[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6203-S6225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S6203]]

Senate

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                              (Continued)


                           Amendment No. 4060

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4060 that I offer 
on behalf of myself and Senator Smith of Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself and Mr. 
     Smith of Oregon, proposes an amendment numbered 4060.

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

  (Purpose: To authorize with an offset, $4,800,000 for personnel and 
 procurement for the Oregon Army National Guard for purposes of Search 
 and Rescue (SAR) and Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) missions in adverse 
                          weather conditions)

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

     SEC. 1010. AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS FOR OREGON ARMY NATIONAL 
                   GUARD FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE AND MEDICAL 
                   EVACUATION MISSIONS IN ADVERSE WEATHER 
                   CONDITIONS.

       (a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations for Army 
     Procurement.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 101(1) for procurement for the Army for aircraft is 
     hereby increased by $3,000,000.
       (b) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 101(1) for procurement for the Army 
     for aircraft, as increased by subsection (a), $3,000,000 
     shall be available for the upgrade of three UH-60L Blackhawk 
     helicopters of the Oregon Army National Guard to the 
     capabilities of UH-60Q Search and Rescue model helicopters, 
     including Star Safire FLIR, Breeze-Eastern External Rescue 
     Hoist, and Air Methods COTS Medical Systems upgrades, in 
     order to improve the utility of such UH-60L Blackhawk 
     helicopters in search and rescue and medical evacuation 
     missions in adverse weather conditions.
       (c) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations for 
     Military Personnel.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 421 for military personnel is hereby increased by 
     $1,800,000.
       (d) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 421 for military personnel, as 
     increased by subsection (d), $1,800,000 shall be available 
     for up to 26 additional personnel for the Oregon Army 
     National Guard.
       (e) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(a)(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army 
     is hereby reduced by $4,800,000, with the amount of the 
     reduction to be allocated to Base Operations Support 
     (Servicewide Support).

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Pacific Northwest must have a search 
and rescue capability. The vast expanses of Federal land in our part of 
the country mean our citizens constantly face the risk of disasters and 
accidents, far from help. Local communities, many of them with tiny 
populations, do not have the resources to provide search and rescue 
services to the extraordinarily large surrounding wilderness areas.
  The amendment I offer this afternoon on behalf of myself and Senator 
Smith is a compromise. It would not have been our first choice. In an 
effort to work with our colleagues and appeal to our colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis, we offer this compromise to preserve a search and 
rescue capability in our region. Without this capability, the Pacific 
Northwest faces the certain loss of lives for disasters, fires, and 
accidents that are unique to our region.
  This amendment authorizes a total of $4.8 million to the Oregon 
National Guard to upgrade three Blackhawk helicopters of the National 
Oregon Guard to the capabilities of the UH-60Q search and rescue 
helicopters similar to upgrades in the past. It would increase the 
authorization for military personnel by $1.8 million to ensure the 
Oregon Guard can respond to emergencies that require rapid medical 
attention.
  Particularly during this season we are concerned about the host of 
possibilities that can strike our local communities, tragedies we have 
already seen won in recent difficulties in our region. We cannot afford 
to play Russian roulette with the safety, health, and security of our 
citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Wyden-Smith amendment that we 
have worked on with both the majority and the minority for many days.
  I reserve my time to speak later in the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank my colleague for being a partner in this 
cause to preserve in the Pacific Northwest a search and rescue 
capability.
  Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment with Senator 
Wyden to preserve a truly invaluable search and rescue capability in 
the Pacific Northwest.
  On May 30, all eyes in Oregon and across the nation watched as brave 
Oregonians put themselves in harms way to rescue climbers on Mt. Hood.
  The rescuers included members of the Oregon National Guard, the 
Portland Mountain Rescue, and the Air Force Reserve 939th Air Rescue 
Wing, whose members have been lauded for scores of rescues on Mt. Hood 
and the Oregon Coast, not to mention rescues in our neighboring state 
of Washington. In fact this rescue wing volunteers for these types of 
rescues.
  Recently, nine climbers were swept into a 20-foot deep crevasse on 
Mt. Hood. Tragically, three of the climbers did not survive, but the 
skills of the rescuers ensured that others would survive.
  This rescue highlighted the skills of the Rescue Wing and the 
importance Oregonians place on the Wing's capabilities in the region. 
While adverse wind conditions most likely sent one of the helicopters 
into an inevitable crash, the highly skilled pilot of the 939th ensured 
that the crew survived and that all on the ground were unharmed.

[[Page S6204]]

  Just one week prior, the 939th rescued a sick climber from Mt. Hood's 
Sandy Glacier. I believe this rescue highlights the Wing's 
capabilities: Late in the evening, the 304th Rescue Squadron used its 
night vision capabilities to spot the climber at an elevation of 8,750 
feet.
  The Pave Hawk, equipped with a hoist, lowered down Steve Rollins of 
Portland Mountain Rescue onto the Glacier to assess the climber. After 
being secured to the hoist, the climber and rescuer were raised into 
the helicopter and transported to safety.
  Mr. President, Oregonians were devastated to hear of Air Force plans 
to take away the 939th Search and Rescue Wing out of the state.
  Oregonians realize that the 939th's mission is to rescue our brave 
men in combat. In fact, we believe that the members of the 939th are 
among the very best trained in the nation. We know this because we know 
the Oregon terrain and we have witnessed first-hand their skill under 
most challenging conditions.
  My original amendment with Senator Wyden would have prohibited the 
use of funds to take this search and rescue unit away from the Pacific 
Northwest. Senator Wyden and I understand the committee members have a 
problem with this amendment and we therefore introduced another 
amendment that would not interfere with the Air Force's force 
structure.
  The managers have told Senator Wyden and me that they would support 
this compromise: it authorizes a total of $4.8 million for the Oregon 
National Guard to be able to perform this mission.
  I appreciate the assistance from Senators Warner, Levin, Lott and 
Stevens, and look forward to working with them on this important issue.
  Mr. President, let me close by illustrating why this is so important 
to me and all Oregonians.
  The pioneer spirit of the Oregon Trail did not end with the 
settlement of the valleys of Oregon. That spirit and bravery is very 
much still alive in my state.
  But Oregonians cannot go any further west. They can only go up--into 
the skies and into the mountains. It is there that the modern-day 
pioneers meet with both triumph and tragedy, and their lessons are 
learned.
  The lessons of last week on Mt. Hood are harsh one that remind us of 
human frailty and the unbending forces of nature.
  Not unlike the tragic events of the last year, what I saw in the 
recovery on Mt. Hood also illustrates the bravery and compassion 
inherent in us all, and I want that spirit to continue in Oregon.
  Mr. President, this is the spirit that is the bedrock of America's 
Armed Forces. It is clear to met that removing the 939th from Oregon 
would truly be a tragedy without a lesson.
  Again, on May 30, Oregonians became aware of a unit called the 939th. 
Prior to that, very few Oregonians would have any idea it was there, 
even though throughout the year, every year, the 939th has saved people 
trapped in natural disasters or engaged in recreational activities or 
sometimes just going about their business.
  Truly, what they saw on May 30 was a tragedy that unfolded on 
national television when nine hikers climbing Mount Hood lost footing, 
fell into a crevice in which a number of them were killed. Many 
different units, from police, the Oregon National Guard, and the Air 
Force 939th search and rescue, came to their rescue.
  They volunteered to do this. The 939th is always training to be 
prepared to help in military situations. They say these real-life 
situations are truly the best training they can have. In the course of 
training, they have saved countless human lives.
  About a year ago, Senator Wyden and I were informed that the Air 
Force was to move the 939th from Oregon. I am not one to interfere with 
basing decisions of the Air Force. When this happened, it was clear to 
every Oregonian that we needed them. So Senator Wyden and I tried to 
make the case a few weeks ago that they ought to stay. Senator McCain 
of Arizona pointed out we should not be telling the Air Force where to 
base their people. I think he has a good point.
  Senator Wyden and I are offering a compromise to say, fine, let us 
have the upgrades in the helicopters. Let us have the personnel for the 
Oregon National Guard. By the way, these upgrades have been made 
available in most of the 50 States, but not Oregon. All we are saying 
is we need some military component in the Pacific Northwest. The 939th 
is going to Arizona. I do not begrudge that to my colleagues from 
Arizona. I love Arizona and I love my colleagues. My Udall ancestry is 
all from there and I want Arizonans to have all the search and rescue 
capability they need. But, doggone it, why take it from Oregon and say 
you cannot have any comparable replacement? We are talking peanuts here 
when it comes to issues of life and death.
  So I plead with my colleagues to allow this authorization because the 
whole country had the case made for them on national TV when they saw 
this rescue effort tragically end in a crash but with no additional 
loss of human life.
  I wish the 939th well as they go to Arizona. This $4.8 million that 
it takes to upgrade these helicopters and to provide some personnel is 
precious little to ask in an authorization as gargantuan as this. So I 
appeal to the hearts and the feelings of all 50 States. Don't leave the 
Pacific Northwest without this capacity.
  I have the privilege of sitting in Mark Hatfield's seat. Mark 
Hatfield, for reasons of personal conscience, was not a big advocate of 
military expenditure. The military money went in other places. He 
brought other kinds of expenditures to Oregon, I grant you. But what 
little we have probably puts Oregon the 50th of 50 States in receiving 
military appropriations. I say $4.8 million is not too much to ask.
  I yield the floor and ask for the consideration and votes of 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the proponents of this bill and Senators 
McCain and Kyl. I do not know how much more time the Senators from 
Oregon want. They originally told me they wanted about 10 minutes. I 
think they used about that. The Senators from Arizona indicated they 
would take about 15 minutes, 20 at the most--10 for Senator Kyl and 
Senator McCain, in reverse order.

  I am not asking unanimous consent at this time, but I hope that would 
be about all we need to talk on this amendment. We will have a vote on 
it. We were very close at one time to final passage. We will propound 
some unanimous consent requests in the near future, but I am indicating 
to Senators, maybe there will not be too much more talk on this?
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WYDEN. It is not clear to me what the Senators from Arizona 
intend. Certainly I understand the desire of the distinguished Senator 
from Nevada to move expeditiously. I think both of us will try to do 
that.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, I say to Senator Reid we are 
going to have to, because of a previous unanimous consent agreement, 
get unanimous consent to allow a second-degree amendment to be 
considered. That would have to be the first order for us, to be able to 
get that.
  Mr. REID. I understand.
  Mr. McCAIN. We were seeking that because we were under the 
impression, clearly a false one, that the Wyden-Smith amendment would 
be ruled, postcloture, nongermane. The Wyden-Smith amendment is germane 
so we had wanted to propose a second-degree amendment. If one of the 
Senators from Oregon objects, then obviously we hear the objection.
  Could I be recognized, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent a second-degree amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Kyl, to the Smith amendment, be taken up 
at this time.
  Mr. WYDEN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret Senator Wyden chooses to take 
what I think is an unwise course because I have to tell Senator Wyden 
now that I will fight in the conference--and I will be a conferee--to 
have it either amended as we want it done or to take it out completely.

[[Page S6205]]

  I think I may have the support of my colleagues because it really is 
unreasonable of Senator Wyden to object because it was clear, and 
everybody is clear, that we were under the impression that the 
amendment was nongermane. We would have filed a second-degree amendment 
if it had been germane.
  I do not question the choice of the Senator from Oregon, but I can 
assure the Senator from Oregon that, No. 1, Senator Kyl and I could 
care less whether it went to Arizona or Alaska or New Jersey. I have 
steadfastly opposed micromanaging any of the services.
  By the way--Senator Kyl is going to want to talk about this a little 
bit--it is up to $69,000 per person we are going to expend on this, 
which is quite a remarkable expense that they have.
  Second, if the Oregon National Guard wants to spend money, let them 
take it out of their existing funds. They are perfectly capable, under 
their budgetary and decisionmaking process, to make a decision that 
they want to upgrade their aircraft with the existing funds that they 
have.
  I do not think Senator Kyl and I would demand a vote on this. I will 
leave it up to Senator Kyl. But I assure Senator Wyden I would not have 
treated him in the same fashion. But I yield the floor.

  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I have already yielded the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to make clear how extensive the 
efforts have been on the part of Senator Smith and myself to work with 
the Senator from Arizona, to work with all of our colleagues on this 
issue. We have tried again and again. The distinguished Senator----
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? Has the Senator 
ever said a word directly to me about his amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. If I might finish? The fact is, we have come to the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona and discussed this several times. In 
fact, we discussed it at some length the night the Senator was 
unwilling to support another bipartisan effort to reach out to the 
distinguished Senator. I want to make it clear, I think he knows----
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? Will the Senator 
yield on that point?
  Mr. WYDEN. I will be glad to yield as soon as I finish.
  Mr. McCAIN. I didn't think he would.
  Mr. WYDEN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague. As he knows from 
our work on the Senate Commerce Committee, I worked with the Senator 
from Arizona again and again because I appreciate his counsel and his 
wisdom. Yes, we have talked about this subject. We talked about it, in 
fact, the night that Senator Smith and I tried another effort to come 
up with a bipartisan approach that would satisfy the Senator from 
Arizona. Today, we do feel that we have to go forward and protect our 
constituents.
  People in Arizona are, in fact, going to be protected. As Senator 
Smith said, the 939th is going to go to Arizona. That means the two 
Senators from Arizona, both of whom I value as good friends and worked 
with on many subjects, are going to have protection for their 
constituents.
  What we have said is, now that Arizona is going to be protected, let 
us try another approach, an approach that is not injurious to the 
Senators from Arizona, so that our citizens, in an area where there are 
vast amounts of Federal land and great risks for our citizens, can also 
be protected. So it is in that context that I seek to have this move 
forward today in conjunction with Senator Smith.
  Finally, as I yield to my good friend from Arizona, I want to say to 
him that I will continue to work with him on this issue and virtually 
everything else that conceivably comes before the U.S. Senate because I 
value his input and his counsel.
  We have worked together on a whole host of questions. Now, if the 
Senator from Arizona desires me to yield to him, I am glad to yield to 
the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Oregon. The fact is I have never 
had a direct conversation with the Senator from Oregon on this issue. 
He knows it and I know it.
  Mr. WYDEN. I have to reclaim my time to say that is factually wrong. 
The night we tried to have the compromise, we in fact talked about it 
on several occasions.
  Now I am happy to yield further to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Let me say, first of all, it gives me no great pleasure to 
oppose an amendment offered by two of my best friends in the Senate, 
one Republican and one Democrat, good colleagues with whom we have 
worked on a lot of things.
  This is not a matter of Arizona v. Oregon. It came to my attention on 
the night the senior Senator from Oregon was mentioning that there was 
an objection to the inclusion of an item in the managers' amendment to 
the supplemental appropriations bill which a number of Senators--
Senator Gramm of Texas, our colleague Senator McCain, and I believe 
some others in this part of the Chamber were going through the 
managers' amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. We 
objected to a whole variety of amendments which attempted to either 
spend money or micromanage money in ways inappropriate in our view at 
that time.
  That is when this matter first came to my attention because a Member 
of the other side mentioned to me there was a managers' relating to the 
State of Arizona. Naturally, I was curious when I saw that the Air 
Force's 939th unit was going to be moved from Oregon to Arizona and 
that the amendment of the Senator from Oregon would have stopped that. 
I didn't know about it at the time. We objected to that and a variety 
of other things because we believed it was inappropriate to be on the 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  Now our colleagues from Oregon have determined that they should not 
interfere with the movement of that unit to Arizona. But they want to 
make up for its loss through the amendment they are presenting here--I 
think that is a fair way to present it--as a result of which they want 
to take $3 million from the Army's active-duty operations and 
maintenance account for upgrades of helicopters; $3 million will be 
spent for procurement of helicopters and $1.8 million for the 26 Oregon 
National Guard personnel.
  If I am incorrect, correct me. I believe those numbers are correct.
  The fact that I don't view this as Arizona v. Oregon is illustrated 
by the fact that the unit will move to Arizona, and Arizona is no worse 
off.
  I speak on this matter having nothing in terms of a parochial 
interest involved but, rather, because I have taken President Bush and 
Secretary Rumsfeld at their word. And Senator McCain and I have worked 
for many months--in fact, a number of years, even before President Bush 
came into office--trying to preserve as much in the way of funding for 
our military as possible to be spent in an efficient way and not be 
wasted.
  It is one reason we both support and are cosponsors of the base 
closing amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it jeopardizes at 
least one or maybe two Air Force bases. In at least one round, we had a 
major base closed. We are willing to take that risk for the State of 
Arizona because we believe we are United States Senators and we have an 
interest first to protect the United States of America and to protect 
our constituents to the extent we can. But when it comes to national 
security and national defense, we don't play around with it. I don't 
put parochial interests ahead of the interests of America in its 
defense.
  When the President says, I don't have enough money for defense and I 
have to spend every nickel we get in the wisest possible way, and when 
the Secretary of Defense says, I am going to husband these resources 
and allocate them in the following way, then I don't think it is a good 
idea for Congress to say, because we want something for our home State, 
we are going to take money out of the Army's active-duty operations and 
maintenance account--almost $5

[[Page S6206]]

million--and put it into our State because we want a search and 
rescue mission for people who get into trouble in our beautiful 
mountains.

  That is not right. I have no doubt that the local communities around 
Mount Hood and some of these other areas may not have the tax base to 
pay for this themselves. But the State of Oregon is on television--I 
have seen the ads, and they look great because they happen in the 
prettiest country in the world. You see the ads: ``Come to Oregon''--I 
believe it is. I won't give the exact quotation of the ad. But they are 
very effective ads.
  There is a great deal to come to Oregon for. Their beautiful 
mountains are part of that. If the State of Oregon, I think, with its 
multimillion-dollar budget--over a billion-dollar State budget--has 
enough money to urge people to come to the State of Oregon to enjoy its 
beauties, then I think they also have the ability to provide for their 
safety when they are there if $4.8 million is the difference; in other 
words, to provide some mechanism for the State to be sure people 
needing rescue on the side of a mountain could be rescued.
  I have no idea what this unit is going to be doing in Arizona. We 
don't have big, beautiful snowcaps. We have a couple of them, but not 
the same kind of tourist attractions as the mountains in Oregon. The 
training, I believe, could be for the number of illegal aliens who come 
across the border to be rescued. About 50 or 60 have died already this 
year. Maybe that is what they intend to do. But I don't know. That is 
really, in a way, beside the point.
  Neither State, nor any other State, should be seeking to take active-
duty account money from the Defense Department and using it for what is 
a parochial need. I don't say parochial in a negative sense, but a 
local need, a need that could be satisfied by the people of the State.
  That is reason for our opposition. It is not an Arizona v. Oregon 
issue, as the Senator from Oregon was himself being very clear. We 
don't believe we should be micromanaging the military, let alone taking 
money from the active-duty accounts.
  I regret we are not able to offer the second-degree amendment because 
that would have prevented this, in effect. But it would require people 
from Oregon to make some choices about the $9 million we just added 
last night in this bill for Oregon. They will be able to move that 
money around and make the choices themselves as to where they want to 
get the funding. But it wouldn't have to come from active-duty 
accounts.
  I hope if this amendment is adopted--I urge my colleagues not to 
allow it to be adopted--that there will be some discussion along the 
lines the Senator from Oregon was alluding to earlier. I don't think at 
the end of the day, as it is going right now, this is going to result 
in a conclusion that will be desirable from the standpoint of our 
colleagues from Oregon.
  I appreciate what they are trying to do. Again, it gives me no 
pleasure to oppose them. But I think, if we have any concern at all 
about our active-duty troops, if we have any concern about spending 
money wisely, and keeping U.S. Federal military missions focused on our 
military and not the parochial needs of individual States to rescue 
people who may get into trouble, we should keep our eye on that ball, 
vote against this amendment, and allow the Defense Department to spend 
the money the way it wants to and help the State of Oregon get its 
funding in some other way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to tell the Senator 
exactly what the 939th will do in Arizona. They will train. They will 
look for opportunities to help in a civic way to be relevant to the 
people of Arizona and to rescue them because they want to be ready for 
combat situations. So they are going to look for opportunities to save 
the lives of Arizonians. God bless them in that effort.
  What is the Defense budget? Probably $300 billion which we are going 
to vote for, and we are talking about $4.8 million.
  I think what is really lost in my friends' comments is the role of 
the National Guard and the national defense. It is growing. It is not 
declining. National Guard people are looking all the time to do the 
same thing as the Air Force's 939th unit.
  To suggest that somehow the Oregon National Guard is irrelevant to 
the national defense is just demonstrably false. As we speak, there are 
many Oregon National Guard units in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. 
They are deployed. I think the National Guard's role is growing. It is 
not diminishing.
  To have these kinds of capacities, which many other States have, in 
Oregon is entirely reasonable, and it is entirely fair. I don't 
begrudge the Air Force moving the 939 to Arizona.
  I am not sure I am very comfortable hearing that out of $300 billion, 
the Air Force can't allow $4.8 million for the State of Oregon when 
Oregonians are taxpayers too. We contribute to the national defense, 
and we get less in defense dollars than probably any State in America. 
Is that right? I say it is wrong. I say we ought to get some help here 
today on the floor of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to pick up on a remark of the 
Senator from Arizona. Again, he knows how much I enjoy working with 
him. We have worked together on the forest fires and a whole host of 
issues that are important.
  I wish to address my friend's comments with respect to the 
contribution Oregon makes to our national security and why Senator 
Smith and I see this as being important to our military and why it is a 
very constructive expenditure as it relates to the military.
  For example, my colleague from Arizona said our State does not have 
high mountains. Well, the State of Oregon does. The State of Oregon--
and we are very proud of them--have many high mountains. Those high 
mountains are part of a very good training ground for our military.
  The Department of Defense has consistently said--as both of the 
Senators from Arizona know because they are very knowledgeable in 
military policy--that we ought to, as a nation, be strengthening our 
search and rescue capability.
  I think my good friend, Senator Kyl, has pointed out one of the 
aspects that Arizona lacks and with which Oregon can assist, and that 
is training as it relates to dealing with rescues from high mountains. 
The fact is, the people in the Northwest have been trained to rescue 
men and women wounded in combat. The value to our Nation of having this 
national training ground and this capability is a central reason why we 
are in support of this effort.
  I am very hopeful that our colleagues will approve our bipartisan 
amendment.
  I want to wrap up by way of saying I certainly do not consider this 
an Oregon against Arizona kind of battle. I am going to continue to 
work with both of my colleagues on this issue, but it seems to me that 
when we have tried to be considerate of the State of Arizona throughout 
this process, we would just hope that our colleagues would be willing 
to address these concerns that our constituents have, especially when 
we are showing that the contribution that Oregonians make is a 
contribution that advances our national security, advances our military 
well-being, and particularly makes a contribution that Senator Kyl has 
said cannot be made in terms of training people in Arizona.
  Mr. President, I yield at this time and reserve the right to respond 
to comments that might be made further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Pentagon says: The Pacific Northwest 
will continue to have a ``very robust rescue capability.'' There are 
109 rescue-capable helicopters in the Pacific Northwest and units on 
alert in Salem and Astoria. Assets include CH-47s on alert for high-
altitude rescue, recovered mishap HH-60. Long-range, over-water 
missions are covered by the California Air National Guard.
  In summary:

       The Pacific Northwest will continue to have a very robust 
     search and rescue force even after the assets from the 939th 
     wing are moved to active duty units.

  I have to tell the Senator from Oregon, the 939th is moving to active 
duty units in Arizona. It will not be practicing on civilians. There 
are two major bases in Arizona: Luke Air Force Base and Davis Monthan 
Air Force

[[Page S6207]]

Base. They will be there ready to conduct search and rescue missions in 
case those many training flights that take place from both those bases 
suffer a mishap. That is what they will be doing.
  They will also be patrolling our border from time to time because, as 
Jon said, people have died crossing the desert. But their primary 
mission will be to support the flight operations out of two major Air 
Force bases.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. Sure.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I say to my friend--and I really mean that--you 
made my point. They will be focused on military missions. They will 
volunteer for these real-life rescue missions. They will save people in 
the desert.
  Mr. McCAIN. They won't volunteer.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. They do volunteer. That is what they do in 
Oregon.
  Mr. McCAIN. They are an active duty unit now when they move.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. All the helicopters you just named--all those 
helicopters--we are just asking them to get the upgrade. Other States 
have received them. We have not.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
  We have probably wasted way too much of the Senate's time on this 
issue.
  One, the administration opposes it. And the Army opposes it. The Army 
says, you are taking the money out of the U.S. Army's operating funds, 
which they badly need. According to them, insufficient infrastructure 
funding decreases readiness. They do not have enough money. And now you 
are going to take the money out of operations and maintenance for our 
active duty men and women--active duty men and women--in the military, 
and you are going to move it to the Guard.
  All we are saying is--if you and your colleague would have allowed 
us--take the money out of the Guard units; shift it around to your own 
priorities in the National Guard. That seems eminently fair to me.
  The Guard is very well funded. You are talking about the overall 
funding. The Guard is very well funded as well. I am not going to take 
too much more time on this.
  The administration opposes it. The Army opposes it. We oppose it. It 
is something, frankly, that is unnecessary. To have this kind of 
transfer of funds, when our active duty military is already very short 
of funds, I think is a mistake.
  Again, I think we could have solved this very easily with a second-
degree amendment, if it had been allowed, that the money would have 
been taken out of existing Guard funds. Then you could upgrade it or do 
whatever you wanted to with Guard funds instead of taking it away from 
the men and women in the military.
  I will tell the Senator from Oregon, there are too many people living 
in barracks that were built during the Korean war. There are too many 
people who are on active duty who have insufficient housing, 
lifestyles, quarters, and other basic amenities of life. And we are an 
all-volunteer force.
  You are taking the money from the active duty personnel in order to 
satisfy what your perceived needs are of the Guard in the State of 
Oregon. I do not think that is fair to the active duty men and women in 
the military.
  I yield the floor. And I don't think we have any further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just to be very brief, with regard to the 
amount of time the Guard has spent overseas, they might as well be 
active duty people. These are people who have served our country with 
extraordinary valor all over the world. They could just as well be 
called active duty military.
  I hope our colleagues support this bipartisan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4060.
  The amendment (No. 4060) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have one amendment which has been 
cleared.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, do we have that amendment reconsidered and 
tabled?
  Mr. REID. 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.


                    Amendment No. 4077, As Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4077, on behalf of 
Senators Miller and Cleland, and send a modification of the amendment 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment being 
modified?
  Mr. WARNER. There is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Miller, for 
     himself and Mr. Cleland, proposes an amendment numbered 4077, 
     as modified.

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

(Purpose: To authorize $1,900,000 for procurement for the Marine Corps 
  for upgrading live fire range target movers and to bring live fire 
   range radio controls into compliance with Federal Communications 
                  Commission narrow band requirements)

       In subtitle C of title I, strike ``(reserved)'' and insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 121. MARINE CORPS LIVE FIRE RANGE IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 102(b) for 
     procurement for the Marine Corps is hereby increased by 
     $1,900,000, with the amount of the increase to be allocated 
     to Training Devices.
       (b) Availability.--(1) Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 102(b) for procurement for the Marine 
     Corps, as increased by subsection (a), $1,900,000 shall be 
     available as follows:
       (A) For upgrading live fire range target movers.
       (B) To bring live fire range radio controls into compliance 
     with Federal Communications Commission narrow band 
     requirements.
       (2) Amounts available under paragraph (1) for the purposes 
     set forth in that paragraph are in addition to any other 
     amounts available in this Act for such purposes.
       (c) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 103(1) for the C-17 interim 
     contractor support is reduced by $1,900,000.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, would add, 
with an offset, $1.9 million for buying upgrades for Marine Corps 
training devices to support live-fire training and live-fire range 
control systems.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4077), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. REID. Mr. President, I renew my previous unanimous consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Our Republican leader has reviewed this and approves it.
  Mr. REID. It is two pages long. I did not want to read it again. It 
is spread on the Record. I send a copy of it to the desk in case there 
is any misunderstanding.
  I ask approval of the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are going to have the vote on final 
passage at 3:15. As most know, Secretary Rumsfeld is going to be here 
at 2:45 for a short period of time. But that will give everyone time to 
visit with him. Then we would start a vote at 3:15.


                        nunn-lugar expansion act

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, to discuss 
the legislative intent of the Nunn-Lugar Expansion Act.
  I appreciate Chairman Levin's strong support for my bill. Under his 
leadership the Armed Services Committee adopted the bill and included 
it as section 1203 of the fiscal year 2003 Authorization bill. 
Furthermore, Chairman

[[Page S6208]]

Biden is a cosponsor of the bill and his support is critical to the 
successful implementation of the nonproliferation authorities provided 
to the Secretary of Defense.
  Section 1203 seeks to capitalize on the unique nonproliferation asset 
the Nunn-Lugar Program has created at the Department of Defense. An 
impressive cadre of talented scientists, technicians, negotiators, and 
managers has been assembled by the Defense Department to implement non-
proliferation programs and to respond to proliferation emergencies. 
Equally impressive credentials are held by other agencies such as the 
Department of Energy, State Department, and Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Section 1203 acknowledges the unique skills held by various 
agencies and seeks to broaden the President's menu of response options. 
Our legislation rejects a ``one size fits all'' response and provides 
another department with the authorization to respond to a proliferation 
threat.
  As the United States and our allies have sought to address the 
threats posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in the 
aftermath of September 11, we have come to the realization that, in 
many cases, we lack an appropriate assortment of tools to address these 
threats. Beyond Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union, 
Nunn-Lugar-style cooperative threat reduction programs aimed at weapons 
dismantlement and counter-proliferation do not exist. The ability to 
apply the Nunn-Lugar model to states outside the former Soviet Union 
would provide our President with another tool to confront the threats 
associated with weapons of mass destruction.
  If the President determines that we must move more quickly than 
traditional consultation procedures allow, the legislation provides 
that authority to launch emergency operations. We must not allow a 
proliferation or WMD threat to ``go critical'' because we lacked the 
foresight to empower the President to respond with a variety of 
options.
  In the former Soviet Union the value of being able to respond to 
proliferation emergencies has been clearly demonstrated. Under Nunn-
Lugar the U.S. has undertaken time-sensitive missions like Project 
Sapphire in Kazabstan and Operation Auburn Endeavor in Georgia that 
have kept highly vulnerable weapons and materials of mass destruction 
from being proliferated. But these endeavors have also illustrated the 
inherent problems of the inter-agency process in addressing time 
sensitive threats. We have seen on more than one occasion that teams of 
lawyers haggling over agency prerogatives and turf have delayed 
responses to critical threats. We must not allow this to continue. We 
cannot permit the intersection of terrorism and weapons of mass 
destruction.
  This type of scenario does not mean Congress will abandon its 
oversight responsibilities or the Administration should be continue and 
coordinate its actions to ensure the most seamless and effective 
response. Section 1203 requires extensive reporting requirements if 
action is taken under emergency circumstances. Furthermore, this 
legislation is not a blank check. We expect this legislation to be 
implemented with close consultation between relevant agencies. But at 
the same time, the legislative authority provided therein enables the 
President to avoid inter-agency logjams that would retard urgent 
American action.
  Mr. BIDEN. I am delighted to join with my dear friend and colleague, 
Senator Lugar, in supporting section 1203 of this bill. The Nunn-Lugar 
program and the several nonproliferation programs that have developed 
over the last decade were born in the need to secure excess weapons and 
dangerous materials and technology in the former Soviet Union. They 
have not yet fully achieved that objective, but they have accomplished 
far more than anybody other than Senators Nunn and Lugar foresaw a 
decade ago, The record of former Soviet weapons and materials secured 
and destroyed, and of former weapons scientists given useful and 
honorable work, is a testament to the importance of positive incentives 
in foreign and strategic policy.
  Proliferation is a worldwide threat, and there are sensitive 
materials and technology in many countries. Section 1203 is rightly 
designed to permit Nunn-Lugar activities the former Soviet Union, when 
there are opportunities to ensure that sensitive materials will never 
be acquired by rogue status of terrorists.
  I am pleased that Senator Lugar spoke of the need to give the 
President the authority to act in such cases. The current language of 
section 1203 could be construed to permit the Secretary of Defense to 
pursue such opportunities on his own, absent specific direction from 
the President. In my view, that might invite the Secretary of Defense 
to initiate sensitive foreign activities without the knowledge or 
support of the Secretary of State. I understand that this was not the 
intent of the managers, Senator Lugar, or cosponsors of this bill. 
Because this was clearly not the intent, I understand the managers will 
work to clarify the language of section 1203 in conference so as to 
make clear that the authority to order these operations resides in the 
President, not in the Secretary of Defense. That will be a very useful 
contribution, and I commend them for it. I understand also that the 
conferees will make clear that the authority to draw funds from other 
programs will extend only to other Department of Defense programs, and 
I appreciate that clarification.
  I would hope that the managers of the bill would also see fit to 
broaden the list of receipts of the reports required by section 1203. 
The Foreign Relations Committees of Congress have a legitimate interest 
in knowing when sensitive non-proliferation programs are to be 
instituted overseas. I understand that this concern will be kept in 
mind in conference, and I thank the managers for that courtesy.
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank the sponsors of the legislation that was 
included as section 1203 in the fiscal year 2003 National Defense 
Authorization bill for bringing this matter to my attention. Of course 
the responsibility to initiate and expand the type of activities 
provided for in section 1203 of the bill rests ultimately with the 
President. As you are the original sponsors of this provision, I will 
honor your request and will urge the conferees to make the needed 
changes during the conference process.


                         The Price-Anderson Act

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in March of this year, 
when we passed the energy bill, Senator Voinovich offered an amendment 
to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act that passed overwhelmingly 78-21. 
The Price-Anderson Act expires on August 1, 2002. This act sets up a 
system of insurance and indemnification to protect the public against 
losses stemming from nuclear accidents. It has served the nation well 
since the 1950s and has been reauthorized three times. Price-Anderson 
has been amended over the years so that the utility industry that 
operates nuclear reactors is charged premiums for this insurance. The 
private Department of Energy (DOE) contractors that are involved in 
strategic weapons production, clean up of national security sites, 
nuclear research and technology, as well as other related national 
priorities are indemnified by the government. In keeping with the 
directions in the current law both the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) have issued reports urging renewal. The provisions of 
the Voinovich amendment to the energy bill to reauthorize this 
legislation were crafted in consonance with these reports. In the 
Defense authorization bill we are now considering, there is a provision 
to only renew the authority for the private DOE contractors. There is 
strong justification for doing so, since a lapse in the authority will 
affect important cleanup and defense programs as I mentioned before. 
Private industry must be indemnified properly before undertaking these 
important national projects. Reauthorization is vital to national 
defense and must be considered on ``must do'' legislation such as the 
defense bill. However, the NRC provision of Price-Anderson, one that 
falls under the jurisdiction of the Environment & Public Works 
Committee, is not included in this bill. Historically, in the 
reauthorization of Price-Anderson, we have never separated the DOE 
contractor provision from the NRC licensee provision. The three 
previous renewals of Price-Anderson have extended both the DOE and NRC 
portions of the Act at

[[Page S6209]]

the same time for identical time periods. As the ranking member of the 
Environment & Public Works Committee and as a senior member of the 
Armed Services Committee, it was my hope that we could ensure that 
these two provisions of Price-Anderson be moved through the legislative 
process as one package, and not be separated. Due to the need of 
keeping non-military provisions off of the Defense Authorization bill 
while the bill is under consideration by the Senate, adding the NRC 
provision of Price-Anderson will not be possible at this time. However, 
it is certainly the hope of this Senator that the DOE and the NRC 
provisions of Price-Anderson remain on as close of a parallel 
legislative tracks as is possible, however that can be accomplished.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am in complete agreement with my colleague. Should we 
let this authority lapse, it will jeopardize national security 
programs. Therefore, we must act in this bill with the provisions that 
cover the private DOE contracts. However, we must try to get the entire 
act renewed as recommended by the administration and the agencies that 
have help to develop, modify and oversee its activities over the past 
nearly half century that have served us so well. I strongly believe 
that it vital to pass full and comprehensive reauthorization of the 
Price-Anderson Act. The law has worked well and has been considered a 
model in other countries. It insures against terrorism against the 
plants and has been studied in an attempt to help fashion the terrorism 
insurance recently passed in this body. I would urge that we do what we 
can in this body to get Price-Anderson renewed in the most expeditious 
fashion. I want to thank my colleagues on both the Armed Services 
Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am 
the ranking member of the Nuclear Subcommittee, and I look forward to 
working with them so that we may pass comprehensive Price-Anderson 
reauthorization during the 107th Congress.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I Thank my colleagues for their commitment to this 
issue that is of the utmost national importance. I add my support to 
the idea that we should keep the pieces of this legislation together. I 
certainly agree that we should make certain that our private DOE 
contractors do not experience a protracted lapse in authority that will 
surely delay the implementation of important programs. But I want to 
point out that energy security and national security are very much 
related, and both are integral parts of our overall economic security. 
Nuclear power, science and technology are vital to this country. 
Nuclear generation provides 20 percent of our electricity and is the 
largest contributor to avoiding emissions. If we are to meet the future 
demands for electricity we will have to build more nuclear plants to 
augment the present fleet. All over the world, nations are considering 
building new nuclear facilities. The current administration wants to 
move forward with new plants that use new, more efficient nuclear 
technologies that reduce the volume of spent fuel and have even more 
safety features than the current plants which have unparalleled safety 
records. The original law was put together to support both aspects of 
nuclear operations. They have worked very well together. I would agree 
with my fellow Senators who have just spoken on this matter. I was 
proud to have introduced the original Price-Anderson reauthorization 
bill and was very pleased when the Senate voted overwhelming to include 
my Price-Anderson amendment on the energy bill. It is important that we 
reauthorize the entirety of this statute and I look forward to 
continuing to work with my fellow Senators to ensure that the Price-
Anderson Act is reauthorized this Congress.
  Mr. WARNER. I agree with my colleagues that reauthorization of Price-
Anderson, both for DOE contractors and for NRC licensees is a priority 
for the Nation. I am hopeful that these two provisions to extend Price-
Anderson will soon be enacted into law.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we just passed an amendment which will 
require the Missile Defense Agency to provide yet another report. While 
we accepted this amendment, I believe it is redundant and wasteful.
  The criticism of MDA for classifying information on targets and 
countermeasures for future missile defense tests has been surprising, 
at best. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) informed us some time ago 
that such information would be classified as testing becomes more 
sophisticated.
  From the last three successful long-range intercept test successes, 
MDA has begun a progressive and more rigorous testing program to 
evaluate emerging and evolving technologies. These technologies include 
countermeasure to missile defenses that our adversaries might use and 
the means MDA devises to overcome those countermeasures. MDA has laid 
in a structure and process to identify likely or possible 
countermeasures and to assess their potential effectiveness; and to 
identify and assess possible counter-countermeasures.
  I can't resist noting that the majority has cut about half the 
funding for this function in its missile defense proposals in this 
bill. I think if they were that concerned about countermeasures, 
perhaps they wouldn't have made this cut.
  After MDA has identified these countermeasures, it designs and builds 
them. That's the only way MDA can test against them. Detailed knowledge 
of ballistic missile defense countermeasures techniques--techniques 
that we may be developing ourselves to test the strengths and weakness 
of our missile defense systems--could lead our adversaries to develop 
capabilities that can defeat our systems.
  I don't believe anyone wants to reveal information that might 
compromise our security. We should not share information on targets and 
countermeasures with the likes of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
  I fully concur with those who believe that Congress should have 
access to all relevant information related to missile dense tests. MDA 
has assured me that it will provide us with this information. All 
members, and staff with appropriate clearances, will have access to 
this information. Indeed, staff received classified information related 
to targets and countermeasures prior to the last long-range missile 
defense test.
  To those who suggest that this move is designed to disguise or hide 
missile defense test failures, I would note that test successes or 
failures really can't be hidden.
  Congress will have access to all the information, classified or 
otherwise. Not all information will be classified. it will be clear to 
the public whether the interceptor hit the target or not. 
Classification may actually make it harder for MDA to demonstrate 
success to the public because it can't make details of the test public. 
Details of almost all military tests are classified. Have we ever 
explained to our adversaries how to defeat stealth technologies? Why 
would we do so with missile defense technology?
  The decision to classify this information meets the criteria of 
Executive order 12958 that guides all DOD agencies in decisions on 
these matters. This executive order notes that information can be 
classified if it relates to ``military plans, weapons systems, or 
operations'' and ``vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems. . . . 
relating to the national security''; or if release of the information 
could reasonably be expected to ``reveal information that would assist 
in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.''
  I believe MDA countermeasures and targets information qualifies in 
all three categories.
  Is classification premature? I don't think so. We hope to have early 
missile defense capabilities in the field in the not too distant 
future. These capabilities will be based on test assets. Publicly 
revealing the weaknesses of our test systems to our adversaries simply 
doesn't make any sense.
  At this time, I would also like to make a few more points regarding 
the original cuts made by the Majority to the missile defense programs.
  While I am very happy that the $814 million cut was restored by the 
Warner/Allard amendment, I am concerned that there is confusion that 
the second degree amendment in some way reflects that this Senate 
believes that the President does not have the flexibility to spend the 
money as he fits between missile defense and counter-terrorism. As a 
matter of fact, according to the Office of Management and Budget, as 
well as the chairman, the second

[[Page S6210]]

degree amendment does not preclude the President from deciding where to 
spend the money--missile defense or counter-terrorism. And that is 
certainly my understanding, as well as the ranking member of the Armed 
Service Committee.
  One of the major criticisms stated by the majority is the expenditure 
rates for Ballistic Missile Defense projects, particularly the rate of 
expenditure in the BMD System program element.
  The Missile Defense Agency is attempting to develop a single 
integrated ballistic missile defense system capable of attacking 
missiles of varying ranges in all phases of flight and defeating 
missiles of all ranges.
  Thus MDA has shifted from an element-centric approach with a focus on 
THAAD, PAC-3, NTW, NMD etc., to a system-centric approach that knits 
each of the elements into an integrated whole. The goal is to develop a 
seamless took-kit of sensors, shooters, platforms battle management, 
and command and control assets that function as a single integrated BMD 
system.
  Critical to this refocusing are integration efforts to tie disparate 
BMD projects into a coordinated whole. The BMD System program element 
is key to success in the endeavor.
  But the chairman seems to argue that some funding will be left over 
at the end of fiscal year 2002 and thus not all the funding requested 
for fiscal year 2003 will be needed.
  I strongly disagree and several points need to be made.
  The 2002 budget was approved late. The FY 2002 defense authorization 
act wasn't signed until January of this year, at the end of the first 
quarter of the fiscal year. MDA projects--and all other DOD projects--
were late in getting FY 2002 funds.
  The expenditures that the chairman cited are already out of date. The 
figures he used were the expenditure figures from March 31, less than 
three months after MDA started receiving 2002 funds. The figure updated 
for the end of April is already about $100 million.
  The end of year expenditure projection for this program element is 
about half the funds appropriated. More than 90 percent will be 
obligated. These figures are well within expected ranges.
  I have the Missile Defense Agency projections for all their major 
project activities. All appear to be within expected ranges.
  It is also very important to remember that the funding request in the 
BMD System program element is all R&D money. R&D funding is available 
for obligation for two years and available for expenditure until 
disbursed or rescinded. Congress provides extended availability for R&D 
funding specifically to help assure funding stability and planning and 
contractual flexibility.
  If we accept the argument that we can cut funding in this program 
element because MDA will have Fiscal Year 02 funds left over, we have 
to accept the argument that the whole rationale for providing extended 
availability for R&D funding is flawed. We may as well go ahead and cut 
all R&D programs that have any funding left over from the previous 
year.
  I don't think any one believes we should do that.
  Citing an outdated expenditure figure for this program element so 
early in the fiscal year is simply misleading and I believe misguided.
  Another concern I had with the Majority's cuts was the $147 million 
reduction in program operations. This reduction may sound mundane but 
is critical to the success of the programs.
  The majority has justified the cuts on grounds that the funding is 
redundant and excessive. The committee report notes that program 
operations are adequately funded in each Missile Defense Agency project 
and the program operations funds justified in separate lines in each 
program element simply aren't needed. So the Armed Services Committee 
bill cuts each and every one of these funding lines.
  But this justification is simply wrong. It is simply mistaken to 
state that the funding for program operation is redundant to funding 
elsewhere in the MDA budget. Not only is it mistaken, this funding 
reduction is extraordinarily damaging to the Missile Defense Agency.
  What are ``program operations?'' Program operations are people. They 
provide the basic support for any program. They provide information 
technology support--the computer support people. They provide 
communications support. They provide security. They provide contract 
support. They support basic infrastructure and facilities.
  It is true that this work is done at the project level. The THAAD 
project funds program operations unique to the THAAD project. Each MDA 
projects fund program operations unique to that project.
  But the simple fact is that the program operations funds in each 
project are not used for same purposes as the funds that have been cut 
in Armed Services Committee bill. The funds cut by the Committee bill 
are not for activities unique to any particular project. They are for 
common program support.
  The funds identified in the MDA budget for program operations will be 
used to support government and contractors for common program support 
at Missile Defense Agency Headquarters and for the service executive 
agents for missile defense programs. The Missile Defense Agency is 
required by law--Section 251 (d) of the Fiscal Year 1996 National 
Defense Authorization Act to request these funds in separate program 
elements.
  This bill cuts almost all of this funding--$147 million of $185 
million requested, or nearly 80 percent.
  What does this cut do?
  This reduction cuts nearly 1,000 people who provide basic support for 
Missile Defense Agency projects and activities. Army Space and Missile 
Defense Command will lose almost 400 people. The Army Program Executive 
Office for Air and Missile Defense will lose another 60. Missile 
Defense Agency Headquarters will lose around 400. The Navy and Air 
Force will lose about 75.
  Heres how MDA describes the impact:

       The majority of Army SMDC and Army PEO-AMD staffs would be 
     eliminated.
       Air Force and Navy organizations responsible for 
     centralized management and/or sharing of common program 
     management costs would be eliminated.
       All contract support at MDA for program operations would be 
     eliminated; computer center and thus computers shut down; no 
     security (technical or physical), no staffing for supply/mail 
     room, cleaning, and facility maintenance; no contractor 
     support for common acquisition management functions performed 
     by MDA, e.g. contracting, financial management, cost 
     estimating, human resources.

  That is an incredible hit on any organization.
  Could MDA recover by redirecting funds to cover these functions? If 
these cuts survive the process, MDA would have to move money into 
activities in direct contravention of Congressional intent which is 
usually a pretty bad idea.
  But even if MDA were to try use project funds to perform these 
program-wide activities, the agency would be in the position of trying 
to use new people to do many of these jobs. The Missile Defense Agency 
simply could not do this in anything approaching a timely manner. 
Consider contracting support. The whole thrust of the missile defense 
program has changed, moving toward a single integrated missile defense 
system and away from autonomous ``stove-piped'' systems. This will 
inevitably mean contract changes as the architecture evolves. Yet MDA's 
institutional memory would have been surgically excised by this 
reduction at precisely the time it is needed most. So MDA would take a 
double hit--a cut to project funds to pay for program operations, and 
inefficient and ineffective program operations because all the people 
who did that job will have been fired.
  The 80 percent reduction to program operation is just one example of 
how damaging the missile defense reductions in this bill. It is 
inconsistent with good management, current law, and common sense. I 
cannot say if the majority simply erred in this reduction, or if the 
intent was to cripple the organization.
  Another program that was it hard by the majority's missile defense 
cuts deals with countermeasures--which for me makes these cuts even 
more surprising.
  Many critics on the majority side have argued that simply 
countermeasures can render missile defenses ineffective. They have 
criticized missile defense technology and testing as too simple, and 
not sensitive enough to the measures our enemies might take

[[Page S6211]]

to defeat our defenses. The former Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation Phil Coyle used to make this argument in his official 
capacity and had many recommendations about how to improve what he saw 
as deficiencies. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
just recently repeated the view that simply countermeasures may be able 
to defeat missile defenses.
  The Missile Defense Agency agreed that countermeasures represent a 
significant challenge, and has structured a significant part of its 
program to meet this challenge. Here's what they have done:
  MDA moved from an architecture that relied very heavily on 
intercepting enemy missiles and warheads in their terminal phase, the 
final phase of flight as these weapons approach their target, to an 
architecture that seeks to intercept missiles and warheads in all 
phases flight-boost phase right after launch, and midcourse as the 
missiles and warheads fly ballistically toward their target as well as 
terminal phase. Countermeasures to defenses in any one phase of flight 
are greatly complicated by attacking missiles in all phases of flight.

  MDA initiated technology efforts in the midcourse defense segment to 
develop counter-countermeasures and advanced kill vehicles to defeat 
countermeasures that our adversaries may develop or deploy.
  MDA initiated a ``Red, White, and Blue'' team and a process to 
objectively assess the types of countermeasures that might be developed 
and deployed and the countermeasures that could be developed to counter 
them. The Red team assesses the likelihood and technical feasibility 
and effectiveness of various countermeasures; the Blue team assesses 
ways to defeat the countermeasures and does basic technical work to 
produce the counter-countermeasures; and the White team is the referee 
to make sure that proposals and assessments from the Red and Blue teams 
are fair.
  Given the concerns expressed by our majority about the ability of 
adversaries to produce countermeasures that defeat our defenses, you 
would thank that these efforts would among those receiving the 
strongest support in this bill. If you thought that, you would be 
wrong. This bill decimates each of these approaches.
  The bill makes extraordinarily deep reductions in boost phase 
intercept projects. The Airborne Laser program--cut by about a 
quarter--there is almost no funding for anything beyond the first 
prototype aircraft. Funding for space-based kinetic boost phase 
interceptors is eliminated. Funding for sea-based boost phase 
interceptors is eliminated. Space-based laser? That was killed last 
year. And the bill makes a $52 million reduction to Navy mid-course 
missile defense, and concept development and risk reduction effort to 
produce Navy missile defenses against medium, intermediate, and long-
range missiles.
  The bill cuts all the funding--100 percent of the funding--for the 
next generation kill vehicle and midcourse counter-countermeasures. 
This leaves the midcourse segment with no follow-on technology to 
defeat any advanced countermeasures our adversaries might develop or 
obtain and then deploy.
  The bill cuts almost half of the funding for the Red, White and Blue 
team. This reduction is part of the 2/3 reduction to Ballistic Missile 
Defense System program element. A key project in that program element 
is system engineering and analysis. That's where the Red, White and 
Blue team is funded. This bill decimates this key effort.
  These reductions severely damage the effort to defeat BMD 
countermeasures--an effort that everyone-Republicans, Democrats, MDA, 
and missile defense critics--believes is critical. The rationale for 
these reductions, to be charitable, is unclear.
  Let me end my statement by summarizing some of the majority's 
arguments which we have heard during the course of this debate.
  First, funding is not adequately justified or unclear what product 
will be provided.
  Not true.
  The committee has received hundreds of pages of justification which 
describes in tremendous detail activities and products in each program 
element. I admit that not all of the detail was available at the 
beginning of the budget cycle because the National Team--which plans 
the activities--was just standing up. It is all available now.
  Many of these important activities and products included in System 
Engineering & Integration are: concept development and system 
architecture; trade studies and analysis; functional allocation; BMD 
element (e.g. PAC-3, ABL, THAAD) specifications; verification of text 
objectives; engineering process controls; configuration management; 
interface specification; architecture definition; threat databases; 
modeling and simulation; test infrastructure and target requirement 
definition; schedule baseline; specialty engineering; and data 
management.
  For Battle Management/Command and Control these activities include: 
definition of intelligence and sensor inputs; specifications; 
definition of interfaces; mission planning across BMD elements BM/C2 
test planning, assessments BM/C2 system performance BM/C20T&E plans; 
BM/D2 transition plans; order of battle definition communications 
architecture message definition and formats network management 
information assurance wargaming support; and BM/C2 verification and 
test.
  Here is an example of some of these activities:
  System and element capability specification: $17.8 million.
  Description: The system capability specifications provide design 
requirements for system integrators and element contractors to use in 
development and testing. It enables contractors to understand the 
context in which they are designing elements and to be more innovative 
in ensuring that their element meets its requirements and milestones in 
the BMD system. The system capability specification document describes 
the BMD system in terms of functions and performance based 
capabilities, shows the allocation of those capabilities the elements 
in the BMD system, and identifies methods to verify those capabilities 
at the system level. Element and component capability specifications 
documents describe the functions and capabilities of BMD system 
elements and components as they are allocated in the systems 
capabilities specifications. For new elements these documents may 
provide a very complete description of functions and capabilities and 
allocations to major subsystems. For existing elements, the documents 
may be higher level and might serve as the basis for engineering change 
proposals to bring the element into compliance with BMD system 
allocations and specifications. These documents are reviewed quarterly 
and updated annually.
  The committee got over 100 pages of similar material describing these 
activities in a minute detail.
  The second argument is that the funding is redundant.
  Again, not true.
  There is a semantic problem in considering ``system engineering.'' 
System engineering takes place at the system level and the at the 
element level. The system level effort integrates all the disparate 
elements into a seamless whole. At the element level--or perhaps we 
would better call this ``element engineering''--provides for 
integration between the parts of an element. For example, the THAAD 
program spends about 10 percent of its funding on ``system 
engineering'' to assure that the THAAD components-radar, missile, 
launcher, BMC2--work together seamlessly.
  This is not the same work that is being done at the BMD system level. 
The system engineering and integration across elements of the BMD 
system is being done at a much more detailed level and more 
systemtically than in the past. This is new or expanded work. On reason 
this work hasn't been done so much is the past is because of the former 
ABM Treaty constraints.
  A third argument is that the funding is premature.
  Once again, not true.
  Much of this work has not been done before. It is needed to implement 
the new concept of missile defense as a single integrated system. If 
this work isn't started and can't continue now--the effectiveness of 
all missile defense systems will be degraded; deployment of effective 
missile defense will be delayed; costs will increase, since each 
element will have to ``carry more of the load'' and element-centric 
work

[[Page S6212]]

will have to be redone later to make it compatible with a single 
integrated system. The start or expansion of this work coincides with 
establishment and stand-up of the National Team.
  As I mentioned earlier but I believe is important to reiterate, it 
has also been argued that some funding will be left over at the end of 
fiscal year 2002 and thus not all the funding requested for fiscal year 
2003 will be needed. Although the 2002 budget was approved late, the 
obligation and expenditure rate in System Engineerring and Integration 
is well within expected ranges.
  The funding request is all R&D money. R&D funding is available for 
obligation for two years and available for expenditure until disbursed 
or rescinded. Congress provides extended availability for R&D funding 
to help asure funding stabililty and planning and contractual 
flexibility.
  If we accept the argument that we can cut funding in this program 
element because MDA will FY 02 funds left over, we have to accept the 
argument that the whole rationale for providing extended availability 
for R&D funding is flawed. We may as well go ahead and cut all R&D 
programs that have any funding left over from the previous year.
  Fourth, that the funding is excessive.
  Once again, not true.
  MDA's BMD system level engineering and integration funding request, 
at 2 percent of the MDA budget of the budget, is modest.
  Standard text (Essentials of Project and Systems Engineering 
Management) estimates requested resources for systems engineering to be 
4-8 percent of total project cost. Costs tend to be higher for 
complicated projects.
  MDA's system and element level engineering and integration funding is 
low compared to other programs.
  What other programs spend on system engineering:
  V-22--7.2 percent.
  B-1b--14.3 percent.
  V-22 (Marine)--11.5 percent.
  F-22--5.5 percent.
  E-3A AWACS--13 percent.
  Safeguard--16 percent.
  Patriot--19 percent.
  E-4 Airborne Command post--12 percent.
  Pershing II--21 percent.
  JTIDS--12 percent.
  Here's what Ballistic Missile Defense spends on system engineering:
  Ground-based Midcourse--6.9 percent.
  THAAD (03)--10 percent.
  BMDS SE&I--2 percent.
  These figures are not at all out of line with other complex DOD 
programs. The BMDS systems engineering funding is low by comarison-
particularly given that we haven't done this mission before. This 
mission is almost uniquely complex.
  In conclusion--the BMDS funding reductions aim at the heart of what 
MDA is trying to do and how MDA is trying to do it. I believe the 
funding reductions are completely unjustified and I am glad we made 
some progress in getting these very important missile defense programs 
back on track.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the managers of 
the bill, Senators Levin and Warner, for not including proposals that 
the Administration has put forward that would undermine many of our 
environmental laws, in either the legislation that was reported by the 
Armed Services Committee and the final legislation that we are voting 
on today. I would also like to make clear my continuing concern with 
these proposals and my opposition to any efforts to include them in 
conference on the DoD authorization bill.
  Title XII of the administration's National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2003 contains several provisions that not only fall 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, which I chair, but proposes changes to our environmental laws 
that are unnecessary, broad, and--judging from the volume of mail I 
already have received--very controversial. The administration contends 
that these changes are needed for military readiness and training. 
However, it has not been demonstrated that is the case.
  One provision could permanently extend the timeline for DoD's 
conformity analysis, required under the Clean Air Act, by 3 years for 
all activities broadly referred to as military readiness activities, 
without regard to whether there is a national security emergency or 
other need for such an extension.
  Another provision attempts to permanently exempt the DoD from broad 
aspects of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, regulation and 
cleanup. The proposal significantly changes the definition of ``solid 
waste,'' the crux of the RCRA statute. The proposal would exempt 
munitions that were deposited, incident to their normal and expected 
use on an operational range. The proposal also may exempt munitions 
wastes that remain after the range becomes ``non-operational'' a term 
not found in environmental law--prohibiting EPA and preempting the 
states from regulating the cleanup of the vast majority of unexploded 
ordnance, explosives and related materials that contaminate closed, 
transferring and transferred training ranges.
  By exempting munitions-related materials from RCRA, the proposal 
could prohibit EPA and states from acting to address munitions-related 
environmental contamination that is not on a range at all, but has 
migrated from the range entirely off-site. The exemption also extends 
to any facility--not just training ranges--with munitions-type waste, 
which may include plants that manufacture explosives and other 
manufacturing facilities run by defense contractors. It is possible 
that the exemption also would extend to waste streams from the 
manufacture of explosives since the exemption covers ``constituents.''
  The proposal also provides exemptions from the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or Superfund. 
``Explosives unexploded ordnance, munitions, munition fragments or 
constituents thereof'' would be permanently exempted from the 
definition of ``release'' under Superfund. In addition, because the 
definition of ``solid waste'' under RCRA triggers coverage as a 
``hazardous waste'' under Superfund, the broad RCRA exemption would 
exempt munitions waste from regulation, ie., cleanup, under Superfund. 
This could similarly tie the hands of the states to compel cleanup.
  By affecting the definition of ``hazardous substance,'' the proposal 
may preclude states and natural resources trustees from pursuing 
restoration of areas contaminated by munitions waste--this affects the 
``natural resource damages'' section of the Superfund law. The proposal 
also may eliminate authority under section 104 of the Superfund law to 
clean up a release or respond to substantial threat of a release of 
hazardous substances on training ranges--and, as discussed above, 
possibly off-site and at manufacturing facilities as well.

  The proposal would exempt the Department of Defense from the 
requirement of the Endangered Species Act of designating critical 
habitat on all ``lands, or other geographical areas, owned or 
controlled by the Department, or designated for its use'' if an 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan--INRMP--has been developed 
pursuant to the Sikes Act. The Sikes Act requires military 
installations to prepare plans that integrate the protection of natural 
resources on military lands with the use of military lands for military 
training. If the Fish and Wildlife Service determines that the plan 
``addresses special management consideration or protection,'' they can 
decide not to designate critical habitat. Although the Service in the 
past has excluded some bases from critical habitat designation based on 
an INRMP, in numerous other decisions, the Service has expressly found 
that an INRMP would not provide adequate protection in lieu of critical 
habitat designation.
  Under the Endangered Species Act, the Service is required to consider 
``the impact on national security'' when designating critical habitat. 
This proposal would preclude the Service from designating critical 
habitat if an INRMP has been completed.
  The proposal would authorize military readiness activities under the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act--MBTA--without further action by the 
Secretary of the Interior. It would exempt the DOD from the 
requirement, applicable to everyone else and founded on treaties 
between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Japan, that 
they obtain a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service before killing 
migratory birds or destroying their

[[Page S6213]]

eggs. Such action could be carried out without any assessment of 
biological impact, effort to mitigate or seek alternatives, oversight 
or accountability.
  In March of 2002, a court ruled that the MBTA applied to training 
activities at the Farallon de Medinilla range in the Western Pacific 
and enjoined the Navy from continuing the bombing activities there. The 
Navy has applied for a special purpose permit under the MBTA allowing 
for incidental take and are completing the biological justification. 
While the MBTA does not have an exemption for national security, it 
does provide for permits to be issued if the urgency of the training is 
determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be compelling 
justification and there can be compensation for the biological benefits 
of birds that may be taken.
  It is my hope that during the conference with the House on this 
legislation, the provisions in the House bill amending the Endangered 
Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act be deleted. The Committee 
on Environment and Public Works is the appropriate committee to examine 
the need for any such environmental legislation and to act upon any 
such legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about the amendments 
that have just been adopted to add $814 million to either missile 
defense funding or combating terrorism. We have heard a day and a half 
of debate on these amendments, which relate to one of the great issues 
of our national defense policy. I am stunned that these important 
amendments were accepted without a rollcall vote.
  My concern with these amendments are numerous. The supposed offset 
for these additional funds is, at the moment, nothing more than a work 
of fiction. Supposedly, the Office of Management and Budget, in its 
mid-session review of the budget, will revise downward its estimate of 
the inflation rate. Not only is this report yet to be released, but 
also we are making budget decisions based upon projections that may or 
may not pan out.
  In addition, the amendments backtrack on cuts in the missile defense 
program made by the Armed Services Committee. As a member of that 
committee, I think that we made the right choices on trimming a missile 
defense budget request that was far too large to support a program that 
remains in an elementary phrase. By pouring so much money so quickly 
into missile defense programs, we are only encouraging a rush to 
failure. I am especially alarmed that these amendments allow for more 
missile defense funding at a time when the programs are becoming 
increasingly shrouded in secrecy, as if the Pentagon wishes to stifle 
public debate about the utility and effectiveness of anti-missile 
systems.
  The amendments leave the decision about whether to use $814 million 
for missile defense or for combating terrorism entirely to the 
President. There is an alarming trend in Congress to simply delegate 
the decisions on many important issues to the Chief Executive. The 
President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, but the 
Constitution charges Congress with the authority to ``raise and support 
armies'' and to ``provide and maintain a navy.'' The Founding Fathers 
of this country clearly intended to have Congress determine how the 
funds intended for our national defense would be allocated.
  The amendments adopted today delegate, from the Congress to the 
President, the decision of how to use $814 million. It is an advoidance 
of our constitutional responsibilities. The amendment offered by the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee establishes the top priority 
for these funds to be used for combating terrorism at home and abroad, 
but I have no idea for what purposes these funds could be used. I do 
not know whether I would have supported this amendment, but it is 
profoundly disappointing that Senators did not have the opportunity to 
cast their vote on this proposal.
  I had even greater concerns about the underlying amendment, offered 
by the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. As I said 
before, I question the source of the $814 million, the potential for 
the funds to restore the well-justified cuts in missile defense 
programs, and its delegation to the President of an important decision 
on the funding of our military. But again, I did not have the 
opportunity to register my vote.
  I hope that my colleagues would take a more careful look at what 
powers we invest in the President. We should also take a look at how we 
dispose of such important business as increasing the missile defense 
budget by $814 million. We must never allow ourselves to be absolved of 
our constitutional responsibilities to decide and vote on matters of 
such great importance.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for their 
assistance and support in authorizing funding for a military 
construction project of critical importance to the State of Tennessee 
and the United States. I also thank the skilled staff members on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee who assisted this action: George 
Lauffer and Michael McCord.
  The amendment in question was advanced by Fred Thompson and I to 
authorize $8.4 million in funding for the construction of a Composite 
Aircraft Maintenance Complex at Berry Field Guard Base in Nashville, 
TN. This important project is vital to the combat readiness for the 
118th Air Wing of the Tennessee Air National Guard. Currently, the 
118th is housed in a variety of substandard buildings, some of which 
are more than 40 years old. This collection of buildings encroaches 
upon the aircraft clear zone making it difficult for personnel to work 
and drill, impeding combat readiness and jeopardizing aircraft safety. 
Aircraft cannot be moved into hangars properly or left on jacks due to 
wind conditions. All of these problems combine to create significant 
safety problems and increase the amount of time it takes to repair 
damaged aircraft. In addition, the 118th needs nine airfield waivers to 
operate and continue its mission. By constructing this new complex, 
several of those waivers will be eliminated and the base will be a 
safer and more efficient place to accomplish its vital mission.
  I would like my colleagues to know that the 118th played a vital role 
in the immediate response to the 9-11 tragedy and continues to 
contribute importantly to the ongoing national security needs of the 
country. One item of human interest occurred within an hour after the 
World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists and all of the Nation's 
aircraft were grounded by the President. The 118th was called and given 
approval to fly a donated liver from Nashville to a little girl in 
Houston, TX. At that time, only three non-fighter aircraft were in the 
air over the United States--Air Force One, its supporting tanker, and a 
lone C-130 from the 118th. In the shadow of thousands of people killed 
in New York City that day, the 118th had the privilege of helping to 
save a life.
  In the weeks after September 11, the 118th was given numerous alert 
missions requiring Tennessee Air Guardsmen to be on call 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week. The aircraft and maintenance personnel were 
sleeping in an old converted aircraft hangar at night and prepared to 
fly anywhere at any time.
  Early in the month of October 2001, the 118th was again called for an 
extremely vital mission of National Security and Homeland Security 
Support. The 118th was one of only five C-130 units deployed for 
Operation Noble Eagle-QRF (Quick Reaction Force). Their mission was to 
deploy as soon as possible to a forward base, and be ready for 24/7 
operations with a 1-hour alert call out. The 118th proudly performed 
this mission faster and better than any other Air National Guard, Air 
Force Reserve, or Active Duty unit. Within 22 hours of notification, 
the 118th had aircraft in the air moving forward, and was the sole C-
130 unit operationally ready at the 48-hour mark.
  Over the next 4 months--between October 2001 and February 2002--the 
118th became the standard to which other units trained in relation to 
the QRF. The 118th maintained operational readiness with one-third of 
the unit deployed, and still preserved exceptionally high training 
standards at home station.
  To date, the 118th has activated more than 340 individuals to support 
the worldwide mission. The unit is currently supporting Air Mobility 
Command with 33 percent of its aircraft on a daily basis flying active 
duty missions. Back at home station, Command and Control has been 
operating 24/7

[[Page S6214]]

ever since September 11. The 118th Command Post and Crisis Action Team 
have played a critical role in the direction and guidance of the unit's 
response to every assignment and emergency that has arisen. The base 
medical department, normally two full-time people, has increased to 13 
in order to support the increasing number of wing personnel now on 
active duty.
  In conclusion, on behalf of the men and women of the 118th Airlift 
Wing, Senator Thompson and myself, I would like to thank the chairman, 
ranking member, and our Senate colleagues for authorizing this 
important funding.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senate returned yesterday to an issue 
which, in recent years, has polarized our debate on national security 
and foreign policy. An amendment proposed by Senator Warner allowed the 
President to add $814 million to the research and development budget 
for missile defense, money that was not recommended by the Armed 
Services Committee.
  It also provided the President the authority to allocate these funds 
to ``antiterrorism'' projects, but I have no reason to believe the 
President would choose this latter option.
  Senator Warner's amendment was passed with a second-degree amendment 
by Senator Levin that emphasized that combating terrorism should be the 
top priority for the use of these funds, although the President could 
still allocate the entire $814 million to missile defense activities.
  It has been my hope that the formal U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty, an event which took place less than 2 weeks 
ago, would emerge as a real turning point in the debate over national 
missile defense. From this point forward, I fervently wish that 
officials of all stripes--executive and legislative, Democratic and 
Republican--will be freed to evaluate missile defense as we would any 
other major defense initiative.
  The touchstone for evaluating any missile defense must be the test 
that the American people sent us here to propound: Will this program 
make the United States more secure, or less so? Will national missile 
defense be operationally effective under real-world conditions, or will 
it remain a system that no commander can rely on?
  Yesterday's passage of the Warner amendment was not a final decision 
on the future of national missile defense, nor was it a referendum on 
the President's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Even if the 
amendment had fallen, the Senate would still have authorized $6.8 
billion in fiscal year 2003 on missile defense activities, a 
significant sum of money of any measure.
  The proponents of the Warner amendment contended that an $814 million 
reduction in an administration request totaling $7.6 billion would 
seriously hamper our Nation's efforts to move forward on missile 
defense. Let's take a closer look at a couple of these reductions 
proposed by the Armed Services Committee:
  A cut of $200 million for a number of overhead activities, variously 
described as ``Program Operations'' or ``Systems Engineering and 
Integration,'' which are repeated multiple times in the 
administration's budget request. The administration cited this 
particular cut as an attempt by missile defense opponents to block the 
effective integration of missile defense components.
  Despite repeated requests by the Armed Services Committee, however, 
the Missile Defense Agency never justified these duplicative requests 
or explained how they would fit together to enhance system integration.
  A reduction of $30 million, requested by the administration for the 
purchase of a second Airborne Laser prototype aircraft. However, the 
Pentagon does not plan to test the first Airborne laser aircraft until 
fiscal year 2005. Doesn't it make sense to delay the purchase of a 
second model until you get some feedback from the testing of the 
initial model? After all, there are real questions regarding payload 
and beam stability in bad weither, which relate as much to the aircraft 
as to the laser.
  Contrary to what missile defense advocates contended, the Armed 
Services Committee did not set out to destroy our national missile 
defense effort. If that has been their intention the committee would 
have cut far more than $814 million in a $7.6 billion budget.
  This debate was also over priorities. How should the United States 
spend an extra national defense dollar: On missile defense or on other 
more pressing needs? In my view, when we consider underfunded 
antiterrorism missions, one stands out above the beyond the others.
  Our first line of defense in today's world should be to ensure that 
rogue states and terrorists never obtain weapons of mass destruction or 
the materials needed to make them. We spend between $1 and $2 billion a 
year toward this goal. We are nowhere close to the levels recommended 
by numerous outside experts, including the bipartisan task force headed 
by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler a year ago, which advocated spending 
approximately $3 billion per year.
  The committee's original reduction would still have provided funding 
for our missile defense efforts that was four to six times what we 
spend on threat reduction programs. Putting aside the overall merits of 
national missile defense, I ask one simple question: Why can't we show 
the same sense of urgency and offer the same level of resources in 
combating the more immediate risk to a more anonymous nuclear weapon 
delivered without a ballistic missile, but hidden in the hull of a ship 
or smuggled in the trunk of a compact car?
  Were this any other weapons system but national missile defense, I 
doubt the Senate would have amended such a modest and sensible 
committee-recommended funding reduction. Major weapons programs often 
encounter problems. My friends on the Armed Services Committee are all 
too familiar with unpredictable testing schedules, skyrocketing 
budgets, and the need to maintain effective oversight with respect to 
all weapons programs. And so it is with national missile defense.
  The Armed Services Committee recommended some judicious cuts in 
missile defense funding on account of a lack of clarity and a lack of 
justification by administration officials. I believe the Senate should 
have rejected the Warner amendment.
  Neither could I support the Levin second-degree amendment. I 
understood the chairman's intentions--to send a clear message that this 
body views antiterrorism missions as the greatest priority for our 
Nation.
  He was absolutely right--that is our No. 1 priority. But the second-
degree amendment still enabled the President to dedicate some, or even 
all, of the additional $814 million towards missile defense.
  The administration did not prove the case for additional funding for 
missile defense beyond the $6.8 billion recommended by the Armed 
Services Committee. Our Nation faces too many threats for which we are 
not adequately prepared, to justify spending this additional funding on 
missile defense.
  Regardless of what each of us may think or believe on national 
missile defense, it does not deserve an exemption from the basic 
principles of rational budgeting and honest oversight which govern 
every other Pentagon acquisition program.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about 
the serious wilderness and public lands management problems created by 
title XIV of the House version of the Defense Authorization Act. This 
provision was added in the chairman's mark at the behest of 
Representative Jim Hansen. Title XIV would profoundly impact land 
management of nearly 11 million acres of non-military public lands 
falling underneath the Utah Test and Training Range airspace in western 
Utah.
  No hearings were held in either the House or Senate to consider the 
possible consequences of the sweeping and controversial provisions in 
title XIV. While the House Resource and Senate Energy Committees would 
be appropriate venues for such hearings, hearings were not held in 
these committees, and they were not held in the House or Senate Armed 
Services Committees. No General Accounting Office or Department of 
Defense report has ever demonstrated the need for the provisions 
contained in title XIV. The Department of Defense has never requested 
the kind of control over nonmilitary public land mandated by the 
provisions in title XIV.

[[Page S6215]]

  In truth, title XIV is an attack without justification on the 
traditional management of wilderness and other nonmilitary public 
lands.
  I wish to add my voice to the voices of Representative Ike Skelton 
and 19 other House Democrats serving on the Armed Services Committee 
who noted in the committee report that:
  ``The military use language of title XIV is unprecedented and not 
found in any other law. Ironically, these provisions set a standard for 
wilderness management that would provide less protection to the 
wilderness areas designated by title XIV than the protections available 
to non-designated public lands. Millions of acres of designated 
wilderness and millions more acres of public land underlie military 
airspace across the United States. None of these lands have or need the 
restrictive language that title XIV would apply to wilderness and 
public lands in Utah.
  ``Language in title XIV would strip the authority of the Secretary of 
the Interior to determine where and whether facilities and equipment 
are placed on public lands within wilderness areas. Another provision 
allows the Secretary of the Air Force to unilaterally close or restrict 
access to wilderness and WSAs outside the boundaries of the UTTR and 
the Dugway Proving Grounds. These provisions are unprecedented, and no 
clear rationale has been given to warrant this change from existing 
law. Moreover, title XIV creates a different standard for access and 
military use for land in Utah than is applicable to all other public 
land areas of the United States.
  ``Furthermore, title XIV requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
gain the prior concurrence of the Secretary of the Air Force and the 
commander-in-chief of the military forces of the State of Utah before 
developing, maintaining, or revising land use plans required by Federal 
law for millions of acres of public lands in Utah. Is it unwise policy, 
to say the least, for a Cabinet secretary's role to be subordinate to a 
service secretary and a state military commanders.''
  Taken together, the provisions in title XIV go far beyond any 
language ever included in enacted wilderness legislation, they put in 
place unprecedented high levels of Department of Defense control for 
all nonmilitary public lands falling underneath the airspace of the 
Utah test and Training Range, and they designate as wilderness, albeit 
wilderness in name only, merely a small portion of lands included in 
America's Redrock Wilderness Act, S. 786, of which I am the lead 
sponsor.
  I urge those Senators who will serve conferees on the Defense 
Authorization Act to work for the removal of title XIV in conference.
  I also would like to speak for a moment on two additional provisions 
within the Department of Defense authorization bill that passed out of 
the House, HR 4546. These measures weaken protections for endangered 
species and migratory birds.
  I would like to state for the record that there are existing 
provisions that allow for case-by-case exemptions to address national 
security interests. For example, section 7(j) of the Endangered Species 
Act, ESA, gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to secure an 
exemption from the ESA's provisions whenever the Secretary finds it 
necessary for reasons of national security. Moreover, title 10 U.S.C. 
2014 specifically empowers the President to resolve any conflicts 
between the DOD and other executive agencies that affect training or 
readiness. These waivers should be invoked on a case-by-case basis, 
rather than giving the DOD a blanket exemption to ignore laws that 
protect the air and water in and around our military facilities, the 
health of the people who live on and nearby bases, and America's 
wildlife and public lands.
  Again, I urge my colleagues who will serve on the conference for this 
bill to reject any permanent weakening of or permanent waivers enabling 
the circumvention of our Nation's environment and public health laws.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I was proud to support the recent passage 
of S. 2514, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2003. This bill continues to strengthen our military and is vital to 
the war on terrorism.
  This is the most important bill we have debated in the Senate all 
year. The threats against us are real and I am pleased the Senate acted 
swiftly in passing this strong defense package. This bill authorizes 
$393.4 billion for national defense. That is $43 billion above the 2002 
level, and the largest defense spending increase in over 20 years.
  We are in this war against terrorism for the long haul and our 
increased military funding is justified. We now have troops on the 
ground in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and many other places we could 
not have foreseen before September 11. Depending on what happens as we 
fight this war, we may have to deploy our troops elsewhere to contain 
and battle threats against our Nation and freedoms.
  This bill focuses on five objectives for our national defense.
  First, it improves the compensation and quality of life for our 
soldiers, retirees and their families. For the fourth year in a row 
this bill includes a 4.1 percent across the board pay raise for all 
military personnel, with a targeted pay raise between 5.5 and 6.5 
percent for mid-career personnel. A new assignment incentive pay of up 
to $1,500 per month is authorized to encourage personnel to volunteer 
for hard-to-fill positions and assignments.
  The bill rewards our retirees and disabled veterans. The bill 
authorizes concurrent receipt of retired military pay and veterans' 
disability compensation for all disabled military retirees eligible for 
non-disability retirement.
  For our troops with families, this bill increases the housing 
allowance, with the goal of eliminating average out-of-pocket housing 
expenses by 2005. And on our installations, $640 million is being added 
above the budget request to improve and replace facilities. This will 
help improve the housing, dining and recreation facilities for our 
trainees and troops.
  These quality of life issues boost the morale of our troops, and send 
a strong signal that we in congress and across the Nation appreciate 
their defense of America and her freedoms.
  Secondly, this bill also contains those necessary readiness funds to 
allow the services to conduct the full range of their assigned 
missions. We have added $126 million for firing range enhancements so 
that we can properly and effectively train our troops to fight and win.
  And to show that defense is a top priority for our Nation, this bill 
authorizes the administration's $10 billion request to cover the 
operating costs of the ongoing war on terrorism for next year. After 
speaking with various military leaders and hearing their testimony 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, we heard how important the 
issue of readiness is for every branch of the military today. This bill 
addresses this important issue by funding the most pressing shortfalls.
  Third, in this bill we also address the goal of improving efficiency 
and increasing savings with DOD programs and operations. These savings 
will allow us to redirect and focus on high-priority programs within 
the DOD.
  Some of these provisions include $400 million in anticipated savings 
by deferring spending on financial systems that would not be consistent 
with those financial management systems available and used by non-
government entities. Soon we will have a system to better keep track of 
valuable DOD and service funds. This brings not only savings, but 
accountability to the DOD and the services. Although the DOD's mission 
is more unique than any other Federal department, it is not immune to 
wasteful and duplicative spending which we often see in other Federal 
departments.
  Furthermore, this bill holds a provision requiring the DOD to 
establish new internal controls to address repeat problems with the 
abuse of credit cards we have seen for the purchase of non-essential 
and questionable travel spending by military and civilian personnel. 
And with the $393.4 billion we are authorizing in this bill, it is 
imperative now more than ever that we have a real sense of 
accountability for oversight reasons and for the sake of making sure we 
are giving the taxpayers the biggest bang for the buck. After all, this 
bill spends more than $1 billion a day on national defense activities. 
For that price, the taxpayers should get their money's worth.
  Fourth, this bill also helps our military meet more non-traditional

[[Page S6216]]

threats. We increased funding for fighting these threats to help secure 
our nuclear weapons and materials at Department of Energy facilities, 
and defend against chemical and biological weapons and other weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Finally, our Senate Armed Services Committee wanted to be sure that 
our military always stay on the cutting edge of new technologies and 
strategies to meet the threats of the 21st century. Promoting and 
embracing transformation of our forces is not easy. But it is 
essential. This bill helps us to promote a new mind set for the future. 
I know it is tough to wean ourselves off of some of the legacy systems 
and structures in place in our armed forces. And I know that some in 
our armed forces are skeptical about change. But we have to begin to 
think differently. The world is changing, and not necessarily for the 
better. Our military has to keep up with that change.
  While I did vote for this bill in the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I did not agree with the fact that it originally slashed 
missile defense spending by just over $800 million. This drastically 
altered President Bush's national security strategy and made our Nation 
and allies more vulnerable to a possible missile attack.
  But thankfully we found a way on the Senate floor during the bill's 
consideration to move just over $800 million back to President Bush's 
missile defense priorities to protect America. I was proud to cosponsor 
an amendment which fulfilled this obligation by using expected DOD 
inflationary savings and adjustments. This offset was responsible 
because it did not cut any other valuable DOD programs needed to 
strengthen our military. And I was pleased that this was a bipartisan 
effort by the Senate with the amendment's unanimous acceptance.
  But, thankfully this amendment was accepted. Without it, this vital 
bill was jeopardized. After all, Secretary Rumsfeld, in a letter to the 
Senate Armed Services Committee wrote, ``if the missile defense 
provisions in the Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the bill 
were to be adopted by Congress, I would recommend to the President that 
he veto the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act.'' So, 
its inclusion helped pave the way to an optimistic path to President 
Bush's desk.
  Finally, we have had a very intense debate about the Crusader 
Artillery System. I would like to note that while I supported the 
compromise Levin amendment last week over the Crusader program, I 
remain concerned about our ability to effectively support our troops 
with adequate fire support. Right now we are vastly under-gunned in 
artillery by some nations. Our own artillery systems could not even 
meet our needs during the Gulf war more than a decade ago. And those 
systems have not significantly changed since then.
  The possibility of shifting funds from Crusader to other indirect 
fire weapons concerns me in that we are again delaying when we will 
actually deploy sufficient fire support to protect our armed forces. 
The DOD hopes to speed up the deployment of these new technologies so 
they would be available around the same time Crusader will be. I am 
concerned about our ability to meet this time line.
  Throwing money at a program does not necessarily mean you can 
magically speed up its development. Some things just take time, and 
Crusader is a lot farther along in the development process than many of 
these other technologies. I will be watching this process closely to 
ensure that effective indirect fire support capability reaches our 
troops quickly.
  Overall, this is a solid bill. The sooner we get this bill to 
President Bush, then the better chance we have at providing our 
military with the essential training and strength resources to fight 
terrorism or anything else that seeks to destroy America, our people 
and our freedoms.
  Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. President, I wish to clarify my comments concerning 
my amendment to authorize, with an offset, $1,000,000 for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide, for analysis and 
assessment of efforts to counter possible agroterrorist attacks. The 
amendment was adopted June 26 by voice vote. I stated then that the 
$1,000,000 was destined for the In-House Laboratory Independent 
Research (PE 0601103D8Z) account. In fact, the funds will be applied to 
the Chemical and Biological Defense Program (PE 0601384BP) account. The 
intent of the amendment, however, remains the same. It is still my hope 
that universities with established expertise in the agricultural 
sciences can conduct studies and exercises that lead to better 
coordination between Federal, State, and local authorities as they 
attempt to detect, deter, and respond to large scale coordinated 
attacks on U.S. agriculture. I envision universities assisting the 
Department of Defense in determining what role--if any--our military or 
defense agencies play in countering agroterrorism. I thank my 
colleagues for supporting amendment No. 4138.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the leadership 
on both sides of the aisle for clearing an amendment I introduced with 
my colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, to prohibit the use of 
nuclear armed interceptors as part of a Ballistic Missile Defense 
System (BMDS).
  Senators Levin and Warner have shown tremendous leadership by working 
hard to address this important issue, and I want to personally thank 
them for their efforts.
  I want to comment briefly on the details of the amendment because I 
feel so strongly, as do my colleagues in the Senate, that both Chambers 
of Congress move to prohibit nuclear armed interceptors.
  A nuclear armed interceptor is a defensive missile that uses a 
nuclear, rather than conventional, explosive tip to destroy its target. 
It is based on the premise that a large blast will overwhelm all of the 
components of an enemy missile.
  The Washington Post reported in April of this year that the Pentagon 
was pursuing plans to resume research and testing of nuclear armed 
interceptors as part of a Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).
  I think this would be a great mistake and would endanger the health 
and safety of all Americans.
  The Post reported on April 11 that the Defense Science Board, a 
research body within the Department of Defense, received encouragement 
from Secretary Rumsfeld to consider using nuclear tipped warheads for a 
missile defense system.
  On April 17, Senator Stevens and I, at an Appropriations Defense 
Subcommittee hearing, asked General Kadish of the Missile Defense 
Agency to refute the Washington Post story. He responded that his 
agency would not conduct research into nuclear warheads.
  To further clarify the point, we also asked Secretary Rumsfeld to 
address the allegation in writing. He also assured us the Pentagon 
would no longer encourage such testing.
  Inexplicably, in this year's House Armed Services Committee report on 
the House passed Defense authorization bill, there is language 
sanctioning nuclear interceptor research. The report states:

       The Department may investigate other options for ballistic 
     missile defense nuclear armed interceptors, blast fragment 
     war-
     heads . . . as alternatives to current approaches . . .

  This troubling development led Senator Stevens and me to introduce 
today's amendment, which prohibits any funds from being used for 
nuclear armed interceptors.
  Our amendment simply states:

       None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this or 
     any other Act may be used for research, development, test, 
     evaluation, procurement or deployment of nuclear armed 
     interceptors of a missile defense system.

  The use of nuclear armed interceptors represents a deeply troubling 
departure from the missile defense testing that has occurred up to this 
point.
  For the past year, the Pentagon has been pursuing a technically 
problematic approach to missile defense.
  They have attempted to ``hit a bullet with a bullet.''
  This means that the missile defense system has to individually hit 
each incoming warhead in order to eliminate the total threat.
  But under this system, the Missile Defense Agency still fails to 
address the decoy warheads and other countermeasures that force our 
systems to rapidly determine which is the actual warhead to be targeted 
and which is simply a decoy.

[[Page S6217]]

  This core dilemma led the Pentagon to explore the concept of using a 
nuclear armed interceptor to destroy all of the incoming warheads, real 
and decoy alike.
  Instead of targeting a particular missile, a nuclear tipped 
interceptor would be exploded in the vicinity of the missile, ensuring 
the destruction of the missile and any others objects around it.
  This approach raises serious questions about the confidence the 
Missile Defense Agency appears to have in its current ``Hit a Bullet 
with a Bullet'' plan.
  But perhaps more importantly, this approach overlooks a laundry list 
of catastrophic side-effects that would accompany a nuclear blast in 
the atmosphere.
  Even a low-yield nuclear blast in the atmosphere would have grave 
consequences on public health and on the global economy.
  Atmospheric winds could potentially spread fall-out over American or 
allied sovereign territory, the very territory we are trying to protect 
from nuclear attack.
  Add the possibility of intercepting a chemical or biological warhead, 
and we exponentially increase the risk of spreading spores or chemical 
agents over a wide area.
  The Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) from an overhead nuclear blast would 
severely disrupt and most likely permanently damage U.S. and foreign 
satellites.
  These are the very satellite systems we rely on to provide us with 
early warning and key intelligence for national security operations.
  I think we all can see the serious ramifications of pursuing such an 
ill-advised policy, and I believe that this amendment is needed to 
prevent us from going down this path.
  As Senators from two States that could feel the brunt of 
radiological, chemical or biological fall-out in the event of a missile 
defense activation, we are compelled to act.
  But make no mistake about it, every State in the Union faces the 
specter of contamination.
  Given the language included in the House bill promoting nuclear 
intercept research, it is critical the Senate take a leadership role by 
preventing such research and testing.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and inject some common 
sense into the debate over the future of missile defense.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Senate version of 
the FY2003 National Defense authorization bill.
  As a former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and former 
chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I fully appreciate the hard work 
and long hours my colleagues in the Senate and their counterparts in 
the House have dedicated to the completion of the bill.
  There are many important provisions in this bill. However, there are 
also some critical defense requirements which were overlooked. And I 
would like to take a moment to address those concerns.
  First and foremost, with the enormous increase in the defense budget 
overall, I am deeply troubled that we would fail to sustain the size of 
our naval fleet, which has played such a critical role in the war on 
terror.
  Admiral Robert J. Natter, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic 
Fleet, captured it best when he said ``We fight them here, or we can 
fight them there--it's America's choice.'' And he continued ``I'd 
prefer to fight them there, because I know we can beat them.''
  Well, we can't fight them there without a Navy. In the opening days 
of Operation Enduring Freedom, our Navy fired over 90 Tomahawk cruise 
missiles aimed at crippling Taliban air defenses. The Navy executed the 
majority of the air strikes in the land war. Aircraft-carrier based 
fighter and strike aircraft launched 60 to 80 missions a day dropping 
thousands of bombs on terrorists and Taliban targets. More than 50 Navy 
ships participated in the action. I am proud of our Navy, but the fact 
of the matter is, if we do not increase the ship procurement rate, the 
size and strength of our fleet is going to be diminished.
  If we allow this to happen, we are doing future generations a great 
disservice. Because the reality is that, when the United States us 
unable, for whatever reason, to launch military strikes from ground 
bases in a region where U.S. interests are at stake, there are times 
when our Navy may be the only option.
  Yet, the fleet was stretched too thin even before Operation Enduring 
Freedom. When I was chair of the Senate Seapower Subcommittee, I heard 
this time and again from senior Navy officials. As the war on terror 
continues, I believe it is more important than ever that we maintain a 
fleet large enough and strong enough to project the power we need in 
order to safeguard U.S. interests.
  These are the facts, The Administration proposed in its budget to 
procure five new Navy ships in Fiscal Year 2003 and a total of 34 new 
Navy ships through Fiscal Year 2007. This is an average of 6.8 new 
ships per year. But we need 8.9 ships per year just to maintain a 310-
ship fleet.
  The size of the fleet could fall to 263 ships by 2015 to 2025 if we 
do not reverse this trend. Last year, Secretary Rumsfield painted an 
even more dire picture, estimating that the Navy could end up with a 
230 ship Navy in the 2025 time frame without substantial increases in 
the build rate. Contrast this with the size of our fleet in 1987 when 
we had 568 ships.
  I know that the administration recognizes the problem, and I credit 
them with understanding the need to build more ships in the future. The 
DOD and the Navy have acknowledged the need to build more ships. Last 
year, a study conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
concluded that the Navy should have 340 ships. Navy officials put the 
number at 370-380. And they should know. They are the men and women who 
are responsible for our forward deployed forces. But we need to help 
them by taking action. Whatever the ultimate number, we need to reverse 
the current trend and begin to build a bigger fleet. But we need to 
begin to produce more ships now, because there is not doubt that the 
size of our naval fleet is a vital matter of national security. We 
can't afford to wait any longer.
  We can't afford to risk this essential component of our world-wide 
defense force. After all, 80 percent of the planet's population lives 
along the coastal plains of the world, and it is the Navy that has the 
capability that is imperative if we are to maintain military 
superiority and defend America's national interests in the 21st 
century. For even with today's rapidly changing and diverse security 
threats, there is no foreseeable future that would have our security 
interests best served by a diminished naval fleet.

  Despite the fact that Secretary England has endorsed funding for a 
third destroyer, for example, this bill fails to fund an additional 
ship. To maintain readiness and to sustain the industrial base, we 
desperately need a third destroyer authorized and funded in fiscal year 
2003.
  Even to maintain a 116-ship surface combatant force, given the 
projected service life of 35 years for DDG-51 Class ships, requires a 
sustained replacement rate of over three ships per year. If you assume 
a 30-year service life, which is more realistic historically, 
sustaining even the 116-ship surface combatant force would require 
annual procurement of almost four DDGs each year.
  And at a rate of only two destroyers a year, it may be difficult to 
sustain the yards that have historically built these critical 
platforms. That is why I was pleased to team with Senator Collins to 
extend the multi-year procurement rate for DDG destroyers through 
fiscal year 2007. As chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I secured 
procurement authorization for three DDGs annually through fiscal year 
2005, and this bill extends that authorization for an additional two 
years. It is still imperative to add a third destroyer to the fiscal 
year 2003 budget, but this multi-year procurement is a step in the 
right direction.
  While I am very concerned about the failure to fully fund the 
shipbuilding accounts, I do believe credit is due in some other 
important areas. For example, the bill does make some invaluable 
personnel contributions. The measure includes a 4.1 percent across-the-
board pay raise for all military personnel, with an additional targeted 
pay raise for the mid-career force. It includes a

[[Page S6218]]

provision authorizing the concurrent receipt of military retirement pay 
and veterans disability compensation for military retirees with 
disabilities, an effort which I have long supported.
  The bill also reaffirms Congress's commitment to the war on terror by 
funding requirements needed to support our Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, 
and Airmen who are on the front lines with the planes, vehicles, ships 
and armaments they need to carry out their critical missions.
  The bill would set aside $10 billion, as requested by the 
administration, to fund ongoing operations in the war against 
international terrorism during fiscal year 2003. And it includes 
substantial funding to meet asymmetrical terrorist threats including 
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and develop the agility, 
mobility, and survivability necessary to meet the challenges of the 
future.
  It would increase by $199.7 million funding to enhance the security 
of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons at Department of Energy 
facilities. It would increase funding for U.S. Special Operations 
Command by $42.7 million. Defenses against chemical and biological 
weapons and other efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction would 
see an increase of $30.5 million. And the bill would find the request 
of over $2 billion for force protection improvements to DOD 
installations around the world.
  Finally, the bill would also make possible continued improvements in 
the Navy's human resources services with the authorization of $1.5 
million for operation of a pilot human resources call center in 
Machias, Maine under an amendment I worked to include in the bill.
  This call center went on-line in January of this year. I worked hard 
with the Navy to locate this facility in Washington County, ME to help 
compensate for the loss of military personnel at the Cutler Naval 
Computer and Telecommunications station in Cutler, a communication 
center used to provide contact with U.S. submarines in the North 
Atlantic, Mediterranean and Arctic seas. At its peak there were 220 
people working at the base--110 civilians and 110 Navy personnel.
  The call center establishes a single national employee benefits 
center for the Department of the Navy to standardize the ``call in 
capability'' of services currently performed in eight separate Human 
Resources Service Centers. This center integrates developed computer 
and internet technologies to provide updated information immediately to 
Navy civilians and beneficiaries who make inquiries.
  In closing, let me say that I hope during the House-Senate conference 
on the defense authorization that we will be able to build on the 
foundation that has been set in this bill and make it an even stronger 
bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. I regret that the Senate has 
missed another opportunity to reorient the thinking--and spending--of 
the Pentagon.
  I strongly support our men and women in uniform in the ongoing fight 
against global terrorism and in their other missions, both at home and 
abroad. I commend the members of the National Guard and Reserves and 
their families for the sacrifices they have made to protect our 
security and freedom. More than 85,000 National Guard and Reserve 
forces have been called to active duty since September 11, including 
personnel from a number of units in Wisconsin. All members of our 
military and their families--active duty, National Guard, and 
Reserves--deserve our sincere thanks for their commitment to protect 
this country and to undertake the fight against terrorism in the wake 
of the horrific attacks of September 11.
  Each year that I have been a Member of this body, I have expressed my 
concern about the priorities of the Pentagon and about the process by 
which we consider the Department of Defense authorization and 
appropriations bills. I am troubled that the Department of Defense does 
not receive the same scrutiny as other parts of our Federal budget. 
This time of unprecedented national crisis underscores the need for the 
Congress and the administration to take a hard look at the Pentagon's 
budget to ensure that scarce taxpayer dollars are targeted to those 
programs that are necessary to defend our country in the post-cold war 
world and to ensure that our Armed Forces have the resources they need 
for the battles ahead.
  There can be no doubt that Congress should provide the resources 
necessary to fight and win the battle against terrorism. There should 
also be no doubt that this ongoing campaign should not be used as an 
excuse to continue to drastically increase an already bloated defense 
budget.
  When adjusted for inflation, the spending authorized by this bill, as 
it was reported to the Senate by the Armed Services Committee, 
represents the largest increase in defense spending since 1966. Just 
how big is this increase? The whopping $393.4 billion authorized by 
this bill is $152.2 billion more than combined defense budgets of the 
United Kingdom, Japan, Russia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, 
China, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, 
Yugoslavia, Libya, Sudan, and Cuba.
  The $46 billion increase over fiscal year 2002 alone is more than the 
Defense budgets of any one of these 19 countries. The country with the 
second-largest defense budget, the United Kingdom, spent just $34.8 
billion in 2001. This bill authorizes a defense budget that is more 
than 11 times greater than that of our closest ally.
  A strong national defense is crucial to the peace and stability of 
our Nation. But a strong economy is also essential to national 
security. We must not focus on one to the detriment of the other. Many 
of the expensive weapons systems that are authorized in this bill have 
little or nothing to do with the fight against terrorism, which is 
often cited as the reason for the $46 billion increase in defense 
spending contained in this bill. I am concerned that if we continue 
down this path, defense spending will spiral further out of control, 
perhaps putting other areas of our economy at risk.
  I am pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to cut funding for 
the Army's Crusader mobile artillery program. I support the Secretary 
of Defense's decision to cancel this outdated program. Last month, I 
introduced legislation that would terminate the Crusader program, 
saving taxpayers an estimated $10 billion over the life of the program. 
I commend the Secretary of Defense for his efforts to transform our 
military to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond, and 
agree that cold war-era dinosaurs such as the Crusader should be 
terminated.
  I regret that so little progress has been made to transform the 
military for these new challenges. The hard-fought battle to terminate 
the Crusader program--a program that was canceled by the Secretary of 
Defense--stands as an example of how difficult it is to change the 
mind-set of the Pentagon and the Congress. The beleaguered Crusader is 
the poster child for an obsolete, cold war-era program, yet there are 
those in the Congress and at the Pentagon who are digging in their 
heels and trying desperately to save it. The termination of a weapon 
system such as the Crusader is an example of the hard decisions that 
this body will have to make as we face the realities of the federal 
budget and as we seek to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment 
they will need to fight the battles of the future.
  I am pleased that this bill authorizes an increase in full-time 
manning for the Army National Guard. As we continue to call upon the 
Guard and Reserves for active-duty missions that are longer in 
duration, the role of the full-time Army National Guard personnel who 
support these missions becomes increasingly important. The Army 
National Guard relies heavily on Active Guard/Reserves and Military 
Technicians to perform a wide variety of essential day-to-day 
operations, ranging from equipment maintenance to leadership and staff 
roles.
  According to Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, Director of the 
Army National Guard, ``Increased full time support is an absolute 
necessity for Army National Guard units as the Army places greater 
reliance on the Army National Guard to provide trained and ready 
soldiers in support of Homeland Security efforts, as well as forces for 
theater Commander in Chiefs in support of the National Military 
Strategy. These full time personnel are the vital link for the 
traditional part

[[Page S6219]]

time Army National Guard commanders working to achieve expected 
readiness goals. Units that are under-strength in full time support 
personnel have difficulty maintaining pace with current elevated 
Operational Tempo. Consequently, many units fail to attain and maintain 
readiness levels.''
  This bill authorizes 724 additional Active Guard/Reserve positions 
and 487 additional military technicians, which, according to the 
National Guard Bureau, are the minimum essential requirements for full-
time manning for the Army National Guard. These increases match those 
contained in an amendment that I offered to the fiscal year 2003 budget 
resolution that was adopted unanimously during the Budget Committee's 
mark-up earlier this year.
  I am troubled that the Senate added to the bill the $814.3 million 
that the Armed Services Committee cut from the President's request for 
national missile defense by the unfortunate adoption of an amendment 
offered by the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Warner. The 
amendment would allow the President to spend this money on missile 
defense or on defense activities to combat terrorism at home and 
abroad. This bill, as reported to the Senate, includes $6.8 billion for 
the still unproven missile defense system. While I did not originally 
oppose legislation authorizing development of a missile defense system, 
I remain skeptical about the need for such a system. Congress should 
maintain tight cost controls over this system, as the Armed Services 
Committee attempted to do by cutting $814.3 million for a number of 
questionable aspects of the Administration's request. I am still 
concerned that the $6.8 billion in the bill is far too much for this 
program, but these cuts were a step in the right direction.
  I am also concerned that the proposed offset for the additional 
funding in the Warner amendment comes from ``amounts that the Secretary 
determines unnecessary by reason of a revision of assumptions regarding 
inflation that are applied as a result of the midsession review of the 
budget conducted by the Office of Management and Budget during the 
spring and early summer of 2002.'' This flimsy accounting gimmick 
should not be cited as an offset. In reality, there is no offset for 
this spending increase.
  I am pleased that the Senate adopted a language offered by the 
chairman of the committee, Mr. Levin, that directs that priority for 
allocating any funds made available to the Department by a lower rate 
of inflation be given to ``activities for protecting the American 
people at home and abroad by combating terrorism at home and abroad.'' 
Clearly, the proposed missile defense system does not fit this 
definition. But I am troubled by the underlying Warner amendment 
because I oppose giving the President the option to spend additional 
funding on missile defense.
  I am pleased that the committee included in the bill language that 
will help to improve congressional oversight of the missile defense 
program by, one, requiring that the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation conduct an annual operational assessment of the program and 
that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council review the cost schedule 
and performance criteria for the program, and, two, requiring that the 
Secretary conduct a review of the major elements of the missile defense 
program and report to Congress cost and schedule information similar to 
that required for other major defense programs.
  Turning to another issue, I continue to be concerned about the Marine 
Corps' troubled V-22 Osprey program. I met recently with Colonel Dan 
Schultz, the Marines' V-22 Program Manager, and others to discuss the 
status of this program and to express my concerns about the Osprey. I 
appreciate Colonel Schultz' commitment to ensuring that the Osprey is a 
safe and effective aircraft and his thoughtful approach to the new 
flight testing program, which began on May 29.
  The safety of our men and women in uniform should continue to be top 
priority as we consider the Osprey's future.
  I am troubled that the Osprey nearly made it to a Milestone III 
production decision in late 2000 with extensive problems in its 
hydraulics system and flight control software. While I appreciate the 
hard work that the Marines and the contractors have done to correct 
these problems, I remain concerned that there is no clear answer for 
why these deadly problems, which combined to cause the December 2000 
crash that killed four Marines, weren't discovered much earlier.
  I am also troubled by the lack of concrete information about how to 
avoid the dangerous vortex ring state, which occurs when the Osprey 
descends too rapidly. I remain concerned about the effect that the 
vortex ring state could have on the ability of the Osprey to perform in 
combat, especially if a pilot has to make a fast exit from a hostile 
situation. I will monitor closely planned extensive testing that the 
Marine Corps has planned to study this phenomenon and ways to help 
pilots avoid it.
  The ongoing flight tests should provide a definitive assessment of 
the aircraft's capabilities. If the Osprey is not up to the job, then 
the Defense Department should be prepared to consider other 
alternatives that will meet the needs of the Marine Corps in a safe and 
cost-effective manner. I will work to ensure that Congress maintains 
strict oversight of the testing program.
  In addition, I will oppose any attempt to increase procurement of the 
Osprey beyond the minimum sustaining rate until the Marine Corps has 
demonstrated that the Osprey is safe and effective and meets or exceeds 
all of its performance criteria. I am still not convinced that the 
Osprey will work, and whether it can be made to work in a cost-
effective manner.
  In sum, as I have said time and time again, there are millions upon 
millions of dollars in this bill that are being spent on outdated or 
questionable or unwanted programs. This money would be better spent on 
programs that truly improve our readiness and modernize our Armed 
Forces. This money also would be better spent on efforts to improve the 
morale of our forces, such as ensuring that all of our men and women in 
uniform have a decent standard of living or providing better housing 
for our Armed Forces and their families. For those reasons, I will 
oppose this bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman, the 
ranking member, and the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
for their efforts to address my concerns with the current funding 
situation for the National Guard Competitive Sports Program. I hope 
this issue can be resolved in conference.
  Mr. President, our world as we know it changed dramatically after the 
events of September 11, 2001. I believe we must support the President 
of the United States in a time of war and I think the Fiscal Year 2003 
National Defense Authorization Act does exactly that. However, I think 
we must not lose sight of the fact that we still rely on an all-
volunteer force to man the ranks of our military. This means we must, 
even in a time of war, continue to have a robust retention and 
recruiting program, especially if the war on terrorism becomes a 
lengthy one. The best recruiting and retention programs are those that 
enable the services to get out and interact with the public, which 
brings me to an issue I would like to see rectified in conference.
  We need a minor change in current law, which would allow National 
Guard units to use a small amount of appropriated funds to sponsor 
sports competitions and send Guard members to those competitions. As 
the law reads now, only non-appropriated funds may be used to cover 
expenses such as health, pay, and personal expenses for participating 
National Guard members. Unlike our active forces, the National Guard 
does not have access to non-appropriated funds as they do not own or 
operate non-appropriated fund generating functions, such as military 
exchanges, commissaries, and the like.
  Unlike Active Duty military personnel who have all health, pay, and 
personal expenses covered while participating in competitive sports, 
National Guard members are not on duty while competing in sporting 
events, and thus are not covered. For example, if a National Guard 
member suffers an injury while competing at the marksmanship 
competition, the service member must pay for the incurred health costs 
although the individual was competing with his or her Guard unit. And, 
unfortunately, placing National Guard

[[Page S6220]]

members on orders, as occur when military reservists participate in 
these competitions, is not a solution to the coverage issue.
  The senior Senator from Vermont and I had hoped to offer an amendment 
to allow the National Guard to spend a limited amount of appropriated 
funds, capped at $2.5 million per year, on its sports program. It 
should be emphasized that we only seek to allow the National Guard to 
participate in the same manner as Active Duty military. The House 
overwhelmingly passed a National Guard Sports amendment offered by 
Representative Bereuter to their Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Act, 
which is identical to the change I seek. I urge the chairman and 
ranking member to adopt the Bereuter provision in the House bill when 
the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act goes to 
conference.
  On 17 June 2002, Colonel Willie Davenport, Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau's Office of Sports Management passed away while on travel 
between duty stations. I did not know Colonel Davenport, but my staff 
informs me that he was by all appearances a gentle, modest, and 
gracious man. My staff worked extensively with Colonel Davenport in 
preparing an amendment concerning National Guard Sports. I read the 
Guard's recent press release concerning Colonel Davenport, and I was 
quite impressed by his accomplishments as a teacher, mentor, coach, and 
soldier. What many may not know is that Colonel Davenport while serving 
as a soldier was also a five-time Olympian. He won Gold in the 110-
meter high hurdles while representing the United States in the 1968 
summer Olympics in Mexico City, and that was only the beginning. 
Colonel Davenport went on from there to represent the Army and the 
United States in a variety of capacities in the competitive sports 
world. He coached the All-Army Track and Field Team from 1993-1996, 
which was undefeated all 4 years. Colonel Davenport in his capacity as 
a teacher, mentor, coach, soldier and Olympian made a very positive, 
and lasting impression on a good number of young men and women who came 
to know, work, and enjoy his company. A man of his character and 
accomplishment will be missed. We know that he has prepared a good 
number of others to continue to light the path ahead. Colonel Davenport 
had a dream. His dream was to develop a program that would train and 
sponsor premier Army and Air National Guard athletes for international 
competition.

  Colonel Davenport's National Guard Competitive Events Sports Program 
provides National Guard members with an opportunity to hone their 
training-related skills, such as running, swimming, and marksmanship, 
in a competitive atmosphere. As the National Guard actively recruits 
new members, this can be another feature in recruitment and retention 
programs for certain members of the National Guard. Through these 
competitions, National Guard members can qualify for higher-level 
national and international competitions, including the Pan American 
Games and the Olympics.
  National Guard members who compete in athletic and small arms 
competitions could then do so with members of the Active Duty military. 
Bringing Active, Reserve, and National Guard components together at 
these competitive sports events will help build greater service 
component cohesiveness.
  While recruiting, retention, esprit de corps, and community support 
have always been important to maintaining a strong National Guard 
structure, they have become even more critical as we wage the war on 
terrorism during which our men and women in the National Guard are more 
frequently called into duty overseas and to provide security on the 
homeland.
  The National Guard needs a change in the law if Colonel Davenport's 
National Guard Competitive Events Sports Program is going to survive. 
The National Guard must be able to sponsor competitions and send its 
members to those competitions, as they are an important tool and 
incentive to recruit and retain some of America's best and brightest.
  This issue is important to the Vermont Guard and the National Guard 
as a whole. I hope we can provide the National Guard with the authority 
they need to have a robust sports program.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Hutchison, 
regarding base closures.
  Last year, with the passage of the fiscal year 2002 National Defense 
Authorization Act, Congress authorized a round of base closures in 
fiscal year 2005. So we are now on a path to a base closure round in 3 
years.
  Even before the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, there were 
serious questions about both the integrity of the base closing process 
itself as well as the actual benefits. Now, with the U.S. in the midst 
of a war on terror, with no end in sight, I do not believe base closure 
is a wise path. Instead, Congress was pressed to authorize a base 
closure round in the dark.
  Proponents of base closure claim that efforts to reduce 
infrastructure have not kept pace with our post cold war military force 
reductions, and that bases must be downsized proportionate to the 
reduction in total force strength. However, there is no straight line 
corollary between the size of our forces and the infrastructure 
required to support them.
  Since the end of the cold war, through fiscal year 01, we reduced the 
military force structure by about 36 percent and reduced the defense 
budget by about 40 percent. But while the size of the armed services 
has decreased, the number of contingencies that our service members 
have been called upon to respond to in the last decade has dramatically 
increased. And, keep in mind, once property is relinquished and 
remediated, it is permanently lost as a military asset for all 
practical purposes.
  In addition, advocates of base closure allege that billions of 
dollars will be saved. And yet, the Department of Defense has admitted 
that savings will not be immediate--that approximately $10 billion 
would be needed for up-front environmental and other costs; and that 
savings would not materialize for years.
  This is why I was pleased to team with Senator Hutchison in her 
effort to establish some basic criteria designed to guide the process, 
and I deeply regret that the Senate will not have the opportunity to 
adopt these provisions.
  Senator Hutchison's provision, of which I am an original cosponsor, 
would set criteria for the base closure process--to make the process 
less political, less subjective, and more objective.
  The Hutchison amendment would have made sure that the process 
accounts for force structure and mission requirements, force 
protection, homeland security requirements, proximity to mobilization 
points, costs of relocating infrastructure including military 
construction costs, compliance with environmental laws, contract 
termination costs, unique characteristics of existing facilities, and 
State and local support for a continued presence by the military.
  I want to protect the military's critical readiness and operational 
assets. I want to protect the home port berthing for our ships and 
submarines, the airspace that our aircraft fly in and the training 
areas and ranges that our armed forces require to support and defend 
our nation and its interests. I want to protect the economic viability 
of communities in every State. And I want to make absolutely sure that 
this Nation maintains the military infrastructure it will need in the 
years to come to support the war on terror.
  In short, we must not degrade the readiness of our armed forces by 
closing more bases. I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership on 
this important issue, and I remain hopeful that if we press ahead with 
this ill-conceived base closure round in just 3 years time we will have 
an opportunity to at least establish sound, basic ground rules.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to address the subject of our 
Nation's security needs in the context of the Defense authorization 
bill presently before the Senate.
  I believe we must provide the best possible training, equipment, and 
preparation for our military forces, so they can effectively carry out 
whatever peacekeeping, humanitarian, war-fighting, or other missions 
they are given. They deserve the targeted pay

[[Page S6221]]

raises of 4-6 percent, the incentive pay for difficult-to-fill 
assignments, and the upgrades to currently substandard housing 
contained in this bill. Under an amendment adopted by the Senate, the 
women who serve our country overseas in the Armed Forces will be able 
to obtain safe, privately funded abortions in overseas military 
hospitals. For many years running, those in our armed forces have been 
suffering from a declining quality of life, despite rising military 
Pentagon budgets. The pressing needs of our dedicated men and women in 
uniform, and those of their families, must be addressed as they 
continue to be mobilized in the war against terrorism in response to 
the attacks of September 11. This bill goes far in addressing those 
needs, and I will vote for it today.
  This bill also addresses a fundamental unfairness in the treatment of 
America's veterans by allowing concurrent receipt of military retiree 
benefits and VA disability benefits. Under current law, if you are 
career military and you earned a military pension, and you also have 
service-connected disability as a veteran, your military pension will 
be reduced by the amount you receive in VA disability payments. As a 
result, hundreds of thousands of American veterans, men and women who 
have served their country, are being cheated out of retirement benefits 
by this bizarre rule and it is time to make a change. Our disabled 
veterans have earned their retirement and deserve to receive fair 
treatment.
  Last year we passed this same legislation in the Senate, but it was 
gutted in the House. The Defense Department says it will recommend a 
veto of this bill if we restore these benefits. But I do not believe 
that the President will veto legislation to restore the benefits earned 
by disabled veterans, while career military men and women are overseas 
fighting for their country, at great risk to their lives. Instead of 
making threats, let's sit down and get this done for America's vets.
  I also believe the bill addresses some of the serious flaws in the 
process by which the Defense Department summarily terminated the 
Crusader Artillery system. I strongly believe in fair, transparent, and 
informed government-decision making processes, which did not occur in 
the case of the Crusader. Three Defense secretaries, three Army 
secretaries, and three Army chiefs of staff, as well as numerous 
administration officials, testified in support of the Crusader. Yet 
within a few weeks of this testimony, the Secretary of Defense abruptly 
terminated the Crusader. The decision was made without consultation 
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, without consultation with the Army, and 
without consultation with members of Congress. The Senate adopted an 
amendment which would require the Army Chief of Staff and Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a serious study of the best way to provide for the 
Army's need for indirect fire support. At the same time, it provides 
the Secretary of Defense, following the study, a full range of options. 
These include termination to continued funding of Crusader, to funding 
alternative systems to meet battlefield requirements.
  Another issue I consider to be extremely important in relation to 
this bill has to do with our own military presence in the Republic of 
Colombia. As you know, under Plan Colombia, restrictions were placed on 
the number of U.S. troops and contract personnel in Colombia at any 
given time. Initially, a 500 troop, 300 contractor limitation was in 
place. Over time, however, the Senate has acted to address the needs of 
the Departments of Defense and State by shifting the ration of troop 
and contractors to 1:1. As a result of recent Foreign Operations 
Appropriations legislation, the troop cap dropped from 500 to 400, 
while the contractor cap was lifted from 300 to 400 personnel.
  Frankly, I am concerned that attempts may be made to raise the troop 
and contractor caps in Colombia. I have long argued that the United 
States should be careful and targeted in how it approaches the conflict 
in Colombia. I'm sure that most Senators would agree that it is 
important to retain the present limitations on U.S. troops and 
contractors in Colombia at 800 thru 400 troops, 400 contractors. 
Moreover, it is my understanding that the Department of Defense has not 
asked for the troop cap to be raised in Colombia, nor has the 
administration sought to have the troop cap waived. For this reason, I 
would like to be on record in support of present troop and contractor 
limitations in Colombia.
  Although I expect future debate on the contentious issues surrounding 
U.S. policy in the Andes, I think it is important for the Senate to be 
clear on this component of our aid to Colombia. I am concerned that we 
are getting deeper and deeper into a devastating civil conflict with 
myriad violent actors of ill repute. That said, I continue to hold out 
hope that the Congress can work with the administration to craft a 
policy for Colombia that reflects the best of American values, and 
acknowledges the economic and social needs of Colombia's beleaguered 
population. The administration should retain the troop and contractor 
caps in Colombia, and Congress should be adequately consulted should 
they decide to seek any such change.
  I also have concerns about the bill, especially about its missile 
defense provisions. The initial committee language would have cut total 
funding for missile defense from $7.6 billion to $6.8 billion. The 
Senate adopted an amendment to restore the entire $814.3 million that 
the Senate Armed Services Committee cut from missile defense, with the 
President being given the option of spending the funds on either 
missile defense programs or on combating terrorism. It was not my 
preference that the cut be restored, but I agree with the Senate's 
unanimous sentiment that these funds be used for the urgent priority of 
combating terrorism, and my strong hope is that the President will not 
disregard the will of the Senate and use these funds for missile 
defense instead.
  I have long been a critic of Ballistic Missile Defense, BMD, and I 
still have strong reservations about the feasibility, cost, and 
rationale for such a system. The last time I addressed missile defense 
on the Senate floor was on September 25, exactly two weeks after 
terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center. I argued then that 
pressing ahead on BMD would make the U.S. less rather than more secure. 
Instead, I suggested the Senate give homeland defense the high 
priority it deserves by transferring funds to it from missile defense 
programs.

  Given the justifiable concerns of Americans about possible terrorist 
attacks on U.S. nuclear facilities, it makes more sense to use the 
funds to protect our citizens against a priority threat rather than to 
counter a low priority threat with a very costly system that a number 
of informed scientists believe may never work.
  Under Chairman Levin's leadership, the committee eased the effects of 
the administration's April decision to provide emergency funding for 
only 7 percent of Energy Secretary Abraham's request for $398 million 
to improve security of nuclear weapons and waste. In a letter sent by 
Secretary Abraham to OMB Director Mitchell Daniels obtained by the New 
York Times, the Secretary stressed that the $398 million he was 
requesting was ``a critical down payment to the safety and security of 
our nation and its people.'' I couldn't agree more. But the 
administration obviously didn't agree and approved only $26 million.
  The April 23rd New York Times article on the matter made clear that 
the programs covered by the DOE request are vital to the protection of 
the United States from terrorist attack. Unbelievably, funding was 
turned down for several programs designed to safeguard nuclear weapons 
and weapons material in storage, including: $41 million to reduce the 
number of places where weapons-grade plutonium and uranium were stored; 
$12 million to detect explosives in packages and vehicles at DOE sites; 
$13 million to improve perimeter barriers and fences; $30 million to 
improve DOE computers, including the ability to communicate critical 
cyber-threat and incident information; and $34 million for increasing 
security at DOE laboratories.
  Who can argue that BMD funding for programs that can't be justified 
by DOD or are duplicative should take priority over programs designed 
to deter terrorist actions against U.S. nuclear weapons, weapons 
materials, and weapons laboratories? Just a few days ago, reports of 
possible terrorist use of a dirty bomb against the United States caused 
widespread public alarm. I am sure the American people would be

[[Page S6222]]

even more alarmed by a threatened terrorist attack against DOE nuclear 
facilities.
  An attack by ballistic missiles is one of the least likely threats we 
face. Much more probable threats which a missile defense won't address 
are nuclear, biological or chemical attacks using planes, boats, trucks 
or suitcases. And as we are all aware even an impenetrable missile 
defense would have been useless against the assault on the World Trade 
Center. In short, I remain convinced that a national missile defense 
would be ineffective in preventing attacks by rogue states or 
terrorists.
  While the intelligence community continues to devote considerable 
resources to estimating both the threat of an ICBM and unconventional 
attack on the United States, it still finds that unconventional attacks 
are the more likely of the two. For example, recent testimony by the 
National Intelligence Officer, NIO, for Strategic and Nuclear Programs, 
before a subcommittee of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
repeated previous intelligence community judgments that U.S. territory 
is more likely to be struck by non-missile means of delivering weapons 
of mass destruction, WMD, than by ICBM's. His remarks were based on an 
unclassified version of a National Intelligence Estimate, NIE, that was 
released in January entitled: ``Foreign Missile Developments and the 
Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015.'' NIE's represent the collective 
judgment of the U.S. intelligence community.
  In testifying on why using non-missile means of delivering WMD's are 
the more likely option, the NIO adduced reasons similar to those cited 
before by other intelligence sources. Compared to ICBM'S, he said, non-
missile means are ``less costly, easier to acquire, and more reliable 
and adequate . . . and also can be used with attribution.''
  The NIO meant by this that non-missile means have the advantage of 
being used without imperiling those responsible, while ICBM's have 
``signatures'' enabling the U.S. to quickly identify the attackers. 
Consequently, countries like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq which he said 
could be capable of launching missiles at the U.S. by 2015, would be 
risking a devastating counterattack by the United States. The key 
question of why these countries would risk destruction by firing an 
ICBM at us, when non-missiles can be used without a return address has 
yet to be revealed by intelligence or defense sources. North Korean, 
Iraqi, and Iranian leaders are evil, but they aren't suicidal.
  The NIO noted some states armed with missiles have shown ``a 
willingness to use chemical weapons with other delivery means,'' adding 
that U.S. territory is more likely to be attacked with non-missile WMD 
by terrorists. He concluded the intelligence community believes that 
the U.S. will face a growing missile threat because missiles have 
become important regional weapons for numerous countries and provide a 
level of prestige, coercive diplomacy and deterrence unmatched by non-
missile means.
  But this thesis has been ably refuted by Joseph Cirincione, head of 
the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Proliferation Program. In a February 
speech before the American Association for the Advancement of Science 
he argued that the U.S. is facing a declining ballistic missile threat 
rather than the increasing threat the intelligence community sees.
  Cirincione focuses on the 1998 Rumsfeld Commission study which 
assessed the ballistic missile threat to the United States and took a 
much more alarmist view than intelligence assessments that had examined 
the same issue. The Rumsfeld Commission found that North Korea and Iran 
were devoting ``extraordinary resources'' to developing ballistic 
missiles capabilities that pose ``a substantial and immediate danger to 
the U.S., its vital interests and its allies.''
  The Rumsfeld Commission report was an outgrowth of harsh attacks by 
several leading members of Congress on 1993 and 1995 NIE's. The 1993 
NIE concluded that only China and several states of the former Soviet 
Union had the capability to attack the continental U.S. with land-based 
ballistic missiles, adding that ``. . . the probability is low that any 
other country will acquire this capability during the next 15 years.'' 
In a similar vein, the 1995 NIE, said: ``The Intelligence Community 
judges that in the next 15 years no country other than the major 
declared nuclear powers [i.e. Russia and China] will develop a 
ballistic missile that could threaten the contiguous 48 states or 
Canada.''
  In the aftermath of harsh congressional criticism of the estimates, a 
congressionally mandated panel in December 1996 led by former Bush 
Administration CIA Director Robert Gates reviewed the 1995 NIE. The 
panel concurred with the NIE, finding that it was unlikely the 
continental U.S. would face an ICBM threat from a third world country 
before 2010 ``even taking into account the acquisition of foreign 
hardware and technical assistance, and that case is even stronger than 
was presented in the estimate.''
  Apparently displeased by the Gates panel report as much as they were 
by the 1995 NIE, Congress mandated the Rumsfeld Commission panel which 
finally provided a different answer. The 1998 Commission report 
concluded that a new nation could plausibly field an ICBM ``with little 
or no warning.'' In the aftermath, the intelligence community adopted 
the ``could standard'' which became apparent in the 1999 NIE. That 
consensus report contained the following dissent from one of the 
intelligence agencies involved in producing the NIE: Some analysts 
believe that the prominence given to missiles countries ``could'' 
develop gives more credence than is warranted to developments that may 
prove implausible.
  The ``could'' standard was one of three major changes made to 
assessment methodology. The other shifts were to substantially reduce 
the range of missiles considered serious threats by shifting from 
threats to 48 continental States to threats to any of the land mass of 
the 50 States and changing the time line from when a country would 
first deploy a long-range missile to when a country could first test a 
long-range missile. The geographic criterion change had the effect of 
shortening missile range by some 3,000 miles, the distance from Seattle 
to the western-most tip of Alaska's Aleutian Islands. In effect, this 
means the North Korea's medium-range ballistic missile the Taepodong-1 
could be considered the same threat as an ICBM. The time line shift 
represents a decrease of five years, which previous estimates said was 
the difference between first test and likely deployment. Moreover, the 
new NIE's don't require a successful test.
  The net effect of these three changes was to shift the goal posts in 
the direction indicated by the Rumsfeld Commission. These shifts 
account for almost all of the differences between the 1999 and 2001 
NIE's and earlier estimates. Rather than representing some new, 
dramatic increase in the ballistic missile threat, they represent 
lowered standards for judging the threat.
  Despite administration optimism about developing BMD and the 
prospects for quick deployment, prominent scientists and missile 
experts remain skeptical. Here are a few examples. Richard Garwin of 
the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of the Rumsfeld Commission, 
and a leading expert in military applications of science, is dubious 
about the administration's approach to BMD and its rationale for 
pursuing it.
  A report in the Dallas Morning News quotes Garwin as questioning the 
emphasis on destroying missiles in mid-course, warning ``it's not a 
sensible thing to do.'' He says the major flaw is that an enemy can 
defeat the system by such means as concealing the payload bomb in a 
balloon the size of a house so that hitting the balloon would have 
little chance of disabling the weapon. Deploying numerous, 
sophisticated decoys would also be an effective counter-measure.
  Garwin suspects DOD money is going to the mid-course approach because 
its proponents aren't really hoping to use BMD against rogue states as 
they claim, but are aiming at ``China first, then Russia.'' He reasons 
that while ships or land-based launch sites would be suitable for 
shooting down Iraqi or North Korean missiles in boost-phase, they would 
be useless against Russia and China. A mid-course strategy, however, 
could counter a limited missile attack from those nations. The 
implications are chilling. I hope and pray that Garwin is wrong about 
BMD's true mission, because if Russia and China reach the same 
conclusion, we may be in for a renewed nuclear arms race.

[[Page S6223]]

  Dr. Garwin now questions the rationale for BMD, despite his 
participation in the Rumsfeld Commission which assessed the ballistic 
missile threat to the United States. He was quoted in a June 12 news 
wire report as stating: ``Fifteen million . . . cargo containers enter 
the United States every year with a minute chance of being inspected. 
Why should a nation with a few ICBM's risk their being destroyed pre-
emptively when other means are available for delivery?''
  Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate in physics, is one of the most 
prominent and trenchant scientific critics of BMD. He strongly believes 
that it would be smarter to put the billions pouring into missile 
defense into other homeland security efforts. Weinberg points out that 
if the U.S. deploys BMD, intelligence analysts estimate China will 
sharply expand its arsenal from about 20 ICBM's to 200 or so. Should 
this occur both India and Pakistan would probably also expand their 
nuclear arsenals. As we all know, the last thing the world needs is a 
spiraling nuclear arms race in South Asia.
  Weinberg believes a BMD system would be fatally flawed. He contends 
that missile defenses are easy to defeat. The attacker surrounding his 
warheads with decoys, he says always has the last move. He makes a 
persuasive case that a ballistic missile attack on the United States is 
an unlikely threat. The real danger we face, he says, is the spread of 
nuclear material that can be set off without missiles. He concludes 
that President Bush is pursuing ``a missile defense undertaken for its 
own sake, rather than any application it may have in defending our own 
country.'' While I doubt this is an accurate characterization of the 
President's motives, I agree with Weinberg's conclusion that the spread 
of nuclear materials is now a much more serious threat to our country 
than a ballistic missile attack.
  Both distinguished missile experts and the media have opposed the 
Administration's new secrecy policy which will classify previously 
unclassified materials regarding targets and countermeasures to be used 
in flight intercept test of the Ground-Based Mid-course Defense system.
  Such secrecy is both undesirable and unnecessary. BMD development has 
benefitted much from public scrutiny by physicists and other 
scientists, weapons experts, watchdog groups, and the press. Cutting 
off access would be clearly counterproductive. Philip Coyle, who served 
as Assistant Secretary of Defense and DOD's Director of Operational 
Test and Evaluation from 1994-2001 is one of the nation's foremost 
experts on missile defense. He argues that it will take some 20 
developmental tests costing $100 million a piece and may take years 
before testing with realistic decoys can start. Coyle believes secrecy 
is premature since there's ``no danger'' the test program will be in a 
position to ``give away any secrets'' for years to come.
  Coyle also is dismayed that MDA is withholding information from the 
Pentagon's own independent review offices, such as the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation. Current laws give the Director rights 
to unfettered access to all major DOD acquisition programs. Who can 
argue with Coyle when he says that if independent review of testing is 
stifled DOD itself won't be able ``to make reasonable judgements about 
the program's viability.''
  The final issue I want to raise is the matter of the adequacy of 
current testing. Two years ago I joined Senator Durbin in introducing 
an amendment to require more realistic testing of the national missile 
defense system. At the time I stated on the floor that missile defense 
testing used at that time proved little or nothing: ``Current testing 
determines whether or not the system works against cooperative targets 
on a test range. This methodology is insufficient to determine the 
technological feasibility of the system against likely threats. At 
present, even if the tests had been hailed as total successes, they 
would have proved nothing more than the system is unproven against real 
threats. . . . Current testing does not take countermeasures into 
account.''
  Unfortunately, what I said was true 2 years ago is still true today. 
Philip Coyle has recently said that the missile defense program ``is 
not at the point where the types of decoys being used have even begun 
to be representative of the likely enemy countermeasures against 
missile defense.'' He noted that so far the decoys used have been 
``round balloons which don't look at all like a target re-entry 
vehicle.'' Coyle who may know more about BMD testing than anyone, 
concluded ``it may be the end of this decade before . . . testing with 
`real world decoys' can begin.''
  The administration plans to rush a rudimentary missile defense system 
into the field beginning in 2004. Few scientists believe that it will 
be an effective system. Dr. David Wright, Senior Scientist, Union of 
Concerned Scientists and an MIT research physicist recently charged 
that ``rather than waiting until the technical issues are addressed, it 
is rushing [to deploy] immature defense systems. . . . These systems 
will not provide `emergency capability' against real-world threats, 
only the illusion of capability.'' I couldn't agree more with Dr. 
Wright.
  I still agree with the U.S. intelligence community, noted scientists 
and missile experts that ballistic missiles are one of the least likely 
threats we face. Much more probably threats are WMD attacks using 
planes, boats, trucks, or suitcases. Eminent scientists are skeptical 
of Administration optimism about prospects for developing and quickly 
deploying BMD. I fully share their skepticism.
  The new DOD secrecy policy which will classify previously 
unclassified material regarding targets and countermeasure used in BMD 
is undesirable and indefensible. I strongly oppose MDA withholding 
information from the Pentagon's own independent review offices and 
applaud the Committee bill for requiring these offices to provide 
Congress and DOD with annual assessments of the military utility and 
potential operational effectiveness of major missile defense programs.
  In conclusion, I believe in maintaining a strong national defense. We 
face a number of credible threats in the world today, including 
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We must 
make sure we carefully identify the threats we face and tailor our 
defense spending to meet them. We could do a better job of that than 
this bill does, and I hope that as we move to conference, the committee 
will make every effort to transfer funds from relatively low-priority 
programs to those designed to meet the urgent and immediate anti-
terrorism and defense of our forces.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has 
agreed to accept an amendment to the Defense Department authorization 
bill which will protect small businesses that contract with our armed 
forces. I thank Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue. I am 
proud to have worked with him on this amendment, on behalf of the men 
and women who are living the American dream by starting and growing 
their own businesses.
  The amendment that I cosponsored with Senator Kerry is very simple. 
It seeks to preserve opportunities for small businesses across the 
country to contract with the United States Army to provide goods and 
services for our soldiers. The Secretary of the Army recently developed 
a plan to consolidate procurement contracts. Our amendment requires the 
Secretary to report to Congress on the effect that this consolidation 
plan has on the participation of small businesses in Army procurement.
  I share the Secretary's goal of getting the most for taxpayers' 
money. And I want to ensure that our procurement policies are 
efficient. But I believe that the best procurement policies enable all 
businesses, large and small, to compete for contracts. After all, any 
economist will tell you that competition will drive prices down and 
quality up. When the Government consolidates many contracts into one 
enormous, unwieldy contract, it is nearly impossible for small or local 
businesses to compete.
  I have met with many small business owners from Missouri who have 
told me that they are anxious to provide quality goods and services to 
our military; but too often their businesses have been unable to 
compete because we have bundled together so many diverse procurement 
needs into one contract that only very large corporations have the 
capacity to fill the entire contract. Such a system does not benefit 
our military or our taxpayers.

[[Page S6224]]

  I am a cosponsor of the Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard 
Act, S. 2466. This legislation addresses the problem of consolidated or 
bundled contracts. Of course, the Government should do all it can to 
take advantage of economies of scale in production or other benefits 
that can result from a large contract with a single supplier. Nothing 
in our legislation would prevent large contracts that serve a genuine 
economic purpose. However, I am concerned that too often contracts are 
bundled together simply for the sake of bureaucratic efficiency. This 
is a disservice to us all, and I am hopeful that the Senate will soon 
act on S. 2466.
  I am concerned that the Army's decision to proactively consolidate 
contracts is a step in the wrong direction. The Army has assured me 
that they have considered the interests of small businesses. Our 
amendment simply asks the Army to report back to Congress on their 
progress as they reform their procurement policies. I hope that the 
report will be filled with good news. I hope that we will learn of the 
Army exceeding small business participation goals. I look forward to 
reading such a report. But I believe that it is imperative that we 
follow this issue closely. We must ensure that our military is prepared 
to take full advantage of the tremendous opportunities available from 
contracting with small businesses across the country.
  I thank my colleagues for joining me in asking that the Secretary of 
the Army provide us with this important report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the two managers, staffs on 
both sides. It appears it would be better to vote now on final passage 
of this most important bill. I should alert all Members that later this 
afternoon, when Secretary Rumsfeld's briefing is completed, we will 
have another vote on a resolution dealing with the Pledge of 
Allegiance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona?
  Mr. KYL. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Would it be possible to lock in the vote at 3:15? I am 
sorry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to express my profound 
appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his able 
assistance. We have worked together, this is our 24th year on bills of 
this matter.
  Again, I think we have achieved a bill which is in the best interest 
of the country. I thank you, sir. I thank all members of the Armed 
Services Committee. I thank all staff persons on the Armed Services 
Committee, particularly my able assistant, the chief of staff on the 
Republican side, Ms. Ansley, and her counterpart--maybe the word 
``counterpart'' is a little soft--her partner, David Lyles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me thank my ranking member. I can't 
imagine having someone to work with who is better than Senator Warner. 
This has been a long relationship and a trusting relationship. It makes 
all the difference in getting legislation addressed, much less passed 
in this body.
  I thank my staff, David Lyles, and crew, Judy Ansley and her staff, 
who, again, worked in a bipartisan way to make this bill happen, to 
make it possible for us to pass it. I think this is almost record time. 
This is only the second time in the last 10 years, I believe, where we 
have been able to pass the Defense authorization bill prior to July 1.
  We have resolved our differences in a way which has contributed to 
the security of the Nation. We have had our disagreements. We are here 
to have disagreements, to try to resolve them, and where we can't 
resolve them by compromise, to have votes. That is what we have done. 
We again succeeded.
  I also thank our majority leader, Senator Daschle. I thank Senator 
Lott, Senator Nickles, and particularly, I single out, to his 
embarrassment, again, Senator Reid of Nevada. He makes the wheels run 
on this floor. He provides the oil and the grease which makes it 
possible for the wheels of this little buggy of ours to keep going. 
Without him, I can't imagine how we would be able to function as 
efficiently as we do with all of the inefficiencies to which we all 
know the Senate is subjected.
  Mr. WARNER. I join my colleague in thanking our distinguished 
majority leader and Republican leader, who worked hand in hand with us, 
and, indeed, the majority whip. I would only revise one thing about the 
majority whip: He does use, as he drives the buggy, the whip. But he 
uses it judiciously and fairly. I received a little crack this morning 
myself, as did one other colleague from the other side. It was equal.
  At any rate, he succeeded, and I thank my dear friend. I have the 
utmost admiration for him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The deputy majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, working with these two experienced veterans, 
competent legislators has been a pleasure.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 2690

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that 
immediately, following the vote on passage of the DOD bill, the Senate 
proceed to consideration of S. 2690, introduced earlier today by 
Senator Hutchinson and others, which reaffirms the reference to one 
nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance; further, I ask the bill 
then be immediately read the third time, and the Senate proceed to a 
vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate at 
3:20 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on passage of S. 2690.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that rule XII, 
paragraph 4, be waived in relation to the Defense authorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of S. 2514.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that S. 2514 be read the third time, 
and the Senate then vote on passage of S. 2514 without any intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading and was 
read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     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
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas

[[Page S6225]]


     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Byrd
     Feingold
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The bill (S. 2514), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The provisions of the order will be executed.

                          ____________________