[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 107 (Wednesday, July 31, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7709-S7728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                                 Senate

Wednesday, July 31, 2002

             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

                              (Continued)


                           Amendment No. 4444

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4444.

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

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for leasing of transport/VIP 
aircraft under any contract not entered into pursuant to full and open 
                              competition)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for leasing of transport/VIP aircraft under any 
     contract entered into under any procurement procedures other 
     than pursuant to the Competition and Contracting Act.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this calls for full and open competition 
in the case of a lease of a transport/VIP aircraft. It would address 
the complaints of industry with respect to the Boeing 767 tanker lease 
and Boeing 737 transport/VIP lease and the first five multisensor 
command and control aircraft, and would replace the JSTARS E-3 AWACS 
and the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft.
  Basically, it calls for full and open competition for these aircraft, 
in the case of four 737 transport aircraft, and, as I understand, 
prospective Boeing 767 tanker aircraft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I misspoke. This amendment does not apply 
to the 767, only to the 737 aircraft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. With that amendment, the managers are prepared to accept 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4444.
  The amendment (No. 4444) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4445

  Mr. McCAIN. For the benefit of my colleagues, I have one more 
amendment that is not agreed to and would require a rollcall vote, 
which I understand from the majority leader would be scheduled for 
tomorrow. I have a statement I would like to read concerning the 
pending bill and then discuss the amendment, or if the managers so 
choose, I would discuss the amendment first and then describe my views 
on the overall legislation.
  Mr. President, I send amendment No. 4445 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, and Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 4445.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object. I do not think we have a copy 
of that amendment yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue 
with the reading of the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. The Secretary of the Air Force shall not enter 
     into any lease for transport/VIP aircraft for any period that 
     includes any part of fiscal year 2003 until there is enacted 
     a law, other than an appropriation Act, that authorizes the 
     appropriation of funds in the amount or amounts necessary to 
     enter into the lease and a law appropriating such funds 
     pursuant to such authorization of appropriations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the managers of the bill if there 
are any further amendments that will be included in the managers' 
package.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

[[Page S7710]]

  Mr. INOUYE. There are no amendments left in the managers' package. 
However, there may be amendments brought up at this moment by others, 
but we do not have any.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand there may be further amendments brought up 
for a vote. I was speaking directly concerning the managers' package of 
amendments which, as we know, sometimes are not voted on individually 
and included in the package. I am very interested in seeing the 
managers' package of amendments. I thank the managers so far that they 
have been very helpful in sharing these amendments with me. I would 
like to see the final package of managers' amendments before it is 
agreed to.
  This amendment is a pretty straightforward amendment. It requires 
authorization of appropriations for the leasing of any transport/VIP 
aircraft. It would ensure that the Senate Armed Services Committee 
maintained its relevance by requiring Senate Armed Services Committee 
approval and authorization of any tanker lease.
  The amendment basically would instruct the Secretary of the Air Force 
that he could not enter into a lease for transport/VIP aircraft for any 
period that includes any part of fiscal year 2003 until he submits a 
report and there is a law enacted that authorizes the funds necessary 
to enter into the lease.
  This is a very expensive acquisition on the part of the United States 
Air Force. I believe it should be authorized before this transaction is 
entered into. It is basically a matter of whether the Senate Armed 
Services Committee will maintain its relevance over the acquisition of 
very expensive pieces of equipment. It would be appropriate for the 
Armed Services Committee to approve of it. That is the way we have 
traditionally done business around here, particularly on issues of 
major consequences--although it has fallen into neglect in years past.
  I do not think I need to elaborate further on the amendment except I 
believe it should be authorized before appropriated.
  I see the distinguished manager of the bill on the floor. If he would 
like to respond before I give my statement on the overall Defense 
appropriations bill, I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Congress has passed legislation, and 
the President has signed it, that authorizes the Secretary of the Air 
Force to lease, for up to 10 years, these aircraft. It was a decided 
policy of the Congress based on our advice.
  The capital costs of acquiring such equipment now would be such that 
it would move out of the budget other items that have to be acquired in 
the moneys needed for homeland defense. So we authorized the Secretary 
of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into agreements 
not to exceed 10 years for these aircraft. They are readily available 
for lease. We limit the time they may lease them. But it is a very 
successful practice in the business world and I think would be a 
successful practice for the Department of Defense to lease this 
equipment when necessary and not to have standing around equipment that 
is not needed.
  We believe a leasing policy is the best policy for this type of 
aircraft. There are a series of competing aircraft available, but it is 
up to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force to 
decide which ones they want.
  My advice to my friend from Hawaii, and I think he will join me, is 
that we oppose this legislation. It would in effect modify the 
legislation, the law that was passed in the last Congress that 
authorized the procedure for which we are making available funds in 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I concur with the statement of my distinguished friend, 
and I associate myself with his remarks.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator from Arizona has completed, I am prepared 
to offer a motion to table this amendment with the understanding that 
the time for the vote would be established by the leadership sometime 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is fine with me, whenever he wants to 
make the motion to table. I do have additional comments on the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, there is further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise again to address the issue of 
wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case, in the bill 
to fund the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003. This 
legislation would provide $355.5 billion to the Department of Defense. 
Each year, in provisions too numerous to mention in great detail, this 
bill funds pork barrel projects with questionable relationship to 
national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and 
underfunded, urgent defense priorities. This year's measure continues 
this alarming tradition, by adding 581 programs not requested by the 
President, at a further cost of $5.2 billion.
  America remains at war, a war that continues to unite Americans in 
pursuit of a common goal to defeat international terrorism. All 
Americans have made sacrifices for this war, and many have been deeply 
affected by it and at times harmed by difficult, related economic 
circumstances. Our servicemen and women in particular are truly on the 
front lines in this war, and are separated from their families, risking 
their lives, and working extraordinarily long hours under the most 
difficult conditions to accomplish the ambitious but necessary task 
their country has set for them. The weapons we have given them, for all 
their impressive effects, are, in many cases, neither in quantity nor 
quality, the best that our government can provide.
  For instance, stockpiles of the precision-guided munitions that we 
relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear very effectively on 
difficult, often moving targets in Afghanistan, with the least 
collateral damage possible, are dangerously depleted. This is just one 
area of critical importance to our success in this war that underscores 
just how carefully we should be allocating scarce resources to our 
national defense.
  Despite the realities of war, and the serious responsibilities the 
situation imposes on Congress and the President, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its 
blatant use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve 
some worthy purpose, but that clearly impair our national defense by 
depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding.
  Mr. President, even in the middle of a war against terrorism, a war 
of monumental consequences that is expected to last for some time, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee remains intent on ensuring that part of 
the Department of Defense's mission is to dispense corporate welfare. 
It is a shame that at such a critical time, the United States Senate 
persists in spending money requested and authorized only for our Armed 
Forces to satisfy the needs or the desires of interests that are 
unrelated to defense and even, in truth, unconcerned about the true 
needs of our military.
  An Investor's Business Daily article published late last year 
entitled At the Trough: Welfare Checks to Big Business Make No Sense, 
stated, ``[a]mong the least justified outlays [in the federal budget] 
is corporate welfare. Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that 
business subsidies will run $87 billion [in 2001], up a third since 
1997. Although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate 
welfare [in 2001], Congress has proved resistant. Indeed many post-
September 11 bailouts have gone to big business. Boeing is one of the 
biggest beneficiaries. . . . While corporate America gets the profits, 
taxpayers get the losses. . . . The Constitution authorizes a Congress 
to promote the general welfare, not enrich Boeing and other corporate 
behemoths. There is no warrant to take from Peter so Paul can pay 
higher dividends. In the aftermath of September 11, the American people 
can ill afford budget profligacy in Washington. If Congress is not 
willing to cut corporate welfare at a time of national crisis, what is 
it will to cut?''
  Yet, Congress didn't get the message this year. In the FY03 defense 
appropriations bill we are considering today, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee added nearly $1.3 billion to Boeing's

[[Page S7711]]

programs, constituting more than 20 percent of the total plus-ups in 
the bill. As Defense Week noted unequivocally on July 22, ``in this 
bill, Boeing made out like a bandit.''
  Mr. President, you will recall that last year, during conference 
negotiations on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee inserted into the bill 
unprecedented language to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 
767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers, and to lease four 
Boeing 737 commercial aircraft for passenger airlift to be used by 
congressional and Executive Branch officials. Congress did not 
authorize these leasing provisions in the fiscal year 2002 National 
Defense Authorization Act, and in fact, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee was not advised of this effort by the U.S. Air Force during 
consideration of that authorization measure.
  Again this year--without benefit of authorization committee debate or 
input--the Senate Appropriations Committee has added funding in the 
FY03 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for $30.6 million to 
cover initial leasing costs for the four Boeing 737 VIP transport 
aircraft noted above. Furthermore, additional language in the bill 
modifies a provision that had been carefully negotiated by OMB with 
appropriators last year, and may now permit the Air Force to circumvent 
standard leasing arrangements and, with respect to the 100 Boeing 767s, 
may allow the Air Force to extend the termination liability costs over 
the full term of the lease.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that the impact of these provisions has 
not been adequately scrutinized, and the full cost to taxpayers has not 
been sufficiently considered. In fact, after review of the Air Force's 
proposed lease for the four 737s and its comparison of leasing and 
purchase options for these aircraft, it appears that certain leasing 
costs are being hidden to make the leasing option appear more cost-
effective.
  For example, although the Department of Defense self-insures its 
equipment and would not take out an insurance policy if it purchased 
these 737s, the Air Force's comparison of the leasing and purchase 
options assesses at least $17 million in insurance costs to the 
purchase option, thereby inflating the estimated purchase price 
significantly. In addition, the proposed leasing arrangement includes 
provisions requiring the Air Force to pay to insure the four 737 VIP 
aircraft and, in the event of loss or destruction of an aircraft, 
requiring the Air Force to pay a lease cancellation charge equal to 
one-year's worth of lease payments, or $10 million. These provisions 
add not only the cost of insurance, but also another $10 million to the 
leasing costs that would not be incurred under a traditional purchase 
arrangement and have not been disclosed up-front in discussions with 
OMB or Congress. These examples of hidden costs illustrate the lack of 
transparency of this transaction and strongly suggest that the Air 
Force's analysis of the $3.9 million advantage to leasing over purchase 
is illusory.
  But you do not have to take my word for it. Rather, in a July 23 
letter to Representative Curt Weldon on this matter, Congressional 
Budget Office Director Dan Crippen advised that the Air Force's 
estimated purchase price of the four 737s may be too high and that:

       Small adjustments in the assumed purchase price, residual 
     value, or insurance cost would reduce the projected savings 
     from leasing the aircraft or make the purchase alternative 
     the less expensive option.

  In its analysis, CBO notes that the cost of the purchase option is 
estimated and not based on any negotiation between the Air Force and 
Boeing. Significantly, CBO states,

       Just as Boeing and the Air Force negotiated a lower lease-
     price from Boeing's initial offer, CBO believes it might also 
     be possible for the Air Force and Boeing to negotiate a lower 
     purchase price for the aircraft, if the Air Force were a 
     willing buyer. CBO estimates that the Air Force would only 
     need to negotiate a purchase price about $1 million less per 
     plane than Boeing's initial estimate in order for the cost of 
     the purchase option to be equal to the cost of the lease 
     option, in net present value terms. . . . Using Air Force 
     data and a model for calculating commercial lease payments, 
     we estimate that a purchase price of $249 million (rather 
     than the $269 million price used in the Air Force's analysis) 
     would be consistent with the lease terms. . . . We estimate 
     that, if a purchase price for the four aircraft could be 
     negotiated for $249 million or $5 million less per aircraft, 
     then the purchase alternative would save about $15 million 
     compared to the lease.

      GAO and CBO report that it would cost the government and 
     ultimately the taxpayers between $13.5 to $20 million less 
     to purchase the Boeing 737 VIP aircraft than to lease 
     them--but they report it could be more.
  In addition, it is not clear that the Air Force has negotiated a fair 
lease price for these VIP aircraft. Financing experts advise that to 
evaluate whether leasing is the preferable option, as compared to 
purchase of aircraft, one month's lease payment should be equal to 
approximately 1 percent of the total cost of the aircraft. In GAO's 
current analysis of the proposed Air Force lease, on which I have been 
briefed, GAO contends that the Air Force's proposed lease with Boeing 
for four 737 VIP aircraft is $32 million more than the norm that I have 
just stated. I am concerned that the Air Force appears to be going 
against the advice of financial experts not only by choosing to lease 
instead of purchase these aircraft, but also by not getting a good deal 
on the lease price. American taxpayers should be concerned by this 
behavior.
  I would like to note that OMB Director Mitch Daniels has often 
indicated his preference to maintain scrutiny of Government leasing 
practices out of regard for U.S. taxpayers. Just last year, in a letter 
from the OMB Director to Senator Kent Conrad, OMB cautioned against 
eliminating rules intended to reduce leasing abuses. OMB's letter 
emphasized that the Budget Enforcement Act--BEA--scoring rules:

       . . . were specifically designed to encourage the use of 
     financing mechanisms that minimize taxpayers' costs by 
     eliminating the unfair advantage provided to lease-purchases 
     by the previous scoring rules. Prior to the BEA, agencies 
     only needed budget authority for the first year's lease 
     payment, even though the agreement was a legally enforceable 
     commitment to fully pay for the asset over time.

  OMB's letter continued by explaining that this loophole had permitted 
the General Services Administration to agree to 11 lease-purchase 
agreements with a total, full-term cost of $1.7 billion, but to budget 
only the first year of lease payments. OMB's letter stated:

       [t]he scoring hid the fact that these agreements had a 
     higher economic cost than traditional direct purchases and in 
     some cases allowed projects to go forward despite significant 
     cost overruns. . . .

  In my view, this leasing proposal for Boeing 737 VIP aircraft also 
puts the Air Force at risk of being unable to procure higher priority 
items needed to fight the war on terrorism. On March 1, 2002, the Air 
Force presented Congress with a list of its top priorities encompassing 
38 items totaling $3.8 billion. Within its top 10 programs, the Air 
Force asked for several essential items that would directly support our 
current war effort: wartime munitions, aircraft engine replacement 
parts, night vision goggles, anti-terrorism/force protection efforts, 
bomber and fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat 
search and rescue helicopters for downed pilots; yet, the list also 
includes these four VIP aircraft. In reviewing these Air Force 
priorities, I don't know what to be more critical about regarding the 
Air Force Secretary's effort on these VIP aircraft--that he's pushing 
in this time of war for this deal with Boeing for VIP aircraft or that 
his 13th priority of the top 38 in this time of war is for VIP aircraft 
for Executive Branch and congressional officials. Is it lost on the Air 
Force Secretary that we are at war?
  I have asked OMB Director Daniels to continue his strong oversight of 
Government leasing practices, and I ask the Senate today to closely 
scrutinize this unprecedented, costly leasing deal for Boeing 737 VIP 
transport aircraft. But, this Boeing deal is just another example of 
Congress's political meddling and how outside special interest groups 
have obstructed the military's ability to channel resources where they 
are most needed. I will repeat what I've said many, many times before--
the military needs less money spent on pork and more spent to redress 
the serious problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets.
  This bill includes many more examples where congressional 
appropriators show that they have no sense of priority when it comes to 
spending the

[[Page S7712]]

taxpayers' money. The insatiable appetite in Congress for wasteful 
spending grows more and more as the total amount of pork added to 
appropriations bills considered in the Senate so far this year--an 
amount totaling nearly $7 billion.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the day when my appearances on the 
Senate floor for this purpose are no longer necessary. I reiterate--
over $5.2 billion in unrequested defense programs in the defense 
appropriations bill have been added by the Committee. Consider how that 
$5.2 billion, when added to the savings gained through additional base 
closings and more cost-effective business practices, could be used so 
much more effectively. The problems of our armed forces, whether in 
terms of force structure or modernization, could be more assuredly 
addressed and our warfighting ability greatly enhanced. The American 
taxpayers expect more of us, as do our brave service men and women who 
are, without question, fighting this war on global terrorism on our 
behalf. But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, seemingly 
blind to our responsibilities at this time of war, going about our 
business as usual.
  Mr. President, I may be wrong. I may be wrong in all of the 
information I just provided to the Senate. There is legitimate room for 
legitimate debate. I believe OMB and GAO have clearly stated that we 
could save money by not leasing this aircraft. Certainly we could save 
money through competition and certainly we could save money to the 
taxpayers by negotiating a better deal with the Boeing Aircraft 
Company--which, by the way, although President Bush proposed $12 
billion in cuts to corporate welfare, Boeing is one of the biggest 
beneficiaries. In other words, Boeing as the Defense Weekly noted 
unequivocally on July 22, in reference to the Defense Appropriations 
Committee bill that we are considering today, Defense Weekly noted 
unequivocally on July 22, ``In this bill, Boeing made out like a 
bandit.''
  I think they did. I think they did.
  The managers of the bill and I could debate what is right and what is 
wrong as far as these numbers are concerned. I think I have compelling 
numbers on my side that would indicate we could either lease or 
purchase at a much less cost than the appropriators put in the bill. 
But the point here is that it should be authorized. It should not be 
done by the Appropriations Committee without authorization. This is 
what we come back to time after time after time on the floor of this 
Senate.
  Where is the role of the Senate Armed Services Committee to authorize 
the purchase of aircraft worth many tens of millions of dollars? They 
have been bypassed.
  I hope the majority of my colleagues would recognize that an issue of 
this magnitude deserves the hearings and scrutiny that can be conducted 
by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The job of the Appropriations 
Committee is to appropriate funds that have been previously authorized. 
I hope my colleagues will agree with that.
  I ask unanimous consent a list of Appropriations Committee earmarks 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     FY2003  Defense Appropriations


                        Military Personnel, Army

Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................6.4


                        Military Personnel, Navy

Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................2.9


                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................0.6


                     Military Personnel, Air Force

Undistributed:
  B-52 force structure..............................................3.7
  Adopted legislative proposals.....................................4.2


                        Reserve Personnel, Army

Other Training and Support:
  Additional AGR end strength (Transfer from BA1)..................11.4
  Sustainment of current AGR force.................................26.1
Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................1.0


                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................0.1


                     National Guard Personnel, Army

Undistributed:
  Emergency Spill Response and Preparedness Program.................0.6
  Adopted legislative proposals.....................................2.1


                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

Other Training and Support: Additional AGR end strength.............0.8


                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

Operating Forces:......................................................
  USARPAC C4I PACMERS...............................................5.0
  USARPAC C4 shortfalls.............................................6.0
  Hunter UAV.......................................................10.0
Training and Recruiting:
  SROTC-Air Battle Captain..........................................2.0
  SCOLA Language training...........................................1.0
  Ft. Knox Distance Learning........................................3.0
Administration and service wide activities:
  LOGTECH...........................................................2.0
  Biometrics support...............................................10.0
  Army conservation and ecosystem management........................4.0
  Innovative Safety Management......................................5.0
  Rock Island Bridge Repair.........................................2.3
  Yukon training infrastructure and access upgrades.................2.0
  Fort Wainwright Bldg. 600 repairs.................................4.5
  Fort Wainwright Utilidors........................................10.0
  Tanana River Bridge Study.........................................1.5
Undistributed:
  Classified.......................................................41.8
  Anti-corrosion programs...........................................1.0


                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

Operating Forces:
  Shipyard Apprentice program......................................10.0
  Warfare Tactics PMRF facilities..................................20.0
  Hydrographic Center of Excellence.................................3.5
  Cntr. for Excellence in Disaster Management.......................5.0
  MK-45 Overhaul...................................................15.0
  MK-245 Decoys.....................................................2.0
Mobilization: Ship Disposal Project.................................5.0
Training and Recruiting: Naval Sea Cadet Corps......................2.0
Administration and Statewide Activities:
  Navy-Wide PVCS Enterprise License.................................5.0
  Navy Armory Inventory and Custody Tracking........................0.8
  Flash Detection System............................................0.9
Undistributed:
  Classified.......................................................29.4
  Anti-Corrosion Program............................................1.0
  Stainless steel sanitary spaces...................................5.0


                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

Operating Forces: Polar Fleece shirts...............................1.0
Undistributed: Anti-corrosion programs..............................1.0


                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

Operating Forces:
  B-52 Attrition Reserve...........................................40.0
  B-1 Bomber Modifications.........................................11.0
  11th AF Range upgrades--fiber optics and power infrastructure.....8.0
  University Partnership for Operational Support....................4.0
Mobilization: PACAF strategic airlift...............................3.0
Training and Recruiting: MBU-20 Oxygen Mask.........................4.0
Administration and Service-wide Activities:
  Hickam AFB Alternative Fuel Vehicle Program.......................1.0
  Eielson AFB Utilidors............................................10.0
  ALCOM Wide Mobile Radio Network...................................0.4
  Range Residue recycling program...................................3.0
Undistributed:
  Classified.......................................................81.4
  Anti-corrosion Programs...........................................1.0
  MTAPP.............................................................6.0


                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

Operating Forces: SPECWARCOM: Mission Support Center................2.0
Training and Recruiting: Joint Military Education Venture Forum.....0.5
Administration and Service-wide activities:
  Innovative Readiness Training....................................10.0
  DLA-PTAP..........................................................5.0
  DODEA-UNI Math Teacher Leadership.................................1.0
  Galena IDEA.......................................................5.0
  OEA CUHSC, Fitzsimmons Army Hospital.............................10.0
  OEA Relocate Barrow Landfill......................................4.0
  OEA Port of Anchorage Intermodal Marine Facility Program..........5.0
  OSD Clara Barton Center...........................................3.0
  OSD Pacific Command Regional Initiative...........................6.0
  OSD Intelligence Fusion Study Continuation........................5.0
Undistributed:
  Legacy (Programs for Naval Archaeology)..........................12.0
  Impact Aid.......................................................30.0
  Impact Aid for Children with Disabilities.........................5.0
  Operation Working Shield..........................................5.0


                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

Operating Forces: ECWCS.............................................4.0


              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

Administration and service wide activities: Command server activitie4.0


             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

Operating Force:
  ECWCS.............................................................6.0
  Homeland Security Training Camp Ground............................3.8
  1st Bn, 118th Infantry Brigade Rifle Range........................3.0
  Distributed battle simulation program support.....................0.9
Administration and service wide activities: Information operations  6.0
Undistributed:
  Additional Military Technicians..................................11.3
  Distance Learning................................................50.0
  Emergency Spill response..........................................0.5
  National Guard Youth Challenge, Camp Minden.......................1.7
  SE Regional Training..............................................2.0

[[Page S7713]]

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

Operating Forces: ECWCS.............................................4.0
Administration and service wide activities: Information Operations..5.0
Undistributed: Defense Support Evaluation Group--NW.................4.0
Montana Air National Guard: Training Range Planning and Study.......1.0


                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

Utility F/W (MR) Aircraft: 2 UC-35 aircraft........................15.2
UH-60 Blackhawk (MYP): 9 Blackhawk helicopters.....................96.3
Helicopter-New Training: 6 TH-67 helicopters........................9.6
AH-64 MODS:
  Apache engine Spares.............................................64.0
  Bladefold kits....................................................2.0
UH-60 MODS
  Army NG Pacific CSAR Mods.........................................3.0
  DCS-HUMS..........................................................6.0
Common Ground Equipment: HELO Maintenance Work Platform System......2.0


                       Missile Procurement, Army

Patriot System Summary: Additional Missiles........................25.0
HIMARS Launcher: Additional Launchers...............................5.0


         Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles Procurement, Army

Bradley Base Sustainment: Electronics Obsolescence Reduction........4.5
BFVS Series: Bradley Reactive Armor................................35.0


                      Ammunition Procurement, Army

81MM Mortar, All Types: 81MM Mortar, Infared M816...................4.0
CTG, Mortar, 120 MM, All Types: White Phosphorus Facility Equipment13.0
Proj ARTY 155MM HE M107: Additional Funding.........................1.0
Bunker Defeating Munition (BDM): SMAW-D Bunker Defeating Munition...5.0
Rocket, Hydra 70, All Types: Additional Funding....................40.0
Demolition Munitions, All Types: MDI Demolition Initiators..........2.0
Ammunition Peculiar Equipment: Additional Funding...................3.0
Provision of Industrial Facilities: Munitions Enterprise Technology 
  Insertion.........................................................1.3
Conventional Ammo Demilitarization: Additional Funding.............10.0
Arms Initiative: Additional Funding................................10.0


                        Other Procurement, Army

Tactical Trailers/Dolly Sets: M871A3 22.5 Ton Trailers..............3.5
HI MOB Multi-Purp WHLD Vehicles:
  Additional Vehicles for NG........................................7.5
  Additional Vehicles for Reserve...................................7.5
  Up-Armored Vehicles..............................................29.0
Firetrucks & Associated Firefighting Equipment: Tactical Firefighting 
  Equipment........................................................10.0
Armored Security Vehicles: Additional Vehicles.....................25.0
Combat Identification Program: Quick Fix Program....................1.0
Comms-Elec Equip Fielding: Virtual Patch Crisis Communication 
  Coordination......................................................3.2
Base Support Communications: AK Wide Mobile Radio Program...........7.7
Information Systems: USARPAC C4 Equipment...........................6.0
Sentinel Mods: AN/MPQ-64...........................................20.0
Striker Family: Additional Units....................................3.5
Automated Data Processing Equip:
  NG Distance Learning Courseware...................................7.5
  Rock Island Arsenal Automatic Identification Technology...........3.0
  Regional Medical Distributive Learning............................8.0
  Digitization of DoD Technical Manuals............................40.0
Tactical Bridge, Float-Ribbon: Common Bridge Transporter............4.0
GRND Standoff Mine Detection System: Handheld Standoff Mine Detection 
  System............................................................5.0
Combat Support Medical:
  Hemorrhage Control Dressings......................................4.0
  Rapid Intravenous Fusion Pumps....................................2.5
Mission Modules-Engineering: 2 Additional Companies.................7.0
Logistic Support Vessel: Vessel Completion..........................8.1
Training Devices, Nonsystem:
  EST 2000..........................................................5.0
  Advanced Aviation Institutional Training Simulator...............10.0
  MOUT Intrumentation at Ft. Campbell...............................4.0
  MOUT Instrumentation at Ft. Richardson............................4.3
  172nd SIB Army Range Improvement Program..........................7.5


                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

MH-60R: AQS-22 Airborne Low Frequency Sonar (ALFS)..................5.0
AH-1W Series:
  Tailboom strakes..................................................6.5
  Night Targeting System............................................6.0
SH-60 Series: Integrated Mechanical diagnostics.....................9.0
Special Project Aircraft: AMOSS.....................................5.0
Common Ground Equipment: Direct Squadron Support Training...........5.0


                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

RAM................................................................10.0
Drones and Decoys: ITALD...........................................20.0
CWIS MODS: Block 1B................................................38.0


             Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps

.50 Caliber: .50 Caliber SLAP.......................................0.3


                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

Carrier Replacement Program: Advance Procurement..................229.0
LCAC SLEP: Additional Craft........................................22.0


                        Other Procurement, Navy

Items Less than $5 Million: ICAS....................................8.0
Operating Forces IPE:
  IPDE Enhancement and PDM Interoperability........................10.0
  PHNSY Equipment..................................................15.0
Weapons Range Support Equipment:
  Mobile Threat Emitter............................................10.0
  PMRF Equipment....................................................9.8
Other Aviation Support Equipment: Joint Tactical Data Integration..15.0
SSN Combat Control Systems: SSN Modernization......................13.0
Surface ASW Support Equipment: MK 32 SVTT Remanufacture.............5.0
Submarine Training Device Mods: INTERLOCKS Development Tools........4.0
Tactical Vehicles: Additional MTVR.................................35.0
Other Supply Support Equipment: Serial Number Tracking System.......6.0


                       Procurement, Marine Corps

COMM Switching & Control System: Joint Enhanced Corps Communication 
  System...........................................................25.0
Material Handling Equipment: Tram...................................5.0
Training Devices: Live Fire Training Range Upgrades.................2.0


                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

C-17(MYP):
  Fully Fund Purchase of 15 Aircraft..............................585.9
  Maintenance Trainer..............................................11.3
EC-130J: Purchase 1 additional aircraft............................87.0
C-40 ANG: Leasing costs............................................30.6
B-52:
  Attrition reserve................................................25.2
  B-52 electronic countermeasures..................................10.0
F-15:
  Block Upgrades...................................................15.0
  E-kit modifications..............................................20.0
  AN/AL-67 (V) 3&4 countermeasure ser...............................5.0
  ALQ-135 Band 1.5.................................................20.0
  APG-63 (v)1 Program...............................................7.5
C-130:
  AAN/AYW-1 dual autopilot (ANG)....................................0.8
  Senior Scout; COMINT system.......................................3.0
  NP2000 propeller support upgrades................................10.0
MISC Production Charges:
  Magnetic bearing cooling turbine technology.......................5.0
  LITENING targeting pod upgrades (ANG)............................24.9


                     missile procurement, air force

AGM-65D MAVERICK: Additional Missiles...............................4.0
Evolved Expendable Launch VEH: Mission Assurance...................14.5


                  procurement of ammunition, air force

Sensor Fuzed Weapon: Additional Funding............................20.0
Flares: BOL IR MJU-52/B Expendables for ANG.........................1.0


                      other procurement, air force

Intelligence Comm Equipment: Eagle Vision..........................25.0
Theater Air Control System Improvements: AN/TPS--75................12.0
Air Force Physical Security: Containment Air Processing System......4.0
Combat Training Ranges:
  Mobile Remote Emitter Simulators.................................11.0
  AK Air Training Upgrade/ P4BE Pods................................5.0
  11th AF Unmanned Threat Emitter Modification Program.............11.0
  11th AF JAWSS-Scoring System Processor............................6.7
Base Information Infrastructure: AK Wide radio (LMR) Program........6.7
Items Less than $5 Million:
  Emergency Bailout Parachute System................................3.0
  Wall Style Troop Seats............................................3.0
Mechanized Material Handling: Point of Maintenance Initiative--POMX.8.0
Items less than $5 Million:
  Vaccine Facility Project..........................................1.0
  Heilbasket Technology.............................................4.5


                       procurement, defense-wide

SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades: ATIRCM/CMWS..............................12.0
SOF Intelligence Systems:
  Portable Intelligence Collection and Relay Capability.............6.0
  LAW Trajectory Mounts (M72).......................................1.0
Maritime Equipment Mods: MkV Advanced Shock Mitigating Seats........2.0
Individual Protection:
  M40 Masks.........................................................3.0
  M45 Masks.........................................................1.0
  M48 Masks.........................................................0.5
  MEU Masks.........................................................2.5
Decontamination:
  M12 Decon System upgrades.........................................6.0
  M291 Decontamination Kits.........................................1.0
  M100 Sorbent Decontamination Kits.................................1.0
Joint Biological Defense Program:
  Bio-Detection Kit storage.........................................1.0
  JBPDS-BIDS.......................................................10.0
Collective Protection:
  Chem-Bio protective shelters......................................7.0
  Filter Surveillance Program.......................................1.5
  M49 Fixed Installation Filter.....................................1.0
Contamination Avoidance: M22 Automatic Chemical Agent Alarms........7.0


           research, development, test, and evaluation, army

Defense Research Sciences:
  Animal Modeling Genetics Research.................................1.0
  Biofilm Research..................................................1.0
  Integrated Desert Terrain Analysis................................4.0
  Knowledge Management Fusion Center................................5.0

[[Page S7714]]

  Optical Technologies Research.....................................2.0
  Prediction of Land-Atmosphere Interactions........................2.5
University and Industry Research Centers:
  Armor Materials Design--Laser based material processing...........2.5
  Composite Materials Center of Excellence..........................0.8
  Dendrimer Nanotechnology Research.................................3.5
  Ferroelectric Materials Nanofabrication...........................1.5
  Institute for Creative Technologies...............................5.0
  Jidoka Project....................................................3.0
  University Research Coalition for Manufacturing and Design........4.0
  University Program in Mobile Robotics.............................3.0
Materials Technology:
  Advanced Materials Processing.....................................4.0
  Electronics Components Reliability................................2.5
  FCS Composite Research............................................3.0
  Future Affordable Multi-Utility Materials for FCS.................2.0
  Low Cost Enabling Technologies....................................3.0
Sensors and Electronic Survivability:
  Advanced Sensors and Obscurants...................................2.0
Missile Technology;
  Advanced Composite Chassis........................................2.0
  E-Strike Short Range Air Defense Radar............................3.0
Advanced Concepts and Simulation:
  Institute for Creative Technologies--Interactive training tech....5.0
  Photonics.........................................................5.0
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology:
  21st Century Truck...............................................17.0
  Advanced Coatings Research........................................1.5
  COMBAT............................................................5.0
  Fastening and Joining Research....................................1.8
  Next Generation Smart Truck.......................................4.0
Chemical, Smoke, and Equipment Defeating Technology: Vaporous Hydrogen 
  Peroxide Technology...............................................8.0
Weapons and Munitions Technology:
  Nanotechnology Consortium.........................................2.0
  Phyto-Extraction Technology.......................................3.0
Electronics and Electronic Devices:
  Display and Development and Evaluation Laboratory.................3.5
  Flat Panel Displays..............................................10.0
  Low Cost Reusable Alkaline Manganese Zinc.........................0.6
  Portable Hybrid Electric Power Systems............................2.0
Countermine Systems:
  Acoustic Landmine Detection.......................................3.0
  Polymer Based Landmine Detection..................................2.0
Environmental Quality Technology: Environmental Response and Security 
  Protection (ERASP) Program........................................5.0
Military Engineering Technology:
  Center for Geo-Sciences...........................................2.0
  Stationary Fuel Cell Initiative..................................10.0
  University Partnership for Operational Support....................4.0
Warfighter Technology: Chemical/Biological Nanoparticle Materials...3.5
Medical Technology:
  Dermal Phase Meter................................................1.5
  EndoBiologics Vaccination Program.................................2.0
  Gulf War Illness..................................................1.0
  International Rehabilitation Network..............................5.0
  Hemorrhage Control Dressings......................................3.5
  Remote Acoustic Hemostasis........................................4.6
  Tissue Replacement and Repair for Battlefield Injuries............2.5
Warfighter Advanced Technologies:
  Biosystems Technology.............................................5.0
  Personnel Navigation for Future Warfighter........................5.0
  Scorpian Future Combat Helmet.....................................8.0
Medical Advanced Technologies:
  Brain, Biology, and Machine Initiative............................5.0
  Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology.....10.0
  Juvenile Diabetes Research........................................3.0
  Laser Fusion Elastin..............................................5.0
  Medical Simulation Training Initiative (MSTI).....................1.0
  National Bioterrorism Civilian Medical Response (CIMERC)..........1.0
  Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Project..........................1.3
  Texas Training & Technology for Trauma and Terrorism.............11.0
Aviation Advanced Technology: UAV Data links-AMUST..................3.0
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology:
  Composite Body Parts--CAV Technology Transition...................3.0
  Hybrid Electric Vehicles..........................................7.5
  IMPACT............................................................5.0
  Mobile Parts Hospital.............................................8.0
  NAC Standardization Exchange for Product Data (N-STEP)............3.0
  Pacific Rim Corrosion Project.....................................3.0
  Rapid Prototyping.................................................2.0
  Tracked Hybrid Electric Vehicle...................................1.0
Command, Control, Communications, Advanced Technology: Networking 
  Environmental for C3 Mobile Services..............................4.0
Manpower, Personnel, and Training Advanced Technology: Army Aircrew 
  Coordination Training.............................................2.0
Missile Simulation Technology......................................11.0
Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology:
  Advanced Demining Technology......................................5.0
  Electromagnetic Wave Detection and Imaging Transceiver............2.5
Joint Service Small Arms Program: Objective Crew Served Weapons.....5.0
Night Visions Advanced Technology:
  Night Vision Fusion...............................................4.5
  Warfighter/Firefighter Position, Location, and Tracking Sensor....3.0
Military Engineering Advanced Technology:
  Canola Oil Fuel Cell..............................................1.5
  Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell Technology...............5.0
  Solid Oxide Fuel Development......................................5.0
Advanced Tactical Computer Science and Sensor Technology:
  IMRSV Program for Simulation Based Operation......................3.0
  Army Missile Defense System Integration..........................14.0
  Kodiak Launch Infrastructure, Transportation and Security........10.0
  SMDC Institute for Chemical Assembly of Nanoscale.................3.0
  Targeted Defense for Asymmetric Biological Attack (TDABA).........1.0
Army Missile Defense Integration (DEM/VAL):
  Advanced Tactical Operations Center...............................1.0
  Battlefield Ordnance Awareness (BOA)..............................6.5
  Cooperative Micro-Satellite Experiment (CMSE).....................5.0
  Eagles Eyes.......................................................4.0
  Enhanced Scamjet Mixing...........................................3.0
  Family of Systems Simulator (FOSSIM)..............................2.0
  Low Cost Interceptor (LCI)........................................8.0
  MTHEL............................................................20.0
  P-3 Micro-Power Devices for Missile Applications..................3.0
  Radar Power Technology............................................4.5
  Supercluster Distributed Memory Technology........................4.0
Tank and Medium Caliber Ammunition: MRM/TERM TM3...................15.0
Environmental Quality Technology Dem/Val:
  Army Environmental Enhancement Program............................1.0
  Casting Emissions Reductions Program..............................8.0
  Transportable Detonation Chamber..................................5.0
  Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention.......................3.0
Logistics and Engineer Equipment--Adv. Dev: Composite Prototype Hull 
  Design for Theater Support Vessel.................................5.5
All Source Analysis System: Non-traditional Intelligence Analysis 
  Toolset (NTIAT)...................................................1.0
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles: HEMTT 2 Technology Insertion Pro16.0
Future Combat Systems SDD (formerly Armored Systems Modernization): 
  Non-Line of Sight Cannon Development............................173.0
Combined Arms Tactical Trainers (CATT) Core: AVCATT--A Upgrade......1.5
Aviation--Eng. Dev.: High Level Ballistic Protection................0.5
Weapons and Munitions--Eng. Dev:
  Commonly Remotely-Operated Weapons System Station (CROWS).........2.0
  Mortar Anti-Personnel Anti-Material (MAPAM).......................5.0
  Command, Control, Communications Systems--Eng. Dev................9.0
  Applied Communications and Information Networking (ACIN).........17.0
  SLAMRAM...........................................................2.0
Combat Identification: Integrated Battlefield Combat Situational 
  Awareness System (IB-CSAS)........................................4.6
Information Technology Development:
  JCALS............................................................25.0
  Electronic Commodity Program......................................1.0
Threat Simulator Development:
  Multi-Made Top Attack Threat Simulator Program....................3.0
  RF/SAM Threat Simulator...........................................3.0
Concepts Experimentation Program: Battle Lab Fort Knox..............3.0
Army Test Ranges and Facilities:
  Cold Region Test Activity Infrastructure..........................2.5
  Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing only at Cold Region Test Activity.5.0
  Non-Discarding SABOT Technology only at Cold Region Test Activity.2.0
DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility: HELSTF Infrastructure Upgrades.3.0
Technical Information Activities: Knowledge Management Fusion.......1.5
Munition Standardization, Effectiveness Safety: Plasma Ordnance 
  Demilitarization System (PODS)....................................2.0
Combat Vehicle Improvement Program: Abrams M1A1 Fleet Sidecar/Embedded 
  Diagnostics.......................................................3.5
Aircraft Modification/Product Improvement Program:
  Blackhawk Dual Digital Flight Control Computer....................4.0
  Integrated Mechanical Diagnostics--HUMS, UH60L Demonstration.....20.0
Digitization: University XXI Digitalization Support at Fort Hood....2.0
Special Army Program: SASC add......................................4.0
Security and Intelligence Activities:
  Language Training Software........................................5.2
  Base Protection and Monitoring System.............................4.0
  Contiguous Connection Model (CCM).................................4.0
Information Systems Security Program:
  Biometrics........................................................5.6
  ISSP..............................................................3.5
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities:
  Bipolar Wafer Cell NiMH...........................................2.0

[[Page S7715]]

  Continuous Manufac Process for Metal Matrix Composites............0.5
  MANTECH for Cylindrical Zinc Air Battery for Land Warrior Sys.....3.0
  MERWS--Phase II...................................................5.7
Army Space & Missile Defense Command: Domed Housing.................2.0


           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy

Defense Research Sciences:
  Consortium for Military Personnel Research........................2.0
  Robotic Mine Countermeasures......................................3.0
Power Projection Applied Research:
  Interrogator for High Speed Research..............................2.0
  Low-cost Fused Remote Sensors for Target Identification...........2.0
Force Protection Applied Research:
  Anti-Corrosion Modeling Software..................................2.5
  Endeavor..........................................................4.0
  Fusion Processor..................................................4.0
  Integrated Fuel Processor--Fuel Cell System.......................3.0
  Laser Welding and Cutting.........................................3.0
  Miniature Autonomous Vehicles (MAVs)..............................1.5
  Modular Advanced Composite Hull Form..............................2.0
  Small Watercraft Demonstrator.....................................5.0
  Unmanned Sea Surface Vehicles.....................................9.0
Communications, Command and Control, Intelligence, Surveillance: Common 
  Senor Module......................................................3.0
Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology: Innovative 
  Communications Materials--Thick Film..............................1.0
Common Picture Applied Research:
  Modular Command Center...........................................15.0
  Tactical Component Network Applications Integration..............35.0
  Theater Undersea Warfare.........................................10.0
  UESA.............................................................15.0
Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research:
  Advanced Fouling & Corrosion Control Coatings.....................7.0
  Advanced Materials and Intelligent Processing.....................3.0
  Biodegradable Polymers for Naval Applications.....................1.3
  Bioenvironmental Hazards Research Program.........................2.0
  Carbon Foam for Navy Applications.................................0.5
  Modernization Through Remanufacturing and Conversion (MTRAC)......4.0
  Ceramic and Carbon Based Materials................................2.0
  Titanium Matrix Composites Program................................2.6
  Visualization and Technical Information...........................2.0
RF Systems Applied Research:
  Advanced Semiconductor Research...................................1.5
  High Brightness Electron Source Program...........................3.0
  Maritime Synthetic Range..........................................6.0
  Nanoscale Science and Technology Program..........................3.0
  Silicon Carbide High Power Diode Development......................2.5
  Wide Bandgap Silicon Carbide Semiconductor Research...............2.5
Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research:
  Hydrography Research..............................................2.5
  SEACOOS--Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System........8.0
Undersea Warfare Applied Research:
  Acoustic Temperature Profiler.....................................3.0
  Low Acoustic Signature Motor (LAMPREY)............................3.5
  SAUVIM............................................................2.0
  Magnetorestrictive Transduction (TERFENOL-D)......................5.4
Power Projection Advanced Technology:
  HYSWAC Lifting Body Development...................................7.0
  LSC(X)...........................................................12.0
  Precision Strike Navigator........................................1.0
  Variable Engine Nozzle............................................3.0
  Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller Helicopter Tech. Demo............4.0
Force Protection Advanced Technology:
  HTS AC Synchronous Propulsion Motor and Generator................10.0
  Wave Powered Electric Power Generating System for Remote Naval....4.0
Common Picture Advanced Technology: Improved Shipboard Combat 
  Information Center................................................6.0
Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology:
  Energy and Environmental Technology...............................4.0
  Integrated Aircraft Health........................................2.0
  Wire Chaffing Detection Technology................................2.0
Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration: Project Albert......7.0
Environmental Quality and Logistics Advanced Technology: National 
  Surface Treatment Center..........................................4.0
Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology: University Oceanographic 
  Laboratory System (UNOLS).........................................5.0
Advanced Technology Transition: Man-portable Quadruple Resonance 
  Landmine Detection Program........................................5.0
Aviation Survivability:
  Modular Helmet....................................................3.0
  Rotorcraft External Airbag Protection System (REAPS)..............4.0
ASW Systems Deployment: LASH ASW....................................5.0
Surface Torpedo Defense: Anti-Torpedo...............................2.0
Carrier Systems Development: Advanced Battlestation/Decision Support 
  System............................................................6.0
Shipboard System Component Development:
  MTTC/IPI..........................................................8.0
  REPTILE--Regional Electric Power Tech Integration and Leveraging..1.0
  Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes-Airbag Technology....................5.0
Advanced Submarine System Development:
  Electronic Motor Brush Technology.................................3.0
  Electromagnetic Actuator Development..............................1.9
  Fiber Optic Multi Line Towed Array (FOMLTA).......................5.0
  High Performance Metal Fiber Brushes..............................7.5
  Rotary Electromagnetic (Torpedo) Launcher System..................2.0
Ship Concept Advanced Design: Advanced, Integrated Low-Profile Antenna 
  (HF, VHF, UHF)....................................................4.0
Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System:
  Innovative Stand-off Door Breeching Munition......................2.5
  Nanoparticles for the Neutralization of Facility Threats..........3.0
Navy Energy Program:
  Proton Exchange Membrane (PET) Fuel Cell Technology...............5.0
  Thermally Activated Chiller/Heater................................2.5
Land Attack Technology: Semi-Automated IMINT Processing (SAIP)......2.0
Nonlethal Weapons Dem/Val:
  Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Technology Innovation....................2.0
  Urban Ops Environment Research....................................2.0
E-2C Radar Modernization: E-2C Technical Upgrade for Optimized Radar8.0
SC-21 Total Ship Engineering:
  Littoral Combat Ship Research and Development....................30.0
  Power Node Control Centers........................................2.0
Surface Combatant Combat System Modernization Program:
  Silicon Carbide MMIC Producibility Program........................3.0
  DDG-51 Optimized Manning Initiative...............................5.0
  Solid-State Spy-1E Multi Mission Radar............................3.0
Shipboard Aviation Systems: IASS/ITI................................4.0
SSN-21 Developments: SEAFAC Range Upgrade..........................15.0
Submarine Tactical Warfare System: CCS MK2--Submarine Combat System 
  Modernization Program............................................14.5
Unguided Conventional Air-launched Weapons: Light Defender..........6.0
Lightweight Torpedo Development: Align Lightweight and Heavyweight 
  Torpedo Baselines.................................................5.0
Navy Energy Program: Photovoltaic Energy Park.......................2.5
Battle Group Passive Horizon Extension System: Cooperative Outboard 
  Logistics Update Digital Upgrade..................................5.0
Ship Self Defense (Engage: Hard Kill): Phalanx SEARAM1..............5.0
Ship Self Defense (Engage: Soft Kill):
  NULKA Decoy Improvements..........................................9.2
  Radar Tiles for Reduced Surface Ship Signature....................1.0
Medical Development:
  Coastal Cancer Center.............................................5.0
  Naval Blood Research Laboratory...................................3.0
  Treatment of Radiation Sickness Research..........................4.0
Distributed Surveillance System: Advanced Deployable System.........5.0
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)--EMD: F136 Interchngable Engine.........35.0
Information Technology Development Condition Based Maintenance Enabling 
  Technologies......................................................0.6
Management, Technical & International Support Combating Terrorism, 
  Wargaming & Research..............................................2.0
Marine Corps Program Wide Support Nanoparticles Responses to Chemical 
  and Biological Threats............................................3.0
Navy Science Assistance Program:
  LASH Airship Test Platform Support................................2.0
  LASH ISR/Mine Countermeasures.....................................8.0
Marine Corps Communications Systems: Improved High performance Long-
  Range Radar Transmitter...........................................3.0
Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms System: Navy Body Armor 
  Upgrades..........................................................1.0
Information Systems Security Program: HG-40A Modernization Program..2.0
Joint C4ISR Battle Center (JBC): Strategic Interoperability Initiave4.0
Modeling and Simulation Support: Naval Modeling and Simulation......3.0


         Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force

Materials:
  Composite materials training program..............................0.5
  Nanostructured Materials..........................................5.0
  Advanced Materials Deposition for Semiconductor Nano..............1.5
  Closed cell foam material.........................................1.0
  Durable coatings for aircraft systems.............................4.0
  Free electron laser materials processing..........................3.0
  Titanium Matrix...................................................4.4
  Metals affordability initiative...................................7.5
  Nanostructured protective coatings................................2.0
  Strategic partnership for nanotechnology..........................6.0

[[Page S7716]]

  Cost-effective composite materials for UAVs.......................2.5
Human Effectiveness Applied Research: Human effectiveness applied 
  research..........................................................9.8
Aerospace Sensors: AFRL information and sensors directorate.........2.5
Space Technology:
  Lightweight and novel Structures..................................1.0
  HAARP incoherent scatter radar....................................3.0
  ICASS.............................................................2.0
  Seismic Nuclear Test Monitoring research..........................5.0
  Substrates for solar cells........................................2.0
  Carbon foam for aircraft and spacecraft...........................0.5
  TechSat 21........................................................5.0
Command, Control, and Communications:
  Information protection and authentication.........................3.0
  Secure Knowledge management.......................................5.0
Advanced Materials for Weapons Systems:
  Low bandwidth medical collaboration...............................2.0
  Powdered programmable process.....................................5.0
Assessing aging of military aircraft                                2.0
  Ceramic matrix composites for engines.............................5.0
Flight Vehicle Technology: E-SMART threat agent network.............5.0
Aerospace Technology DEV/DEMO: Sensor Craft (UAV)...................5.0
Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology: Advanced Aluminum 
  Aerostructures....................................................4.0
Crew Systems and Personnel Protection: TALON........................5.0
Advanced Spacecraft Technology:
  Robust aerospace composite materials/structures...................3.5
  Thin amorphous solar arrays......................................10.0
MAUI space Surveillance System (MSSS):
  MSSS Operations and Research.....................................35.0
  PANSTARS.........................................................15.0
Multi-Disciplinary Advanced Development Space Technology: Aerospace 
  relay mirror system...............................................7.0
Conventional Weapons Technology: LOCAAS.............................7.0
C31 Advanced Deployment: Fusion SIGNIT enhancements to ELINT........4.0
Pollution Prevention (DEM/VAL): 02 Diesel air quality improvement at 
  Nellis, AFB.......................................................1.0
B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber: LO maintenance improvements........10.0
EW Developments: BLAID upgrade to ALR-69...........................14.7
MILSTAR LDR/MDR Satellite Communications: Painting and coating 
  pollution prevention..............................................1.0
Agile Combat Support: Deployable Oxygen System......................2.5
Life Support Systems:
  Crew Seating......................................................2.5
  SEE-RESCUE distress streamer......................................4.0
Distributed Mission Interoperability Toolkit (DMIT).................4.0
Combat Training System: Air Combat training ranges..................3.0
Integrated C2 Application: ASSET/eWing..............................3.0
RDT&E for Aging Aircraft: Landing gear life extension..............10.0
Link-16 Support and Sustainment: 611th AOG enhanced tactical data 
  display link......................................................8.0
Major T&E Investment: Mariah II hypersonic wind tunnel.............10.0
AF TENCAP: GPS jammer defection and location........................3.0
National Air Intelligence Center:
  NAIC space threat assessment......................................1.0
  NAIC threat modeling..............................................2.0
Information Systems Security Program: Lighthouse cyber security prog7.5
Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Global Hawk lithium batteries...2.0
Airborne Reconnaissance Systems:
  SYERS.............................................................4.0
  Ultra-wideband airborne laser communications......................3.0
  Theater airborne reconnaissance (TARS) P31.......................13.6
Manned Reconnaissance Systems: Network-centric collaborative (NCCT).4.0
Industrial Preparedness: Bipolar wafer-cell NiMH battery............2.0
Productivity, Reliability, Availability (PRAMPO): Modeling/Re-
  engineering for Oklahoma City ALC.................................4.0


       Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

Defense Research Sciences:
  Advanced photonics composites.....................................2.0
  University optoelectronics........................................2.0
  Life Science Education and Research...............................5.0
  Molecular electronics.............................................2.0
University Research Initiatives:
  Infotonics........................................................4.0
  MEMS Sensor for rolling element bearings..........................1.5
  Nanoscience and nanomaterials.....................................5.0
  Corrosion protection of aluminum alloys in aircraft...............2.0
  Fastening and joining research....................................1.0
  Secure Group communications.......................................2.0
  University Bioinformatics.........................................2.0
  AHI...............................................................4.0
Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research: DEP10.0
Chemical and Biological Defense Program:
  Bug to drug countermeasures.......................................5.0
  Chemical Warfare protection.......................................1.2
  Detection of chem-bio pollutant agents in water...................5.0
  Nanomulsions of decontamination...................................5.0
  Bioprocessing Facility............................................7.0
Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
  American Indian Tribal Colleges...................................3.5
  Technical assistance program......................................3.0
Embedded Software and Pervasive Computing: Software for autonomous 
  robots (AE-02)....................................................2.0
Biological Warfare Defense: Bioscience Center for Infoscience.......2.1
Chemical and Biological Defense Program: Chem-bio defense initiatives 
  fund.............................................................25.0
Tactical Technology: CEROS..........................................7.0
Materials and Electronics Technology:
  Heat actuated coolers.............................................2.0
  Optoelectronics...................................................5.0
  Fabrication of 3-D structures.....................................4.0
  Strategic Materials...............................................4.0
  Friction stir welding.............................................1.0
WMD Defeat Technology: Deep Digger..................................3.0
Explosive Demilitarization Technology:
  Explosives demilitarization technology project....................3.0
  Hot gas decontamination HWAD......................................3.2
  Innovative demilitarization technologies..........................4.0
  Metal reduction and processing....................................1.5
  Rotary furnace--HWAD..............................................0.6
  Water gel explosive/program delays................................0.6
Combating Terrorism Technology Support:
  Asymmetric warfare initiative.....................................3.0
  Blast mitigation testing..........................................5.0
  Counter-Terrorism ISR system (CT-ISR).............................3.0
  Electrostatic Decontamination System..............................9.0
  NG multi-media security technology................................2.5
Ballistic Missile Defense Technology:
  Massively parallel optical interconnects..........................2.0
  Wide Bandgap Silicon Carbide Semiconductor Research...............5.0
  Gallium Nitride high power microwave switch.......................4.0
  Bottom anti-reflective coatings (BARC)............................5.0
  Improved materials for Optical memories--Phase II SBIR............3.3
  PMRF upgrades....................................................25.0
  ESPRIT............................................................3.5
  Range Data monitor................................................3.5
  Thick Film silicon coatings.......................................3.0
  SHOTS.............................................................5.0
  High data rate communications.....................................5.0
  Advanced RF technical development.................................4.0
  AEOS MWIR adaptive optics.........................................3.0
  Wafer scale (ultra flay) planarization............................5.0
  High resolution color imaging.....................................5.0
Chemical and Biological Defense Program:
  Bio-adhesion research.............................................3.0
  Advanced Chemical detector........................................6.0
  Agroterror prediction and risk assessment.........................5.0
  High intensity pulsed radiation facility for chem-bio defense.....2.0
  Vaccine Stabilization.............................................3.0
Special Technical Support: Graphic Oriented Electronic Technical 
  Manuals...........................................................1.5
Generic Logistics R&D Tech. Demonstrations:
  Fuel Cell Locomotive..............................................1.0
  Computer assisted technology transfer (CATT)......................4.0
  Microelectronics testing technology/obsolescence program.........10.0
  Ultra-low power battlefield sensors..............................25.0
  Chameleon mini wireless system....................................5.0
  Vehicle fuel cell program........................................10.0
  Agile Part Demonstration (CCDOT)..................................5.0
  New England Manufacturing supply chain............................6.0
Advanced Electronic Technologies: Defense Tech Link.................1.5
Advanced lithography--thin film research............................6.0
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations: Guardian portable radiation 
  search tool.......................................................5.0
High Performance Computing Modernization Program
  Missile Defense engineering and assessment center................20.0
  High Performance visualization initiative.........................1.5
  MHPCC.............................................................5.0
  Simulation Center HPC upgrades....................................2.0
Sensor and Guidance Technology: Large Millimeter telescope..........3.0
Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office: Rapid 3-D visualization 
  database..........................................................2.0
Joint Robotics Program:
  Deployable/mission-oriented robots................................5.0
  Tactical unmanned ground vehicle..................................2.0
  Unmanned ground vehicles..........................................2.0
CALS Initiative: CALS...............................................7.0
Ballistic Missile Defense System Segment: Maintain T&E Levels......10.0
Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense: Arrow..................80.0
Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors:
  Airborne infrared surveillance (AIRS)............................10.0
  Ramos solar arrays...............................................10.0
Joint Service Education and Training Systems Development: Academic 
  advanced distributed learning co-lab..............................1.0
Joint Electromagnetic Technology Program:
  HIPAS observatory.................................................3.0

[[Page S7717]]

  Delta Mine Training Center........................................3.0
Joint Robotics Program--EMD:
  Field testing support............................................10.0
  Tactical mobile robot.............................................4.8
General Support to C31: Pacific Disaster Center.....................7.0
Classified Programs: Information Security Scholarships.............10.0
Development Test and Evaluation: Big Crow test support activities...5.0
Partnership for Peace (PFP) Info. Management: Information Systems...1.0
Information Security System Program: Network, Information, and Space 
  Security Center...................................................4.0
Global Command and Control System: Joint Information Technology Cent7.0
Defense Imagery and Mapping Program:
  Feature Level Database Development................................4.2
  Intelligent spatial technologies for Smart Maps...................1.0
  BRITE.............................................................4.0
  PIPES.............................................................9.0
Defense Joint Counter Intelligence Program:
  Joint Counterintelligence Assessment Group (JCAG)................15.0
Industrial Preparedness: Laser additive manufacturing...............6.0
Special Operations Tactical Systems Development:
  Joint threat warning systems......................................1.8
  Precision Target Locator Designator (PTLD)........................4.1
  TACNAV light vehicle-mounted land nav system......................3.0
Special Operations Intelligence Systems Dev: Embedded IBS receivers.1.0
SOF Operational Enhancements:
  Fusion goggle system..............................................5.0
  Nano-technology research..........................................5.0


                 operational test & evaluation, defense

Test 7 Evaluation Technology: Test & Eval. Science & Tech...........4.0
Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development (CTEIP):
  T&E Transfers from DOD--Wide Acquisition Programs................70.0
  Joint Directed Energy Combat Operations and Employment (JDECOE)...1.0
Live Fire Testing:
  Live Fire Test and Training Program...............................4.0
  Reality Fire Fighting/Homeland Security Training..................1.5
Total FY2003 Defense Appropriations Member Add-Ons = $5.2 billion

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to any 
vote tomorrow, at a time set by the majority, I be allowed 5 minutes 
and the managers of the bill be allowed whatever time they request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. The unanimous consent was before final passage?
  Mr. McCAIN. Before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona asked for 5 minutes 
before the vote on his amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I explain my request to the Senator from Nevada? 
Could I be recognized, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to speak for 5 minutes. The Senator from 
Alaska has indicated he will move to table the amendment. I would like 
5 minutes, as the sponsor of the amendment, prior to the vote to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Has the Senator completed his statement?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the 5 minutes 
for Senator McCain, we have 5 minutes for the managers of the bill to 
speak in favor of the motion to table. I ask unanimous consent that be 
the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was part of the request of the Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. REID. Excellent. Perfect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the position of the Senator from Arizona 
is understandable from the point of view of not being really cognizant 
of the aging aspect of our aircraft. We found, for instance, on the 
tankers, the tankers that were flying nightly in and out of Afghanistan 
averaged more than 42 years of age. If you had told this Senator in 
1944 to fly a plane that was made 42 years earlier, 1902, it would have 
been laughable. Today, to have our people flying airplanes that were 
made in Harry Truman's day, is laughable.
  Just this past trip that we took to Europe, we flew on a plane that 
was 28 years old. It was one of these planes for this type of purpose, 
of carrying personnel, not cargo.
  We looked at this problem and we found that should we start an 
acquisition program for these new aircraft, which was requested by the 
people from the Department of Defense who pointed out in many of these 
statistics to us that the capital cost would be so great that it would 
force out of the budget items that are absolutely essential to our war 
against terrorism and to the modernization of our military forces in 
other places.
  We still have an absolutely difficult time replacing our ships--
replacing them at a rate that is far less than is necessary to maintain 
the number of ships in the line that we have. But we are stuck in that 
kind of economics where we can't lease the kind of military vessels we 
need for the Navy. But in this instance we are dealing with the 
world of aviation, and we can lease. We can lease planes, and we can 
also lease engines very competitively. There is a competitive market 
out there for both. There is a competitive market in the private sector 
for the planes we are talking about. We are not entering into a market 
where there is monopolistic practice at all.
  But for us to try to do what the OMB and the Congressional Budget 
Office might have wanted originally would have required a massive new 
procurement program in order to get the planes, and we would be getting 
them one or two a year for 20 years. We are going to lease a fleet of 
these to meet the needs of the Department of Defense and retire these 
planes which are so old that the cost to merely maintain them far 
exceeds their value now. Beyond that, their reliability is so low that 
I have been told in many places the concept of redlining--telling the 
pilots they cannot fly the plane because the plane won't pass even 
minimum standards--is so prevalent now in the Air Force that it is, in 
part, a matter of morale.
  I believe we should do everything we can to shift the acquisition of 
aircraft that we cannot lease into procurement accounts and try to get 
those planes to meet our military needs. Those that we can lease in a 
competitive world, we should do so. When we do so, we lease them at an 
asset that can be returned to the commercial market at the end of the 
lease.
  That is one of the things we have not been able to get real credit 
for yet in terms of the people who are reviewing this matter for the 
Senator from Arizona. We will pursue that further.
  But in this instance Congress and the White House agreed with us in 
the last year--and previously--about the concept of leasing, that there 
are going to be other items that have to be leased.
  When we were looking at some of the consequences of the terrible 
events of 9/11, we found that the NATO AWAX planes were bought to the 
United States and flown over our major cities for a substantial period 
of time. There were 19,000 to 20,000 hours put on those planes during a 
period where otherwise they probably would not be getting anywhere more 
than 100 hours a month. The engines on those planes have been 
effectively worn out.
  We are going to have to go into that process. I would invite the 
Armed Services Committee to do some studying of its own. If it has a 
better way to get us the equipment we need now without breaking the 
budget, I am sure the Senator from Hawaii and I would be pleased to 
join.
  The money for the leasing of these planes comes from the O&M account 
of the Department of Defense. It competes with all other things that 
O&M moneys are paid for. The Department is not going to be reaching out 
and leasing planes that are not needed. On the other hand, it is going 
to have to retire the planes that are so old now that their utility is 
so limited they should not be in the inventory of the U.S. Air Force.
  I hope the Senate will support the position. I am prepared to make a 
motion to table.
  I understand that it will be handled under a previous agreement. I 
shall make the motion to table before the evening is over. But it is my 
understanding that the amendment is pending. We will just leave it that 
way, and I will ask unanimous consent that it be put aside for the 
consideration of other matters that will come before the Senate this 
evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7718]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 4447

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4447.

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

(Purpose: To set aside Defense-wide operation and maintenance funds for 
  review and mitigation of domestic violence involving Department of 
                           Defense personnel)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Funds appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     used by the Military Community and Family Policy Office of 
     the Department of Defense for the operation of 
     multidisciplinary, impartial domestic violence fatality 
     review teams of the Department of Defense that operate on a 
     confidential basis.
       (b) Of the total amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', 
     $10,000,000 may be used for an advocate of victims of 
     domestic violence at each military installation to provide 
     confidential assistance to victims of domestic violence at 
     the installation.
       (c) In each of the years 2003 through 2007, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to Congress an annual report on the 
     implementation of the recommendations included in the reports 
     submitted to the Secretary by the Defense Task Force on 
     Domestic Violence under section 591(e) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 
     106-65; 113 Stat. 639; 10 U.S.C. 1562 note).
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think all of us were deeply concerned 
about the four domestic violence homicides that occurred over the past 
6 weeks at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The tragic murder of these 
young women by their husbands within such a short period of time is 
devastating. It is devastating to the families of the victims. It is 
devastating to their friends. It is devastating to the military where 
soldiers and their families should be safe on base. And they should be 
safe in their homes.
  The Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, which is made up of 12 
military and 12 civilian members, was charged by Congress to 
investigate domestic violence in the military and to make 
recommendations for the Secretary on how to reduce the violence. In the 
introduction in its first report, the task force wrote:

       Domestic violence is an offense against the institutional 
     values of the Military Services of the United States of 
     America. It is an affront to human dignity, degrades the 
     overall readiness of our Armed Forces, and will not be 
     tolerated in the Department of Defense.

  I don't think anyone who has followed the recent events in North 
Carolina would disagree. In fact, the North Carolina incidents, while 
unusual in that they are clustered within such a short period of time, 
are not unique. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service reported 54 
domestic homicides in the Navy and Marines since 1995. The Army 
reported 131 homicides since 1995 and the Air Force reported 32.
  This is a problem that is by no means limited to the military, but 
its dimensions in the military are complex and need to be addressed. I 
know Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz share that view. 
I applaud the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for the attention they 
have given to this issue and for the willingness they have shown to 
address it.
  The amendment which I offer today would help the military reduce 
domestic violence in the ranks. In particular, it would ensure that 
funds are used to establish an impartial, multidisciplinary, 
confidential Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team at the Military 
Community and Family Policy Office. The team would be charged with 
investigating every domestic fatality in the military.
  The purpose of the investigation would be twofold: First, the team 
would determine what intervention and services were provided to the 
victim and to the offender prior to the fatality; second, what 
interventions and services could have been provided to the victim and 
offender that could have prevented the fatality.
  The team would also aggregate data from domestic violence fatalities 
to help determine patterns so as to develop systemic responses to 
domestic violence and prevent some tragedy from ever happening again.
  The need for such a review is clear. The Defense Department Task 
Force found that ``fatality reviews have yet to become an important 
element of DOD's overall response to domestic violence.''
  It would recommend the use of the Fatality Review Team in order to 
``provide a mechanism for ongoing review of domestic violence policies 
and case practices that may inadvertently contribute to the death of a 
victim or offender with the primary objective of contributing to 
systemic improvements in a military community's response to domestic 
violence.''
  While the military is conducting the review in the Fort Bragg case--
and this is an important first step--I believe and the task force 
believes that such reviews must become routine--not just at Fort Bragg 
but all across the country.
  The second part of this amendment would help the Department ensure 
that there are victims advocates at every military installation who 
provide confidential support and guidance exclusively to victims.
  The Defense Task Force expressed concern about the ``stark contrast 
between the availability of victim advocacy services in the military 
and civilian communities.'' It later asserts that ``Victims should have 
access to a well defined program for victim advocacy.'' And this should 
be in every military installation.
  The Defense Department does provide excellent family advocacy 
programs to victims, but the Defense Task Force and other researchers 
have found that the Family Advocacy Program, while serving an important 
function, can in many cases erect barriers to women finding safety for 
themselves and their children.
  Women have to be able to go to somebody where there is complete 
confidentiality. That is extremely important.
  The problem, in many cases, with the current system is that when a 
victim reports abuse, that abuse must be reported to Command regardless 
of the victim's wishes. This lack of confidentiality has a profound 
effect on victims' willingness to come forward and find safety.
  According to the task force, victims expressed ``fears related to 
personal safety, loss of career and the belief that commanding officers 
generally appeared more supportive of the service member than the 
spouse who is the victim.''
  That is important data, I say to Senators.
  Caliber Associates conducted two studies that also concluded that the 
No. 1 barrier to reporting domestic violence for victims is the fear of 
the negative impact on the offender's career.
  Other concerns with the current system are that ``the commanding 
officer's lacking knowledge of the complex dynamics of domestic 
violence led him/her to make decisions that placed the victim in unsafe 
circumstances with respect to the offender'' and that the family 
advocates often work with both the victim and the offender, leading 
victims to believe that their safety concerns actually get lost or 
actually their safety concerns become more serious.
  In sum, the task force reports, ``When the Military Services do not 
have advocates exclusively for domestic violence victims, the current 
system often disempowers victims.'' It is for these victims that a 
victim advocate is necessary.
  This amendment does not replace the Family Advocacy Program, nor is 
it meant to be critical of its very good work. Rather, the amendment 
ensures that victims whose lives are in danger have an alternative 
place to turn to that is confidential and where their needs can be met 
without qualification. The victim advocates would aid women through 
counseling, safety planning, and referral to civilian and military 
shelter, legal counseling, and medical and other relevant services so 
they can provide for their own safety and the safety of their families 
without fear.
  Finally, this amendment would require that the Secretary report to 
the Congress on progress in implementing the regulations of the task 
force. Domestic violence is something that we

[[Page S7719]]

in Congress must constantly work to prevent, reduce, and eventually 
end. Having such reporting will help us work with the military to 
address domestic violence in one part of our society.
  Colleagues, what happened at Fort Bragg should never happen again. 
This amendment represents a small step toward preventing future 
tragedies. I urge my colleagues to support it.

  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the distinguished chair of the committee that 
I have had an opportunity to do a lot of work dealing with domestic 
violence, mainly because of my wife Sheila's work, and she has been my 
teacher. This is by no means an issue or problem just in the military. 
Some people say about every 15 seconds a woman is battered somewhere in 
our country, quite often in the home.
  A home should be a safe place for women and children, but quite often 
it isn't. We passed the Violence Against Women Act, and we reauthorized 
it, and things are starting to change. It is not true, any longer, in 
communities, everybody is saying: Well, that's private business. It's 
not our business.
  We do not turn our gaze away from this any longer. But, 
unfortunately, it is a huge problem, and also for these children who 
witness this violence.
  I believe the Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have shown 
great concern, and I appreciate that. This amendment is just an 
emphasis to put more focus on this and to have the Congress--the House 
and the Senate--working with our Defense Department. I believe it is a 
constructive amendment and a positive amendment.
  I understand, although I wait to hear from the distinguished chair, 
that my colleagues are willing to accept the amendment. If that is the 
case, that is wonderful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. The managers wish to commend the Senator from Minnesota 
for this amendment. And we are prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I join on this. I have to say that I don't use this word 
too often, but I was appalled at that story about the violence. We all 
have tremendous respect for these young people representing our Nation 
abroad who get in harm's way and really are put under severe stress.
  I hope it is not only associated with the concept of the victims of 
abuse, but we ought to find some way to have greater counseling 
available to our people when they come home. Those of us who have come 
home in the past know it is a traumatic experience for anybody, but for 
those who have been deeply involved in combat, it is really difficult.
  We should be very moved by that story. I think this will be the first 
step in meeting that syndrome that has developed and trying to find 
some way to prevent it in the future.
  So I commend the Senator for his amendment, and I, too, support it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank both my colleagues. I cannot add to the words 
of the Senator from Alaska. He said it better than I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4447) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 4448

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have an amendment. I send it to the desk.
  Is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment has been set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 4448.

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

(Purpose: To provide certain requirements and limitations regarding the 
 use of government purchase charge cards and government travel charge 
               cards by Department of Defense personnel)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Limitation on Number of Government Charge 
     Card Accounts during Fiscal Year 2003.--The total number of 
     accounts for government purchase charge cards and government 
     travel charge cards for Department of Defense personnel 
     during fiscal year 2003 may not exceed 1,500,000 accounts.
       (b) Requirement for Creditworthiness for Issuance of 
     Government Charge Card.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
     evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing 
     the individual a government purchase charge card or 
     government travel charge card.
       (2) An individual may not be issued a government purchase 
     charge card or government travel charge card if the 
     individual is found not credit worthy as a result of the 
     evaluation under paragraph (1).
       (c) Disciplinary Action for Misuse of Government Charge 
     Card.--(1) The Secretary shall establish guidelines and 
     procedures for disciplinary actions to be taken against 
     Department personnel for improper, fraudulent, or abusive use 
     of government purchase charge cards and government travel 
     charge cards.
       (2) The guidelines and procedures under this subsection 
     shall include appropriate disciplinary actions for use of 
     charge cards for purposes, and at establishments, that are 
     inconsistent with the official business of the Department or 
     with applicable standards of conduct.
       (3) The disciplinary actions under this subsection may 
     include--
       (A) the review of the security clearance of the individual 
     involved; and
       (B) the modification or revocation of such security 
     clearance in light of the review.
       (4) The guidelines and procedures under this subsection 
     shall apply uniformly among the Armed Forces and among the 
     elements of the Department.
       (d) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2003, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     on the implementation of the requirements and limitations in 
     this section, including the guidelines and procedures 
     established under subsection (c).
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office has recently 
completed another in a long line of studies about financial 
mismanagement at the Department of Defense. A GAO report shows how 
Government-issued charge cards were abused for the personal gain of 
certain civilian employees and members of the Armed Forces.
  This issue is not about irresponsible use of personal credit cards so 
much. This is about using a Government charge card for personal use and 
leaving the American taxpayers on the hook. In some instances of abuse, 
the U.S. Government is left with only the interest on personal 
purchases to pay. In the worst cases of abuse, the Pentagon actually 
uses the funds that are appropriated for national defense to pay off 
the questionable charges on these credit cards.
  To understand the scale of the problem, it is important to understand 
how many charge cards are being used. According to the Department of 
Defense, it maintains 1.7 million charge cards that were responsible in 
fiscal year 2001 for--now hold on to your hat--$9.7 billion in 
spending.
  Neither the GAO nor I take issue with the well-regulated use of 
Government-issued charge cards. In the right hands, a charge card cuts 
through bureaucratic redtape, reduces paperwork, and limits the 
administrative costs of processing purchase orders. But put a 
government charge card into the hands of irresponsible individuals, and 
they can do some real damage.
  Take for example the case of a junior enlisted soldier at Fort Drum 
in New York. He ran up a bill of $10,029 on three travel cards, due 
mostly to charges made at a casino. Despite this serious abuse of the 
charge card, in October 2000, the soldier was allowed to be honorably 
discharged without punishment.
  But that horror story is just the tip of the iceberg. One soldier ran 
up charges of $1,058 in personal charges, including some from the Dream 
Girls Escort Service. Not to be outdone, another junior enlisted 
soldier ran up $2,278 in debt, including $110 from the Spearmint Rhino 
Adult Cabaret. According to the GAO, neither of those soldiers received 
any disciplinary action. These appear not to be isolated

[[Page S7720]]

incidents, either. The GAO says that it found about 200 individuals who 
charged $38,000 in Fiscal Year 2001 alone at questionable 
establishments offering ``adult entertainment.''

  Those soldiers ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have betrayed 
the trust of the public by using government money to fund their 
dalliances. It is a disgrace not only to the uniform that they wear, 
but also to their superior officers who were apparently asleep at their 
posts.
  In addition to using the cards for personal purposes, some 
cardholders play games with paying back the money that they owe. One 
soldier in south Carolina ran up $35,883 in debt, then bounced 86 
checks, totaling $269,301, in a phoney attempt to pay off the card. It 
is small consolation that this soldier is undergoing a court martial 
for his criminal behavior.
  It appears that the astonishing lack of financial oversight in the 
Department of Defense has created a situation where it is easy to 
escape any kind of punishment. The GAO found 105 cardholders who held 
secret or top secret security clearances who had bad debt written off 
of their travel charge cards. Out of this group, 38 still had active 
security clearances even after they had experienced serious financial 
difficulties.
  I remind my colleagues of the serious security risks posed by 
individuals with financial problems. Robert Hanssen, the former FBI 
agent, and Aldrich Ames, the mole at the CIA, betrayed their country 
for money. In 1998, a retired Army officer, David Sheldon Boone, was 
caught and accused of selling secrets to Russia. His excuse? He claimed 
that financial problems led him to spying.
  The amendment that I offer today with Senator Grassley proposes to 
curb some of the most gross excesses of the charge card programs. 
First, the amendment limits the number of charge cards that can be made 
available to service members or civilian employees of the Department of 
defense to 1.5 million, a 10 percent reduction in the number of cards 
that are now out there. This cap will eliminate unnecessary cards and 
reduce the chance that the charge card numbers will be stolen.
  The amendment establishes a requirement that the Secretary of Defense 
evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing a charge 
card. It is astounding that this common-sense step has not been taken 
before. But it has not, and as a result, the GAO found that charge 
cards are getting in to the hands of individuals with a history of 
writing bad checks, making late payments on their personal credit 
cards, and even defaulting on loans. This must stop.
  The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to develop uniform 
disciplinary guidelines, so that members of each of the military 
services are held to the same standard of conduct for their use of 
charge cards. The amendment includes specific language on security 
clearances, so that security officials will be informed of the 
financial wrongdoings of individuals who have access to classified 
information.
  Finally, the amendment keeps the pressure on the Department of 
Defense to continue its financial reforms by reporting to the 
congressional defense committees not later than June 30, 2003, on the 
implementation of reforms to the charge card programs.
  I have no doubt that Secretary Rumsfeld is serious when he says that 
he wants to straighten out the financial and accounting messes at the 
Pentagon. He did not create these problems. They did not occur on his 
watch. But it is now his watch. Someone has to be held accountable for 
these scandals. William Wordsworth once said, ``No matter how high you 
are in your department, you are responsible for the actions of the 
lowliest clerk.''
  Congress has an important role in making sure that the money that we 
appropriate for our defense is well-spent. It is the Legislative 
Branch, after all, that is entrusted with the power of the purse. When 
money is wasted, we have an obligation to step in and take corrective 
action. The amendment that I have proposed with the Senator from Iowa 
Mr. Grassley, takes common-sense steps to crack down on the abuse of 
government charge cards in the Department of Defense. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd-Grassley 
Amendment regarding Department of Defense credit cards. Many of my 
colleagues will be aware of the ongoing oversight investigation that I 
have been involved with for over 2 years now looking into abuses of 
government purchase cards and travel cards issued by the Department of 
Defense. Working with the GAO, Chairman Horn's subcommittee in the 
House, and others, we have been able to uncover a disturbing number of 
instances where DoD issued credit cards have been abused. We're not 
just talking about little abuses either. These cards have been used to 
purchase everything from cars to Caribbean cruises. They have been used 
for mortgage payments and for cash in adult entertainment 
establishments. The horror stories go on and on.
  It is unfortunate that we are just now finding out about many of 
these instances of fraud and abuse, but I am pleased that Secretary 
Rumsfeld appears to be taking this problem seriously. The Office of 
Management and Budget has announced a crackdown on credit card abusers 
and salary offsets and other tools are being used to recover funds from 
unauthorized charges. However, the question remains, ``How were these 
abuses allowed to occur in the first place?'' The answer is ineffective 
internal controls. Receipts are not always matched with statements and 
inventory is not checked to make sure that DoD got what it paid for. We 
also know that the Army doesn't always ask for the credit cards back 
when individuals leave the service. If you leave the cookie jar 
unguarded with the lid off, people are going to reach in and help 
themselves when no one is looking.
  Perhaps most alarming is the lack of credit checks. It seems obvious 
that credit checks should be done on individuals before issuing them a 
government credit card, but this is not currently the case. Not only is 
no one double checking to make sure these credit cards are used 
appropriately, but no one is checking to see if the individuals they 
are issued to are up to the responsibility. A little diligence up front 
could prevent millions of dollars in fraudulent purchases that leave 
the bank or the taxpayer holding the bill.
  It is also true that once credit card abuses have been discovered, 
not enough is done to follow up. I am glad that DoD is finally 
recovering money that has been misspent, but this shouldn't be the end 
of the story. Those who abuse the trust that has been placed with them 
should not get off scott-free. There have been individuals who have 
been court marshaled for fraudulent transactions, while others with 
similar misdeeds have been promoted. In fact, many individuals with a 
record of questionable purchases continue to hold a security clearance. 
Under existing DoD rules, a person's level of financial responsibility 
is a key factor in determining whether that person holds a security 
clearance. Beyond simply requiring repayment, DoD needs to review the 
positions these people hold and consider disciplinary action. Failure 
to do so could even put our national security at risk.
  The Byrd-Grassley Amendment requires the Department of Defense to 
take the initial steps necessary to address many of these problems that 
have been uncovered in our ongoing investigation. I commend Senator 
Byrd for his initiative and leadership in this area and I am pleased to 
associate myself with this amendment.
  First, the Byrd-Grassley Amendment stems the tide of DoD credit 
cards, which are apparently being handed out willy-nilly to just about 
everyone, by limiting the number of government charge card accounts 
that may be issued in fiscal year 2003 to 1,500,000. The amendment also 
requires that DoD must evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual 
before issuing a government charge card and prohibits DoD from issuing 
a card to anyone found not credit worthy. Finally, the Byrd-Grassley 
amendment requires DoD to establish guidelines and procedures for 
disciplinary actions against DoD personnel for improper, fraudulent, or 
abusive use of government charge cards, including reviewing and 
possibly modifying or revoking security clearances. The Secretary of 
Defense would then be required to report to the congressional defense 
committees on the

[[Page S7721]]

implementation of these requirements by June 30, 2003.
  The requirements in the Byrd-Grassley Amendment are all well founded 
based on what I and others have been able to uncover regarding DoD 
credit card abuses. They are all measures that should be put in place 
by DoD without delay as a starting point toward getting this credit 
card debacle under control and preventing future abuses. This amendment 
shouldn't be needed as one would think all of the provisions would be 
implemented by DoD out of simple common sense. However, I assure you 
that it is needed, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me 
in this important initiative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to commend the chairman of the 
committee on this most appropriate and timely amendment. As a manager 
of this measure, I am prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I join the Senator from Hawaii and 
welcome the opportunity to vote to accept this amendment. I think it is 
a very modest step. The Senator from West Virginia has been restrained 
in terms of the abuses that we have heard about. This will start the 
process of putting us on a straight track.
  I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4448.
  The amendment (No. 4448) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4454

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, and ask 
that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Nickles, proposes an 
amendment numbered 4454.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 4454

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Of the funds appropriated in the Act under the heading 
     ``Operations and Maintenance, Air Force'' up to $2,000,000 
     may be made available for the Aircraft Repair Enhancement 
     Program for the KC-135 at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics 
     Center.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4454) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the two managers withholding. 
The majority leader has asked me to announce that there will be no more 
rollcall votes tonight.


               Amendments Nos. 4455 through 4462, En Bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have a series of amendments. None of 
these amendments calls for new appropriations, and all of these 
amendments are either earmarking or technical in nature. I will submit 
them en bloc to be considered and passed en bloc.
  I will explain the amendments. One is an amendment of Senator Miller 
earmarking $1 million for an information data warehouse; an amendment 
for Senator Snowe earmarking $1.5 million for the Navy pilot human 
resources center; an amendment for Senator Graham earmarking $2.17 
million for nanophotonic systems fabrication; an amendment for Senators 
Snowe and Sessions earmarking $5 million for kill vehicles; an 
amendment for Senators Warner and Inouye earmarking $5 million for the 
common affordable radar processing program; an amendment for Senator 
Boxer encouraging the Department of Defense to allocate the budgeted 
amount for the family advocacy program; an amendment for Senators 
Torricelli and Corzine to earmark $2.5 million for the disposal of 
material from Reach A at Earle Naval Weapons Station.
  I send the amendments to the desk.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment of the 
Senator from Hawaii to add to that list. The amendment deals with 
obtaining a plan for refurbishing of the AWACS plane loaned to the 
United States after 9/11.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  The amendments (Nos. 4455 through 4462) were agreed to en bloc, as 
follows:


                           Amendment No. 4455

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Navy for 
  research, development, test, and evaluation, $1,300,000 for Trouble 
                  Reports Information Data Warehouse)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for Trouble Reports 
     Information Data Warehouse.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 4456

  (Purpose: To set aside Navy operation and maintenance funds for the 
         Navy Pilot Human Resources Call Center, Cutler, Maine)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title II 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', for 
     civilian manpower and personnel management, up to $1,500,000 
     may be available for Navy Pilot Human Resources Call Center, 
     Cutler, Maine.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4457

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Defense-Wide 
    research, development, test, and evaluation $2,170,000 for the 
               Nanophotonic Systems Fabrication Facility)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $2,170,000 may be available for the 
     Nanophotonic Systems Fabrication Facility.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4458

  (Purpose: To make available for Defense-Wide research, development, 
   test, and evaluation $5,000,000 for small kill vehicle technology 
development (PE0603175C) for midcourse phase ballistic missile defense)

       On page 223, between line 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for small 
     kill vehicle technology development (PE0603175C) for 
     midcourse phase ballistic missile defense.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4459

(Purpose: To make available $10,000,000 for the Common Affordable Radar 
  Processing program under Title IV, Research, Development, Test and 
                              Evaluation)

       On page 144, line 25, after the word ``Forces'', add the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     under this section, up to $5,000,000 may be made available 
     for the Common Affordable Radar Processing program''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4460

   (Purpose: To provide additional resources to the Family Advocacy 
                 Program at the Department of Defense)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide,'' the Department 
     of Defense should spend the amount requested for the Family 
     Advocacy Program, with priority

[[Page S7722]]

     in any increase of funding provided to bases that are 
     experiencing increases in domestic violence.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4461

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Navy for 
  operation and maintenance $2,500,000 for the disposal of materials 
    dredged from Reach A at Earle Naval Weapons Station, New Jersey)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', up to $2,500,000 
     may be available for the disposal of materials from Reach A 
     at Earle Naval Weapons Station, New Jersey, to an appropriate 
     inland site designated by the Secretary of the Navy.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4462

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       Sec.  . Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, 
     the Commander in Chief of the United States European Command 
     shall submit a plan to the congressional defense committees 
     that provides for the refurbishment and re-engining of the 
     NATO AWACS aircraft fleet: Provided, That this report reflect 
     the significant contribution made by the NATO AWACS fleet in 
     response to the attacks on the United States on September 11, 
     2001, and the invocation of Article V of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty: Provided further, That the plan shall describe any 
     necessary memorandum agreement between the United States and 
     NATO for the refurbishment and re-engining of these aircraft.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4463

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Hollings to require the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over 
the portion of former Charleston Naval Base, SC, comprising a law 
enforcement training facility of the Department of Justice.
  The managers have looked over the amendment. We ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Hollings, proposes an 
amendment numbered 4463.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4463

 (Purpose: To require the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over 
the portion of former Charleston Naval Base, South Carolina, comprising 
   a law enforcement training facility of the Department of Justice)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Notwithstanding any provision of the Defense 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title 
     XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) or any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy may transfer 
     administrative jurisdiction of the portion of the former 
     Charleston Naval Base, South Carolina, comprising a law 
     enforcement training facility of the Department of Justice, 
     together with any improvements thereon, to the head of the 
     department of the Federal Government having jurisdiction of 
     the Border Patrol as of the date of the transfer under this 
     section.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. STEVENS. We accept the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. We accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4463) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4464

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Harkin to earmark $2 million for Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Services Center.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Harkin, proposes an 
amendment numbered 4464.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4464

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Defense 
  Health Program for the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
 Sciences Center (USUHS) $2,000,000 for Complementary and Alternative 
  Medicine Research for Military Operations and Healthcare (MIL-CAM))

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title VI under the 
     heading ``Defense Health Program,'' up to $2,000,000 may be 
     available to the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
     Sciences Center (USUHS) for Complementary and Alternative 
     Medicine Research for Military Operations and Healthcare 
     (MIL-CAM).
  Mr. INOUYE. The managers have looked over the measure and we have no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Iowa.
  The amendment (No. 4464) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 4465

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, and I ask it be 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Allard, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4465.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4465

    (Purpose: To set aside up to $30,000,000 for the acquisition of 
 commercial imagery, imagery products, and service from United States 
     commercial sources of satellite-based remote sensing entities)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the total amounnt appropriated by title II 
     under the heading ``OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-
     WIDE'', up to $30,000,000 may be appropriated for the 
     competitive acquisition of commercial imagery, imagery 
     products, and services from United States commercial sources 
     of satellite-based remote sensing entities.
  Mr. STEVENS. I believe this amendment has been accepted on both 
sides. I ask it be agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 4466

  Mr. INOUYE. I send to the desk for immediate consideration an 
amendment by Senator Tim Hutchinson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) for Mr. Hutchinson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4466.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 4466

    (Purpose: To set aside 9,000,000 for RDT&E. Defense-wide, for a 
   Department of Defense facility for the production of vaccines for 
  protecting members of the Armed Forces against the effect of use of 
                       biological warfare agents)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Of the total amount appropriated by title IV 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to 9,000,000 may be

[[Page S7723]]

     available for the development of an organic vaccine 
     production capability to protect members of the Armed Forced 
     against the effect of use of biological warfare agents.

  Mr. INOUYE. This measure has been studied by the managers. We approve 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4466) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           EPILEPSY RESEARCH

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand that the committee report 
includes a $50 million Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. The 
program funds medical research projects with clear scientific merit 
with direct relevance to military health.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Nevada is correct.
  Mr. REID. Since military head injury is identified as the single most 
significant risk factor for the development of epilepsy, I would be 
interested in including epilepsy research among the projects specified 
in the bill. Would the chairman be willing to see that the conference 
committee includes epilepsy research as a suggested project for the 
Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program?
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to address the Senator from Nevada's 
concerns relating to epilepsy research in the conference committee.
  Mr. REID. I thank Chairman Inouye for his consideration.


                  DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY RESEARCH

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
discuss with my colleague the importance of research into Duchenne 
muscular dystrophy, the most common lethal childhood genetic disease 
worldwide. Progress on slowing the relentless progression of the 
disease has been nearly nonexistent, largely due to insufficient 
mechanisms to fund translational research. This research is closely 
linked to the broader investigation of muscle and nerve damage 
following toxin exposure, excessive exercise, and other motor neuron 
disease, all of which have significant implications and relevance for 
defense programs. For example, spinal cord injury is a major form of 
combat and training-related injury. Motor neurons and motor neuron 
disease is a potential target of bioterrorism. Muscle damage during 
training is a relatively common problem during basic training.
  Recognizing this, the House of Representatives has included in the 
Defense Health Program in the Department of Defense appropriations $4 
million dollars in funding for muscular dystrophy research. While I 
filed and was prepared to offer an amendment to include this funding in 
our Senate bill, I am willing to forgo this amendment if the chairman 
can assure me he supports this funding and will seek to ensure its 
inclusion in the bill's conference report.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with my colleague that this is an important area 
of research and that the House of Representatives has acted wisely in 
this regard. I appreciate his willingness to save us time here today, 
and I assure him I will do all I can to see that the House amount 
remains in the final conference bill.


                  Military Personnel Medical Research

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee for his foresight and leadership with the 
FY2003 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I commend the 
Chairman for including in this bill $50 million in the Military 
Personnel Defense Health Program for a Peer Reviewed Medical Research 
Program. Our military personnel face numerous unknown risks each and 
every day. Providing funding to treat, mitigate or eliminate these 
risks is the least we can do for those who have agreed to dedicate 
their lives to defending our nation and freedom.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the senior Senator from the State of Washington 
for her kind remarks.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The bill specifically directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in conjunction with the Service Surgeons General, to select medical 
research projects of clear scientific merit and direct relevance to 
military health. Included in the list of projects that could be funded 
through this project is an infectious disease tracking system.
  In my home state of Washington, our military community has an urgent 
need for such a system, facilitating the quick response to potential 
life-threatening events. Public health has long been focused on the 
ability to quickly identify epidemic diseases and intervene to protect 
public safety rapidly and as efficiently as possible. Preparing for and 
responding to a biologic crisis requires a clear understanding of such 
dimensions as geography, time frames, population demographics, 
resources, severity, and outcomes. The problem, at this point, is that 
the public health arena lacks the type of information infrastructure in 
place that is needed to guide an immediate response to a bioterrorism 
event. Do you agree, that an information system to track infectious 
diseases is a vital and worthy area of research?
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree this is one area worthy of investigation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I point out that great strides have been made in the 
area of infectious disease tracking by Paladin Data Systems Corporation 
in Seattle, WA. They have the background and experience in healthcare 
information systems and could provide a real-time data repository to 
aid in the detection of outbreaks of epidemic diseases as part of an 
overall effort to avert bioterrorism crises. Again, I thank the 
Chairman for this foresight and leadership.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.


                         war-related illnesses

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 
2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5010). This 
legislation makes a valuable contribution to our Nation's efforts to 
enhance the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
Marines as well as their families, while continuing to transform our 
military forces to ensure that they are capable of meeting the threats 
to America's security now and in the future.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with my good friend from Michigan 
about the merits of this legislation. Once again, Chairman Inouye has 
produced an excellent bill that will ensure that our Nation's military 
remains the most capable fighting force in the world. Unfortunately, 
this Nation has unresolved issues with regard to previous conflicts, 
such as Operation Desert Storm, and I believe we must continue to 
pursue a better scientific understanding of war-related ailments.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Committee bill seeks to improve pay 
and benefits for our military personnel and makes considerable 
improvements in medical care that our men and women in uniform and 
their families receive. In addition, funding has been included to fund 
a ``Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program'' that addresses a wide-
array of important medical programs.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Hawaii about 
the significant efforts made by the Committee bill to address the well-
being of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Of particular 
interest to me is peer reviewed medical research that examines Gulf War 
Illnesses and their relationship to Chronic Multi-Symptom Illnesses. I 
believe that this research, which is conducted by the Center for 
Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research is providing valuable insights into 
undiagnosed post-deployment illnesses.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, my friend from Iowa is correct. For the 
past several years, the Center for Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research 
has conducted research that is unique in its focus on the internal 
mechanisms and most effective treatment of Gulf War Illnesses and other 
undiagnosed post-deployment illnesses. This research has been funded by 
Congress each year and overseen by the U.S. Army Medical Research and 
Material Command and its peer review process. Continued funding for 
this program will enable the continuation of research into a variety of 
illnesses reported by personnel upon returning from the Gulf War.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senator from South Dakota has noted, 
many soldiers returned from the Gulf War with a variety of symptoms 
that have no discernible cause. Although specific environmental 
exposures in the Gulf War cannot be ruled out as a

[[Page S7724]]

cause, many believe that stresses triggering underlying conditions may 
have contributed to these illnesses. I hope that efforts will be made 
to ensure that this bill provides adequate funding to ensure the 
continuation of this important research.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I understand the concerns that my 
colleagues have regarding poorly understood illnesses that have 
affected military personnel in nearly every conflict since the Civil 
War, and most recently in the Gulf War. As Chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I will work to ensure that adequate 
funding is provided for the Center for Chronic Pain and Fatigue 
Research in conference.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we appreciate the Chairman's concern and 
support for this work. We believe it has important implications for 
future generations of military personnel and we look forward to working 
with him and the committee as this bill moves forward to do all we can 
to address this important issue.


                  the uss scranton depot modernization

  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair for recognition. I would like to express 
my appreciation to Mr. Inouye, The Chair of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Defense, and to Mr. Stevens, the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, for the fine work they have accomplished in crafting this 
important FY2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. It has been 
my pleasure, as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 
to work with them on this bill, as well as on the defense portions of 
the recently passed FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Bill, H.R. 4775. They 
certainly do a masterful job of setting priorities and balancing 
competing needs.
  I am also pleased that the Appropriations Committee chose to 
specifically provide $90 million in the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental 
bill to accelerate the depot modernization period of the USS Scranton 
at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard from FY2002 to FY2003, as it will result 
in dramatically improved fleet readiness. In addition, it will free up 
$90 million in FY2003, which had been programmed for the USS Scranton 
to be used for other U.S. Navy critical submarine requirements. This 
could include returning back to FY2003 the important USS Annapolis 
depot modernization period at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which the 
Navy was recently forced to slip from FY2003 to FY2004, because of a 
Navy funding shortfall.
  I would like to direct a question to my friends, the chair and the 
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Is it the 
Subcommittee's understanding that the appropriation of the additional 
$90 million to accomplish the USS Scranton depot modernization period 
in FY2002, now gives the U.S. Navy flexibility to allocate the FY2003 
USS Scranton funds to meet other critical submarine requirements?
  Mr. INOUYE. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is correct. 
It is the understanding of the Defense Subcommittee that the FY2003 $90 
million that the Navy had requested for the USS Scranton, may now be 
available to the Navy to meet other critical submarine depot 
modernization requirements.
  Mr. STEVENS.  I would tell the Senator from New Hampshire that it is 
also my understanding that the Navy now has the flexibility to 
reprioritize those FY2003 funds.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the Majority Leader, Senator Daschle, and the Chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, regarding the B-1 bomber.
  The B-1 remains the backbone of our nation's bomber fleet by 
providing our military with a reliable, long-range bomber capable of 
delivering a large amount of munitions to targets thousands of miles 
away. Nowhere was the continued importance of the B-1 more clear than 
over the skies of Afghanistan during the major battles of Operation 
Enduring Freedom. Since October, B-1s have dropped more than 38 percent 
of the bombs in Operation Enduring Freedom while maintaining over a 78 
percent mission capable rate. I am particularly proud of the 
accomplishments of the B-1 because a portion of the fleet is stationed 
at Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home state. On many occasions, I have 
had the opportunity to meet with the men and women who fly and maintain 
these planes, and each time I am struck by their dedication and 
professionalism.
  In order to maintain the integral role the B-1 plays in our national 
security, the Department of Defense has committed to reinvest the 
savings from the consolidation of the fleet into the modernization of 
the remaining aircraft. Currently, the Air Force is in the midst of a 
multi-year plan to upgrade the B-1 to improve its reliability, 
survivability, and lethality.
  One aspect of this ongoing effort is the Defense System Upgrade--
DSUP--program which will replace the existing defensive system on the 
B-1 with components of the ALQ-214 Integrated Defensive Electronic 
Countermeasures--IDECM--system, the ALR-56M Radar Warning Receiver, and 
the ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoy, FOTD. Completion of this upgrade 
will greatly enhance the survivability of the B-1 and improve its long-
range penetrating bomber capabilities.
  During the course of the DSUP program, problems arose with the 
deployment of the towed decoy system. It should be noted that these 
problems were not unique to the B-1, but did slow progress on the 
upgrade program. However, I was pleased to learn recently that DSUP 
testing of the towed decoy has once again begun. On June 25, a test was 
conducted at Edwards Air Force Base in which two decoys were 
successfully deployed and towed from a B-1. This was followed by a July 
25 test in which a decoy was deployed and towed while the B-1 flew with 
varying wing sweep positions. It is my hope these tests demonstrate the 
DSUP program is back on track.
  At the time the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were 
writing the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense appropriations bills, these DSUP 
problems had not been addressed. As a result, the bills currently 
contain reductions in funding for the B-1 program. The House version of 
the Defense appropriations bill rescinds $67 million in Fiscal Year 
2002 funding, and cuts the President's Fiscal Year 2003 request for the 
B-1 by $82 million. These cuts would terminate the DSUP program 
completely and would cripple the B-1 modernization program. The Senate 
version of the Defense appropriations bill would rescind $32 million in 
Fiscal Year 2002 funds and cut $40 million from the B-1 request for 
Fiscal Year 2003. I would like to thank the Chairman for including 
report language that would allow the Air Force to request reprogramming 
of funds for the B-1 if the DSUP problems are resolved.
  In the time since these bills were written, I believe we have seen 
progress within the DSUP program. It is my hope that we can address 
this funding issue within conference to restore funds for DSUP or 
provide additional funds for other aspects of the B-1 modernization 
programs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share my colleague from South Dakota's 
support for the B-1 and believe maintaining the B-1's capabilities is 
in our national security interests. I am concerned that the cuts 
proposed, particularly in the House version of the bill, are imprudent 
and could do lasting damage to our nation's military capabilities. 
Although I have not yet been able to confer with the Air Force about 
the newest test flights with the towed decoy, the results would seem to 
obviate the need to delay or restructure this program. More tests are 
expected in the weeks to come, and I am hopeful that in conference we 
will find a way to restore DSUP funding. If that seems imprudent when 
this matter is taken up in conference, I urge the committee to transfer 
the proposed DSUP funding into other B-1 modernization programs. For 
example, the B-1 is next scheduled to have its radar replaced with a 
version of the system now used on the F-16. It is important to me that 
we retain the funds within the B-1 upgrade program and reinforce the 
Administration's pledge that all savings from fleet reduction will be 
reinvested in B-1 modernization.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I share Senator Johnson's and Senator 
Daschle's continued interest in maintaining the B-1 as a long-range, 
penetrating bomber. This plane's recent performance in Afghanistan 
testifies to its ability to help the nation deal with the types of 
threats we face in the 21st century. I appreciate their bringing to

[[Page S7725]]

my attention the recent progress in the DSUP testing program. I will 
work with my colleagues from South Dakota to address B-1 funding issues 
when the defense appropriations bill goes to conference.


                      Operating Room of the Future

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman yield 
for the purpose of a colloquy concerning a program of great importance 
to ensuring the continued health and safety of our nation's Armed 
Forces?
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to yield to my friend, the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, at present, the military lacks a process 
in which emerging medical technologies can be adapted and tested in 
real time emergency situations that replicate high velocity and 
surgical care settings. With the assistance of the Senator from Hawaii, 
Congress last year appropriated $2.5 million to begin development of a 
national test bed to implement the U.S. Army Medical Research and 
Materiel Command's ``Operating Room of the Future'' strategy to remedy 
this situation. This test bed, to be based at the University of 
Maryland Medical Center, aims to improve the performance of these 
emerging technologies and expedite their transfer to medical care in 
the battlefield. This will be done via testing new approaches to video-
assisted coordination, synchronized communications, mobile computing 
options, telesurgery techniques and distance learning. While 
spearheaded by UMMC, this program is linked via a number of 
collaborations with both industry and the military.
  In its fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations bill, the House has 
included $3 million of the $9 million necessary to continue work on the 
Operating Room of the Future initiative. The Senate bill directs the 
Secretary of Defense to consider the Operating Room of the Future for 
funding under the Defense Health Program's $50 million Peer Reviewed 
Medical Research Program. I am pleased that both bills contain language 
supportive of the Operating Room of the Future, and I respectfully 
request that the Chair work with his colleagues on the conference 
committee to ensure that the continued funding needs of this critical 
program are being met.
  Mr. INOUYE. I certainly recognize the importance of this program and 
have been pleased to work closely with the Senator from Maryland on it 
in the past. Indeed, the Senator will recall that we recently visited 
the University of Maryland Medical Center to receive a briefing from 
both Army and hospital officials about the progress and importance of 
this project. You may be certain that I will continue to work on behalf 
of the Operating Room of the Future as we proceed to conference.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for his continued efforts on 
behalf of our men and women in uniform, and I look forward to 
continuing to work closely with him on this vital project.


                     chemical agent warning network

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I commend the committee's work to support 
very necessary research in the area of chemical and biological 
detection, response and defense. I also applaud the committee's 
recognition that there are many existing good ideas as well as on-going 
initiatives worthy of consideration by the Department as it develops 
effective technologies for our Nation's chem.-bio defense. As you may 
know, one of these excellent efforts is a program that was initiated by 
the U.S. Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force, 
CBIRF, and authorized by the Senate in S. 2514. This program focuses on 
the development of emergency response technologies by first responders, 
the demonstration of a chemical agent warning network and the 
coordination of response among military and civilian assets. Will the 
Committee work to include in the list of programs to be considered 
under the Chem-bio Defense Initiatives Fund, this initiative to 
demonstrate a chemical agent warning network and other emergency 
response technologies for use by first response units?
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct. The committee will work to 
include this among the program initiatives to be considered within the 
Chem-bio Defense Initiatives Fund, the Marine Corps' CBIRF program to 
develop a chemical agent warning network and develop emergency response 
technologies for first responder units.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the chairman for his hard work and consideration 
of this initiative.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend from 
Hawaii, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, 
Senator Inouye in a colloquy on funding for the Advanced Seal Delivery 
System (ASDS). I am concerned over the decision to cut advanced 
procurement funds for this critical special operations program. This 
will delay this critical program. As you know this manned mini-
submarine is used for the clandestine delivery of Special Operations 
Forces. It is a vast improvement over the current SEAL delivery system.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her interest in 
ASDS. As you are aware the first ASDS boat has encountered two 
technological challenges that must be overcome: screw noise and 
batteries. These issues require additional research and development. 
Since the budget was submitted, the Special Operations Command decided 
to restructure this program and has delayed procurement of the second 
ASDS boat until these issues have been solved. The Committee therefore 
reduced advanced procurement funding.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the problems facing the ASDS. The 
Carderock Naval Research Laboratory and scientists at Penn State 
University are working on the solution for screw noise. We believe a 
solution is well underway for this problem. A solution for the battery 
problem has been more elusive. The Navy has decided to develop Lithium-
Ion batteries for this purpose, but funded only one Lithium-Ion battery 
developer and a solution has been slow at best. Is the Chairman aware 
that the ASDS prime contractor funded a competing effort to develop 
Lithium-Ion batteries? A leading U.S. manufacturer of Lithium-Ion 
battery technology is close to meeting the ASDS battery need. The Navy 
program manager is excited by this alternative. As you know, I 
requested that funds be added to the FY 03 Defense Appropriation bill 
in order to allow the Navy to fund an alternative solution to help 
resolve the battery issue.
  Mr. INOUYE. I share your concern over development of a Lithium-Ion 
battery for ASDS. The Committee provided an additional $8 million for 
Procurement, Defense Wide at the request of the Senators from Maryland. 
We expect the Navy to use these funds to ensure competition to develop 
these Lithium-Ion batteries can take place and subsequently result in a 
more rapid solution to ASDS battery needs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Committee's increase in procurement 
for ASDS batteries. As you are aware the House provided $12 million for 
procurement of a Lithium-Ion Polymer battery and shifted $22.5 million 
from advanced procurement to research and development. I hope we will 
be able to fulfill the Navy's request to move $23.2 million from 
advanced procurement to research and development in Conference. 
Nonetheless, I am concerned that restricting the battery procurement to 
a Lithium-Ion Polymer battery will result in less competition.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her steadfast 
support of this program and appreciate her concern. I will explore the 
possibility of increasing research and development funding for ASDS and 
language that facilitates competition for the Lithium-Ion battery in 
conference, so that we can get this new technology deployed sooner.
  Mr. BYRD. I rise to engage the mangers of the FY 2003 Defense 
Appropriations bill, Senators Inouye and Stevens, in a colloquy on Navy 
Basic Research funding.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be glad to discuss this matter with the Chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. STEVENS. I, too, would be glad to join with my colleagues to 
review this matter.
  Mr. BYRD. Earlier this year, I received information from our 
Appropriations Committee staff which caused me some concern about the 
Defense Department's budget request for Navy basic research in fiscal 
year 2003. The information indicated that over the past five years, 
funding levels for basic research have stayed at roughly the same level 
or have grown slightly, in real/constant dollar terms--that is,

[[Page S7726]]

excluding increases for inflation. Growth in funding for applied 
research, however, has been significant, averaging about 10% per year. 
Indeed, the perception and reality of a greater emphasis on applied 
research is common in both private and public labs. Just as we've found 
to be the case in the private sector, the federally funded labs have 
been forced to be better `marketers' of their products. This has led to 
a greater emphasis on applied research because, by its very nature, the 
work being done in applied research is more product-oriented. For 
fiscal year 2003, the Defense Department proposes to cut funding for 
the Navy's basic research program--a cut of 1% in real terms.
  This shift in emphasis to applied research is understandable. But, if 
this shift comes at the expense of funding basic research programs, our 
science and technology programs will suffer in the long run. Basic 
research is the fuel for the engine of invention. Without a growing 
understanding of the fundamentals of our physical environment--energy 
sources, molecular structures, materials, and biological systems, to 
name just a few--our scientific prowess will weaken and our 
technological edge will become dull.
  Given these concerns, I believe it is prudent that Congress sustain 
funding for this important program at traditional levels. That is why I 
am pleased to report that this bill includes, at my behest, a $6 
million increase for the Navy Research lab. I want to thank the 
managers of the bill--the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator 
Inouye, and the Ranking Member, Senator Stevens--for agreeing with my 
recommendation and for their continuing efforts to enhance our 
military's technology edge.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for bringing this 
matter to the Senate's attention and for his continuing support of 
America's armed forces.
  Mr. INOUYE. I also thank the Senator for his efforts regarding Navy 
basic research and the Navy Research Lab. This is an important 
initiative, and one that I am pleased that Senator Stevens and I could 
include in the bill that we have brought before the Senate.


                       aerospace worker training

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the chairman for 
the tremendous job that he and the members of his subcommittee have 
done to craft this bill. I support their efforts to ensure that our 
Nation continues to have the best-trained and equipped military force 
in the world.
  As the chairman knows, my State has a long history of achievement in 
the field of aviation and harbors an enormous pool of talented 
individuals capable of turning innovative technological discoveries 
into manufactured reality rapidly and efficiently. We also have one of 
the most highly skilled pools of aerospace workers in the world.
  I believe that the security of our Nation and the future of the 
aviation industry will rely heavily on the development and 
implementation of highly advanced composite materials. But for the 
large-scale deployment of existing and future technologies to develop, 
it is critical that our Nation have the skilled workforce capable of 
understanding these next generation materials.
  That is why I appreciate the subcommittee's support of a new 
initiative to train aerospace workers in the use and manufacturing of 
composite materials.
  Edmonds Community College and Central Washington University in 
Washington State are developing a program aimed at improving the 
scientific and technical competencies of high school and college 
graduates in the area of materials used in manufacturing technologies. 
This program will develop a comprehensive curriculum to meet the 
growing demand for a workforce trained in materials science and will 
identify best practices for the industry.
  We believe that this will become a model teaching and training 
program for the ever-changing materials technology field, and will 
involve future integration with advanced, cutting-edge basic research 
in composites materials and engineering conducted at the University of 
Washington. Taken together, this collaboration in Puget Sound 
educational resources in the material sciences will maintain and 
strengthen our country's foremost position in aerospace research, 
development and manufacturing.
  This will provide a wealth of opportunities for incumbent aerospace 
workers to update their skills in newly developed processes, and may 
serve to pique the interest of students in material sciences and 
energize future generations to engage in math, science, manufacturing 
and engineering careers.
  So I want to thank the chairman and the subcommittee for their 
recommendation that the Senate provide $500,000 in this bill to 
implement the first phase of this program and confirm that it is the 
committee's intention that the funds provided in the Air Force 
Materials Science account be used for this program at Edmonds Community 
College. I further want to ask the chairman if he will work with me to 
ensure that the funding provided for this program is maintained in 
conference and expanded in future years to further this effort.
  I thank the presiding officer and the chairman, and look forward to 
his response.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator is exactly right, it is the 
intent of the legislation to provide $500,000 for the program in 
Washington.
  I assure the Senator that I will work with my colleagues to support 
these funds.
  Preparing for the use of innovate materials in future aircraft 
designs is critical to enhancing air superiority. I will work with the 
Senator to address these needs in this year's legislation and will 
carefully consider ways to enhance those efforts in years to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the 
Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5010, the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, at 2 p.m., Thursday, August 1; there be 50 minutes 
remaining for debate divided as follows: 10 minutes each for the two 
leaders or their designees and the two managers or their designees, and 
that the only first-degree amendments remaining in order be the McCain 
amendment, No. 4445 and the Committee-reported substitute; that there 
be 10 minutes of debate with respect to the McCain amendment with the 
time equally divided and controlled between the managers and Senator 
McCain; that at the use or yielding back of that time, without further 
intervening action, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment; that 
if the McCain amendment is not tabled, then relevant second-degree 
amendments would be in order to the McCain amendment with no time 
limitation on the relevant second-degree amendments; that upon 
disposition of the McCain amendment the committee-reported substitute 
as amended be agreed to, the bill then be read a third time, and the 
Senate vote on passage of the bill; that Section 303 of the 
Congressional Budget Act be waived; that upon passage the Senate insist 
on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes off the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized 
to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, without further 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4445

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate 
the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the McCain amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before the two managers leave, I don't 
know how enough could be said about the way this bill was managed. This 
is the largest Defense bill in the history of the world and the United 
States. Yet we started this just a few hours ago, and it is finished 
and no one can complain about this not having been scrubbed. Staff from 
all the offices have had the opportunity to come and do what they 
believe is appropriate.

[[Page S7727]]

  But the good work on the bill was not only done here on the floor but 
in subcommittee and the full committee--which has just been topped off 
by the remarkable good work of these two sensational Senators.
  I speak for both sides of the aisle that if a chapter had to be 
written on how to manage a bill, it should go to Senators Inouye and 
Stevens because that is how a bill should be managed. I have never seen 
anything like it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank my leader. But I believe that 
much credit should go to the staff. We have one of the finest staff 
members in the whole Senate. I refer to Charlie Houy on the majority 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President. I repeat that. We are blessed with 
probably the hardest working staff in the Congress. I am grateful to my 
great friend and chief assistant, Steve Cortese, for his work.
  But I would say this to the Senator from Nevada. For those of us who 
served in uniform, I think the greatest privilege there is is being 
able to manage this bill because it affects the people who have 
followed us, being willing to take up arms to defend our country. I 
know of no better group to work with and no group that really needs our 
help more than they do.
  I thank the Senator for his kindness.
  We would pay you for the job. It is like flying. I used to tell 
people they are paying me to fly and I would have paid them to let me 
fly. But I would pay for this job.
  It is an amazing, amazing feeling to know we can accomplish some of 
the things we did tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are all very proud of the men and 
women of the military as they have responded to the attacks of 
September 11 and as they continue to protect us here at home and around 
the world.
  As we work on the Defense appropriations bill, we have an obligation 
to the men and women who are defending us to make sure they have the 
resources and the equipment they need.
  Tonight, I rise in strong opposition to the McCain amendment on which 
this body will be voting tomorrow morning. The Senator from Arizona 
persists in his efforts to redefine an issue that this entire Congress 
has already endorsed and that the President has signed into law.
  The McCain amendment addresses both the 767 and the 737 lease 
provisions that were endorsed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin less 
than 1 year ago.
  Frankly, I am puzzled that this issue continues to come up. The 
Appropriations Committee engaged in this issue following consideration 
of the Defense authorization bill last year. The issue came to light in 
part because of the terrorist attack on our country, the global war on 
terrorism, and the tremendous demand placed upon our air refueling 
fleet.
  This issue was not a sleight of hand to undermine the authorizing 
committee. We acted out of necessity as our country responded to 
September 11 and to terrorism. We had a lengthy debate, thanks to the 
Senator from Arizona, and the Congress agreed to go forward using the 
lease option as the vehicle to give our men and women in uniform the 
asset they need.
  Not long ago, the Senate considered the Defense authorization 
legislation. The Senator from Arizona sits on that committee. That was 
the bill to have this debate. The Senator complains that the 
appropriations bill is the wrong place to authorize. Yet here we are 
considering an authorizing amendment offered by the Senator from 
Arizona on an appropriations bill.
  I read his amendment, and I want my colleagues to understand what is 
really at stake.
  The Senator from Arizona wants us to open the doors to the Air Force 
and the Department of Defense to Airbus. It is quite simple to me. One 
U.S. company manufactures commercial aircraft of this type. One, and 
only one, U.S. company can meet the Air Force's needs.
  The issue before the Senate is whether U.S. workers or European 
workers will manufacture U.S. military aircraft. That is the bottom 
line. That is what the vote will be about tomorrow.
  Let me also say that the Senator from Arizona has a broader agenda 
than the language in this amendment. Listen to his rhetoric. He 
interchanges the 737 and the 767 lease programs approved by the 
Congress. The language in his amendment is about the 737 lease, but he 
references, time and again, the larger issue of the 767 tanker lease.
  So let's talk about the 767 tanker lease. Since September 11, one 
piece of equipment has become more critical than ever, air refueling 
tankers. These flying gas stations allow us to project our military 
around the globe. In fact, tankers are the backbone of our air 
capability.
  Just look at the war in Afghanistan. Our B-2 stealth bombers had to 
get from their base in Missouri to Afghanistan and back. They needed to 
be refueled in the air nine times. Our bombers, which left the airbase 
on Diego Garcia, had to be refueled three times to reach their targets 
3,000 miles away. So we needed the tankers to get our aircraft over 
there.
  We also relied on our tankers to keep our planes going during the 
fighting. During the heaviest bombing of the Afghanistan battles, 30 to 
35 tankers were in the air nearly around the clock to refuel 100 
tactical jets. Even carrier-based warplanes needed the aid of air 
tankers to strike their targets in Afghanistan.
  Here at home, many of our cities were protected by combat air 
patrols. Those patrols relied on air refueling tankers.
  As Air Force Lt. Gen. Plummer put it:

       In the opening campaign of this war, every bomb, bullet and 
     bayonet brought into the theater got there thanks to our 
     aging refueling tanker fleet. . . .

  Our reliance on tankers has grown 45 percent from fiscal year 2001. 
So whether it is projecting our force around the world or supporting 
our aircraft in the middle of a fight or keeping our homeland safe, the 
men and women of our military rely on our KC-135 tankers.
  But there are serious problems with these tankers. They are old. In 
fact, they are among the oldest aircraft in the entire service. Because 
they are so old, they are not reliable, they are often down for 
repairs, and they cost a fortune to maintain.
  Just look at the figures. The average age of these tankers is 41 
years. One-third of the fleet is unfit to fly at any given time due to 
mechanical failure. Each plane requires a full year of maintenance for 
every 4 years spent on duty. A 41-year-old aircraft runs on parts that 
are not commercially available. Corrosion is also a significant 
problem. In fact, KC-135s spend about 400 days in major depot 
maintenance every 5 years.
  So what we have are old planes that cost a fortune to keep flying and 
that are often down for repairs. That is not what you want in an 
aircraft that is used to protect your military around the world in the 
middle of a war.
  Some have suggested that we just keep repairing the existing planes, 
and we could do that. But it does not make sense financially. It takes 
those planes out of service for a very long time. It would forfeit new 
planes that are more flexible, more reliable, and more efficient.

  Let me share with the Senate something Secretary Rumsfeld said 
earlier this year:

       We needed to begin moving out some of the older pieces of 
     equipment that are--aircraft and various things that require 
     so much upkeep and maintenance and so much on spare parts, 
     that it is unwise to continue to try to maintain them.

  Secretary Rumsfeld also said:

       So you end up trying to take a 1934 Oldsmobile and prop it 
     up for another five, six years, and there's a point beyond 
     which that doesn't make good sense.

  We have reached that point.
  I show you a picture of an old Oldsmobile. I think it is actually a 
1939 Olds, but it proves the same point.
  We could keep repairing them, but it does not make sense to keep 
pumping money into a 41-year-old airframe. It is expensive. If you want 
to keep one of these old planes going, you probably are going to have 
to remove the plane's metal skin because these planes, as I said 
before, have a lot of corrosion.
  I share with my colleagues a photograph showing some of the problems 
with the metal on these aging tankers.

[[Page S7728]]

  To ``re-skin'' this airplane costs $26 million. Does it make sense to 
do that to 100 planes? Mr. President, $26 million is an awful lot of 
money to fix one problem with one 41-year-old plane.
  After you have replaced the skin of the aircraft, it is probably 
going to need new engines. That is not cheap. To put a new engine in 
100, 125 tankers is going to cost $3 billion. That is a lot of money 
for a 41-year-old airplane.
  There are other parts that need to be replaced. It would be one thing 
if you could fix them all today, but it takes a long time to overhaul 
these tankers. Right now, we are overhauling four a year. At a certain 
point, it is just not worth dumping money into these old planes.
  K-135s were first delivered to the Air Force in 1957. On average, 
they are 41-year-olds, and we are paying for it. They have been around 
longer than most of the people who are flying them. There is no 
question they must be replaced with new tankers; the only question is 
when.
  I would love for us to be able to buy these new tankers today, but 
there is not enough money in the Air Force's procurement budget. So 
many of us in Congress have worked very hard to work out a more 
flexible approach, an approach that is used with commercial aircraft 
all the time.
  In December, Congress approved, and the President signed, legislation 
to authorize the Air Force to negotiate with Boeing on a 10-year lease 
of 100 new 767 aircraft to use as air tankers. Congress has authorized 
the lease program for both the 767 and the 737 aircraft. My colleagues 
will recall that the bill to authorize these lease programs for the Air 
Force was approved by this Senate 96 to 4.
  I also want to remind my colleagues what the Secretary of the Air 
Force, James Roche, wrote to me in a letter. I will quote:

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

  That is from Air Force Secretary James Roche.
  My home State of Washington is home to the 92nd Air Refueling Wing. 
There are approximately 60 air refueling tankers that are based outside 
of Spokane, WA. I have been to Fairchild. I have visited personally 
with the families. I know the difficult missions these crews handle for 
each one of us every single day. And I know the men and women of the 
92nd Air Refueling Wing need these aircraft.
  The Senator from Arizona talks about leasing aircraft as if the lives 
of our men and women in uniform were not at stake. I remind my 
colleagues that we are talking about equipping young American pilots 
and the missions they support to go forward with the greatest 
opportunity to succeed.
  Mr. President, I encourage the Senate, tomorrow, to table the McCain 
amendment.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the events of the past 11 months 
have forced every American to become more vigilant against the threats 
to our nation's security. I want to commend the chairman, Senator 
Inouye, and the ranking member, Senator Stevens, for bringing to the 
floor a bill that responds to such threats by better protecting our 
Nation's citizens as well as our servicemen and women.
  Even before the attacks of September 11th of last year, however, our 
Nation's military began to see that traditional notions of warfare and 
defense would have to evolve to meet new and ever more dangerous 
threats. The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, for example, made clear 
to us that our naval forces must be equipped with the most advanced 
surveillance and response vessels available.
  It is for this reason that I have an amendment in support of the 
Navy's development and demonstration of the SeaLion craft. This vessel, 
designed for coastal area operations here in the United States and 
abroad, has already begun to prove itself capable of meeting the 
challenges faced by our Navy today, and well into the future.
  Military operations in coastal areas involve significantly different 
challenges from deep water operations, such as reduced operational 
space and environmental clutter. Accordingly, surveillance, weapon 
systems and naval tactics designed for deep water operations are 
inadequate for the complex environmental and dimensional aspects of the 
coastal battle space. In such areas, small boats can effectively 
protect coastal installations, combat blue water navies, and hinder 
freedom of navigation for these navies and their supply ships.
  The rapidly evolving nature of maritime warfare, the threat of 
terrorist activities against our naval forces abroad, and the need to 
protect our own ports here at home: each of these challenges require 
that the United States make a concerted effort to maintain a solid lead 
in the development of advanced technologies for coastal operations.
  The SeaLion craft is perfectly positioned to support this role. It is 
a high speed, low-radar-signature vessel whose unique versatility lends 
itself to a broad spectrum of mission applications, from surveillance 
to interdiction to engagement. The SeaLion has already received strong 
endorsement from the Naval Sea Systems Command for its utility in 
special operations, and is poised for further evaluation as part of the 
Navy's Littoral Combat Ship platform.
  This amendment would allow $8 million of funds appropriated by the 
bill to be used for the continued development, demonstration and 
evaluation of the SeaLion vessel. I ask for my colleagues' support.

                          ____________________