage of the fact that the
Office of Management and Budget is undertaking a midyear reassessment
of the inflation assumptions built into the administration's fiscal
year 2003 budget. I was informed 2 weeks ago that this reassessment
will result in a new estimate that inflation in 2003 will be lower than
earlier thought. What this means, in practical terms, is that the
Department of Defense budget has an inflation ``bonus'' built in less
funding will be required to purchase the goods and services in the
Department's budget. Since these funds are excess to the Department's
needs, there is no programmatic impact resulting from the inflation
savings being used for other purposes.
Thus the Warner amendment will allow the President to reallocate, as
he determines to be in the national interest, $814 million toward two
of the highest defense priorities, ballistic missile defense and DOD
activities to combat terrorism, with no other programmatic impact.
This amendment will provide the President the option to restore all
the missile defense funds that were cut by the Armed Services
Committee. In my view, these reductions would impede progress, increase
program risk, and undermine the effort to provide for the rapid
development and deployment of missile defenses for our Nation, our
allies and friends, and our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen
deployed overseas. I believe that the President would be completely
justified in using the authority provided in this amendment for the
missile defense effort.
I believe that Senator Levin shares this opinion of my amendment,
even in light of the effect of his second degree amendment. Our
colloquy this afternoon indicates clearly that that the chairman's
intent is not to restrict the President's options in any way.
Again, I am please that Chairman Levin and I were able to come to
agreement on this difficult issue.
I would ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter
Chairman Levin and I received this afternoon from the Office of
Management and Budget stating the view of the Director of OMB that the
president retains the options of using the funds provided in my
amendment on missile defense.
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, June 26, 2002.
Dear Chairman Levin and Senator Warner: It is the
understanding of the Office of Management and Budget, based
on the Levin-Warner colloquy, that if the Levin 2nd degree
amendment is adopted, the funds provided in the underlying
Warner amendment, if appropriated, could be expended on
missile defense and other activities determined by the
President.
Sincerely,
Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the second degree amendment which I have
offered expresses the determination and decision of Congress that the
war on terrorism should be ``the top priority'' for spending the
additional funds identified by the pending Warner amendment. The Warner
amendment specifies two possible purposes for the expected additional
funds following the inflation recalculation in the midsession review.
The first specified purpose is ballistic missile defense programs. The
second specified purpose is combating terrorism at home and abroad.
My amendment is based on the large number of unmet needs in our war
against terrorism, including those identified by the members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. We should put additional resources where the
greatest threats exist, and the terrorist threat is clearly the number
one threat that we face.
There have been a number of efforts in the last twenty-four hours to
persuade me to weaken my amendment or to dilute its intention away from
focusing resources on combatting terrorism. I, along with my
colleagues, including Senators Harry Reid and Jack Reed, have resisted
these efforts. We will soon determine whether my amendment is adopted
by voice vote or whether there will be a rollcall on it. But whichever
way we decide to proceed, one thing needs to be clear, which is that
the express language and intent of my amendment is that Congress speak
clearly as to what it views as the top priority for the expenditure of
any additional funds from the inflation recalculation. That priority is
``combating terrorism at home and abroad.''
I urge my colleagues to support my second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam president, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Levin's amendment No. 4046 be agreed to; Senator Warner's amendment No.
4007, as amended, be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table; and that the preceding all occur without any
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, not to object, I just ask unanimous
consent that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison be added as a cosponsor to my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there objection to the request?
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4046) was agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4007), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments to
discuss an important issue that is covered in this bill: the need for
the Department of Defense, as well as the entire Federal Government, to
have the capability to continue essential operations after a direct
attack on primary facilities. The importance of ensuring Continuity Of
Operations (COOP) is a lesson that we all elevated in priority after
September 11, 2001. Many of us in Congress and the Federal Government
had begun to recognize the vulnerability of our critical
infrastructures--especially our information networks--to disruption or
destruction, prior to 9/11. I had even initiated an information
assurance scholarship program to begin developing a cadre of
professionals in DOD to address this potential problem area.
There were, however, many in private industry that learned this same
lesson almost 10 years earlier, and as a result, were far more prepared
than the Federal Government when terrorists attacked the World Trade
Center.
The financial services industry is one that has historically handled
an extraordinary amount of information. They track and record every
financial transaction that occurs each day on Wall Street. In addition
to an enormous amount of information, the financial services industry
deals with information that is extremely critical in nature.
After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in May, 1993
this industry asked the question: ``What if the terrorists had been
successful in bringing down these buildings?'' Their conclusion was
sobering. It would have resulted in an extraordinary disruption of the
U.S. economy for years.
Accordingly, the New York financial institutions tasked the data
storage industry to develop a technology that would allow information
to be stored, in a second-by-second identical state, in two
geographically separate locations. The goal was for each financial
entity to have a primary data center in the city and a secondary
``mirrored-site'' in another State. If there was ever an outage at the
primary location, no financial transaction would be lost, and all of
the systems and networks could ``fail-over'' to the secondary center
outside of the city and immediately put to use.
In 1994 this technology was developed, validated and delivered. For
the first time, information of all types, coming from computer systems
of all makes and models could be replicated between two geographically
separate locations. The ``mirrored'' data center, using sophisticated
remote data storage technologies, had been born.
No one ever envisioned that this remote data storage technology would
be tested to the degree it was on September 11, 2001. The financial
services industry's dedicated focus to protecting Wall Street's
financial information resulted in that industry being more prepared
than any other to handle an unanticipated natural or man-made disaster.
As the World Trade Center towers collapsed, tragically ending the lives
of thousands of hard working
[[Page S6099]]
Americans, numerous data centers containing massive amounts of
financial information vanished in an instant. The institutions
utilizing this technology, however, did not lose a single piece of
information and the financial markets were able to reopen almost
immediately. Some could have opened that same afternoon.
On the opposite end of the spectrum of information assurance
readiness, unfortunately, is our Federal Government. Many of our key
government agencies have their information backed-up only through out-
dated tape systems, and with the back-up tapes stored on site, they
would also be destroyed in any deliberate attacks. If destroyed, that
information could never be recovered or restored.
For years, agencies within the Federal Government have neglected the
requirement to make the necessary investments in back-up data centers
and remote data storage technology. At the same time, however, every
Federal agency has grown extremely dependant on their data centers and
the information contained within. The Department of Defense creates,
disseminates, and relies more and more on electronic information to
execute its mission and manage its organizations and people. The loss
of a critical database and the information it contains could be
catastrophic for our national security. We must ensure that the U.S.
military has the same level of capability that was resident in the data
centers of the financial institutions operating in the World Trade
Center.
Nothing can diminish the tragedy that occurred on September 11 or
erase the pain that so many suffered. The foresight of private
industry, however, in developing the capability to ``mirror''
information between geographically separate locations, resulted in
protecting trillions of dollars in financial transactions and other
critical records--the loss of which would have crippled the American,
as well as the global economy, for years. I commend the exceptional
competency of American industry's engineering talent, as well as the
commitment of the private sector's leadership to invest the millions of
research and development dollars to develop this capability. I also
look forward to working with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure
that the ``mirror'' capability is expeditiously and thoroughly employed
within the Department of Defense. The protection of our critical
information infrastructure is something we all need to be mindful of,
and an area that deserves our best efforts to ensure its security.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I commend ranking member Warner for his
stewardship of the fiscal year 2003 defense budget process in the
Senate. We face many challenges to our national security in this day
and age and I am thankful for his leadership.
One of those emerging challenges we face is the terrorist threat to
our food supply, specifically U.S. agriculture. On the Federal, State,
and local level, we need to establish procedures to detect, deter, and
respond to large scale coordinated attacks against livestock and
agricultural commodities.
Toward that end, I ask the Senate to support my amendment to
authorize, with an offset, $1,000,000 for research, development, test,
and evaluation, defense-wide in-house laboratory independent research,
PE 0601103D8Z, for research, analysis, and assessment of efforts to
counter possible agroterrorist attacks. It is my hope that universities
with established expertise in the agricultural sciences can conduct
studies and exercises that lead to better coordination between Federal,
State, and local authorities as they attempt to detect, deter, and
respond to large-scale coordinated attacks on U.S. agriculture.
Most importantly, I envision universities assisting the Department of
Defense in determining what role, if any, our military or Defense
agencies play in countering agroterrorism. I ask my colleagues to
support my amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the administration version of the
Department of Defense authorization bill included a provision that
would modify the Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA, with respect to
``military readiness activities.'' While acknowledging the need for a
well-trained military, it is my strong view that this provision should
not be included in the bill.
The administration proposal on MMPA would alter the current
definition of ``harassment'' for ``takings'' of marine mammals under
the MMPA--a cornerstone of the statute. Action on this provision via
the Department of Defense authorization bill is problematic for several
reasons.
First, the MMPA is a complex statute. These provisions have not been
appropriately examined in a Senate hearing--no testimony is in the
record from experts and others who need to consider the validity of the
issues raised and the ramifications of the proposed language.
Second, the MMPA has many stakeholders and end users. It would be
inappropriate to alter the statute for one set of users and not others.
The MMPA needs to be taken as a whole, and not amended piecemeal.
Third, it is not clear that these changes are needed, or that the
proposal brought forward by the administration would be the correct way
to address concerns.
For these reasons, I want to make it clear that I oppose inclusion of
this provision in the Department of Defense authorization bill--whether
via floor amendments or via conference with the House. The committee of
jurisdiction--the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of
which I am chairman--is the appropriate venue for considering the
military's concerns and any proposals for change.
navy airborne radar technology capable of all-weather attack on time
critical targets and enemy mobile ground forces
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss
with the distinguished chair of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee,
Senator Landrieu, and the senior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd,
about developing Navy airborne radar technology capable of all-weather
attack of time critical targets and of the enemies' mobile ground
forces.
Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend for bringing this issue to the
attention of the Senate. This research area is important to the Navy
and the defense of the United States. Technology being developed to
support this capability is currently planned to be ready for transition
to Navy aircraft in the fiscal year 2006 time frame, but can be
completed sooner with additional funding in fiscal year 2003. The House
of Representatives included an additional $9 million for this purpose
in its version of the Defense authorization bill.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am delighted to discuss this important technology
area with my good friends from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Technologies associated with one of the Navy's
designated Future Naval Capabilities, ``Time Critical Strike,'' are
being implemented through a team effort at the Office of Naval Research
in conjunction with the responsible acquisition program management
organizations within the Navy. This technology area addressed the
documented requirement for reducing the target cycle to below 10
minutes and enhancing the ability to detect, locate and strike these
targets under all weather conditions--a current operational deficiency.
Mr. DODD. As I mentioned earlier, the House bill includes $9 million
for this purpose. My understanding, however, is that at least $12
million in fiscal year 2003 funding is needed to fully accelerate this
program.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is my understanding as well. In light of recent
hostilities, this technology area is an excellent example of the things
the military will need to defeat a highly mobile enemy. We certainly
hope that we can work with the distinguished chairman to provide
necessary resources for the development of these capabilities when we
conference this bill with the House.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am aware of the value of time critical to strike the
war fighter and look forward to working with my good friends from
Connecticut on this important issue as we move to a conference with the
House.
Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend for her support for this program.
section 241
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am pleased to join the chairman of
the
[[Page S6100]]
Armed Services Committee in a colloquy regarding the extending
authorization of pilot programs for revitalizing Department of Defense
laboratories. I seek to clarify the congressional intent of Section 241
of the bill before the Senate.
Mr. LEVIN. Section 241 is part of the Senate's continuing efforts to
improve the Department's labs and test centers. This pilot program
expands and authorizes a number of innovative business practice and
personnel demonstrations that are very important to developing the
technological superiority that our military needs. The legislation will
extend the time period for the pilot program authority for three years.
This extension is consistent with the Department of Defense's
legislative proposals that the Armed Services Committee received. I
would like to thank Senator Landrieu, chair of the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee, for taking the lead in developing this
legislation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The language stipulates that not more than one
partnership may be established as a limited liability corporation, or
LLC. Has that site been designated?
Mr. LEVIN. If he choose to establish an LLC as part of the program,
the Secretary of Defense will designate its location from among the DoD
organizations participating in the pilot program.
Ms. MIKUKSKI. I understand that the Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland
has invested great effort into pursuing this opportunity. I also note
that the Secretary of the Army has approved Aberdeen's LLC program as
one of the new initiatives under the Army's Business Initiative Council
to improve efficiency in business operations and processes.
Mr. LEVIN. I am familiar with the Aberdeen proposal and this
legislation could be used to implement their plans, if the Secretary of
Defense designates it.
Ms. MIKULSKI. How will the membership from the private and academic
sectors be determined?
Mr. LEVIN. A competitive process will be used to select participants
in any of the partnerships established by the legislation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. The legislative language permits the members of the LLC
to ``contribute funds to the corporation, accept contribution of funds
for the corporation, and provide materials, services, and use of
facilities for research, technology, and infrastructure of the
corporation,'' if doing so will improve the efficiency of the
performance of research, test, and evaluation functions of the
Department of Defense.
Mr. LEVIN. Yes, you are correct. The committee believes that
innovative partnerships, better business practices, and the
continuation and expansion of the innovative personnel demonstrations
authorized in this and other programs are all important for the
revitalization of the Department's labs and test centers.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the chairman for his support on this important
issue.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I support the Hutchison-
Bingaman amendment and am pleased to cosponsor it.
The purpose of my addressing the issue is two fold: One, to impress
upon my fellow Members that if Congress intends to have input into the
BRAC process, the only real time to do this is during the current
session. While ``BRAC 2005'' leads people to believe that we have
several years before we have to worry about this, the truth is that the
criteria must be published prior to the end of 2003, and hence we
should provide our input in 2002; two, this legislation, sponsored by
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson sets up criteria that must be met before
consideration in closing a military facility. We are not eliminating
the ability of DoD to run the process, we are pursuing legislation that
will clarify the process. To bring the process out into the open
allowing us all to see how a decision was derived and these are
decisions that affects thousands of people and cost many millions or
billions of dollars.
It is time to bring--businesslike competitive accounting into the
consideration process when dealing with issues of BRAC. The Hutchison
legislation will accomplish that by simply establishing some minimal,
measurable, and articulated standards to be used in making major
decisions. Some of these issues are: environmental costs, costs of
Federal and State environmental compliance laws; costs and effects of
relocating critical infrastructure; anticipated savings vs. actual
savings; current or potential public or private partnerships in support
of Department activities; capacity of State and localities to respond
positively to economic, and this bill requires the SecDef to publish
the formula to which different criteria will be weighed by the DOD in
making its recommendations for closure of realignment of military
installations.
Not only do I support this move on its stand alone merit of bringing
accountability and transparency to major defense and economic
decisions, I also support it as a Senator who has had personal
experience with the secretive BRAC process as it affects my own
constituents and friends.
The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is a national asset to the defense
industry and naval service. It has a long history of supporting the
U.S. Navy, yet despite this long history, it has appeared on the DoD
BRAC his list. Having seen the work this facility and its people
contribute I will continue to support and work to enhance PNSY's
capabilities. Its outstanding work performance, value to the Navy, and
value to the America people are critical in ensuring national defense,
and continue to examine innovative roles PNSY can perform in addition
to its critical job of keeping America's nuclear submarines at sea.
If the Secretary of Defense chooses to examine facilities across the
country, he may do so and I encourage his attempts at streamlining DoD
and enhancing its financial practices--to make sure the taxpayers get
the most for their hard-earned dollars. However, clearly defined
standards of accountability, and the decisionmaking process itself,
should be open to congressional scrutiny and openness.
____________________