[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6182-S6200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
continue consideration of S. 2514 which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2514) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2003 for the military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is the Senate 
now, by previous order, proceeds to the cloture vote; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on S. 2514, the 
     Defense authorization bill:
         Harry Reid, Jon Corzine, Richard Durbin, Tom Harkin, Carl 
           Levin, Mary Landrieu, Tom Carper, Ben Nelson, Ron 
           Wyden, Daniel Akaka, Debbie Stabenow, Evan Bayh, Maria 
           Cantwell, Herb Kohl, John Edwards, Jeff Bingaman, and 
           Joseph Lieberman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2514, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 
prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
Forces, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) is 
necessarily absent.

[[Page S6183]]

  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Schumer
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 98, the nays are 0. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now 
postcloture on the Defense authorization bill and amendments that are 
germane can now be offered; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4033

  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair. I call up amendment No. 4033.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 4033.

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

            (Purpose: To increase active duty end strengths)

       On page 91, strike lines 1 through 4, and insert the 
     following:
       (1) The Army, 485,000.
       (2) The Navy, 379,200.
       (3) The Marine Corps, 175,000.
       (4) The Air Force, 362,500.
                                  ____

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend, my 
Vietnam brother, Senator McCain, for joining me in offering an 
amendment that I think is critical to the future of our military forces 
and particularly critical to the future outcome of the war against 
catastrophic terrorism. That phrase ``catastrophic terrorism,'' I 
borrow from Senator Sam Nunn, who once occupied this seat in this 
august body and whose opinion in terms of military and defense matters 
I respect tremendously.
  Today I introduce, along with Senator McCain, an amendment to the 
Defense authorization bill that begins to address the concerns 
expressed by the uniformed leadership of the Armed forces and 
reinforced by visits to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and 
their families around the world.
  President Franklin Roosevelt once said to the members of his 
generation--which includes my mother and father. My father served at 
Pearl Harbor after the attack, so I grew up with the notion that this 
Nation should respond wholeheartedly to an attack on itself--``To some 
generations, much is given. From some generations much is required. 
This generation has a rendezvous with destiny.'' I think this 
generation has our own rendezvous with destiny and that destiny is to 
win the war against catastrophic terrorism, to defend our homeland and 
to hang together as Americans while we are doing it.
  Regarding our efforts militarily, I support the President and our 
military commanders 100 percent. However, I also firmly believe we must 
increase the numbers of our active duty military personnel if we are to 
be able to fight the war on catastrophic terrorism successfully. Our 
military is currently winning the battle. But we will lose the war if 
we continue to ignore the fact that our forces are critically over-
deployed and being asked to do too much with too little.
  There is a Latin phrase which tells us, ``If you wish for peace, 
prepare for war.'' The United States is increasing its resources to 
prepare to fight this war. This Defense authorization bill represents 
the largest defense authorization bill in American history--$394 
billion. Additionally, we are dramatically increasing our intelligence 
capabilities, especially human intelligence. We are boosting the CIA 
with more money and people, while the FBI is creating a super squad 
aimed at fighting terrorism around the globe. In the past 2 weeks, the 
President requested Congress create a Cabinet office of Homeland 
Security.
  We are very fortunate to have a superb military force that is highly-
skilled, highly-trained and highly-motivated.
  The problem is that they are also over-committed. Our forces are 
over-deployed and they won't be able to do it much longer. We are out 
of balance, with our commitments far outpacing our troop levels, and 
the situation is only getting worse. As can be seen on this chart, as 
the size of our force structure has continually declined since Vietnam, 
the number of contingency deployments has continued to grow with no end 
in sight. As a matter of fact, we all read in the papers almost daily 
where our military forces have been expanded in terms of commitments--
to Yemen, Pakistan, the Philippines, the Republic of Georgia, and so 
on.
  Since the end of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the armed forces 
have downsized by more than half a million personnel. I do not think 
the American people really understand we won Desert Storm in 1991 with 
half a million more people on active duty, trained and ready to fight, 
than we have now. We do not have those half a million people, and our 
commitments have continued to increase. Today, a Desert-Storm size 
deployment to Iraq would require 86 percent of the Army's deployable 
end strength around the world, including all stateside deployable 
personnel, all overseas-deployed personnel, and most forward-stationed 
personnel.
  Contrast that drop in personnel with the dramatic rise in the number 
of deployments for the same time frame. The Army alone is deployed in 
over 100 countries, with over 10,000 troops in Bosnia, Croatia and 
Hungary.
  Even more dramatic is the fact that deployments have increased 300 
percent since 1989, and the fall of the Soviet Union. The tempo of 
those deployments has increased from one every four years to one every 
14 weeks.
  That was prior to September 11. In the war on terrorism, we now face 
a far broader challenge and for a longer, unspecified duration. The 
Department of Defense has ordered new deployments in the last several 
months to Afghanistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Georgia, and Pakistan. 
To make this possible, we have activated more than 80,000 guard and 
reserve troops and instituted stop-loss for certain active and reserve 
component specialties. ``Stop-loss'' means you are not getting out of 
the military; we have a war on. That is what ``stop-loss'' means.
  This is not a way to fight a war when our strategic national 
interests are at stake. The President has rightly told the country to 
be prepared for a long war. That is highly appropriate. However, the 
Department of Defense requested only a modest increase, a little over 
2,000 personnel, in Marine Corps personnel this year. In the face of 
mounting evidence that our people and their families are hurting from 
the strain of this new war, there are no current plans by Department of 
Defense to increase end-strength for American soldiers, sailors or 
airmen. The Department of Defense may not have plans to increase our 
end-strength authorization, but I do, along with Senator McCain and 
others.
  As the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, I propose to authorize an increase of 5,000 
personnel

[[Page S6184]]

for the Army, 3,500 for the Navy, 3,500 for the Air Force and 2,400 
additional Marines as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget. This 
represents an increased authorization of 12,000 personnel beyond the 
administration's request. This initial increase begins to address the 
needs of the armed forces, the needs they themselves feel are crucial.
  During the past year, most of the senior uniformed leadership in 
Washington and around the globe have related manpower concerns and the 
strain it has created on their service either in testimony or in the 
media. It is time to respond to their concerns.
  Recently, two-regional combatant commanders testified that their 
forces were stretched thin and inadequate to carry out their assigned 
missions if operations in the war on catastrophic terror continued at 
their current pace. I see no sign the war is abating. I see every sign 
it is escalating. In addition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have 
apparently cited manpower needs as one criteria leading to a 
recommended delay in any possible military action against Iraq; a 
conclusion also reached during a Pentagon computer-simulated exercise 
this past Spring.
  This authorization process is inevitably about setting priorities, 
and this amendment addresses the crucial need of our most important 
resource and highest priority, the men and women who serve in our armed 
forces.
  In addition to this needed increase in authorized end-strength for 
the next fiscal year, I had hoped to offer a sense of the Senate 
resolution that would demonstrate the commitment of this body to the 
continuing need to address authorized end-strength levels as we fight 
this war on terror and simultaneously meet this Nation's military 
commitments around the globe. However, this resolution was ruled non-
germaine and cloture prevents its offering. This does not negate the 
fact that there is a need for almost 26,000 additional personnel over a 
5-year period to meet the shortages expressed by our senior uniformed 
leadership, soldiers, and families. My plan would bring our current 
commitments and authorized troop levels into greater balance.
  If fully implemented, over the course of a 5-year period, the Army 
would grow by over 1 percent annually resulting in an army end-strength 
of an additional 25,000 extra soldiers.
  The Air Force would require an increase of 2,500 airmen in fiscal 
year 2004 and 2,000 in fiscal year 2005.
  The Navy would have a requirement for 1,000 additional sailors in 
fiscal year 2004.
  This responsible and incremental increase in authorization 
acknowledges that the activation of the reserve components and stop-
loss are only temporary fixes to a larger problem. In addition, this 
plan begins the dialogue on the long term personnel needs that this new 
war on terror requires. Though this multi-year plan will not be 
included in this bill, I will continue to pursue this issue within this 
body. It is imperative that we continue to recognize that this is a 
long term problem that must be addressed with long term plans in order 
to meet the commitment our young service men and women deserve.
  Just a personal note: I have been on the short end of a no-cost, guns 
and butter policy before. It was called Vietnam. I don't want to hide 
the costs of the war on catastrophic terrorism. I don't want to see 
this happen again. In Vietnam, we had the men but not the mission. The 
draft easily provided us with the personnel we needed but never 
answered the question of how to properly use the troops we were putting 
in harm's way. American soldiers paid the price. In the war on 
terrorism, we have the mission, but we do not have the people. American 
servicemen and women will pay the price again if we do not act.
  Right now, our military is on a collision course with the reality of 
families they do not see, training they are not receiving and divisions 
borrowing from each other to meet requirements and survive. We can 
prevent tomorrow's losses, but we have to act today. We must be on the 
strategic offensive against catastrophic terrorism with enough people 
and resources to make the terrorist lose. I support the Defense 
Department's internal look at reallocating spaces to the warfighting 
units. This however, should be complimentary to a plan to provide the 
most critical weapon in our arsenal--American service men and women. I 
respectfully request that my distinguished colleagues join me in 
supporting our men and women in uniform by providing them what they 
need to fight and win this war on terrorism and meet our commitments 
abroad at the same time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by my 
friend, Senator Cleland of Georgia. The reality is there are some 
80,000 reservists who are now being extended on active duty--some of 
those reservists voluntarily, some involuntarily--because of the 
dramatically increased commitments of manpower as a result of the war 
on terror precipitated by the events on September 11.
  Some of our most valued members of the military are our reservists. 
They have filled incredibly important and vital missions in defense of 
this country not only since September 11 but in every previous conflict 
in which we have been engaged in the last century.
  Right now, many of these men and women who are being involuntarily 
extended believe they have performed the function of a reservist, and 
that is to be called up in time of an emergency. Their lives have been 
disrupted; they are having to tell their families they do not know when 
they will be able to return to their homes, their families, and their 
jobs. Remember, these reservists, the overwhelming majority of them, 
have jobs and homes in their communities in which they live. Many of 
them are very far away from home on ships at sea and overseas in many 
places.
  The reality is, as patriotic as these men and women are, they are not 
going to remain in the reserves if they are forced to remain 
involuntarily for an extended period of time.
  The Pentagon has been very reluctant to increase the end strength of 
the military, which means that men and women who would be in active-
duty forces would then take up these duties presently being performed 
by reservists. The reason is pretty obvious. What it does is it 
increases costs rather dramatically. When you look at the personnel 
costs associated with enlarging the size of the military, they have a 
very significant budgetary impact.

  The Cleland amendment tries to increase end strength because we know 
we are in a protracted war, we are in a war that will not end soon, and 
it will require an increased number of personnel in the military. 
Senator Cleland's amendment is rather simple. It increases the allowed 
end strength--in other words, to the layperson, this is the allowed 
number of men and women in the military. It gives significant 
flexibility to the Secretary of Defense and the administration.
  But we need to send a signal to all of the military that we are 
willing to increase the size and strength of the military to whatever 
degree is necessary to successfully prosecute the war on terror. Part 
of that, obviously, reservists being extended involuntarily, is that we 
do not have enough men and women in the military. We are willing to 
provide the weapons systems, the increased procurement--some of it far 
less necessary than the increased number of personnel in the active-
duty armed services.
  Senator Cleland, who keeps in very close touch with the men and women 
in the military, including those very large numbers who are based in 
the State of Georgia, and I have come to the conclusion that we need 
very badly to increase end strength, maintain the viability of the 
reserves, but also to successfully prosecute the war on terror.
  I thank Senator Cleland for his amendment. It is a worthy amendment. 
It provides a great deal of flexibility to the Defense Department. We 
need to send a signal, especially to the reservists who are being 
extended involuntarily for an indefinite period of time,

[[Page S6185]]

that we intend to increase the size of our military so they will not 
have to.
  Here is a reality: They are not going to keep these men and women in 
the reserves if they believe they are going to be involuntarily 
extended. Senator Cleland has information about how many times 
reservists have been called up, particularly in recent conflicts, 
including that in the Persian Gulf.
  At least those conflicts were of relatively short duration. But these 
men and women who held jobs in their own communities and were members 
of the Reserves did serve their country at considerable sacrifice.
  I thank Senator Cleland for his amendment. I strongly support it, and 
I hope my colleagues will support it as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share the views as expressed by our 
distinguished colleague from Arizona and, indeed, the distinguished 
colleague from Georgia, about the problems facing the men and women in 
the Armed Forces today, particularly the Reserves, the Guard, and 
others. They have very loyally and patriotically accepted the call to 
leave their families, their jobs, and go on an active duty status.
  Further, both Senators are quite accurate as to the current stress 
that is being put on the active force, now augmented by the call-ups of 
the Guard and Reserve--nevertheless, the total force as we refer to it 
today--the stress that is being put on them and their families by the 
deployments worldwide. I take absolutely no exception to their 
observations.
  I at this point want to seek some clarity as to the interpretation of 
the amendment before I ask the Chair to call up a second-degree 
amendment to see if, in fact, that may not be necessary.
  I say to my distinguished colleagues--either Senator may answer--is 
this amendment paid for by offsets from other provisions in the bill?
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his support. This 
amendment is discretionary. There is no money to pay for it, so it is 
therefore discretionary on the services. If they meet this increased 
end strength, they have to take it out of their own hides. So it is 
discretionary upon the services.
  Mr. WARNER. My next question would be: title X governs this process 
of the end strengths and has done so for many years. The practice of 
the committees of the armed services--certainly the Senate committee--
is simply to establish new end strengths and then they are incorporated 
into the continuing language of title X, which is in permanent law and 
does not need to be revised annually. Does this amendment in any way 
revise the provisions of title X?
  Mr. CLELAND. The distinguished Senator is correct. This does not 
revise title X.
  Mr. WARNER. If I understood the Senator, it does not in any way seek 
to revise the language in permanent law of title X?
  Mr. CLELAND. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my distinguished colleagues, it has been the 
practice of the conference committee on the authorization side each 
year, in reconciling the differences between the House and the Senate--
if the Senator from Georgia first would recite his understanding as to 
what is in the House bill now? And, should this measure be adopted on 
the floor today, what would be the differences that the House and the 
Senate would have to reconcile?
  Mr. CLELAND. I say to my distinguished colleague from Virginia, my 
understanding from staff is that the House has raised the floor--the 
floor, not the ceiling. It has raised the floor. And we do not. We just 
establish a new ceiling that is discretionary.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I understand it, the Senator quite 
accurately pointed out there is a floor in the House bill. We do not 
have a floor, it is your understanding, in the Senate bill; is that 
correct?
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. So that issue would, then, be before the conference?
  Mr. CLELAND. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Let's assume for purposes of this debate that the 
approximate cost of the amendment, I say to the Senator from Georgia, 
would be about $500 million; is that correct?
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator from Virginia is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Would it not be incumbent upon the Senate conferees to 
find within this bill that will be passed shortly the $500 million in 
order to accept the provisions reconciled, as you say, by the House and 
the Senate?
  Mr. CLELAND. I say to my distinguished friend from Virginia, as far 
as I know, it is discretionary upon the conference committee because it 
is based on a discretionary item, independent of the budget. It is not 
an obligation, to my understanding, of the conference committee to come 
up with the money.
  Mr. WARNER. I say, Mr. President, that my recollection--having had 
the privilege of serving as a conferee for, I think, all the 24 years I 
have been here--is that it has been the practice that on this type of 
legislation, although it is discretionary--that is, in the manpower 
area--it has been incumbent upon the Senate to find within our bill the 
$500 million for purposes of reconciliation in the conference. That has 
been our practice.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could finish, I will then be glad to yield. If that 
be the case, I should like to alert colleagues that we would have to 
look at all the programs, the full scope and full range of all programs 
in our bill to generate that $500 million. The consequences would be 
that in some areas there would have to be reductions in those measures 
which Senators thus far have believed were secure as a part of this 
bill. Would I not be correct?
  Mr. CLELAND. No, that is not my understanding. I say to my 
distinguished colleague from Virginia, my understanding is that this 
addresses the floor, not the ceiling. It has not been the intent and is 
not the intent of this amendment to take away from any other part of 
the Defense authorization bill. It is the intent of this amendment to 
authorize the services, if they so desire, to go to a new level of 
troop authorization if they can find the money. It is discretionary 
upon them and discretionary to the conference committee.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Arizona wished to address the issue.
  Mr. McCAIN. I wish to respond to the Senator from Virginia. We have 
other items in this bill--which is authorizing how many billions of 
dollars?
  Mr. WARNER. About $379 billion.
  Mr. McCAIN. About $379 billion, which, in the view of most objective 
observers, would probably not have the priority of the men and women in 
the military. I know of no higher priority. That is the reason why the 
Senator from Georgia and I made a tough decision here, saying: Look, we 
will leave it up to the conference to find the money. I could give the 
Senator a list of projects that are authorized in this bill, which I 
think, according to most objective observers, many of which could be 
described as porkbarrel projects, which have a far lower priority than 
that of the men and women in the military.
  We are facing an urgent problem. We are facing a serious problem. We 
think it deserves the attention of the Senate and, following passage, 
of the conference. It is not unusual to put in a provision on the floor 
that is not funded. That is why we do have conferences. Certain 
tradeoffs are made. There will be tradeoffs made between the conferees 
from the Senate and the House.

  I understand the difficulty that is entailed, but I also understand 
better the difficulty that right now the men and women in the military 
are having in carrying out their functions, their duties, and their 
missions.
  I hope the Senator will understand that we believe this issue is 
transcendent to a $500 million out of a $379 billion piece of 
legislation.
  I thank my friend from Virginia. I understand it places a very tough 
burden on both the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan, 
who will be in charge of carrying this bill through the conference. I 
thank my colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Arizona have 
identified a very critical unmet need. In fact, the Army has already 
indicated

[[Page S6186]]

it is going to try within its own funds to increase its end strength. 
So by the time we actually get to conference, we may find that they 
have already achieved what this amendment urges them to do and 
authorizes them to do.
  That is the point, No. 1.
  No. 2, it seems very clear from the answers of the Senator from 
Georgia that this is a discretionary matter--that it does not raise the 
floor; it raises the ceiling, unlike the House, which does raise the 
floor. The amendment of the Senator from Georgia raises the ceiling but 
leaves the floor where it is. Therefore, the discretion remains.
  Given those clear responses I think this amendment is something we 
should support because I think the responses leave the discretion with 
the Department of Defense, unlike the House bill. That makes this a 
conferenceable item.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could ask my chairman, and, indeed, the sponsors, I 
am sympathetic to what our two colleagues are trying to do. What I am 
endeavoring to do is make clear the responsibility of the conferees 
once we get there. That is my basic concern because I have an 
obligation, as, indeed, my chairman does, in the conference to try to 
protect the integrity of the Senate bill, which has hundreds of 
different items from throughout this Chamber on both sides of the 
aisle.
  What is the chairman's view? Are we or are we not obligated? I 
believe, with the traditions of the past, that the Senate conferees 
would be obligated to find the 1-2 billion dollars. What is the 
chairman's view on that?
  Mr. LEVIN. That we should also try to maintain the Senate position on 
this, which is that the ceiling would be raised and the floor would not 
be raised. That remains. It leaves it as a discretionary matter, as the 
Senator from Georgia clearly said, with the Department of Defense.
  We would do our best, as we always have, to find the funding for that 
higher level. We may leave it up to the military to find it within 
their own funds with the direction from us in report language--the 
conference managers' language directing the military to find it within 
their own funds.

  There are a lot of possibilities.
  But the point the Senator from Georgia made, and the Senator from 
Arizona as cosponsor made, it seems to me, is that it is unassailable 
that we have overused our reservists. We have to find a way to correct 
that. This is an effort to push us in that direction. It leaves it as a 
conferenceable issue because the floor in the House is raised to where 
the ceiling is, but in the Senate bill, with the amendment of the 
Senator from Georgia, if adopted, the floor remains the same. It is the 
ceiling which is raised.
  It gives us some important added impetus to add end strength--as it 
should.
  I think we all agree that we have to find a way to do this in order 
to reduce the overuse of reservists.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have another question for the chairman 
and the sponsors. Again, I am sympathetic to what we are trying to do. 
But at the same time, I find within the existing framework of the law--
that is title X--I would like to read that:

       Section (c) item (1) increase the end strength authorized 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) for a fiscal year for any of 
     the armed forces by a number equal to not more than 2 percent 
     of that end strength.

  The existing law gives the Secretary of Defense the right to go to 
not only the end strength submitted by our two colleagues--that is 
roughly 1 percent over the current table in our bill--but could go to 
even another percent of 2 percent.
  It is not clear to this Senator exactly what the pending amendment 
does that the Secretary does not already have the authority to do. 
Everything that the pending amendment, one way or another, urges be 
done, he has the right. I say this respectfully to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan, our chairman.
  Yesterday, on missile defense, let's say it was a top priority of the 
Senate to focus this, as the Senator from Arizona said, to cure the 
problems associated. Fine. I have no objection to that. But I do not 
like to see the Senate adopt an amendment which does nothing to change 
the authority of the Secretary of Defense under the existing law.
  The question is, What does this amendment do that existing law does 
not permit the Secretary of Defense to do?
  Mr. LEVIN. I would say there are two answers to that.
  First, since this would be a new level--a new ceiling--the Secretary 
of Defense would have authority to go 2 percent above this additional 
level. The ceiling would be higher. So the Secretary would have that 
same discretionary 2 percent, but it would be above a higher ceiling.
  That is the first answer.
  The second answer, it seems to me, is that the Senator from Georgia 
and the Senator from Arizona have identified in their amendment a 
problem which we all understand exists, and they have focused this 
issue into an amendment.
  That amendment, if adopted, it seems to me, gives additional 
momentum. We have to seek new ways to try to meet that end strength--to 
try to fund it. We have to look to additional ways to try to fund it 
because the tradition which the Senator from Virginia pointed out is 
that we have traditionally funded the authorized end strength. That 
means we have one of two options, or three. Either we have to tell the 
Department of Defense that they have to find the funds to do this 
within their own funds or we have to find the funds to do it at our own 
conference, or the third option is that we would begin a new tradition, 
which is that we don't fund the authorized level. That would be the 
least desirable of all three.

  But, nonetheless, it would be a new tradition.
  Let me just sort of summarize that. We can either direct inside of 
our conference report that the Department of Defense fund the 
authorized end strength with the amendment of the Senator from Georgia, 
or we can find the funds ourselves to do that in conference, or we can 
just simply not follow the tradition, which I happen to think is a good 
tradition, but, nonetheless, is an option.
  Mr. WARNER. If I understood my chairman, one of the options is to 
direct the Department to fund the levels in this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Within their own funds.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand that. But clearly the Secretary of Defense 
may not exercise the discretion which our colleague from Georgia leaves 
in place to go to that end strength. So we can't direct them to do 
something unless the Secretary of Defense takes a prior action; that 
is, exercise the discretion to go to this new end strength level. Am I 
not correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. I think our conference could actually direct the Secretary 
of Defense to do it out of their own funds. I think that is an option.
  Mr. WARNER. But still under the amendment of the Senator from Georgia 
maintains the discretion to go to new levels or not.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is right. I am talking about what the conference 
report does. The Senator's amendment leaves that discretion there. But 
because of the tradition, we fund that authorized level, which the 
Senator from Virginia has pointed out, and we may decide to look to a 
different approach which would be to direct the Secretary of Defense to 
meet that level out of his own funds. It is a different approach, but 
it is an important amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is an entirely different step with 
the conference taking that action. Then we would be taking the 
discretion away from the Secretary that he now has with regard to these 
end strengths. I would not favor that because of the following reasons: 
We reposed by law, in the Constitution, the Commander in Chief who in 
turn selects his Secretary of Defense. I think they must be given the 
maximum latitude possible as the executive branch. They are the 
managers.
  I am always concerned when the Congress tries to mandate that they 
should do A, B, or C when it is their collective judgment that A, B, or 
C not be done.
  I hope in the conference we don't reach that. But let me just point 
out the following.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield on that point, we do mandate end 
strength. It is called the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. With discretion.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, not on the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand. But when we put in our end strength, the 
Secretary still has the discretion. To the credit of our Secretary, he 
has, if I

[[Page S6187]]

understand--and I pose this to the Senator from Georgia as a question--
already exercised his discretion with regard to the Marine Corps, and 
has gone to that level with the Marine Corps and found the funding to 
achieve it in this bill.
  Am I not correct?
  Mr. CLELAND. As the Senator pointed out, it was in the President's 
budget request--that the only increase in personnel asked for was about 
2,300 personnel in the Marine Corps. That is in the President's budget. 
That is a request of us which we accede to in this Defense 
authorization bill.
  My amendment says, in effect, that basically this is inadequate. 
Other services need additional strength, and this authorizes the 
services to go to a higher end strength if they can find the money.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. But am I not correct that the Secretary has already 
taken the action to meet the purport of the amendment by the Senator 
from Georgia as regards the Marine Corps?
  Mr. CLELAND. It seems to me the President of the United States, in 
his budget, authorized 2,300 additional personnel and gave the money 
for that, and we have included that in the Defense authorization bill. 
What this amendment says is that in the collective judgment of those of 
us who are involved in this personnel debate, that is not adequate 
enough to meet the needs of our commitments, especially in this new war 
we are fighting.
  You can see here the tremendous imbalance we have presently. These 
lines shown on the chart have to begin coming together. We have to 
begin matching our personnel with our commitments or else we will 
continue to strain our personnel to the limit. That is why we have the 
authorization for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, as well as the 
Marine Corps, to go to a higher level.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that was essentially a reiteration of your 
basic argument for the amendment.
  My question was very narrow, very focused, and required, really, a 
yes or no answer.
  Has not the President already, with the Secretary of Defense 
preparation of the budget, reached the figures for the Marine Corps 
with an increase and paid for it?
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. That is all I wanted to establish. So that shows the 
Secretary of Defense is proceeding in an orderly manner, at least with 
one service, to achieve the goals the Senator from Georgia has been 
reciting.
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. And it is my thought that in due course the 
Secretary of Defense will address each of the other services. So long 
as it is my understanding from this important colloquy that in no way 
does your amendment alter title X, alter that discretion, then, Mr. 
President, I shall not bring up my second-degree amendment to it. The 
purposes of that amendment have been achieved during the course of this 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope we can now adopt this amendment.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for his persistence on this issue. 
He has identified a critically important unmet need for this country. 
We have reservists who have been away from their jobs for a much longer 
period of time than anyone intended. We have to address that issue.
  The Army has told us they are going to do their best to address this 
issue. The Navy has listed the increase in end strength as their No. 1 
unfunded priority.
  So I think the need is there. The focus upon this unmet need by the 
Senators from Georgia and Arizona will help us to, hopefully, advance 
this to the point where we can actually find the funds for the increase 
in end strength. One way or the other, we have to address this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the concerns of the Senator from Virginia, 
and perhaps others, have been satisfied. We are prepared to accept the 
amendment on a voice vote.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia for his colloquy which has clarified this issue. It has helped 
gain support for the amendment. I thank the distinguished chairman, 
Senator Levin, for his help. And I thank especially my colleague, 
Senator McCain, for pushing this issue forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4033.
  The amendment (No. 4033) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           amendment no. 3975

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 
2514, which I understand has already been recommended for inclusion in 
the managers' package and has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator restate the amendment 
number, please.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will send that amendment up in just a 
moment. But I understand this amendment has been accepted on both sides 
and may be included in the managers' package. I want to take a minute 
to explain this amendment in a little more detail, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The underlying amendment we have been considering in regard to this 
particular subject has to do with our shipbuilding program and the 
importance of our Navy to the strength of our forces.
  Let me first, though, thank Senator Cleland and Senator McCain for 
their very excellent work in calling to our attention another shortage, 
if you will, which is our end strength, our shortage of personnel, of 
people we can actually send to the front lines, wherever those front 
lines might be. More and more, it is clear to us some of those front 
lines might be here on our own home soil, but also we need men and 
women to support our soldiers and sailors and airmen who have to be 
deployed miles and miles away from our homeland.
  So I thank them for their good work. I am proud to be able to support 
that amendment as well.
  But I bring to the Senate this particular amendment on shipbuilding 
because it points to yet another unfortunate shortfall of our overall 
defense structure. Now is a time when we really have to focus and make 
tough decisions about how we are going to allocate these resources, 
again trying to meet the President in his total budget request, which 
this Senate has done, this Congress has done, and is in the process of 
doing under the leadership of Senator Levin and Senator Warner.

  But within that total amount we are allocating for defense, there is 
some real debate about how that money should be allocated and spent, 
and that is what this broad debate is about.
  One of the issues I want to spend a few minutes speaking about is 
shipbuilding. I would like to begin by reading into the Record just a 
short clip from the American Shipbuilding Association entitled ``The 
Defense Shipbuilding Industrial Base--An Industry At Risk,'' which was 
written in May of 2001.
  This report says:

       In 1987, the United States had a naval fleet of 594 ships. 
     Today, the fleet numbers 316 and is dropping. The annual 
     numbers of naval ships procured is at the lowest level since 
     1932; the size of the Navy's fleet is the smallest since the 
     year before we entered World War I; and while the fleet has 
     been cut almost in half, the number of overseas deployments 
     has increased 300 percent.

  As you can see from the chart, this is one of our mighty aircraft 
carriers and is one of the Navy's pride and joy. We just do not have 
enough aircraft carriers and other different elements of our fleet.
  This report goes on to say:

       Our Commanders-in-Chief are on record that they cannot meet 
     the Nation's military and foreign policy strategy with a 
     fleet of less than 360 ships, yet Navy budgets [we are 
     considering today] are providing for a fleet of fewer than 
     200 ships.

  This is unacceptable. It cannot stand. We need to change these trend 
lines.
  Continuing:


[[Page S6188]]


       This disconnect between national requirements and budgets 
     increases the risk of instability in many regions of the 
     world, jeopardizes the lives of Americans, jeopardizes our 
     economic prosperity, and threatens our peace and national 
     security.
       The historically low rate of naval ship production over the 
     past eight years has also severely weakened the very industry 
     upon which the Navy depends today and tomorrow for its ships. 
     If decisive action is not taken now to reverse the decline in 
     naval ship production, the Nation [could potentially] lose 
     the industrial capability to restore the fleet to the level 
     the Nation requires to maintain global peace and stability.
       It is the role of our military leaders to define the forces 
     they require to meet their military missions.

  Let me tell you why this is important as related to the Navy, let's 
say, and the production of airplanes for our Air Force.
  There is a difference, not that we don't need both; we need a robust 
Air Force as well as a robust Navy. But the way that we prepare and 
build and invest is different. Because of the magnitude of ships, 
because we don't order them by the thousands, we order them by tens and 
twenties, not thousands, the same sort of procedures cannot be 
effectively applied. We need to understand those differences.
  This report goes on to say:

       For example, a fighter pilot or commercial passenger is in 
     an airplane for only a limited number of hours, whereas a 
     ship is a self-sustained city at sea that serves as home to 
     sailors for months on end. The production time of an airplane 
     is measured months, the production time of a ship is measured 
     in years. With respect to government orders, the airplanes of 
     the same design are bought in quantities of hundreds whereas 
     ships are procured in quantities of tens or even less, and 
     each ship of a class is highly customized. The same holds 
     true in commercial transactions, where only one or two ships 
     of the same design will be bought by an individual customer 
     and each customer demands customized designs. Airlines buy 
     quantities of aircraft that are in production for commercial 
     market in competition with other models being produced. 
     Another major difference is that there are a limited number 
     of countries with airplane manufacturers versus the number of 
     countries with shipbuilders. Therefore, there are many more 
     international competitors for ship orders than for planes.
       Given these differences, it is not surprising that a 
     Department of Defense acquisition policy tailored for planes 
     will not work for ships.

  Therefore, I have offered this amendment which will help to move us 
in a direction to increase our production level and turn around the 
disturbing trend line.
  The next chart I have illustrates the trend line. We have been on a 
shipbuilding program. We were well on our way in 1997 to 1998, 1999 and 
2000, moving up. No one has worked harder than Senator Kennedy, who is 
the chair of this subcommittee and has added to the President's budget 
some significant shipbuilding, and the Presiding Officer, as chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee, has done an outstanding job trying to 
change this trend line.
  This amendment, which has been accepted, will make this trend line go 
in a more positive direction. As you know, there is a great need.
  There is an old quote about the military that says: When it comes to 
debating matters of war, it is the amateurs who talk about strategies 
and the experts who talk about logistics. This is because so much of 
the planning that goes into war is centered on two simple questions: 
How are we going to get the troops to the fight; and how are we going 
to supply them once they get there?
  The answer to both of these questions is a strong and robust Navy. 
The conflict in Afghanistan today clearly demonstrates this.
  Again, not to say that the Air Force and the Army don't have to meet 
spectacular and important missions, but we cannot be the strong and 
vital force we need to be to fight this war on terrorism, to support 
our allies around the world, and to project power around the world 
without a robust Navy. This amendment will help us to move in that 
direction.
  In an environment where we cannot afford basing rights for our 
troops, the ships of our Navy become floating sovereign bases a world 
away from American soil. Our campaign in Afghanistan proves this point. 
Currently, 30 percent of our Navy is deployed in support of Operation 
Enduring Freedom, and a majority of our fighter sorties, 85 percent 
flown over Afghanistan, were sea-based. So if we don't have the ships 
to serve, not only as supply lines but as places where our troops can 
be secured while they carry out the missions and the battle, we will be 
seriously crippled in our efforts.

  All of the Marines and many special operations troops that have 
served in Afghanistan were based on ships. There is no doubt if we did 
not have a sizable Navy, we would not be able to execute as well as we 
are in our Afghanistan campaign.
  Furthermore, there is no doubt that even with a 318-ship Navy, it has 
been stretched very thin. Even though we are in a time of war and even 
though we are about to approve the largest increase in defense spending 
in the last two decades, we are simply not procuring naval ships at a 
rate that will sustain a strong Navy in the future. If the size of our 
Navy fleet continues to decline, I fear we will not be able to carry 
out the missions before us.
  Essentially, this amendment states that it is a national policy of 
the United States to maintain a strong and robust Navy, with the 
appropriate number of ships to protect our interests both at home and 
abroad. Congress has done this before in asserting our policy regarding 
missile defense, which we have just successfully debated and on which 
we have come to consensus.
  This amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to lay out the 
budgetary plans necessary to maintain a strong Navy. The underlying 
amendment requires DOD to submit an annual ship construction plan as 
part of the DOD budget. Each year the Secretary of Defense must provide 
a plan for the construction of combatant and support ships that support 
the national security strategy or, if we have no such strategy, will 
support what is called for in the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review.
  If the national security strategy or the QDR, if it calls for 318 
ships, or if it would call for 375 ships with 12 carrier groups and 12 
amphibious ready groups, as Admiral Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, 
has testified to as recently as February, whatever number is decided 
on, the Secretary must provide in detail budget plans for the 
construction of these ships.
  Of course, it looks out over 30 consecutive years. It is not 
something we are trying to do next year. This amendment will require 
the details of such plan to be included. It is consistent with and 
strengthens the underlying bill, on which the Presiding Officer has 
worked so hard and effectively. The plan must describe the necessary 
ship force, how many carriers, submarines, destroyers, transport ships, 
et cetera.
  It also requires that the estimated levels of funding necessary to 
carry out the plan and a discussion of the procurement strategies on 
which the estimated funding levels are based.
  Finally, it requires a certification from the Secretary of Defense. 
The Secretary must certify that both the current budget and the future 
year's defense programs submitted to Congress provide for funding ship 
construction for the Navy at a level that is sufficient for the 
procurement of ships provided for in the plan.
  I am pleased this amendment was accepted. Shipbuilding is important 
to our overall defense plan. The industry itself is important to so 
many of our States, our industrial complex from California to Maine to 
Louisiana. As a Senator from Louisiana, I am particularly proud of what 
our companies and our businesses, both large and small, contribute to 
the shipbuilding strength and capability of America.
  From a defense perspective, as well as an industrial base 
perspective, as well as from economic strength, this amendment is very 
important as we structure a Department of Defense that can fight the 
new wars, that can take us to new places in ways that we can be 
confident we can fight and stand strong for American values and 
democracy for ourselves, for our interests, and to help our allies 
around the world.
  We fight every day to get good, solid land bases to operate. We are 
going to build or are in the process of building some of the finest 
airplanes ever created. Those are important to our Army and our Air 
Force. But our Navy cannot be shortchanged. If it is, it will be to our 
peril and to democracies everywhere.
  We are fighting battles where we have no land bases from which to 
launch and supplies cannot be moved across land. They have to be based 
on

[[Page S6189]]

the sea. We cannot do that without a strong Navy.
  For Louisiana, this is important, but it is much bigger than our 
State. It is important to the Nation.
  So I thank the Senate for their acknowledgement of the importance of 
this amendment. I also thank the subcommittee, led by Senator Kennedy, 
who, through his hard work, has added three ships to the underlying 
budget. We added a submarine, a DDG-51, and a LPD-17.
  I also thank Senator Reed for his work on shipbuilding. He has done 
an outstanding job. Again, we have added to the President's request. I 
was proud to support that in the underlying bill. This amendment takes 
us a step even further to make sure our Navy is strong, robust, and can 
support the great work and great mission of our armed services and our 
defense.
  (Mrs. CLINTON assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a quick comment?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I congratulate the Senator on her amendment, which we have 
accepted. It takes an important step in assuring that we are going to 
have the kind of Navy that we need, for which our Quadrennial Defense 
Review provides. Her amendment is going to help us get to the point we 
must reach that not only identifies the need, but the roadmap. Her 
amendment makes an important contribution.
  As chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, she has become a 
true expert. She was way ahead of her time in identifying the threats 
that have befallen us. As chair of that subcommittee, she has become an 
expert on the Navy. Her contribution to the committee is immense, and I 
thank her for that.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the chairman. I wish to acknowledge the work of 
the Senator from Virginia as well, who, of course, led the Navy as 
Secretary of the Navy for many years and now serves in such a 
distinguished capacity. Truly, his voice has been one, over the last 
several decades, that has helped to keep our Navy strong. He was 
instrumental in helping us make some real progress in this area of the 
underlying bill.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia for his support of this amendment 
because without his support we would not have been able to adopt it. I 
thank him for the work he does on shipbuilding for our Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague, a valued member 
of the committee.
  We can clear two amendments; am I correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we will continue to clear amendments. 
The Senator from Virginia was on the floor with the distinguished 
majority whip last night clearing a package of amendments. The 
amendment I am going to offer was in that package. Simply because of 
clerical oversight--and staff had worked 15 hours yesterday--it was 
dropped.


                           Amendment No. 4169

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I send this amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is in order.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4169.

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

 (Purpose: To temporarily authorize higher partial basic allowance for 
      housing for certain members assigned to privatized housing)

       On page 130, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 604. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR HIGHER RATES OF PARTIAL 
                   BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS 
                   ASSIGNED TO HOUSING UNDER ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY 
                   FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY 
                   HOUSING.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may prescribe and, 
     under section 403(n) of title 37, United States Code, pay for 
     members of the Armed Forces (without dependents) in 
     privatized housing higher rates of partial basic allowance 
     for housing than those that are authorized under paragraph 
     (2) of such section 403(n).
       (b) Members in Privatized Housing.--For the purposes of 
     this section, a member of the Armed Forces (without 
     dependents) is a member of the Armed Forces (without 
     dependents) in privatized housing while the member is 
     assigned to housing that is acquired or constructed under the 
     authority of subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Treatment of Housing as Government Quarters.--For 
     purposes of section 403 of title 37, United States Code, a 
     member of the Armed Forces (without dependents) in privatized 
     housing shall be treated as residing in quarters of the 
     United States or a housing facility under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary of a military department while a higher rate of 
     partial allowance for housing is paid for the member under 
     this section.
       (d) Payment to Private Source.--The partial basic allowance 
     for housing paid for a member at a higher rate under this 
     section may be paid directly to the private sector source of 
     the housing to whom the member is obligated to pay rent or 
     other charge for residing in such housing if the private 
     sector source credits the amount so paid against the amount 
     owed by the member for the rent or other charge.
       (e) Termination of Authority.--Rates prescribed under 
     subsection (a) may not be paid under the authority of this 
     section in connection with contracts that are entered into 
     after December 31, 2007, for the construction or acquisition 
     of housing under the authority of subchapter IV of chapter 
     169 of title 10, United States Code.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this is an amendment requested by the 
Department of Defense relating to certain basic allowances for housing 
in order to facilitate efforts to construct barracks for the most 
junior enlisted personnel. I understand it has been cleared on the 
other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4169) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4170

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4170.

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

(Purpose: To set aside $20,000,000 for the disposal of obsolete vessels 
                 of the National Defense Reserve Fleet)

       At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 305. DISPOSAL FOR OBSOLETE VESSELS OF THE NATIONAL 
                   DEFENSE RESERVE FLEET.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(a)(2) for operation and maintenance for the Navy, 
     $20,000,000 may be available, without fiscal year limitation 
     if so provided in appropriations Acts, for expenses related 
     to the disposal of obsolete vessels in the Maritime 
     Administration National Defense Reserve Fleet.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this amendment relates to the MARAD 
obsolete vessels, which are currently in the James River and are 
becoming a very serious hazard to the environment. I spoke earlier this 
morning with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings. 
He agrees that this amendment is in the interest of all parties and 
expresses his support for it.
  The amendment would simply transfer a certain sum of money--the same 
sum having been designated in the House bill--for the purpose of 
enabling MARAD to proceed to correct this potential environmental 
problem and, hopefully, removing these vessels at the earliest possible 
date.
  Madam President, this amendment would make additional funding 
available in fiscal year 2003 for the disposal of obsolete vessels in 
the National Defense Reserve Fleet, also known as the

[[Page S6190]]

``Ghost Fleet.'' Because of their interest in this issue, I have worked 
with Senators Hollings and McCain to develop this amendment and believe 
that I have their support. Both Senators, however, have made it clear 
that the funding language for disposal of obsolete National Defense 
Reserve Fleet vessels included in section 3501 of H.R. 4546 is 
preferred to the funding language included in this amendment. I 
appreciate your concerns and will ensure that these concerns are 
considered in conference.
  Since 1994, the Maritime Administration or MARAD has been compelled 
to rely exclusively on the domestic scrapping market because of 
environmental concerns related to overseas ship sales and scrapping. 
Until October 2000, however, MARAD was statutorily prohibited from 
paying for scrapping services, which effectively precluded the use of 
the domestic market. After the prohibition was removed, MARAD disposal 
efforts were further hampered by inadequate funding.
  The amendment provides that $20 million be made available for MARAD 
disposal of obsolete vessels, an $8.9 million increase to the budget 
request. The additional funding will address a funding shortfall and 
hopefully help to avoid an environmental nightmare.
  There are 135 obsolete vessels in the fleet slated for scrapping, 29 
of those vessels are considered a high risk to the environment, and 23 
of those high risk vessels are located in the James River near Ft. 
Eustis, Virginia. Such vessels contain large amounts of oil 
contamination and other hazardous substances, such as asbestos and 
polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs) These vessels pose a risk to the 
environment because their advance age and poor condition could result 
in the release of hazardous substances near sensitive environmental 
habitats.
  A growing number of regulators, marine inspectors, environmentalists, 
and workers who oversee the ``Ghost Fleet'' suggest that an 
environmental disaster is likely--if not imminent. In 1999, the fleet 
barely survived the 40 mph winds and rough water caused by Tropical 
Storm Floyd. Although none of the vessels leaked, 30 vessels broke away 
from their moorings resulting in a two week recovery effort and a $3 
million investment in a new mooring system. Given the current condition 
of the fleet, disaster may occur with or without another sever storm. 
For example, the Mormac Wave is a 40-year old retired cargo carrier 
with peeling lead paint and thick, jet black oil that has leaked from 
holding tanks to form a 3-foot-deep lagoon in the rusted hull of the 
vessel. Although workers who maintain the Wave and other deteriorated 
vessels endeavor to keep the nightmare from becoming a reality, they 
are fighting a losing battle.
  As a result, it is vital that Congress ensure that MARAD have 
adequate resources to address this problem. It is my hope that the 
additional funding authorized by this amendment will help to accelerate 
the scrapping of vessels that are in the worst condition, most of which 
are located on the James River.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the amendment is cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4170) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3975

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, at this time I call up amendment No. 
3975.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3975.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To provide for military charters between military 
installations and local school districts, to provide credit enhancement 
 initiatives to promote military charter school facility acquisition, 
         construction, and renovation, and for other purposes)

       At the end of division A, add the following new title:

                  TITLE XIII--MILITARY CHARTER SCHOOLS

    Subtitle A--Stable Transitions in Education for Armed Services' 
                            Dependent Youth

     SEC. 1301. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Stable Transitions in 
     Education for Armed Services' Dependent Youth Act''.

     SEC. 1302. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) States are establishing new and higher academic 
     standards for students in kindergarten through grade 12;
       (2) no Federal funding streams are specifically designed to 
     help States and school districts with the costs of providing 
     military or mobile students who are struggling academically, 
     with the extended learning time and accelerated curricula 
     that the students need to meet high academic standards;
       (3) forty-eight States now require State accountability 
     tests to determine student grade-level performance and 
     progress;
       (4) nineteen States currently rate the performance of all 
     schools or identify low-performing schools through State 
     accountability tests;
       (5) sixteen States now have the power to close, take over, 
     or overhaul chronically failing schools on the basis of those 
     tests;
       (6) fourteen States provide high-performing schools with 
     monetary rewards on the basis of those tests;
       (7) nineteen States currently require students to pass 
     State accountability tests to graduate from secondary school;
       (8) six States currently link student promotion to results 
     on State accountability tests;
       (9) thirty-seven States have a process in place that allows 
     charters to be a useful tool to bridge the gap created by 
     frequent school changes;
       (10) excessive percentages of students are not meeting 
     their State standards and are failing to perform at high 
     levels on State accountability tests; and
       (11) among mobile students, a common thread is that school 
     transcripts are not easily transferred and credits are not 
     accepted between public school districts in the United 
     States.

     SEC. 1303. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this subtitle is to provide Federal support 
     through a new demonstration program to States and local 
     educational agencies, to enable the States and local 
     educational agencies to develop models for high quality 
     military charter schools that are specifically designed to 
     help mobile military dependent students attending public 
     school make a smooth transition from one school district to 
     another, even across State lines, and achieve a symbiotic 
     relationship between military installations and these school 
     districts.

     SEC. 1304. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Elementary school; secondary school; local educational 
     agency; state educational agency.--The terms ``elementary 
     school'', ``secondary school'', ``local educational agency'', 
     and ``State educational agency'' have the meanings given such 
     terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (2) Military installation.--The term ``military 
     installation'' has the meaning given such term in section 
     2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States Code.
       (3) Military dependent student.--The term ``military 
     dependent student'' means an elementary school or secondary 
     school student who has a parent who is a member of the Armed 
     Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the 
     Armed Forces, without regard to whether the member is on 
     active duty or full-time National Guard duty (as defined in 
     section 101(d) of title 10, United States Code.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Defense.
       (5) Student.--The term ``student'' means an elementary 
     school or secondary school student.

     SEC. 1305. GRANTS TO STATES.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--From amounts appropriated under section 
     1310, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education, shall establish a demonstration program through 
     which the Secretary shall make grants to State educational 
     agencies, on a competitive basis, to enable the State 
     educational agencies to assist local educational agencies in 
     establishing and maintaining high quality military charter 
     schools.
       (2) Distribution Rule.--In awarding grants under this 
     subtitle the Secretary shall ensure that such grants serve 
     not more than 10 States and not more than 35 local 
     educational agencies with differing demographics.
       (3) Special local rule.--
       (A) Nonparticipating State.--If a State chooses not to 
     participate in the demonstration program assisted under this 
     subtitle or does not have an application approved under 
     subsection (c), then the Secretary may award a grant directly 
     to a local educational agency in the State to assist the 
     local educational agency in carrying out high quality 
     military charter schools.

[[Page S6191]]

       (B) Local educational agency application.--To be eligible 
     to receive a grant under this paragraph, a local educational 
     agency shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require.
       (C) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as the Secretary determines necessary to carry 
     out this paragraph.
       (b) Eligibility and Selection.--
       (1) Eligibility.--For a State educational agency to be 
     eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), the State 
     served by the State educational agency shall--
       (A) have in effect all standards and assessments required 
     under section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311);
       (B) compile and annually distribute to parents a public 
     school report card that, at a minimum, includes information 
     on student and school performance for each of the assessments 
     required under section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965;
       (C) require each military charter school assisted under 
     this subtitle to be an independent public school;
       (D) require each military charter school assisted under 
     this subtitle to operate under an initial 5-year charter 
     granted by a State charter authority, with specified check 
     points and renewal, as required by State law; and
       (E) require each military charter school assisted under 
     this subtitle to participate in the State's testing program.
       (2) Selection.--In selecting State educational agencies to 
     receive grants under this section, the Secretary shall make 
     the selections in a manner consistent with the purpose of 
     this subtitle.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State educational agency shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       (2) Contents.--Such application shall include--
       (A) information describing specific measurable goals and 
     objectives to be achieved in the State through the military 
     charter schools carried out under this subtitle, which may 
     include specific measurable annual educational goals and 
     objectives relating to--
       (i) increased student academic achievement;
       (ii) decreased student dropout rates;
       (iii) governance, parental involvement plans, and 
     disciplinary policies;
       (iv) a military charter school admissions policy that 
     requires a minimum of 60 percent military dependent 
     elementary school or secondary school students, and a maximum 
     of 80 percent of military dependent students, except where 
     such percentages are impossible to maintain because of the 
     demographics of the area around the military installation;
       (v) liability and other insurance coverage, business and 
     accounting practices, and the procedures and methods employed 
     by the chartering authority in monitoring the school; and
       (vi) such other factors as the State educational agency may 
     choose to measure; and
       (B) information on criteria, established or adopted by the 
     State, that--
       (i) the State will use to select local educational agencies 
     for participation in the military charter schools carried out 
     under this subtitle; and
       (ii) at a minimum, will assure that grants provided under 
     this subtitle are provided to--

       (I) the local educational agencies in the State that are 
     sympathetic to, and take actions to ease the transition 
     burden upon, such local educational agencies' military 
     dependent students;
       (II) the local educational agencies in the State that have 
     the highest percentage of military dependent students 
     impacting the local school system or not meeting basic or 
     minimum required standards for State assessments required 
     under section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965; and
       (III) an assortment of local educational agencies serving 
     urban, suburban, and rural areas, and impacted by a local 
     military installation.

     SEC. 1306. GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) First year.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), for 
     the first year that a State educational agency receives a 
     grant under this subtitle, the State educational agency shall 
     use the funds made available through the grant to make grants 
     to eligible local educational agencies in the State to pay 
     for the Federal share of the cost of planning for or carrying 
     out the military charter school programs.
       (2) Succeeding years.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), 
     for the second and third year that a State educational agency 
     receives a grant under this subtitle, the State educational 
     agency shall use the funds made available through the grant 
     to make grants to eligible local educational agencies in the 
     State to pay for the Federal share of the cost of carrying 
     out the military charter school programs.
       (3) Technical assistance and planning assistance.--The 
     State educational agency may use not more than 5 percent of 
     the grant funds received under this subtitle for a fiscal 
     year--
       (A) to provide to the local educational agencies technical 
     assistance that is aligned with the curriculum of the local 
     educational agencies for the programs;
       (B) to enable the local educational agencies to obtain such 
     technical assistance from entities other than the State 
     educational agency that have demonstrated success in using 
     the curriculum; and
       (C) to assist the local educational agencies in evaluating 
     activities carried out under this subtitle.
       (b) Application.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local educational agency shall submit an 
     application to the State educational agency at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary 
     or the State educational agency may require.
       (2) Contents.--Each such application shall include, to the 
     greatest extent practicable--
       (A) information that--
       (i) demonstrates that the local educational agency will 
     carry out a military charter school program funded under this 
     section--

       (I) that provides intensive high quality programs that are 
     aligned with challenging State content and student 
     performance standards, and that is focused on reinforcing and 
     boosting the core academic skills and knowledge of students 
     who are struggling academically, as determined by the State;
       (II) that focuses on accelerated learning, rather than 
     remediation, so that students served through the program will 
     master the high level skills and knowledge needed to meet the 
     highest State standards or to perform at high levels on all 
     State assessments required under section 1111 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       (III) that is based on, and incorporates best practices 
     developed from, research-based charter school methods and 
     practices;
       (IV) that has a proposed curriculum that is directly 
     aligned with State content and student performance standards;
       (V) for which only teachers who are certified and licensed, 
     and are otherwise fully qualified teachers, provide academic 
     instruction to students enrolled in the program;
       (VI) that offers to staff in the program professional 
     development and technical assistance that are aligned with 
     the approved curriculum for the program; and
       (VII) that incorporates a parental involvement component 
     that seeks to involve parents in the program's topics and 
     students' daily activities; and

       (ii) may include--

       (I) the proposed curriculum for the military charter school 
     program;
       (II) the local educational agency's plan for recruiting 
     highly qualified and highly effective teachers to participate 
     in the program; and
       (III) a schedule for the program that indicates that the 
     program is of sufficient duration and intensity to achieve 
     the State's goals and objectives described in section 
     1305(c)(2)(A);

       (B) an outline indicating how the local educational agency 
     will utilize applicable Federal, State, local, or public 
     funds, other than funds made available through the grant, to 
     support the program;
       (C) an explanation of how the local educational agency will 
     ensure that the instruction provided through the program will 
     be provided by qualified teachers;
       (D) an explanation of the types of intensive training or 
     professional development, aligned with the curriculum of the 
     program, that will be provided for staff of the program;
       (E) an explanation of the facilities to be used for the 
     program;
       (F) an explanation regarding the duration of the periods of 
     time that students and teachers in the program will have 
     contact for instructional purposes (such as the hours per day 
     and days per week of that contact, and the total length of 
     the program);
       (G) an explanation of the proposed student-to-teacher ratio 
     for the program, analyzed by grade level;
       (H) an explanation of the grade levels that will be served 
     by the program;
       (I) an explanation of the approximate cost per student for 
     the program;
       (J) an explanation of the salary costs for teachers in the 
     program;
       (K) a description of a method for evaluating the 
     effectiveness of the program at the local level;
       (L) information describing specific measurable goals and 
     objectives, for each academic subject in which the program 
     will provide instruction, that are consistent with, or more 
     rigorous than, the adequate yearly progress goals established 
     by the State under section 1111 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       (M) a description of how the local educational agency will 
     involve parents and the community in the program in order to 
     raise academic achievement;
       (N) a description of how the local educational agency will 
     acquire any needed technical assistance that is aligned with 
     the curriculum of the local educational agency for the 
     program, from the State educational agency or other entities 
     with demonstrated success in using the curriculum; and
       (O) a statement of a clearly defined goal for providing 
     counseling and other transition

[[Page S6192]]

     burden relief for military dependent children.
       (c) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the 
     State educational agency shall give priority to local 
     educational agencies that demonstrate a high level of need 
     for the military charter school programs.
       (d) Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described in 
     subsection (a) is 50 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, 
     including plant, equipment, or services.

     SEC. 1307. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       Funds appropriated pursuant to the authority of this 
     subtitle shall be used to supplement and not supplant other 
     Federal, State, local, or private funds expended to support 
     military charter school programs.

     SEC. 1308. REPORTS.

       (a) State Reports.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives a grant under this subtitle shall annually prepare 
     and submit to the Secretary a report. The report shall 
     describe--
       (1) the method the State educational agency used to make 
     grants to eligible local educational agencies and to provide 
     assistance to schools under this subtitle;
       (2) the specific measurable goals and objectives described 
     in section 1305(c)(2)(A) for the State as a whole and the 
     extent to which the State met each of the goals and 
     objectives in the year preceding the submission of the 
     report;
       (3) the specific measurable goals and objectives described 
     in section 1306(b)(2)(L) for each of the local educational 
     agencies receiving a grant under this subtitle in the State 
     and the extent to which each of the agencies met each of the 
     goals and objectives in that preceding year;
       (4) the steps that the State educational agency will take 
     to ensure that any such local educational agency that did not 
     meet the goals and objectives in that year will meet the 
     goals and objectives in the year following the submission of 
     the report, or the plan that the State educational agency has 
     for revoking the grant awarded to such an agency and 
     redistributing the grant funds to existing or new military 
     charter school programs;
       (5) how eligible local educational agencies and schools 
     used funds provided by the State educational agency under 
     this subtitle;
       (6) the degree to which progress has been made toward 
     meeting the goals and objectives described in section 
     1305(c)(2)(A); and
       (7) best practices for the Secretary to share with 
     interested parties.
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall annually 
     prepare and submit to Congress a report. The report shall 
     describe--
       (1) the methods the State educational agencies used to make 
     grants to eligible local educational agencies and to provide 
     assistance to schools under this subtitle;
       (2) how eligible local educational agencies and schools 
     used funds provided under this subtitle; and
       (3) the degree to which progress has been made toward 
     meeting the goals and objectives described in sections 
     1305(c)(2)(A) and 1306(b)(2)(L).
       (c) Government Accounting Office Report to Congress.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     study regarding the demonstration program carried out under 
     this subtitle and the impact of the program on student 
     achievement. The Comptroller General shall prepare and submit 
     to Congress a report containing the results of the study.

     SEC. 1309. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Federal.--The Secretary shall develop program 
     guidelines for and oversee the demonstration program carried 
     out under this subtitle.
       (b) Local.--The commander of each military installation 
     served by a military charter school assisted under this 
     subtitle shall establish a nonprofit corporation or an 
     oversight group to provide the applicable local educational 
     agency with oversight and guidance regarding the day-to-day 
     operations of the military charter school.

     SEC. 1310. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subtitle--
       (1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (2) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (3) $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (4) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (5) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 1311. TERMINATION.

       The authority provided by this subtitle terminates 5 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

Subtitle B--Credit Enhancement Initiatives To Promote Military Charter 
       School Facility Acquisition, Construction, and Renovation

     SEC. 1321. CREDIT ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE MILITARY 
                   CHARTER SCHOOL FACILITY ACQUISITION, 
                   CONSTRUCTION, AND RENOVATION.

       Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

 ``PART E--CREDIT ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE MILITARY CHARTER 
       SCHOOL FACILITY ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND RENOVATION.

     ``SEC. 5701. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to provide grants to eligible 
     entities to permit the eligible entities to establish or 
     improve innovative credit enhancement initiatives that assist 
     military charter schools to address the cost of acquiring, 
     constructing, and renovating facilities.

     ``SEC. 5702. GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Grants for Initiatives.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use 100 percent of 
     the amount available to carry out this part to award grants 
     to eligible entities that have applications approved under 
     this part, to enable the eligible entities to carry out 
     innovative initiatives for assisting military charter schools 
     to address the cost of acquiring, constructing, and 
     renovating facilities by enhancing the availability of loans 
     or bond financing.
       ``(2) Number of grants.--The Secretary shall award not less 
     than 4 grants under this part in each fiscal year.
       ``(b) Grantee Selection.--
       ``(1) Determination.--The Secretary shall evaluate each 
     application submitted, and shall determine which applications 
     are of sufficient quality to merit approval and which are 
     not.
       ``(2) Minimum grants.--The Secretary shall award at least--
       ``(A) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section 
     5710(1)(A);
       ``(B) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section 
     5710(1)(B); and
       ``(C) 1 grant to an eligible entity described in section 
     5710(1)(C),
     if applications are submitted that permit the Secretary to 
     award the grants without approving an application that is not 
     of sufficient quality to merit approval.
       ``(c) Grant Characteristics.--Grants under this part shall 
     be in sufficient amounts, and for initiatives of sufficient 
     scope and quality, so as to effectively enhance credit for 
     the financing of military charter school acquisition, 
     construction, or renovation.
       ``(d) Special Rule.--In the event the Secretary determines 
     that the funds available to carry out this part are 
     insufficient to permit the Secretary to award not less than 4 
     grants in accordance with subsections (a) through (c)--
       ``(1) subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) shall not apply; and
       ``(2) the Secretary may determine the appropriate number of 
     grants to be awarded in accordance with subsections (a)(1), 
     (b)(1), and (c).

     ``SEC. 5703. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--To receive a grant under this part, an 
     eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an application 
     in such form as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Contents.--An application submitted under subsection 
     (a) shall contain--
       ``(1) a statement identifying the activities proposed to be 
     undertaken with funds received under this part, including how 
     the eligible entity will determine which military charter 
     schools will receive assistance, and how much and what types 
     of assistance the military charter schools will receive;
       ``(2) a description of the involvement of military charter 
     schools in the application's development and the design of 
     the proposed activities;
       ``(3) a description of the eligible entity's expertise in 
     capital market financing;
       ``(4) a description of how the proposed activities will--
       ``(A) leverage private sector financing capital, to obtain 
     the maximum amount of private sector financing capital, 
     relative to the amount of government funding used, to assist 
     military charter schools; and
       ``(B) otherwise enhance credit available to military 
     charter schools;
       ``(5) a description of how the eligible entity possesses 
     sufficient expertise in education to evaluate the likelihood 
     of success of a military charter school program for which 
     facilities financing is sought;
       ``(6) in the case of an application submitted by a State 
     governmental entity, a description of the actions that the 
     entity has taken, or will take, to ensure that military 
     charter schools within the State receive the funding the 
     schools need to have adequate facilities;
       ``(7) an assurance that the eligible entity will give 
     priority to funding initiatives that assist military charter 
     schools in which students have demonstrated academic 
     excellence or improvement during the 2 consecutive academic 
     years preceding submission of the application; and
       ``(8) such other information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 5704. MILITARY CHARTER SCHOOL OBJECTIVES.

       ``An eligible entity receiving a grant under this part 
     shall use the funds received through the grant, and deposited 
     in the reserve account established under section 5705(a), to 
     assist 1 or more military charter schools to access private 
     sector capital to accomplish 1 or more of the following 
     objectives:
       ``(1) The acquisition (by purchase, lease, donation, or 
     otherwise) of an interest (including an interest held by a 
     third party for the benefit of a military charter school) in 
     improved or unimproved real property that is necessary to 
     commence or continue the operation of a military charter 
     school.
       ``(2) The construction of new facilities, or the 
     renovation, repair, or alteration of existing facilities, 
     necessary to commence or continue the operation of a military 
     charter school.
       ``(3) The payment of startup costs, including the costs of 
     training teachers and purchasing materials and equipment, 
     including instructional materials and computers, for a 
     military charter school.

[[Page S6193]]

     ``SEC. 5705. RESERVE ACCOUNT.

       ``(a) In General.--For the purpose of assisting military 
     charter schools to accomplish the objectives described in 
     section 5704, an eligible entity receiving a grant under this 
     part shall deposit the funds received through the grant 
     (other than funds used for administrative costs in accordance 
     with section 5706) in a reserve account established and 
     maintained by the eligible entity for that purpose. The 
     eligible entity shall make the deposit in accordance with 
     State and local law and may make the deposit directly or 
     indirectly, and alone or in collaboration with others.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Amounts deposited in such account 
     shall be used by the eligible entity for 1 or more of the 
     following purposes:
       ``(1) Guaranteeing, insuring, and reinsuring bonds, notes, 
     evidences of debt, loans, and interests therein, the proceeds 
     of which are used for an objective described in section 5704.
       ``(2) Guaranteeing and insuring leases of personal and real 
     property for such an objective.
       ``(3) Facilitating financing for such an objective by 
     identifying potential lending sources, encouraging private 
     lending, and carrying out other similar activities that 
     directly promote lending to, or for the benefit of, military 
     charter schools.
       ``(4) Facilitating the issuance of bonds by military 
     charter schools, or by other public entities for the benefit 
     of military charter schools, for such an objective, by 
     providing technical, administrative, and other appropriate 
     assistance (including the recruitment of bond counsel, 
     underwriters, and potential investors and the consolidation 
     of multiple military charter school projects within a single 
     bond issue).
       ``(c) Investment.--Funds received under this part and 
     deposited in the reserve account shall be invested in 
     obligations issued or guaranteed by the United States or a 
     State, or in other similarly low-risk securities.
       ``(d) Reinvestment of Earnings.--Any earnings on funds 
     received under this part shall be deposited in the reserve 
     account established under subsection (a) and used in 
     accordance with subsection (b).

     ``SEC. 5706. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       ``An eligible entity that receives a grant under this part 
     may use not more than 0.25 percent of the funds received 
     through the grant for the administrative costs of carrying 
     out the eligible entity's responsibilities under this part.

     ``SEC. 5707. AUDITS AND REPORTS.

       ``(a) Financial Record Maintenance and Audit.--The 
     financial records of each eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this part shall be maintained in accordance with 
     generally accepted accounting principles and shall be subject 
     to an annual audit by an independent public accountant.
       ``(b) Reports.--
       ``(1) Eligible entity annual reports.--Each eligible entity 
     receiving a grant under this part annually shall submit to 
     the Secretary a report of the eligible entity's operations 
     and activities under this part.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each such annual report shall include--
       ``(A) a copy of the eligible entity's most recent financial 
     statements, and any accompanying opinion on such statements, 
     prepared by the independent public accountant auditing the 
     financial records of the eligible entity;
       ``(B) a copy of any report made on an audit of the 
     financial records of the eligible entity that was conducted 
     under subsection (a) during the reporting period;
       ``(C) an evaluation by the eligible entity of the 
     effectiveness of the entity's use of the Federal funds 
     provided under this part in leveraging private funds;
       ``(D) a listing and description of the military charter 
     schools served by the eligible entity with such Federal funds 
     during the reporting period;
       ``(E) a description of the activities carried out by the 
     eligible entity to assist military charter schools in meeting 
     the objectives set forth in section 5704; and
       ``(F) a description of the characteristics of lenders and 
     other financial institutions participating in the activities 
     undertaken by the eligible entity under this part during the 
     reporting period.
       ``(3) Secretarial report.--The Secretary shall review the 
     reports submitted under paragraph (1) and shall provide a 
     comprehensive annual report to Congress on the activities 
     conducted under this part.

     ``SEC. 5708. NO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR GRANTEE 
                   OBLIGATIONS.

       ``No financial obligation of an eligible entity entered 
     into pursuant to this part (such as an obligation under a 
     guarantee, bond, note, evidence of debt, or loan) shall be an 
     obligation of, or guaranteed in any respect by, the United 
     States. The full faith and credit of the United States is not 
     pledged to the payment of funds that may be required to be 
     paid under any obligation made by an eligible entity pursuant 
     to any provision of this part.

     ``SEC. 5709 RECOVERY OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in accordance with 
     chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code, shall collect--
       ``(1) all of the funds in a reserve account established by 
     an eligible entity under section 5705(a), if the Secretary 
     determines, not earlier than 2 years after the date on which 
     the entity first received funds under this part, that the 
     entity has failed to make substantial progress in carrying 
     out the purposes described in section 5705(b); or
       ``(2) all or a portion of the funds in a reserve account 
     established by an eligible entity under section 5705(a), if 
     the Secretary determines that the eligible entity has 
     permanently ceased to use all or a portion of the funds in 
     such account to accomplish any purpose described in section 
     5705(b).
       ``(b) Exercise of Authority.--The Secretary shall not 
     exercise the authority provided in subsection (a) to collect 
     from any eligible entity any funds that are being properly 
     used to achieve 1 or more of the purposes described in 
     section 5705(b).
       ``(c) Procedures.--The provisions of sections 451, 452, and 
     458 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234, 
     1234a, 1234g) shall apply to the recovery of funds under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(d) Construction.--This section shall not be construed to 
     impair or affect the authority of the Secretary to recover 
     funds under part D of the General Education Provisions Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1234 et seq.).

     ``SEC. 5710. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a public entity, such as a military installation as 
     defined in section 2687(e)(1) of title 10, United States 
     Code;
       ``(B) a private nonprofit entity; or
       ``(C) a consortium of entities described in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).
       ``(2) Military charter school.--The term `military charter 
     school' has the meaning given such term by regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary of Defense.

     ``SEC. 5711. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each succeeding 
     fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 1322. INCOME EXCLUSION FOR INTEREST PAID ON LOANS BY 
                   MILITARY CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     inserting after section 139 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 139A. INTEREST ON MILITARY CHARTER SCHOOL LOANS.

       ``(a) Exclusion.--Gross income does not include interest on 
     any military charter school loan.
       ``(b) Military Charter School Loan.--For purposes of this 
     section:
       ``(1) In general.--The term `military charter school loan' 
     means any indebtedness incurred by a military charter school.
       ``(2) Military charter school.--The term `military charter 
     school' means an institution defined as a military charter 
     school by the Secretary of Defense.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     part III is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 139 the following:

``Sec. 139A. Interest on military charter school loans.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, with respect to indebtedness incurred 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, there have been many very good 
amendments brought to the floor that have been accepted, which have 
strengthened the underlying bill. I want to speak for a moment about 
this amendment in the hopes that, if we cannot adopt it today, at least 
we will begin a very serious discussion of this issue. It is an issue 
that the occupant of the chair has worked on very hard on in her 
career, and many Members on both sides of the aisle feel strongly 
about--that is, education and the quality of education in our country.
  This particular amendment is in relation to the quality of education 
afforded to the hundreds of thousands of dependents of our men and 
women in the military. I will begin by expressing an overall thought 
that we are becoming wiser and wiser in Congress on this issue of 
education, recognizing that it truly is an issue of economic 
development.
  It truly is an issue of strengthening our Nation. We cannot have an 
economically strong and militarily secure nation moving in a 
progressive way without an excellent school system. No matter where a 
child is born--rural or urban, on the east coast or west coast--if we 
do not do a better job as a nation of giving our children a quality 
education, the future of our Nation will not be as bright, and it could 
put us in jeopardy.
  I also make the argument that for our military, the same holds true. 
It is not just about providing our military with the most extraordinary 
weapons. It is not just about training our military men and women to 
the highest

[[Page S6194]]

levels. It is not just providing them the basics in terms of fair 
compensation and health care. We have an obligation to make sure, when 
our men and women sign up to be in our military and they have made 
these sacrifices, that we provide them, between the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Education, a quality education for their 
children.
  When we send our soldiers into battle, we want them focused on the 
battle and mission at hand. We do not want them worried, as they 
naturally would be, about spouses and dependents at home, about their 
happiness, about their comfort, about their security. It makes our 
military stronger when we provide good, quality-of-life issues for 
their families at home. One of the ways we can do that is by improving 
the schools for military dependents.
  There are over 800,000 children who are military dependents out of an 
overall force strength of 1.4 million adults connected to the military. 
Many of them are school-age children. Because of the specific demands 
of our military, which are very unlike the civilian sector because of 
the way it is structured, many move every 2 years. Some military move 
from the east coast to the west coast, moving families with them. It is 
very difficult providing an excellent education generally, and yet the 
military has even more challenges.
  What is the solution? I offer this amendment--and hopefully we will 
begin discussing it--to strengthen our military schools in the United 
States in a creative way. This amendment will set up the possibility of 
a pilot program to help create military charter schools around the 
Nation in partnership with local public school systems to provide an 
opportunity not only for our military dependents, but this framework 
will also help communities that have a large military presence. The 
benefit overall is that the community gets a better school, a school 
that has the opportunity to provide an excellent education.
  The second benefit is that our military children have that 
opportunity, as well as the children whose families might not have any 
connection to the military. It gives them an introduction into what 
military life can be like.
  This is a partnership. It is a pilot program that will help establish 
charter schools, and that is basically what this amendment attempts to 
do.
  Also with this amendment, which is an important consideration for 
military children as they move from community to community, there is 
created for the first time what we call an academic passport. It helps 
to stabilize and standardize the curriculum without micromanaging, 
without dictating what the curriculum should be. It tries to set up a 
new approach or a new framework for our local elementary and secondary 
education districts for use throughout the country to set up a 
standardized curriculum so that if children have to move from community 
to community, they can keep up as one school might require 3 years of a 
foreign language or 2 years of algebra or 1 year of algebra, or a whole 
different curriculum. That is part of this amendment. It is something 
about which military families feel very strongly. I hope that with this 
new pilot program to help create charter schools with a new academic 
passport, we can begin to focus some of our resources--again, not all 
within the Department of Defense; some of this is within the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Education--to create something 
exciting and wonderful for these 800,000 children.

  Madam President, 600,000 of these children are in public schools 
today, at great stress sometimes to those public districts; 100,000 of 
these children are either in private schools or are home schooled; and 
only 32,000 of the 800,000 are in Department of Defense schools. As 
shown on this map, these schools are concentrated in a few States. 
There are only 32,000 children, as I said, of 800,000 dependents. Some 
of them are overseas; approximately 73,000 are overseas; 32,000 of our 
military children are in schools in New York, Kentucky, Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama.
  As my colleagues can see, dependent children of military personnel 
are in public schools throughout the country. Sometimes they are good 
public schools; sometimes they are not so good. We are working hard to 
make every public school excellent, but I think we have a special 
obligation to our military families to make sure that those children 
are getting an excellent education.
  I would like to tell you why with a chart that shows the percentage 
and status of degrees among the general population and our military 
population.
  If you look at the general population, nonofficers in our military, 
91.5 percent have only a high school degree or GED--91 percent. In our 
general population, it is about 80 percent--20 percent have college 
degrees or above; 75 to 80 percent have only high school. This is a 
very upwardly mobile group of Americans. These are men and women with 
great discipline, great patriotism, great commitment to the Nation. 
Obviously, they are serving their country, but they are committed to 
their families and their communities.
  As one can see, the officers exceed the general population at large. 
Almost 40 percent have advanced degrees; 50 percent or more have 
bachelor degrees. This is a very upwardly mobile population. If we can 
provide excellent schools and opportunities for this 91 percent, I 
think we will be doing a very good job in helping to strengthen our 
military but also helping our country be a better place. It is truly 
something on which we should focus more.
  In conclusion, let me show a picture of a school of which I am very 
proud. It might be one of the first military charters, if not the 
first, in the Nation. This is a school we are building and will 
actually be cutting the ribbon for this week in Belle Chasse, LA. This 
is a state-of-the-art, brandnew public school in Plaquemines Parish.
  There is a very important naval reserve base there. It is 90,000 
square feet, 37 classrooms, a gymnasium, cafeteria, a media center, a 
youth center, administrative offices, and although one cannot tell 
exactly from this picture, wonderful classrooms and a very high-tech 
communication and computer system. Six hundred of the children from 
this military base will be able to attend a state-of-the-art school 
that was built in a public-private partnership. I am very hopeful this 
model, based on this amendment--which, again, I am offering only for 
consideration and will ask to be withdrawn in a moment so we can 
consider it at a future time--will be something we can share with the 
rest of the Nation and help build opportunities for our military 
dependents to go to excellent schools and to help the local school 
districts to give nonmilitary children an opportunity to attend world-
class, first-class centers of education.
  I think we can work all day long on pay raises, on building more 
ships, and on building a stronger Air Force, but truly I think focusing 
on educational opportunities, both for the adults in our military but 
particularly for their children, will help us build morale, help us 
improve retention, will help us strengthen our military in the 
intermediate and the long term, and it is something that, with a little 
creativity and a little bit of thinking outside of the box, I am 
convinced we could finance the construction of these schools by 
reordering some of the streams of revenue and end up coming out with 
some excellent facilities around this Nation to serve both our military 
and our nonmilitary families and do a great job for our Defense 
Department and a great job for our country. That is what this amendment 
does.


                      Amendment No. 3975 Withdrawn

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3975 be 
withdrawn until a further time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on one of the 
most important pieces of legislation that we will consider this year; 
that is, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. 
This important bill authorizes funding to strengthen our military, to 
address the challenges of today, and to anticipate the threats of 
tomorrow.

[[Page S6195]]

  We are a nation at war. This bill recognizes the critical role that 
our Armed Forces play in the war against terrorism and in securing our 
homeland. It will help ensure that our troops are better paid, better 
housed, and better equipped than ever before. I had the privilege of 
visiting our troops in central Asia last January. I was a member of the 
first bipartisan Senate delegation to visit our troops on the front 
lines in the war zone. I was inspired by the patriotism and 
professionalism of our men and women in uniform.
  As long as they know our Nation is united behind them, they are 
willing to bear any hardship no matter how harsh, undertake any mission 
no matter how dangerous, and willingly risk their lives each and every 
day just by doing their jobs.
  The obligation on us, in return, is clear. The legislation before the 
Senate recognizes our obligation to improve the quality of service for 
our American forces who need and deserve the finest equipment and the 
best resources to combat any threat.
  For example, the bill includes a 4.1-percent across-the-board pay 
raise for our military personnel and an increase in the housing 
allowance that will reduce the average out-of-pocket expenses for off-
post housing to 7.5 percent in 2002. This represents significant 
progress toward the goal of elminiating by 2005 the need for our 
military personnel to reach into their own pockets to pay for housing. 
I also support, and cosponsored, an amendment adopted by the Senate 
earlier this week that will repeal the prohibition on concurrent 
receipt of non-disability retired military pay and veteran's disability 
pay for our military retirees, eliminating an inequity and allowing 
these veterans to collect the full amount they have earned.

  This bill also begins to address the needs and concerns of our 
reserve forces. Specifically, it includes a study that will require the 
Department of Defense to assess the compensation and benefits of our 
reservists, who have been called upon more and more to serve our 
country and protect our freedoms. Under the total force concept, more 
than 80,000 Selected Reserve and National Guard personnel are now on 
active duty, nearly 9 months after the attacks of September 11. This 
study is the first step to ensuring that our reservists receive the 
compensation and benefits that are proportional to the commitment and 
services that they provide.
  While the bill reflects significant investments in our national 
defense--including a significant increase to respond to the attacks of 
September 11--it will take several years of sustained increases in 
defense spending to completely recover from the ``procurement holiday'' 
of previous years.
  I stand with the majority of the Armed Services Committee that 
believes more needs to be done to address the shipbuilding shortfalls 
that this administration inherited from the previous administration.
  The Navy's shipbuilding program simply is not adequate to meet the 
needs of a more dangerous world. I am particularly concerned about the 
under-funding of the Navy's destroyer, or ``DDG-51'' program, which 
serves as the backbone of the Navy's surface fleet. This bill fully 
funds only two DDG-51s next year despite the clear need for a third. I 
am therefore pleased that the Senate version of the bill does include 
an increase of $125 million above the administration's request toward 
the procurement of an additional much-needed destroyer.
  During the committee markup, Senator Warner, with my strong support, 
offered an alternative shipbuilding proposal that would have provided 
even more to meet the need for more ships through an additional $1 
billion. Also, the alternative would have provided multi-year authority 
and additional advanced procurement for several shipbuilding programs. 
Further, it would have restored $690 million of the almost $900 million 
cut in various missile defense programs. I am very disappointed that 
this shipbuilding initiative was rejected in committee on a straight 
party-line vote as, ultimately, there will be a high price to pay if 
this shipbuilding trend is not reversed. We are making some progress. 
The out-year budgets for the Department of Defense have improved 
markedly in investing more resources into rebuilding our Naval Fleet.
  I am encouraged and optimistic, however, that the Navy and its 
industry partners have heard our concerns about this egregious 
shortfall. Just recently an agreement was reached by the Navy, General 
Dynamics and Northrop Grumman Ship Systems to transfer ship 
construction between the two corporations' shipyards. The terms of this 
agreement is based on adding two additional DDG ships to the Navy's FY 
2003 shipbuilding plan, which will be awarded to the Bath Iron Works in 
my State. Bath Iron Works has a long tradition of producing quality 
ships for the Navy. This agreement will immediately transfer DDG 102 to 
the Bath Iron Works facility for construction.
  Further, as a result of this agreement, the Navy is expected to 
realize significant net cost savings on these programs, which could 
then be used to further invest in additional shipbuilding initiatives. 
The increased number of DDGs at Bath should provide increased stability 
and predictability at the yard, and maintain the critical surface 
combatant work force for the industrial base to remain competitive for 
the DD(X) family-of-ships.
  The swap agreement has also led to discussions and a tentative 
agreement on the price and terms of a new DDG multi-year procurement. 
This contract, once awarded, will provide seven ships over the next 
four years, including three DDG swap option ships that Bath alone will 
have the opportunity to bid on. This new multi-year procurement 
contract will be the largest contract award in Bath's history. Let me 
state that again, this pending multi-year contract will be the largest 
contract awarded in Bath's history, and begin to remedy the shortfall 
in our naval fleet.
  While the debate continues on how to transform our armed forces, the 
Senate is taking action to support our armed forces and the 
administration's priorities. I would like to take this opportunity to 
acknowledge and thank Chairman Levin and our senior Republican, Senator 
Warner, for their tireless efforts to tackle the tough issues and 
produce an authorization bill that funds a number of critical 
priorities and provides support for the men and women of our armed 
forces.
  Our armed forces stand ready. Now it is our responsibility to equip 
and support our men and women to meet the threats and challenges of 
today and those of tomorrow.
  I believe the legislation before us is a strong step in the right 
direction, and I am pleased to have had an opportunity to shape this 
legislation as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, On May 14, Department of Defense 
officials announced that they intended to classify details of future 
flight tests of the national missile defense system. This occurred 
after the Senate Armed Services Committee had completed its work on the 
Defense authorization bill, so we were unable to address this issue in 
the committee version of the bill. The issue needs to be addressed, 
however.
  The administration claims that placing a shroud of secrecy around the 
national missile defense testing program is necessary to prevent 
details of its operation from being revealed to potential enemies. One 
can argue whether such secrecy is truly needed, since we are many years 
away from deployment an effective national missile defense systems.
  What is not arguable is that Congress has a right and obligation to 
know the results of such critical tests, regardless of whether they are 
classified.
  The amendment offered by Senator Reed and myself would ensure that 
Congress gets regular reports, classified as necessary, on the results 
of each national missile defense flight test, 120 days following the 
test.
  The reports should describe the objectives of each test, and whether 
the objectives were met. Such information

[[Page S6196]]

is absolutely essential for Congress to be able to understand and 
evaluate the performance of the national missile defense system.
  The word in the modified amendment is ``thorough.'' This amendment 
ensures that constitutionally mandated oversight will, in fact, 
continue to be respected.
  I hope all of my colleagues will support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 4029

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4029.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. REED] for himself and 
     Mr. Levin proposes an amendment numbered 4029.

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

(Purpose: To require a report on the results of each flight test of the 
        Ground-based Midcourse national missile defense system)

       On page 34, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 226. REPORTS ON FLIGHT TESTING OF GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE 
                   NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.

       (a) Requirement.--The Director of the United States Missile 
     Defense Agency shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on each flight test of the Ground-based 
     Midcourse national missile defense system. The report shall 
     be submitted not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     test.
       (b) Content.--A report on a flight test under subsection 
     (a) shall include the following matters:
       (1) A detailed discussion of the content and objectives of 
     the test.
       (2) For each test objective, a statement regarding whether 
     the objective was achieved.
       (3) For any test objective not achieved--
       (A) a detailed discussion describing the reasons for not 
     achieving the objective; and
       (B) a discussion of any plans for future tests to achieve 
     the objective.
       (c) Format.--The reports required under subsection (a) 
     shall be submitted in unclassified form, with a classified 
     annex as necessary.


                    Amendment No. 4029, As Modified

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I also at this time seek unanimous consent 
to send a modification of the amendment to the desk and have it 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, reserving the right to object--I shall 
not--the Senator submitted the amendment to me. I have been in 
consultation with the Department of Defense. We came back with certain 
modifications. The Senator has modified this amendment consistent with 
those recommendations that I received from the Department of Defense.
  I have no objection to the Senator modifying the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 4029), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 34, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 226. REPORTS ON FLIGHT TESTING OF GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE 
                   NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.

       (a) Requirement.--The Director of the United States Missile 
     Defense Agency shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on each flight test of the Ground-based 
     Midcourse national missile defense system. The report shall 
     be submitted not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     test.
       (b) Content.--A report on a flight test under subsection 
     (a) shall include the following matters:
       (1) A thorough discussion of the content and objectives of 
     the test.
       (2) For each test objective, a statement regarding whether 
     the objective was achieved.
       (3) For any test objective not achieved--
       (A) a thorough discussion describing the reasons for not 
     achieving the objective; and
       (B) a discussion of any plans for future tests to achieve 
     the objective.
       (c) Format.--The reports required under subsection (a) 
     shall be submitted in classified form and unclassified form.

  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his help on this 
amendment.
  I think this is an opportune time to call for passage of the 
amendment prior to any other discussion at this time. I urge passage of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. WARNER. We have no objection, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4029), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Rhode 
Island on his amendment. I think he may want to take a minute to 
describe it. I will yield the floor for that purpose, and then I would 
like to add a comment on it of my own.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have spoken to the two managers of the 
bill. It appears this is the last hurdle before final passage of this 
legislation. The staff is working now on a unanimous consent agreement. 
We will have final passage at or around 2 o'clock today.
  Mr. LEVIN. Sounds good.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, may I say to the distinguished leader 
that we have, as I am sure each manager has, tried to contact all 
offices and all Senators who have expressed any desire to either speak 
or submit amendments otherwise. But, as I understand it, we will 
hopefully vote around 2 o'clock. Can we allow a reasonable period such 
that if there is anything I have left undone Senators may contact me, 
or reciprocate on your side? Perhaps we can get a unanimous consent 
request in 15 or 20 minutes to lock in the vote at 2 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. It takes the staff a while to do the unanimous consent 
request. It will take 15 or 20 minutes to do that.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Nevada will yield for an additional 
question, there are a number of amendments which I understand may be 
worked out between now and 2 o'clock.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. We would make sure that any consent allows that to take 
place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his 
help and cooperation, and the Senator from Michigan for his 
accommodation.
  This is an amendment that responds to an announcement made by the 
Missile Defense Agency shortly after the conclusion of our committee 
deliberations. The announcement was that they would classify the 
details of all future flight tests of the national missile defense 
system--now called the land-based midcourse system.
  I believe Congress needs information of that kind. I also believe 
those unclassified portions of the tests should be available to a 
broader community, particularly the scientific community.
  The amendment that has been agreed to and included in this bill would 
require the Missile Defense Agency to provide to the Congress within 
120 days a thorough report of the details of the tests. And it would 
include both an unclassified format and a classified format so that 
those items the Defense Department and the Missile Defense Agency 
believes should be secret will be kept secret, and it will be reported 
to us in a classified form.
  Let me say that one of the persistent criticisms of the first test of 
the missile defense system--the land-based midcourse system--was the 
fact that the tests were unrealistic. In fact, this criticism--
particularly by the scientific community--led the Missile Defense 
Agency to adopt a much more realistic, thorough, and exhaustive test 
process for our missile defense system.
  That criticism, in effect, has been very helpful to the development 
of the national missile defense. I think it is something that should be 
encouraged--certainly not discouraged.
  This view is also shared widely in many other places. Yesterday USA 
Today had an editorial which said ``The Pentagon policy wrongly shields 
missile defense data.''
  They went on to point out that past scientific commentary about the 
performance of weapons systems has been very valuable in terms of 
improving those systems. They point specifically to the Patriot system. 
Initially, the Defense Department claimed that the Patriot was wildly 
successful in the gulf war.
  It turned out that a scientist at MIT was able to look at some of the 
news video. He observed, based on his scientific training, that these 
claims were dubious. In fact, he proved to be correct. Once the 
Pentagon publicly acknowledged that the effectiveness of

[[Page S6197]]

the Patriot was not as they had originally claimed, it was the 
beginning of serious work to accelerate the development of additional 
improvements. That improvement is now the PAC-3 system, a much more 
capable system.

  I believe honestly that the Defense Department would have tried to 
move to a better version of Patriot anyway, but certainly the public 
scrutiny of this type of information helped that process move forward 
much more expeditiously.
  As USA Today points out, we could spend up to $100 billion under the 
administration's missile defense plan. As they say:

       Taxpayers deserve assurances beyond the Pentagon's word 
     that the system works.

  This is particularly important when, at the same time the Missile 
Defense Agency is talking about putting a much broader cloak of secrecy 
around what they do, they are also saying they want to have a 
contingent deployment of missile systems as early as 2004.
  Again, some of these tests are not even scheduled to take place until 
after that date. Yet they are talking about a system in which they want 
to have something ready by 2004.
  I fear that the pressure to put something in the field by 2004 will 
overcome the willingness to be as clear and transparent as you want 
them to be about these tests.
  I hope this amendment will reinforce the Defense Department's view 
that these details are useful for the Congress and, in unclassified 
form, useful for the scientific community.
  As a former director of operational testing, Phil Coyle, stated in a 
Washington Post article, on June 11, the new classification policy that 
is being proposed by the Missile Defense Agency is, in his words, ``not 
justified by either the progress and tests so far or by the realisms of 
the test.''
  We are still at a very rudimentary stage, a stage in which details of 
the test will help inform the Congress, will help inform scientific 
observers, and, I hope, will help us keep this system on track and keep 
the system, in effect, honest, so that if people are looking closely, 
all the t's will be crossed and all the i's dotted.
  I must also say, at this point, too, that General Kadish, 
particularly, has committed himself and budget dollars to ensure that a 
much more realistic and much more rigorous form of testing is employed. 
That is commendable and, indeed, is supported in the underlying 
legislation by our authorization.
  Testing and reporting of results is very important because, as I 
mentioned many times, the comments of outside authorities, scientists, 
are very useful. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, 
prepared a report about the first several tests of the ground-based 
midcourse system. They made several valuable suggestions.
  First, they suggested that you make the end game more realistic. By 
that, they meant we make the engagement with the kill vehicle and the 
enemy warhead much more realistic than the tests were at that stage. 
That is being done, not solely because of the UCS recommendation, but 
certainly it helped move along, I think, the concentration on more 
realism.
  They also talked about more realistic test conditions. Some of these 
things do not strike me, at this juncture, as particularly sensitive 
information.
  They talked about the geometry of the interception, whether it is the 
same flight track for the enemy warhead as well as for the interception 
vehicle, the kill vehicle.
  The time of day: If we are only testing at the same time of day, when 
atmospheric conditions and sunlight or starlight are most opportune to 
discriminate a warhead from decoys, that is not a realistic test.
  The weather conditions: Are we testing in foul weather as well as 
fair weather?
  The flyout range, the altitude of the intercept--there are many 
things that are very important. And we should have an idea, on an 
unclassified and classified basis, of these parameters. And the 
scientific community should at least have an indication, on an 
unclassified basis, of what is taking place.
  I believe the amendment is important. It is useful. I am 
extraordinarily pleased that the ranking member, the Senator from 
Virginia, was helpful in getting this done so expeditiously.
  One final point, we are simply codifying what I believe and what I 
know to be the intent of the Department of Defense.
  In that same USA Today article previously mentioned, Secretary 
Aldridge wrote:

       There is not now, and can never be, any component of this 
     missile defense program classified beyond the reach of the 
     security clearances of its congressional overseers. Congress' 
     constitutionally mandated oversight will always be respected.

  That constitutionally mandated oversight has been codified in this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator From Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I make these few remarks concerning the 
Reed amendment now before the Senate.
  With the modifications that I have proposed and the majority has 
accepted, I am not objecting to the inclusion of this amendment in the 
defense authorization bill. These modifications were at the request of 
the Department of Defense. But I do have concerns with its substance, 
concerns that are shared by the Administration and, specifically, the 
Director of the Missile Defense Agency.
  This amendment offered by Senator Reed would require the Director of 
the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees on each flight test of the ground-based midcourse 
missile defense system, what we used to call the national missile 
defense system. This amendment would add an additional three to five 
reports a year to the long and continually growing list of reports that 
the Missile Defense Agency must submit to Congress annually.
  Last year, at the insistence of our majority, the defense 
authorization act required several reports to Congress on missile 
defense. I strove, with some success, to assure that those reports were 
consistent with what Congress requires of other defense programs. This 
year, the bill our majority crafted in committee imposes five new 
reporting requirements related to missile defense, including annual 
operational assessments on research and development programs, annual 
assessments of military requirements for all Missile Defense Agency 
programs, and detailed cost information on several missile defense 
programs--information, I might add, that in some cases simply isn't 
available.
  My specific concerns are, as follows:
  First, this amendment requires a report on every single flight test 
of the national missile defense system. I am unaware of any other 
program in the Department of Defense for which we in Congress impose 
such detailed reporting requirements. As I stated earlier, my intent 
last year was to make reporting requirements on missile defense 
programs consistent with those for other defense programs.
  Second, this amendment adds to the already substantial reporting 
burden on the Missile Defense Agency. I would note that the Secretary 
of Defense, in a letter to Chairman Levin and me, informed us that our 
bill, even prior to this amendment, ``would impose a number of 
burdensome statutory restrictions that would undermine our ability to 
manage the [missile defense] program effectively.'' The Office of 
Management and Budget reiterated this view. A few moments ago, I spoke 
to General Kadish, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, who 
echoed these concerns even as he reiterated his willingness to provide 
Congress with all information on tests to facilitate our legitimate 
oversight function.
  Third, Congress already has a process to gain all the information 
that it desires on a test or tests. We need simply ask for a report or 
a briefing, and the Missile Defense Agency has responded, is 
responding, and will respond. I have heard no allegation that 
information on tests has been denied to the appropriate committee, or 
is not available on request.
  I fully concur with those who believe that Congress should have 
access to all relevant information related to missile defense tests. I 
have relayed the assurances I received that the Missile Defense Agency 
will provide us with this information. All members, and staff with 
appropriate clearances, will have access to this information. Indeed, 
Committee staff received a classified

[[Page S6198]]

briefing related to targets and countermeasures prior to the last long-
range missile defense test.
  In the interest of comity and the desire to complete work on this 
important legislation expeditiously, I will not oppose inclusion of 
this amendment in the pending bill. I will work during our conference 
with the House to improve the provisions on missile defense.
  Mr. President, we had to handle this amendment very expeditiously in 
order to achieve our 2 o'clock objective to have final passage. I did 
review it very carefully with the Department of Defense. We did make 
the technical changes. But I would have to say that I hope there is no 
inference, from this amendment as it now has been amended, that the 
Department would not have responded to the Congress had the Congress 
requested any information under any tests.
  So the amendment points up the importance of and the interest in the 
Congress, but at the same time Congress could have obtained the same 
information, as required by this amendment, had it taken the 
initiative. Am I not correct in that, I ask the Senator?
  Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield, you are absolutely correct. What 
I would suggest is, because of the highly technical nature of the whole 
program, often we do not know what questions to ask at times. As a 
result, with this reporting requirement, I think we will fulfill our 
constitutional obligation.
  I guess I would respond, finally, by saying there is a saying from a 
famous poet from New England, Robert Frost: ``Good fences make good 
neighbors.'' Perhaps if we look at this as a good fence, we will be 
better neighbors with our friends in MDA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was in discussion with the President pro 
tempore of the Senate on something very important; and that is when he 
is going to give his Fourth of July speech, at which I try to be 
present every year. I think we may be fortunate enough that the Senator 
may give that speech this afternoon when we finish this bill sometime.
  I think I am now in a position to enter a unanimous consent request 
for this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following passage of S. 
2514, it be in order for the Senate to consider, en bloc, the following 
calendar items: Nos. 371, 372, 373--these are S. 2515, S. 2516, and S. 
2517--that all after the enacting clause be stricken in each bill, and 
that the following divisions of S. 2514, as passed by the Senate, be 
inserted in lieu thereof, as follows: S. 2515, division A; S. 2516, 
division B; and S. 2517, division C; that the bills be read three 
times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, en 
bloc; that the consideration of these items appear separately in the 
Record.
  I further ask unanimous consent that with respect to S. 2515, S. 
2516, and S. 2517, as passed, that if the Senate receives a message 
from the House with regard to any of these measures, the Senate insist 
on its amendment or disagree to the House amendment, and agree to or 
request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses; and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the 
part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss with the distinguished 
leader from Nevada and the chairman of the committee and the 
distinguished minority member the amendment I have with Senator Smith.
  This is an extremely important amendment. We have been trying to work 
out the details with respect to the majority and minority. I want to 
make sure that our right to offer that amendment is protected.
  It is not clear to me, with respect to the unanimous consent request 
posed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada, that our right to offer 
the Wyden-Smith amendment, which is of enormous importance to the State 
of Oregon, would be protected. If I could yield to the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member so this point could be clarified, I am 
speaking on behalf of both myself and the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
Florida be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding 
there is no amendment connected with this; is that correct?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. It is an amendment that has already been 
adopted.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wanted to again thank the 
leadership of our Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senators 
from Michigan and Virginia, respectively, the chairman and ranking 
member of our committee, for the acceptance last evening of an 
amendment I had offered that was cosponsored by a number of Senators, 
including several on our Armed Services Committee, concerning a 
requirement that the Department of Defense will do an investigation and 
will report to the Congress on a regular basis about the biological and 
chemical testing that may have put some of our service men and women 
and, indeed, some civilians in harm's way.
  Certainly, that wasn't the original intent when these tests were 
conducted back in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. But, indeed, 
that has been the upshot of what we now find out, in some cases, 30, 40 
years later--even a half century later--that there may have been 
exposure that is causing our veterans to now need to know what the 
whole truth is in order to fix the past mistakes where veterans have 
been exposed to toxic substances, particularly from this chemical and 
biological testing, and to get full disclosure of this testing because 
it has been classified over the past number of decades. The veterans of 
this country certainly have a right to know, particularly with regard 
to getting them to come in and get the health care they need if, in 
fact, the health care is required.
  Now, that is a general statement. Let me kind of flush it out with 
some specifics. In the sixties and the seventies, ships of ours in the 
Pacific were gassed with biological and chemical substances and, in 
some cases, simulants or simulations of those substances. That was a 
program under the acronym of SHAD, Shipboard Hazard and Defense. It was 
ostensibly to test those ships' ability to react and protect themselves 
if an enemy came out and suddenly tried to put these biological or 
chemical agents on our ships in order to immobilize and to kill our 
Navy.
  In some cases, we were told these were not the actual materials, such 
as nerve gas, but that it was a simulant of nerve gas. Years later, 
decades later, we are finding that these simulants that were used are 
having an effect on the people who were sprayed; and, indeed, there 
actually may have been some exposure to the actual chemical and 
biological agents instead of just the simulants. There were 113 of 
these tests. Only 6 have been declassified. Of those 6, a population of 
4,300 veterans have been identified to be contacted and, to date, only 
622 have been written to when the Department of Defense declassified 
it, gave it to the Veterans' Administration. They wrote the letters and 
said: If you are having any effects, come into the veterans medical 
facility. Of those 622, a good number of them were in Florida, which is 
how I first started hearing about this.
  Senator Cleland will have hearings this fall on this very same issue, 
but what we are going to look into in this amendment, just attached 
last night to DOD, is the shipboard gassing in the sixties and 
seventies.
  What Senator Cleland's committee is going to look into is the overall 
testing because, lo and behold, I started

[[Page S6199]]

getting all of these ruminations coming out of Florida about some 
mysterious tests that were conducted in the fifties at the old Boca 
Raton Airfield, an old World War II airfield, and an 85-acre parcel to 
the north that apparently is still undeveloped. But guess what has 
grown up around it. Florida Atlantic University, one of our major 
universities, was built on this site. The Boca Raton Airport, one of 
the major general aviation airports in Florida, is right there.
  When I requested this information from the DOD back in February, as 
the junior Senator from Florida, DOD wrote back and said it is 
classified. Well, thank goodness that Senator Levin, our chairman, has 
tasked Senator Cleland, our Personnel Subcommittee chairman, to get 
into this because our committee is clearly capable of handling 
classified information.
  So I want the leadership to know how much I appreciate them doing 
this so the veterans will have full disclosure--were they in harm's 
way?--now that we are just finding out three and four decades later, 
certainly incited by these letters that, as we speak, are being mailed 
out to these veterans all over the country.

  Thanks to the chairman and the ranking member, they accepted this 
amendment, which will be etched into law in our DOD authorization bill. 
Then, as we pursue the larger bill, including all the tests, other than 
just SHAD, Senator Cleland's subcommittee will get into this 
investigation.
  It is my understanding that Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, is also interested in having hearings on 
this very same subject. I am so grateful to the leadership of this 
body, on behalf of the veterans of Florida in my case, and on behalf of 
the veterans of this country, to find out what happened--to peel back 
the onion and see what really happened--and if there is a problem, we 
can get these veterans into the medical facilities.
  I thank the chairman for making this possible. I thank the 
distinguished assistant majority leader for giving me this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Nelson for his 
determination and passion on this issue. It will benefit the veterans 
who may have been affected. We are happy to work with him. Hopefully, 
his leadership will produce the critically necessary information we 
need to help with their medical situation. They are all in his debt and 
this body is as well.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Hutchinson has some 
remarks he would like to give in offering an amendment, and then after 
10 minutes he will withdraw that amendment. I want to make sure he is 
in agreement with this before I ask unanimous consent.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hutchinson be recognized for 10 
minutes to offer an amendment, and then at the end of that 10 minutes 
to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 4069

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4069.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4069.

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

       At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 305. CLARA BARTON CENTER FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(a)(5) for operation and maintenance for defensewide 
     activities, $3,000,000 shall be available for the Clara 
     Barton Center for Domestic Preparedness, Arkansas.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues giving me an opportunity to 
speak on this amendment. I think it is very important to our country. 
It is a matter that, after cloture, is not germane, and I intend to 
withdraw it. But I give notice that this is an important issue for our 
country and I intend to talk about it in the future. It is a matter 
that is critical to the protection of our military.
  Today we are deploying our troops across the world to fight the war 
on terrorism, and it is clear our enemies have been actively attempting 
to acquire biological weapons.
  We know Saddam Hussein has been relentless in his pursuit of 
biological weapons. Yet even with this knowledge, we continue today to 
deploy our troops without adequate vaccine protection. The shortage of 
anthrax vaccine, due to the failure of BioPort, has been well 
publicized. However, as we meet today, our military has no stocks of 
vaccines against a range of other pathogens that we know could be used 
against our troops.
  According to unclassified documents released by the Pentagon, there 
are at least 10 nations right now pursuing biological weapons programs. 
Based on media reports, we know these nations include Iraq, Iran, and 
North Korea. In 1998, the Department of Defense instituted a program to 
vaccinate all uniformed military personnel against anthrax, but because 
of the debacle that has occurred since then, the resulting vaccine 
shortage, that program was curtailed and is only now beginning to get 
back in motion.
  Today, only 526,000 service members have received any vaccine doses. 
The vast majority of these have received fewer than the recommended six 
doses. Soon it is expected that DOD will announce a new anthrax policy 
whereby only troops being deployed to so-called high-risk areas will be 
vaccinated. I look forward to learning what areas are designated as 
high-risk areas. Given what occurred on 9-11, even the Pentagon itself 
should qualify.
  The tragedy of this situation is that there is no reason for us to be 
in this position. The DOD over a decade ago realized our nation needed 
a reliable source of vaccine. The private sector is simply unable to 
meet the requirement for vaccines against biological weapons. The 
production of these products is not profitable, the need is too small, 
the infrastructure costs are too high, and the liability is too great.
  There is no greater proponent of the private sector than I. However, 
throughout the past decade private industry has declined to participate 
in this market. In fact, the only company that is chosen to contract 
with the Pentagon is BioPort. We know that has not been an altogether 
satisfactory experience.
  This problem has been examined many times over the past decade. In 
fact, it has been studied twice by the Department of Defense. Both 
times, the conclusion was that our Nation needed a government-owned, 
contractor-operated vaccine production facility. This is referred to as 
a GOCO.
  In January of 1991, Project Badger presented a report to DOD entitled 
``Long Term Expansion of Production Capability for Medical Defense 
Against Biological Warfare Agents.'' That is a long title, but the 
conclusion was that we needed to construct a Government-owned facility 
to provide assured manufacture of products against agents of biological 
origin.
  At that time, DOD began site selection. They began planning for such 
a facility. In 1994, they prepared a study entitled ``Department of 
Defense Vaccine Production Facility: An Economic Analysis of 
Alternatives.''
  They were moving ahead. Then, the previous administration reversed 
course and decided to rely solely upon the commercial sector. After 
dumping over $120 million, we are only now beginning to receive anthrax 
vaccine. We do not want to repeat that.
  In November of 2000, the Department of Defense completed another in-
depth

[[Page S6200]]

study of a potential GOCO, which included detailed cost and design 
estimates. In February of 2001, the Department prepared a comprehensive 
life cycle cost estimate.
  Finally, last July the Pentagon released its latest study, ``Report 
on Biological Warfare Defense Vaccine Research & Development 
Programs.'' This study once again came to the same conclusion, was 
prepared by a team of DOD personnel, industry leaders, and academics, 
and it included a letter from former Surgeon General David Satcher, all 
of it endorsing the concept of a GOCO.
  Since September 11, the establishment of a GOCO has been recommended 
by other organizations outside the Department of Defense.
  In November of 2001, the Institute of Medicine at the National 
Academies issued a statement saying:

       The establishment of a government-owned, contract-operated 
     facility for research, development, and production of 
     vaccines is essential.

  I repeat, the Institute of Medicine concluded that such a facility is 
essential. In December of 2001, the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic 
Response Capabilities for Terrorism, headed by former Virginia Gov. Jim 
Gilmore, issued a report, with their recommendation:

       The establishment of a government-owned, contractor-
     operated national facility for the research, development and 
     production of vaccines and therapeutics for specified 
     infectious, especially contagious diseases, is needed.

  I offered an amendment to our DOD authorization bill, a critical bill 
for our troops, that I believe would provide protection for our men and 
women in uniform. This amendment was cosponsored by Senator Hutchison 
of Texas, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, 
Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, and Senator Roberts of Kansas. All of 
them have cosponsored it. They recognize that it would ensure that our 
troops receive the protection they require. We have seen DOD study the 
matter twice; we have seen the Institute of Medicine-issued opinion; 
former Surgeon General Satcher recommended the building of a GOCO.
  All of these independent evaluations have concluded the same, and it 
is simply this: The private sector, for all of the good that it does, 
cannot, against some of the boutique biological pathogens and threats 
that may exist now and in the future against our troops and against our 
civilian population, and will not in the future see this as a 
profitable commercial venture.
  The insurance for the American people, and the insurance for our men 
and women in uniform, is to have a Government-owned production 
facility, contractor-operated, to ensure that vaccine will always be 
available if and when it is needed.
  I will withdraw the amendment I have offered. However, I will 
continue to bring this issue before the Senate. Our troops deserve 
more, I believe, than they are getting right now, and I intend to 
continue to pursue this issue as long as it takes until our troops are 
protected, whether it is through the homeland security bill or the 
Defense appropriations bill or other vehicles we may have, because this 
is vitally important.
  It is important for our country. It is important for our troops. It 
is the right thing to do. We have waited too long to act, and should 
delay no longer.


                      Amendment No. 4069 Withdrawn

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  

                          ____________________