[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 108 (Thursday, August 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7793-S7807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:20 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 
5010, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5010) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:
       McCain amendment No. 4445, to require authorization of 
     appropriations, as well as appropriations, for leasing of 
     transport/VIP aircraft.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.


                      Amendment No. 4445 Withdrawn

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment and, along with that unanimous consent agreement, that I be 
allowed 8 minutes and the Senator from Texas be allowed 5 minutes to 
speak on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't quite understand the request.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am requesting unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment but be allowed to speak for up to 8 minutes on the amendment 
and the Senator from Texas be allowed 5 minutes to speak on the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment (No. 4445) was withdrawn.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could the Senator from Texas be allowed to 
be recognized first on this, and I then be recognized for my 8 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our dear colleague from Arizona. I 
thank him for his vigilance on this issue.
  We have two issues before us, but they really boil down to the same 
principle, and I want to talk more about the principle than I do the 
interest.
  The first issue has to do with the leasing of four 737s. I would have 
to say, this is a transaction I have not looked at very closely. This 
is something new to this bill. What I want to focus my attention on is 
the leasing of 100 Boeing 767s, which was contained in last year's 
appropriations bill, which was not competitively bid.
  In looking at the economics of leasing these planes, to the best of 
my ability--to get data, and to understand it--it looks to me that if 
we need these planes as tanker replacements, we ought to buy the 
planes.
  My concern is, we are going into leasing because we do not have the 
front-end costs in the appropriations process with leasing that we do 
with purchasing. If in fact my concern is legitimate, what it means is, 
we are having procurement dictated by how we score leasing versus 
procurement. I think if that in fact is the case, we are making a very 
big mistake.
  I think something needs to be done about looking at these leasing 
contracts into which we are entering. They represent tens of billions 
of dollars of commitments of resources into the future. It seems to me 
that OMB and CBO need to work together to come up with a methodology to 
look at leasing versus buying. And this is something that ought to be 
looked at by the Defense authorization bill since the leasing of the 
737s and the leasing of the 100 767s--neither of them was authorized by 
the Defense authorization bill.
  I think it is imperative, before we go through this process again, 
that we have OMB and CBO develop for us a methodology of looking at 
leasing versus purchases, that we have hearings in the authorizing 
committee, and that we have authorizing legislation in this area.
  I was very concerned, last year, with 100 Boeing 767s because the 
clear intent at that time, no matter what the economics were, was to 
basically help Boeing, given that they did not get the major defense 
contract of our era.
  I do not think, given that we have a $168 billion deficit, we ought 
to be in the business of simply gratuitously giving billions of dollars 
to companies that do not win contracts. The whole purpose for competing 
contracts is to choose the contractor that will do it best at the 
lowest possible price. The idea that losers have to be compensated is 
about as far away from the market principle as it can be.
  So I would certainly urge that something be done to develop a 
methodology so that the Senate can make rational decisions about 
leasing versus buying.
  I thank Senator McCain for his leadership in this area. This is 
something we ought to be concerned about. We are talking about tens of 
billions of dollars. We are making commitments on economics that people 
have not looked at or understood. I think this is something we need to 
understand. And I hope to pursue, with Senator McCain, a study by CBO 
and OMB to set the stage for the setting of a policy in the future.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S7794]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas, who 
understands the issues of economics and leasing and the machinations of 
various budget activities far better than I. I appreciate his support.
  I remind my colleagues that the amendment I have withdrawn would have 
just simply required the authorization of appropriations of $30.6 
million--I repeat, $30.6 million--for the four Boeing 737 
congressional/executive VIP aircraft. That is all it did.
  The language in the amendment is identical to language requiring 
authorization of appropriations for 100 Boeing 767 tanker aircraft that 
is included in the fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization bill. Whether 
that lasts through conference will be very questionable, given the 
enormous impact of the lobbying by Boeing Aircraft.
  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 VIP airlift to be used by congressional and executive 
branch officials.
  My colleagues will recall that 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 
fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense appropriations bill for $30.6 
million to cover initial leasing costs for the four Boeing 737 
congressional/executive VIP transport aircraft.
  I am concerned that the impact of this 737 leasing provision 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.
  In addition, recent CBO and GAO analysis of the Air Force's 737 
leasing proposal suggests that the lease could cost the Government, and 
ultimately the U.S. taxpayers, from $13.5 million to $20 million more 
than to purchase these aircraft. These CBO and GAO reports, it seems to 
me, lend credence to the view that additional scrutiny of the leasing 
proposal would be beneficial--and such scrutiny generally occurs during 
the congressional authorization process.
  I repeat, my amendment only said that this insertion in the 
appropriations bill would have required authorization. It would not 
have stopped it.
  This is the same kind of egregious behavior we often rail against 
here on the Senate floor when it comes to corporate scandals.
  What is at risk in this series of unfolding circumstances is the 
trust Americans have in our Congress and in Government.
  I am aware that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has just 
a short time ago received a letter from OMB Director Mitch Daniels 
stating the administration's support for the lease of these four 
aircraft.
  I know also that our committee has received a reprogramming request 
for the funds necessary to begin this lease. This reprogramming 
request, evidently, has addressed any concerns, my friends, the 
chairman and ranking member, might have had about the Appropriations 
Committee. Accordingly, Senators Levine and Warner would have opposed 
my amendment insisting that our committee need not authorize these 
leases. I understood the reality and withdrew the amendment.
  However, I want to make a couple of observations. I guess I don't 
know for certain why OMB has decided to support this lease--which will 
cost American taxpayers just about as much to rent four aircraft as it 
would to own them. I assume it is because the real need for these 
aircraft is negligible compared to our many other defense priorities, 
and to find the money to support a luxury in a time of enormous budget 
deficits it becomes necessary to engage in budgetary shell games and 
appropriations parlor tricks. But the American people should know and 
their elected officials should understand that the accounting tricks 
that we decry in the corporate world and that have so distressed our 
financial markets should not be any more acceptable in government 
spending decisions.
  Lastly, I say to my friends, the chairman and ranking member of my 
committee, for whom I have great affection and respect--and I mean 
that: I remember a time when the members of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee considered their authorizing responsibilities to be 
considerably more onerous than simply receiving and acquiescing in the 
occasional reprogramming request for an unneeded, unaffordable, luxury 
acquired by resorting to spending gimmickry rather than insisting that 
the scarce resources available for our armed services--in an age of 
serious and multiple threats to our freedom--ought to be spent on our 
security and our security alone and not on the convenience of 
travelling members of Congress and the executive branch.
  I yield the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


            UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are making good progress in our effort 
to bring the debate on this bill to a close. I compliment the 
distinguished Senators, the managers of the bill, the chairman, and the 
ranking member. At a point when we are able to conclude the debate, I 
know Senator Levin would like to be recognized for a few minutes before 
that happens, we will go to final passage. There will then be an 
opportunity to vote on issues relating to the Executive Calendar--at 
this point I am not sure how many votes relating to the judicial 
nominations on the calendar, but it is my intention to go to many of 
the judges who are currently listed on the Executive Calendar.
  I would like to propound a unanimous consent request. It has been 
cleared by the distinguished Republican leader in regard to that 
matter.
  I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of 
the Defense appropriations bill, the Senate proceed to executive 
session to consider Executive Calendar No. 862, Henry Autrey, to be 
U.S. District Judge; that there be 4 minutes for debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of Judiciary Committee; that 
upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote immediately 
on confirmation of the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be 
laid on the table; the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action; any statements thereon be printed in the Record; and 
the Senate then return to legislative session, with the preceding all 
occurring without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to repeat, there will be a vote on final 
passage, at least one, perhaps more votes on the judicial nominations 
that we have been able to clear. Then I would also note that we have 
one other vote at least after all of that, which is the vote on the 
final passage of the trade promotion authority conference report. There 
are Senators who had asked to be recognized for remarks prior to the 
time we have that vote. We will be consulting with them relating to the 
amount of time they will require.
  I urge Senators to be aware that after this block of votes, there 
will be at least one, maybe other important votes this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if one of the managers will yield 
4 minutes to me.
  Mr. INOUYE. I yield 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last year's Defense Appropriations Act 
contained a provision which authorized the Secretary of the Air Force 
to pursue

[[Page S7795]]

multiyear leases for two types of aircraft, up to four Boeing 737 
aircraft and up to 100 Boeing 767 aircraft. That provision exempted 
these leases from the requirement for congressional authorization in 
sections 2401 of title X which I thought was an unfortunate action on 
the part of the Appropriations Committee. That was last year.
  After the enactment of that provision by our good friends, the 
appropriators, the Secretary of the Air Force appeared before the Armed 
Services Committee and he made a personal commitment to us that he 
would not proceed with a lease without first coming to both the 
authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee for approval of 
funding required for the lease.
  In the case of the proposed Boeing 737 lease, the four planes, the 
Secretary lived up to that commitment. The Department of Defense 
submitted a request for reprogramming to both the Armed Services 
Committee and the Appropriations Committee. The Armed Services 
Committee met earlier today, about an hour and a half ago, to consider 
the reprogramming request from the Department of Defense. I emphasize, 
this reprogramming request is from the Department of Defense. My 
immediate response, when we received it, was to ask the Department of 
Defense some questions and to ask the OMB some questions.
  The main question I was asking the Department of Defense was whether 
they considered this a precedent for any other reprogramming requests. 
The answer was no.
  The question I asked the OMB was whether or not the OMB supports this 
request and if so why. The OMB has sent a letter now to us indicating 
that they support the Department of Defense reprogramming request, and 
they set forth their reasons.
  I ask unanimous consent the letters from the Department of Defense 
and the OMB supporting the reprogramming request be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Secretary of the Air Force,

                                         Washington July 31, 2002.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is in response to your 
     questions regarding the Air Force's intent to award a 
     contract to lease four Boeing 737 aircraft under the Multi-
     Year Aircraft Lease Pilot Program authorized by Section 8159 
     of the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act.
       Our analysis shows that the least cost alternative is a 
     lease program. Under the terms and conditions of the proposed 
     lease contract negotiated with Boeing, the net present value 
     of the lease is approximately $3.9M less than a purchase over 
     the same period.
       With respect to your comment that you do not consider the 
     proposed Boeing 737 lease to be a precedent for any other 
     lease, I agree. Although the Air Force will use a similar 
     methodology to determine the value of a 767 lease (if one can 
     be successfully negotiated), in the end, the Air Force will 
     only bring forward a lease proposal which shows a net present 
     value that is advantageous to the American taxpayer.
       Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
     James G. Roche.
                                  ____

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 31, 2002.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for your letter of July 30th 
     concerning the proposed lease of Boeing 737 transport 
     aircraft. You asked if the lease proposal is consistent with 
     the criteria for an operating lease under OMB circular A-11 
     and with the requirements of Section 8159 of the FY 2002 DoD 
     Appropriations Act.
       We believe that the lease is consistent with A-11 and 
     Section 8159, despite the fact that it includes an option to 
     purchase the aircraft. In particular, the lease proposal 
     meets two key requirements in A-11: (1) the lease payments 
     constitute no more than 90% of the value of the asset (the 
     aircraft); and (2) the asset is commercial in nature and not 
     designed to meet unique government purposes. Under A-11, 
     purchase options are allowable in operating leases as long as 
     they do not commit the government to purchase and as long as 
     the purchase is at the fair market value of the asset at the 
     time the option is exercised. In this case the prices quoted 
     in the contract are fair market value for this type of 
     aircraft after five years of use. Therefore, as long as the 
     Air Force provides the required funding to purchase the 
     aircraft up-front if and when it decides to exercise the 
     option, it can do so without violating the A-11 requirements 
     for an operating lease. The lease is also consistent with 
     Section 8159 in this regard since the purchase option 
     requires separate authority in order to be exercised.
       Finally, all costs for FY 2002, including termination 
     liability costs, are fully covered by the reprogramming 
     request of $37.2 million that was sent to the Congress. In 
     future years, the program will continue to be scored 
     according to guidelines for operating leases under A-11 thus 
     requiring an annual appropriation.
       In summary, we support the proposal worked out with the Air 
     Force on the lease of 737s. Any future leases would be 
     expected to comply with these standards. Thank you again for 
     your interest.
           Sincerely,
                                          Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.
                                                         Director.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that relates only to the 737 lease which is 
the matter in the appropriations bill. There is no reference to the 767 
lease, which is for the 100 tankers, in the appropriations bill before 
us. We need to address how that issue should be addressed.
  In the authorization bill, which this Senate has passed and which is 
now in conference, we added a provision which states that before there 
is any lease, the Department of Defense must obtain authorization for 
that lease. This legislation will not only require the Department of 
Defense and the Office of Management and Budget to lay out the ground 
rules for any such lease but also to obtain the approval of the 
authorizing committees as well as the appropriators for any lease of 
Boeing 767 aircraft. That is the way in which I believe we have done 
the people's work in requiring the justification from the OMB and the 
Department of Defense for the reprogramming request relative to the 
four 737s and the way in which we will protect the public interest 
relative to any request for funding for a lease for the 767s and for 
the tankers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of documents I 
referred to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S7796]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS01AU02.000



[[Page S7797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS01AU02.001



[[Page S7798]]

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2002.
     Hon. James G. Roche,
     Secretary of the Air Force, The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Roche: On June 24, 2002, the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee received a letter indicating your intent 
     to award a contract to lease four Boeing 737 aircraft under 
     the Multi-Year Aircraft Lease Pilot Program authorized by 
     Section 8159 of the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act. The Committee subsequently received a 
     request for reprogramming to enter into such a lease.
       As the Committee considers this reprogramming request, I 
     would appreciate your response to the following questions.
       First, based on net present value calculations performed by 
     the Air Force, do you believe that it will cost the Air Force 
     more or less to lease the four aircraft than it would cost to 
     purchase the same aircraft?
       Second, as you know, Section 8159 authorizes the Secretary 
     of the Air Force to investigate operating leases for both 
     Boeing 737 aircraft and Boeing 767 aircraft. In my view, any 
     proposed lease should be considered on its merits, and for 
     that reason I do not consider the proposed Boeing 737 lease 
     to be a precedent for any other lease, including a potential 
     Boeing 767 lease. Do you agree or disagree?
       Because your reprogramming request is currently pending 
     before our Committee, I would appreciate a prompt response to 
     these questions.
       Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, July 30, 2002.
     Hon. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget, The White House, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Daniels: On June 24, 2002, the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee received a letter from the Secretary of 
     the Air Force informing us of the Secretary's intent to award 
     a contract to lease four Boeing 737 aircraft under the Multi-
     Year Aircraft Lease Pilot Program authorized by Section 8159 
     of the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act. The Committee subsequently received a request for 
     reprogramming ``to enter into a long-term operating lease of 
     up to four Boeing 737 (C-40 aircraft)'' as authorized by 
     section 8159.
       Section 8159 states that ``The Secretary shall lease 
     aircraft under terms and conditions consistent with this 
     section and consistent with the criteria for an operating 
     lease as defined in OMB Circular A-11, as in effect at the 
     time of the lease.'' It further states that ``No lease 
     entered into under this authority shall provide for . . . the 
     purchase of the aircraft by, or the transfer of ownership to, 
     the Air Force.'' An Air Force report to the Congress 
     regarding the proposed contract terms and conditions states 
     that ``A price option to purchase the aircraft at residual 
     value is included. Exercise of the options is subject to a 
     separate authorization and appropriation.''
       I would appreciate if you would review the proposed 
     contract terms and conditions and determine: (1) whether the 
     terms and conditions are consistent with the criteria for an 
     operating lease as defined in OMB Circular A-11; (2) whether 
     the terms and conditions are consistent with the requirements 
     of Section 8159; and (3) how the lease should be scored for 
     budget purposes. I would also appreciate your statement as to 
     whether, in view of these terms and conditions, the Office of 
     Management and Budget supports the proposed lease.
       Because the Air Force reprogramming request is currently 
     pending before our Committee, I would appreciate a prompt 
     response to these questions.
       Thank you for your assistance in this important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may have an additional minute, I think 
a number of important points were raised by the Senator from Texas 
relative to the leasing issue. I hope that path will be followed, where 
the Department of Defense and the OMB will set forth some criteria, 
some guidelines, relative to leasing because there are some real risks 
when the leasing road is walked in terms of committing future 
resources.
  We hope we have protected the taxpayers in this matter by looking at 
the reprogramming request very carefully. A majority in the committee 
has voted and approved formally the way we do reprogramming; 
nonetheless, it has approved the reprogramming request.
  Senator Warner has worked with me and fully concurs in the decision 
that we made to get the decision from the committee. Usually, 
reprogramming is done more informally, but we decided that because 
there were some differences, we would actually convene the committee 
and get a more formal response and polling of the committee relative to 
the Department of Defense's reprogramming request on the four 737s. 
That is completed now, and the reauthorization issue will now be 
addressed relative to the 100 tankers.
  I thank my friends for the time. I thank Senator McCain for 
withdrawing his amendment, and I hope we are on the right track.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas started his 
comments about this subject with the phrase ``if'' we need these 
planes. That is the point of departure, as far as I am concerned, from 
those who oppose what we have done to start leasing planes.
  The tankers that we are replacing in the lease program, the 767s, 
have reached over 42 years of age. Senator Inouye and I have talked to 
pilots throughout the world who are flying our planes, and we found 
that, to a great extent, these planes are spending more time in the 
depot for maintenance than they are spending flying. The cost of 
maintaining a plane that old is irrelevant to the subject of what we 
are spending on these new planes. That doesn't figure in on the CBO. If 
you save money from maintaining a 42-year-old airplane, that doesn't 
count toward what it costs you to lease a plane to take its place.
  Now, we have an unquestioned need for these planes. As I said last 
night, I cannot imagine that, in the time when I was an Army and Air 
Corps pilot, anyone would have dared offer me a 1902 plane to fly in 
World War II. But that is equal to what we are doing now. We are not 
only offering it, we are forcing our people to fly planes that are, for 
the most part, older than the pilots who are flying them. It is costing 
us more to maintain them than the planes are worth. It is because of 
the failure of the Congress to face up to the problems of replacing our 
aging systems that we face this tremendous bow-wave of costs in front 
of us.
  We are not able to lease combat equipment. We don't seek to lease 
combat equipment, but we do seek to lease those types of systems that 
are available in the competitive market and for which there will be a 
market at the end of the lease. I envision that we will go away from 
the point of having to spend dollars and dollars and dollars to 
maintain old planes to the point where we will turn these planes back 
after not more than 10 years, and then we will buy the next generation. 
This generation will go out into the general aviation sector of the 
world, and we will have a value. That value is not calculated in these 
systems either because they just assume we will keep leasing them, I 
guess, and envision us continuing to lease these planes until they, 
too, are 40 years old.

  As a practical matter, we have faced this problem before, not just in 
this Congress. I remember the fights over the C-17. Even those were 
purchased, but the Congress, in three out of the four committees of the 
Congress, refused to proceed with the purchase of the C-17s. We saw the 
C-140s ready to be retired, and we had to have a replacement. It was 
our subcommittee that insisted on going ahead with the C-17s.
  We see the problem of the cost of maintaining the tankers, of 
maintaining the C-9s. We call them the DC-9s. Those are being retired 
now. They average 30 years of age. The 727s, which we call the C-22, 
average 38 years of age.
  Think of that, Mr. President. We have gone through three decades 
without thinking about how we keep planes so they are functional and 
costs do not get ever-increasing for maintenance. We look at money in a 
different way than the Armed Services Committee does; I admit that. We 
look at money as to how we can possibly get what we need without 
breaking the budget. We have proceeded to lease with that in mind.
  It is not my judgment that we will increase the cost of flying these 
missions by leasing the planes, as compared to keeping planes that are 
in the 30-, 38- and 44-year-old age bracket.
  Mr. President, I think one comment was made concerning the fact that 
one company--Boeing--was not awarded one of the contracts for the 
combat aircraft. That had nothing to do with our decision to try to 
lease these planes. It is totally immaterial, as far as I am

[[Page S7799]]

concerned. We weren't even sure whether they would decide to lease the 
planes. The fact was that we had to find planes, and the planes that 
were available at that time on the line were the 767s, which could be 
readily converted to tankers to replace these aging tankers that must 
be replaced if we are to continue our war against global terrorism.
  Mr. President, it doesn't please this Senator to have this continued 
battle with the Armed Services Committee over the question of what is 
the best way to spend our money to keep our people in the military 
outfitted with the best possible equipment. But, in my judgment, we are 
proceeding along the right line.
  I sort of wonder about the request that GAO do a study on whether or 
not the Congress was right in passing the law and the President was 
right in signing the law last year. We are discussing an issue we 
debated on the Senate floor. We prevailed on the floor, we prevailed in 
conference, and the President signed the bill. The system is moving 
forward that was intended to move forward. I seriously question what 
right anybody has to ask the GAO to study whether Congress made the 
right decision last year. Congress should be looking at the execution 
of the laws, not whether the laws represented the best possible 
solution.
  I don't have a problem with them looking at the economics of it; I 
welcome that, provided they look at the cost of maintaining those old 
planes. They are not going to tell me that the taxpayers are saving 
money by keeping planes that are as old as the C-9s, C-22s, and tankers 
that are flying today.
  Lastly, I remind the Senate that those tankers are still flying, 
almost nightly, in Afghanistan. Every plane that flies in that theater 
has to be refueled at least twice a night. We recently talked to the 
commander of our forces in Europe. We were told that when the AWACS 
NATO loaned us after 9/11 came to the United States, they flew 19,000 
hours in less than 6 months. Now, those, too, are the old 707 bodies 
and they are aging. The engines are aging, and they are going to have 
to be replaced because of the heavy duty they got during that period 
they were on loan here.
  There are all kinds of problems that have to be solved. We solve them 
by using money from the operation and maintenance account. We are not 
authorizing people to buy planes. That is the jurisdiction of the Armed 
Services Committee. But what happens to the O&M account, as far as I am 
concerned, is a matter for the Appropriations Committee to determine--
they are consulted--but we have to find some way to make the money fit 
the need. I think we have done it in this bill.
  I thank my friend from Hawaii for his courtesy in allowing me to 
speak ahead of him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the 
remarks of my distinguished colleague from Alaska.


                          DEPOT MODERNIZATION

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, 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 
Fiscal Year 2003 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 Fiscal Year 2002 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 Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency 
Supplemental bill to accelerate the depot modernization period of the 
USS Scranton at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard from Fiscal Year 2003 to 
Fiscal Year 2002, as it will result in dramatically improved fleet 
readiness. In addition, it will free up $90 million in Fiscal Year 
2003, 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 Fiscal Year 2003 the important USS Annapolis depot 
modernization period at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which the Navy 
was recently forced to slip from Fiscal Year 2003 to Fiscal Year 2004, 
because of a Navy funding shortfall.
  I direct a question to my two 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 Fiscal Year 2002, now gives the U.S. Navy flexibility to allocate 
the Fiscal Year 2003 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 Fiscal 
Year 2003 $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 tell the Senator from New Hampshire that it is also my 
understanding that the Navy now has the flexibility to reprioritize 
those Fiscal Year 2003 funds.


                              M13 carrier

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, one of the most 
versatile and successful programs in the history of the Army is the 
development and fielding of the M113 Family of Vehicles. The Army has 
been in the process of up-grading these vehicles so that they can keep 
pace on the modern battlefield, improve survivability and drastically 
increase reliability. Not withstanding the need to transform the Army, 
the fact remains that in 2016, at the time the Army intends to field 
the Objectives Force, there will be nearly 10,000 M113s remaining 
operational including 1,900 in the Counter Attack Corps.
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes, I am familiar with the success of the M113 Family of 
Vehicles and the role they play in today's Army.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as the chairman knows the FY 2003 budget 
request contained $60.3 million for carrier modifications but only 
$14.9 million of that total was allocated for M113 ``A3'' upgrades. I 
am supportive of transformation and understand the need to reallocate 
resources for that purpose. In this instance, however, I believe the 
Army's decision not to upgrade the remaining forward deployed 112 
M113A2s of the 2nd Infantry Division in the Republic of Korea and the 
352 M113A2s in Europe belonging to the 1st Infantry Divisions, will at 
a minimum, leave the soldiers in these front line units vulnerable in a 
potentially unstable and high threat environment.
  Because of these concerns, I believe serious consideration should be 
given to using all the funds provided in this bill for M113 Carrier A3 
upgrades and ask that you work with me on this issue during conference.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Shelby and I have discussed this 
matter and I also believe we should take a close look at using the 
funds recommended by the Committee solely for the conversion of M113A3 
carriers and that we address this matter in conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished colleagues for sharing concerns 
about this program. I too support Army transformation and, most 
importantly, the protection of our soldiers. I would be happy to 
discuss the M113 issue further as we move toward conference.


               brilliant anti-armor submunition colloquy

  Mr. SHELBY: Mr. President I rise today with my good friend, Senator 
Mikulski, to discuss the Brilliant Anti--Armor Submunition BAT P\3\I. I 
want to express my disappointment with the $152 million cut taken by 
the committee from the President's budget request for the BAT program. 
Despite increased emphasis being placed on precision guided munitions, 
this cut will cripple a promising program that has shown progress in 
testing and is nearing the end of its development phase.
  Ms. MIKULSKI: I join my friend from Alabama in expressing my concern 
with this cut to the BAT program. The Department of Defense is 
currently creating a vision of precision munitions capabilities and 
transformation investments for our Armed forces and I believe BAT could 
play a significant role. The Army has already spent close

[[Page S7800]]

to $1.9 billion developing this program and the President's fiscal year 
2003 request is needed to complete development, testing and make this 
system production ready by 2005. That is well within the Army's 
schedule to support both the Army's Interim and Objective 
Transformational Forces. With adequate funding, BAT P\3\I is on track 
to be fielded 3 years sooner than any competing system.
  Mr. SHELBY: I note that BAT P\3\I is the Army's only precision strike 
munition that can operate in inclement weather and effectively hit 
moving and stationary targets, including SCUD launchers capable of 
carry weapons of mass destruction. It is equally worth noting that 
recent tests of BAT and its P\3\I variant have proven to be effective 
against targets that were employing countermeasures. I applaud the 
Army's efforts to expand the delivery platform for BAT P\3\I beyond the 
ATACMS missile to include examining the applicability of putting the 
BAT on rockets and unmanned air vehicles, such as Predator and Hunter 
UAVs. I encourage the Army and its colleague services to continue this 
kind of innovative thinking to take full advantage of the flexibility 
that this all weather, precision guided weapons can provide.
  Ms. MIKULSKI: I am informed of a positive trend, in that, the cost of 
the BAT submunition has decreased by approximately 10 percent each time 
a new order has been procured. I also understand the Army is working on 
an achievable cost reduction program for BAT P\3\I. Considering the 
points Senator Shelby and I have raised, it seems we should give more 
thought to this matter in conference. I ask both Chairman Inouye and 
Senator Stevens if they might be willing to discuss this matter further 
as we move to conference on this bill.
  Mr. SHELBY: I join the distinguished Senator from Maryland in 
requesting the assistance of Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens.
  Mr. INOUYE: I thank the Senators from Maryland and Alabama for their 
steadfast support for this program. I would be happy to review the 
committee's action and discuss the BAT program with them.
  Mr. STEVENS: I join the chairman in thanking the distinguished 
Senators from Alabama and Maryland for their remarks. I would certainly 
be willing to discuss BAT program funding with my colleagues.


              chemical and biological defense initiatives

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the very 
important issue of chemical and biological research. The threat of a 
chemical and biological attack is no longer an emerging threat: it is 
very real, and it affects not only our nation, but our allies as well. 
The risks associated with chemical and biological weapons are growing, 
and our capacity to assess, counter, and deter these threats needs to 
be addressed. That is why it is critical to see continued investments 
made in diagnostic tools for biowarfare-inflicted agents, chemical and 
biological detection devices, and sensors to ensure the safety of food 
and water supply.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine that 
this research area needs a robust investment to ensure that promising 
technologies are not only explored, but that the technologies are 
transitioned to the field and operationally deployed.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member for his 
leadership on Defense issues. And I am very pleased to see that the 
Defense Appropriations bill places a high priority on addressing the 
chemical and biological weapons threat that we face and provides 
additional funding beyond the President's request for a number of high 
priority research programs.
  As the Senator knows, I have been actively supporting vigorous 
research efforts in this area since my first days in the Senate because 
the threat from these weapons is serious and it is growing day by day. 
I am pleased to see that the Committee is recommending to the Senate 
that a chem-bio defense initiatives fund be established with an initial 
funding increment of $25 million. The Committee has listed a number of 
technology initiatives for consideration, but is providing the 
Secretary of Defense with the discretion to allocate the funds.
  It seems logical to ensure that the most promising, maturing 
technologies are seen through to their completion, particularly if the 
technology shows a high potential to yield benefits in defending our 
troops, Nation, and our global interests. Is it the Committee's intent 
to ensure that such on-going programs that are nearing completion 
receive a priority for consideration of these funds?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Maine is correct that this fund has 
been established for the distinct purpose of improving our military's 
ability to respond to chemical and biological warfare threats. It is 
the intent of this committee to see that the funds provided are wisely 
spent. I would say to the Senator from Maine that a program that has 
been supported by this committee in the past and is nearing completion 
should be appropriately considered for funding to ensure that the 
technologies are funded to completion, provided the technologies will 
enhance our ability to protect or deter a chemical and biological 
attack. To withhold funding for a promising, multi-year program just as 
it is achieving documented results would, in my view, be wasteful.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator for his illuminating words. If the 
distinguished ranking member would indulge me further, I would like to 
call to his attention a research initiative regarding food safety and 
security that is on the Committee's list of projects eligible for 
funding. This initiative is one that holds great potential to protect 
our military from a chemical or biological threat. Does the Senator 
from Alaska share my view that this kind of a program ought to be a 
priority for the chemical and biological defense initiative fund?
  Mr. STEVENS. I believe that threats to the food supply are very 
serious and they need to be addressed both in terms of protecting our 
deployed troops and also in terms of homeland security. We need to find 
a way to ensure that the food supply for our deployed troops is safe, 
just as we need to protect America's food supply. I definitely support 
a research initiative in this area.
  Ms. COLLINS. Again, I thank the ranking member for his 
forthrightness, his knowledge and his determination to keep America 
strong. I also thank him for his continued leadership on defense and 
defense related issues. I believe that the Appropriations Committee 
deserves the thanks of the American people for the leadership the 
committee has shown in defending our nation from the threat of chemical 
and biological weapons. The chairman and ranking member are dedicated 
to America's defense and the committee staff have done outstanding work 
on this bill.


                        Enterprize Architecture

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal 
Year 2003 Defense Appropriations Bill, I wanted to discuss briefly the 
current efforts at the Defense Department to design, install and 
implement an enterprise architecture to perform financial activities at 
the Department. This has been a major undertaking, and the ultimate 
goal is to have at the Department a modern, state-of-the-art, 
integrated system that will perform business processes and financial 
activities in numerous fields, including logistics, health care, 
accounting, finance, and personnel.
  The financial management challenges at the Department are no secret 
to the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Last year, Congress 
provided the Department $100 million to start the financial management 
reform initiative, and this year, the Department requested more than 
$96 million to continue the reform program. According to the 
Department, financial management reform would reduce the approximately 
967 stand-alone systems currently generating financial data.
  In the current fiscal year, we have seen signs of progress. On April 
9, the Department selected International Business Machines to develop 
the financial management enterprise architecture. IBM, along with 
several leading information technology firms, and under the direction 
of the Department's Financial Management Modernization Program Office, 
will now design a blueprint for future Department investments in 
business management information technology. This blueprint is expected 
to be completed as early as March 2003.

[[Page S7801]]

  While this is good news, the Committee report noted that this 
initiative has gotten off to a slow start. For example, a significant 
portion of the $100 million provided last year was to go for systems 
improvements, and to undertake various pilot projects under these 
improved systems at the service branch level. However, despite the 
existence of these funds for these projects and with project teams 
already selected, they have not moved forward and the funds have not 
been spent.
  With the IBM team engaged in architecture design, the current and 
next fiscal year would seem an appropriate opportunity to make the 
systems improvements, and undertake the various pilot projects that 
have already been funded. These pilots could enable the Department to 
test and analyze the nuts and bolts of integrated financial management 
processes. With problems already identified, solution sets, and ``best 
practices'' can be tested via the pilots and under the improved 
systems. This is consistent with one of the observations of the General 
Accounting Office, which noted, ``it is critical to establish interim 
measures to both track performance against the department's overall 
transformation goals and facilitate near-term successes...'' Also, at a 
recent conference here on Capitol Hill on Defense financial management 
modernization, a representative of IBM agreed that it was important to 
go forward on the pilot programs, stating that they were ``vital'' to 
the improvement of the business.
  I see the distinguished chair and ranking member of the Defense 
Subcommittee on the floor, and would like to ask them if they agree 
with me that the Defense Department should utilize the funds previously 
provided by Congress to undertake needed systems improvements and pilot 
projects for financial modernization.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from California for her comments, and 
agree with her assessment. As she pointed out, with the Defense 
Department now in the process of designing its financial management 
architecture, it can use this time to move forward on various pilot 
projects, already funded, in order to modernize and test systems, 
identify potential challenges and problems, and incorporate solutions 
in the planning process.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Chairman of the Subcommittee, and the Senator from 
California, also a distinguished member of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, are correct. In fact, as they both know, the committee 
report that accompanies this legislation directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit semi-annual status reports to the relevant 
congressional committees.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee for their comments and for their leadership on this very 
critical reform effort at the Department of Defense.


       rapid response sensor networking for multiple applications

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise with my colleague from Florida, 
Senator Nelson, to engage in a colloquy with Senator Inouye, the 
Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Senator Nelson and I rise to note the critical importance of the 
Rapid Response Sensor Networking for Multiple Applications. The project 
will bring together the new concept of Impromptu Wireless Network 
Technology and emerging new sensors for use in detection and 
quantification of high priority biological and chemical materials in 
several nationally important settings--most significantly, for real 
time detection and response to biological and chemical materials which 
threaten public health and safety, environmental integrity or 
industrial processes. I yield to Senator Nelson for a few words about 
this important program.
  Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator for yielding. New sensors are being 
developed at the University of North Florida which use polymer membrane 
and dye combinations to create analytical sensors based on photo 
induced charge movements. These sensors can be combined into relatively 
inexpensive easily produced families of sensors which will be able to 
respond to a range of targeted analytes appropriate to a particular 
area of risk or interest. This makes possible and readily usable real 
time field-based sample preparation and analysis--it will process data 
and deliver it via wireless communication to create real time models of 
sensor responses and measurements which are combined in GIS 
applications and other decision making tools to enable real time highly 
effective responses. The applications of this approach are highly 
varied, and include: a wide range of environmental monitoring 
strategies; early warning applications to protect food, water, and 
other systems from bioterrorism attacks; and monitoring of industrial 
processes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, Senator Nelson that is correct. The University of 
North Florida has requested $750,000 for this important, new project 
and I request conference report language to identify this program to be 
eligible for funding from the Chem-Bio Defense Initiatives Fund.
  Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate hearing about both Senators support of this 
program. I will review your request and will work to include language 
in the conference report.


        center for southeastern tropical advanced remote sensing

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise with colleague from Florida, 
Senator Nelson, to engage in a colloquy with Senator Inouye, the 
Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Senator Nelson and I note the critical importance of the Center for 
Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing, CSTARS, at the 
University of Miami, and are thankful for the support of this critical 
program. The university has initiated the acquisition and construction 
of this regional satellite collection, processing and analysis facility 
in partnership with the U.S. Southern Command and other academic 
institutions. The Center will offer unprecedented capability in the 
southeastern United States to link with a broad range of low-Earth 
satellite orbiting systems. When made available to regional as well as 
to key partners like the Southern Command, these resources will provide 
a unique and much-needed capacity for environmental observation, 
climatic prediction and resource analysis, watershed and ecosystem 
assessment, and natural hazards monitoring critical to effective 
emergency response. I yield to Senator Nelson for a few words about 
this important program.
  Mr. NELSON. I thank the Senator for yielding. CSTARS is of critical 
importance to the state of Florida and will make a strong contribution 
to the Southern Command mission, including drug interdiction, civil 
defense, and natural disaster mitigation.
  The core fiscal year 2003 objectives are to complete Phase II of the 
station infrastructure and operational capabilities and initiate 
prototype use by the U.S. Southern Command and the National Imagery and 
Mapping Agency NIMA. Funds would be used to ensure direct down linking 
with satellite orbiting systems, such as SPOT2, 4 and 5, ENVISAT, 
ADEOS-II, LANDSAT and TERRA/AQUA.
  The program is authorized is authorized in the Senate fiscal year 
2003 Defense Authorization bill and report and is funded at a level of 
$2.5 million in the House fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations bill 
and report. I request support for a funding level at a minimum of $2.5 
million for this critical program in the conference negotiations. 
Funding reductions below that level will cause delays in the program 
and delay the benefits to SOUTHCOM and NIMA.
  Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate being made aware of both Senators' support 
of this program and will will do what we can to find funding of a 
minimum of at least $2.5 million in the conference negotiations.


                                  cmis

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to ask my friend, the Chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Daniel Inouye, to engage 
in a discussion of several defense programs that are of vital 
importance to my home state of Louisiana and our national security.
  Mr. INOUYE. I welcome a conversation with the junior Senator from 
Louisiana and the Chairwoman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I have been impressed by recent efforts undertaken by 
the Navy to create an Internet capable

[[Page S7802]]

database that would catalogue and inventory all spare parts necessary 
for repairs to Navy aircraft. It is a fact of life that the high 
stresses Navy pilots place on their aircrafts will cause significant 
wear and tear and require repairs. The Navy, at times, has been plagued 
by difficulties in locating the whereabouts of necessary parts. To 
remedy this problem, the Navy began to work on the Configuration 
Management Information System, or CMIS, to catalogue and inventory Navy 
aircraft parts and their whereabouts. With CMIS, Navy mechanics around 
the world, will be able to search through an Internet database to 
ascertain if the needed parts can be found on site. If not, they will 
be able to quickly learn where the nearest replacement part is located. 
With this knowledge, mechanics know where to turn for parts rather than 
conducting scatter-shot searches throughout the Navy to look for the 
part.
  The CMIS program was funded last year in the Senate Defense 
Appropriations bill at a level of $4,000,000. This year, the Senate 
authorized $13,500,000 for CMIS, and the House appropriated $4,000,000 
for CMIS. I would hope, Senator Inouye, that you would agree on the 
need to create a centralized database to quickly identify the location 
of necessary parts to make repairs to Navy aircraft, and I would hope 
that you would agree that this program should be supported in 
Conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the Senator from Louisiana that we must find 
efforts to expedite the return of our aircraft to service. We should 
not face delays in repairs because of logistical problems that could be 
solved rather easily using modern information technology. I will take 
an interest in this matter when the House and Senate conference on this 
bill.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate your support, Mr. Chairman, for CMIS. I 
want to discuss another program that will greatly improve the 
efficiency in which our military can deploy across the globe, and in 
doing so, save millions of dollars. The Field Pack-Up unit, or FPU, is 
a containerized storage system that is 100% strategically and 
tactically mobile that far exceeds the current storage bins we use to 
transport materiel across the country and around the world. Senator 
Inouye, as you are well aware, one of the greatest factors in 
determining how quickly the U.S. military can deploy to a theater in 
order to respond to a threat is the simple fact that it can take 
several months to transport the materiel our troops need to succeed. 
The FPU will reduce that transportation time frame, decrease the 
logistics footprint, and allow the military to move swiftly and 
efficiently. In turn, these logistical efficiencies will save millions 
of dollars each year.

  The 3rd Infantry Aviation Brigade at Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia 
conducted a field test between the FPU and currently used storage bins. 
The 3rd Infantry Brigade determined that if the entire Brigade deployed 
to Kuwait, 2 C-5s would be needed using the FPU. Using traditional 
storage bins, 8 C-5s would be necessary to mobilize to Kuwait. The FPUs 
would save at least $3,000,000 per deployment, according to the 3rd 
Infantry Brigade.
  I am concerned, however, that the Army has not dedicated funds toward 
this transformational program that will greatly reduce the logistics 
footprint and save millions of dollars each year. Last year, the Senate 
appropriated $5,000,000 for the FPU, but neither the House nor Senate 
funded the program this year. Senator Inouye, I know you are a champion 
of transformation, and I hope you would be willing to consider the 
utility the FPU could provide to our Armed Forces.
  Mr. INOUYE. The FPU is a great improvement to our logistics 
capabilities and the money saving potential is quite promising. You are 
correct to note that the time in which we respond to threats is largely 
determined by the rate in which we can mobilize our troops and 
transport the materiel necessary for them to do their jobs. I do look 
forward to working with you in the future on this promising program.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about a health and 
welfare issue for our troops on the battlefield. We must ensure that we 
are providing them with the most nutritional meals possible to optimize 
their war fighting capabilities. The fatigue and stresses on the bodies 
of our war-fighters are unlike anything the average person could 
imagine. We must provide our troops with nutritious foods that provide 
necessary energy and are tailored to meet the rigors of combat. We 
cannot place our troops in unnecessary danger because of equipment 
failures, nor because the food they are consuming in combat does not 
provide them with the proper nutrition.
  For several years the United States Army has been working on a Food 
Nutrition Program in conjunction with the Pennington Biomedical 
Research Center. The focus of this research is to develop meals that 
can be eaten on the battlefield which provide our troops with the 
nutrients necessary to fuel their bodies to meet the grueling demands 
of war-fighting. Senator Inouye, would you agree that this research 
should continue so we can optimize the performance of our troops?
  Mr. INOUYE. While rations have improved significantly since my 
service in World War II, there is always room for improvement. Well 
nourished soldiers fight better. It is that simple. I believe that this 
research is valuable to ensuring the combat capability of our troops.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know my friend, the senior Senator 
from Hawaii, shares my concern about the future threats to our military 
and nation. As chairwoman of the Armed Services Committee's 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, it has become very clear to me that 
while the current threats seem to come form madmen with explosives, 
tomorrow's terrorists may very well use cyberwarfare. For this reason, 
Louisiana and Georgia have been participating in a program known as the 
Picket Fence Initiative. It has brought together the Department of 
Defense, the Louisiana State Government, the federal presence within 
the state, as well as industries with responsibility for critical 
infrastructure. Together, we have established a collaborative network 
that monitors the types and methodologies of on-going cyber attacks 
against these systems. Through these efforts, the Department of Defense 
is learning about the nature and variety of attacks on Louisiana's 
critical information networks, while companies and the Louisiana State 
government benefit from improved security technology. It is the kind of 
cooperative enterprise that should be a model for future homeland 
defense efforts. This program was authorized this year for $4.5 
million, and has been appropriated $2 million in the House mark. 
Although we were unable to find additional funds within our bill to 
fully fund this program, I hope the Chairman will help me to protect 
the $2 million in the House mark, and look for any additional funds 
that may be made available during conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I share Senator Landrieu's concern about 
cyber-security, and agree that cooperative efforts like Picket Fence 
are an effective way for us to address the problem. I hope that we may 
find additional resources for this program at a later date.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Senior Senator 
from Hawaii for taking time to participate in this colloquy. His 
leadership and management of this bill have been excellent. The people 
of Louisiana, Hawaii, and the United States are grateful for his 
lifetime of service to our Nation.


                              armed pilots

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, if I could have the 
attention of the Republican Leader for just a moment. I say to the 
leader, I had considered offering my armed pilots amendment on this 
bill, but after our discussions, and with the assurances that to the 
extent possible this would be one of the first items of business when 
we consider the homeland defense bill, I have agreed to withhold.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the senior Senator from New Hampshire. He has led 
the charge on the issue of arming pilots. I agree that this should be 
one of the first items that we consider on the homeland defense bill. 
It is my intention that this would be one of the first amendments 
offered from our side on the homeland defense bill.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the leader. I know he is as 
concerned about safety in our skies as I am, and I appreciate his 
support. I look

[[Page S7803]]

forward to passing this important bipartisan initiative when we return 
from the August recess.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President: It is widely recognized that the Coast 
Guard is the nation's principal defense against illicit drug shipping 
and must become a barrier to terrorist attacks in which explosives or 
weapons of mass destruction may be headed for an American city on a 
ship or fast boat. I join with the distinguished Chair of the Defense 
Subcommittee, in commending the Senator from Alaska for his leadership 
role in establishing the HITRON mission in the United States Coast 
Guard.
  The current fleet of eight MH-68A helicopters is stationed in 
Jacksonville, Florida and is active in the Caribbean. The fleet was 
temporarily deployed at the U.S. Coast Guard Station in San Diego for a 
demonstration. It was a complete success and as a result, Congressman 
Bob Filner recently wrote the Commandant urging that he extend the 
current lease of eight or more MH-68A helicopters until a permanent 
DeepWater replacement is selected.
  Both Congressman Filner and I agree there is a critical requirement 
for off shore drug interdiction along the Mexican-Southern California 
coastline. Further, these helicopters can add anti-terrorist protection 
for the Port of San Diego. Therefore, based on the assumption the Coast 
Guard has the legal authority to enter this lease, I urge my colleagues 
to support extension of 5-year lease for eight MH-68 helicopters.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer the Budget Committee's 
official scoring of H.R. 5010, the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
  H.R. 5010 provides $355.139 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, all classified as defense spending, which will result in new 
outlays in 2003 of $239.472 billion. When outlays from prior-year 
budget authority are taken into account, nonemergency discretionary 
outlays for the Senate bill total $349.777 billion in 2003.
  The Appropriations Committee voted 29-0 on June 27 to adopt a set of 
non-binding sub-allocations for its 13 subcommittees totaling $768.1 
billion in budget authority and $793.1 billion in outlays, which the 
committee subsequently increased to $803.891 billion in outlays 
following the passage of the 2002 emergency supplementary bill. While 
the committee's subcommittee allocations are consistent with both the 
amendment supported by 59 Senators last month and with the President's 
request for total discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2003, 
they are not enforceable under either Senate budget rules or the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. While I applaud the 
committee for adopting its own set of sub-allocations, I urge the 
Senate to take up and pass the bipartisan resolution, which would make 
the committee's sub-allocations enforceable under Senate rules and 
provide for other important budgetary disciplines.
  For the Defense Subcommittee, the full committee allocated $355.139 
billion in budget authority and $350,549 billion in total outlays for 
2003. The bill reported by the full committee on July 18 is fully 
consistent with that allocation. In addition, H.R. 5010 does not 
include any emergency designations or advance appropriations.
  I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget 
committee scoring of H.R. 5010 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        H.R. 5010, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003
  [Spending comparisons--Senate-Reported Bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Defense   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget Authority.....................    355,139        278    355,417
  Outlays..............................    349,777        278    350,055
Senate committee allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority.....................    355,139        278    355,417
  Outlays..............................    350,549        278    350,827
House-passed bill:
  Budget Authority.....................    354,446        278    354,724
  Outlays..............................    349,315        278    349,593
President's request: \2\
  Budget Authority.....................    366,592        278    366,870
  Outlays..............................    354,754        278    355,032
 
   SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate committee allocation:
  Budget Authority.....................          0          0          0
  Outlays..............................       -772          0       -772
House-passed bill:
  Budget Authority.....................        693          0        693
  Outlays..............................        462          0        462
President's request:
  Budget Authority.....................    -11,453          0    -11,453
  Outlays..............................     -4,977          0     -4,977
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Senate has not adopted a 302(a) allocation for the
  Appropriations Committee. The committee has set non-enforceable sub-
  allocations for its 13 subcommittees. This table compares the
  committee-reported bill with the committee's sub-allocation to the
  Defense Subcommittee for information purposes only.
\2\ The President requested total discretionary budget authority for
  2003 of $768.1 billion, including a proposal to change how the budget
  records the accrual cost of future pension and health retiree benefits
  earned by current federal employees. Because the Congress has not
  acted on that proposal, for comparability, the numbers in this table
  exclude the effects of the President's accrual proposal.
In addition, the President requested $10 billion in unspecified War
  Reserve funds in his 2003 budget. On July 3, the President transmitted
  more information to the Congress regarding his request for those
  funds. Pending its review of the President's July request, the
  Appropriations Committee has reserved the $10 billion in additional
  defense funds in its Deficiencies Subcommittee.
 
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 7-31-02.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, there is no problem which more directly 
affects the security of our forces in the Middle East and particularly 
in Afghanistan than our ability to communicate with the local 
population. To solve this problem we must enhance DoD support on two 
technologies that are being sorely neglected--digital satellite radios 
and the solar panels which can permanently power them anywhere.
  As a result of two satellites launched in the past three years there 
is now complete 64 channel digital radio satellite coverage of the 
entire middle east, Asia, and Africa. In parts of the Middle East such 
as Afghanistan there is double satellite coverage and therefore 128 
clear highest fidelity radio broadcast channels are available. 
Unfortunately until now our government has made little use of this 
technology which the private sector has already bought and paid for. 
This means that a superior method of communicating in the Middle East 
is not being used to support our troops who are or will be serving 
there.
  What is virtually needed is a DoD program to jump start the 
dissemination of these satellite radio receivers to the local 
population surrounding our troops so that our messages of democracy and 
freedom can be brought to them in a variety of formats. Our troops 
vitally need the added security that the resulting increased local 
support for their mission will bring. Our troops also need periodically 
the ability to communicate directly with these people.
  A jump start DoD program of adequate size to buy and disseminate or 
subsidize the price of receivers would lower their price to the point 
where the market would complete the job. Failure to start this process 
now would be tragically shortsighted.
  A second private sector technology now being inadequately supported 
or neglected by our government is the solar panel technology which can 
permanently power these receivers wherever they are located. Both solar 
panels and widely available kerosene can be used to power these 
receivers in a region where both batteries and electricity are both 
critically scare.
  Afghanistan is a communications wasteland. Barely 30 percent of the 
population can read. Only 3 people in every 1,000 have a TV set; only 6 
in every thousand have a radio. Given these statistics it is little 
wonder that a central government has so little power and regional 
warlords are so great a threat. The warlords have the megaphone and the 
security of our troops is severely imperiled as a result.
  By contrast in both Iran and Iraq are over 70 TV's and 200 radios for 
each thousand people--still very low by western standards, but a huge 
multiple of the mass media now available in Afghanistan. In those 
countries we face different problems--a hostile state-controlled media 
and hostile governments which can jam our terrestrial transmissions. 
These are problems which increased DoD and U.S. government support for 
satellite radio could also solve.
  I do not claim that our current efforts are non-existence. They are 
just hopelessly inadequate to the task at hand. When we first went into 
Afghanistan we dropped leaflets and relief packages containing single 
channel short wave radios many of which broke when they hit the ground. 
In a country where illiteracy rate is so high, the impact of any 
written material seems questionable. We sent C-130's to fly over areas 
where our troops were to broadcast to the single channel radios that 
survived the air drop. Now we are also spending considerable amounts of 
DoD and other money to build terrestrial transmitters to broadcast to 
the few radios that do exist in the country. These are laudable efforts 
but demonstrably inadequate to confront the task

[[Page S7804]]

before us. The comparative superiority of satellite radio in remote 
Afghanistan was demonstrated early this year by the enthusiastic 
response of our troops there who listened to the Superbowl thanks to 
1,000 privately donated satellite receivers.

  I earnestly request my chairman and ranking member to address this 
urgent matter of support for satellite radio both in the conference and 
in the conference report. I had planned to offer an amendment to begin 
to achieve the needed results. However, I realize we are not earmarking 
money as the House did in its bill. I do know that there is substantial 
support the House and the administration for satellite radio as an 
essential weapon in the war to combat terrorism and increase the 
security of our troops abroad. The investment required is small 
compared to the additional expense required on arms where we do not 
have adequate local support.
  I also know existing programs and special interests will swallow up 
as much money as they can get. Thus a vital technology and existing 
capability like satellite radio will very likely suffer from 
inattention and neglect to the vast impairment of our overall war 
effort without some specific direction from us. I urge my colleagues in 
the conference not to let this happen. Please give satellite radio 
technology the specific and concrete support it needs and deserves.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to express my strong support for Senator 
Burns' remarks on the importance of DoD support for satellite radio 
technology and to get satellite receivers disseminated to the local 
populations where our troops are located. Their security and support is 
obviously of paramount concern to each and every one of us. This is one 
area upon both of our parties are in complete agreement.
  I urgently hope that the conferees will work in the DoD bill to 
enhance and strengthen this superior method of mass communication via 
satellite radio which offers such promise in so many ways and in so 
many areas of the third world. Our existing approaches clearly fall 
critically short of meeting the urgent need to get our message heard. 
The time for action is now. We will pay a high price for any further 
delay.
  I come to the floor today to join in discussion of a very important 
issue with the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye.
  The Defense Appropriations bill before us will provide $20,470,000 
for historically black colleges and universities. This is a relatively 
small part of the overall defense bill, but an important part, 
beneficial to both the Defense Department and the universities.
  Senators from many states, particularly those from states which are 
home to a historically black college or university, have always come 
together to support any initiative which would greatly benefit our 
young African Americans and thus, our country. Just such an opportunity 
was presented to us recently by the Air Force Research Laboratories at 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.
  The program assigns defense research projects to historically black 
universities, including Southern University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 
and other universities in Texas, Alabama, and Georgia to undertake work 
identified by the Defense Department. These universities and their 
students also team with small businesses to accomplish a major portion 
of the work.
  The benefits of this program are many, beginning with greater 
opportunities for these schools, and extending the range of options 
students have for their career choices. There may even be the added 
benefit that these students may choose to join their military peers 
full time. We know that by 2006, two out of every five federal 
employees will be eligible for retirement. We will have to find a new 
pool of talent who wants to work in federal service.
  We also know that only 15 percent of African Americans are earning 
college degrees. For comparison, this percentage is two-thirds higher 
for white Americans. We also know that African Americans who earn an 
advanced degree can nearly double their annual average salary. Clearly, 
steering more African American students into the science and 
engineering field is one way to accomplish this goal. The U.S. 
government will also benefit by bringing these students into the field 
of defense research.
  I ask the Chairman, wouldn't you agree that this is the kind of 
program that should be funded through appropriations for HBCU?
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Louisiana is correct. This program 
certainly seems to be in line with the types of projects funded under 
HBCU. I would encourage the Department of Defense to support the 
program the Senator from Louisiana has identified.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chairman. I also thank Southern University 
for the wonderful work they do. This college started in 1880 with just 
12 students and 5 faculty. It has grown to become a university with 
three campuses, offering 152 degree programs and a law school.
  This is typical of the huge success stories we find among many of the 
historically black colleges and universities all over the United 
States. This program which I encourage today, will allow them to take 
an even greater step into uncharted territory and be a competitive 
force in the defense research field.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, the 
esteemed chair and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee in supporting the withdrawal of the McCain amendment, 
which would unwisely scuttle an important program that was approved 
last year on this same bill by the Senate in an overwhelming 94-4 vote.
  I further applaud the Senator for the amendment that he successfully 
included into this bill that would require that the transport lease 
program will be fair, open and competitive and conform to the 
Competition and Contracting Act.
  However, I think that the Senator from Arizona is off the mark in his 
attempts to undermine this particular program. The transport plane 
lease program approved last year is a much-needed priority, and it has 
been specifically requested by the Department of Defense and the Air 
Force.
  These transport planes are a crucial element of an efficient 
deployment of our national security strategy and they are in dire need 
of modernization.
  At any given time, world events may require the Nation's leaders to 
be dispatched simultaneously on diplomatic missions. These missions are 
essential in peace and war when diplomacy and negotiation become 
critical to the settlement of conflict, whether in the Middle East, the 
sub-continent, Bosnia, or the myriad other hot spots in which U.S. 
leadership is necessary to calming conflict and saving lives.
  To get these leaders to the places, we need transport aircraft that 
are efficient, modern and up to the task.
  Both physical and communications security are integral to the mission 
because principals and their staffs must conduct business en route. In 
addition, mission protocol dictates the frequent use of civilian 
airports, which require commercial planes.
  The Air Force and the Administration needs these planes, and the Air 
Force and our esteemed colleagues in the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee have developed a creative and effective solution that will 
meet this need: an operating lease.
  The leasing option would allow the Air Force to amortize the majority 
of upfront acquisition costs over the life of lease, and at no 
additional cost, since the leasing money comes from existing operation 
and maintenance funds. This allows flexibility by allowing the Air 
Force to purchase the aircraft at any point in the lease, and also 
accelerates the acquisition while maintaining existing procurement 
priorities.
  We need planes, and particularly given the current geopolitical 
context, including crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and the 
Middle East, we need them now. The leasing program that was 
overwhelmingly by this Chamber last year was the right thing to do then 
and it continues to be the right thing to do.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to support the withdrawal of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona.
  I am opposed to the McCain amendment which would attempt to redefine 
an issue the entire Congress has already endorsed and the President has 
signed into law.

[[Page S7805]]

  I spoke about this amendment last evening and will only make brief 
remarks today.
  I want to begin by associating myself with the remarks of Senator 
Stevens and Senator Inouye. Both of these Senators have committed an 
enormous amount of time to work on this important issue. I know, all 
Senators know, that when Senator Dan Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens 
speak about tankers, their ultimate interest is the safety of the men 
and women in uniform who are protecting our country. I am proud to have 
worked closely with Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens to win approval 
for the leasing provisions in last year's Defense Appropriations 
measure.
  Senator McCain ask the Senate to again require authorization for the 
lease of aircraft. Senator McCain's language is specific to the 
proposed 737 lease but his rhetoric and his ultimate objective is to 
scuttle any potential lease deal regardless of whether it is for a 737 
aircraft or 767 aircraft.
  As I stated last evening, I am puzzled that this issue continues to 
come up.
  Not long ago, the Senate considered the Defense Authorization 
legislation. The Senator from Arizona sits on the committee. That was 
the bill to have this debate. This 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. It makes little sense to me. This is 
the wrong place to have this debate.
  The Senator wants to scuttle the 737 lease recently announced by the 
Air Force. Importantly, that lease deal has been sent to the Armed 
Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in both 
the House and Senate for review and comment. And, it is my 
understanding, that all four panels have reviewed and approved of the 
lease and the Air Force justification for the lease.
  Last year, both the Senate and the House supported the language in 
the Defense Appropriations bill giving the Air Force the authority to 
move forward with lease discussions. The President signed the bill into 
law after the provisions were carefully scrutinized by the Office of 
Management and Budget. And now, with an actual lease deal proposed, the 
four relevant panels have signed off on an actual deal.
  Yet, the Senator from Arizona persists in his attempts to scuttle an 
Air Force lease. Senator McCain has succeeded in making sure that this 
issue is thoroughly reviewed. It has been reviewed. The Senator clearly 
does not like the outcome of the review and he now wants the Senate to 
start the process over again and give him additional time to delay a 
legitimate need of our military.
  The Senator also talks about competition. Here's what is really at 
stake. The Senator from Arizona wants to open the doors to the Air 
Force and the Department of Defense to Airbus. One U.S. company 
manufactures commercial aircraft of this type. One and only one U.S. 
company can meet the Air Force needs.
  The Senator is not talking about asking the Air Force to choose 
between Ford and Chevrolet. The Senator from Arizona is asking the 
Senate to decide whether U.S. workers or European workers will 
manufacture U.S. military aircraft. That's a simple choice for me. U.S. 
taxpayers should not be asked to undermine the lone U.S. manufacturer 
of aircraft. U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize Airbus.
  I want to remind my colleagues again what the Secretary of the Air 
Force, James Roche, wrote to me in a letter on the tanker issue, 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 strong endorse beginning to 
upgrade this critical warfighting capability with new Boeing 767 tanker 
aircraft.''
  Those are the words of the Secretary of the Air Force. The Air Force 
wants to move forward with the lease option. Congress voted for the 
lease last year. The President signed the lease option into law. And 
the relevant committees have just approved the lease terms proposed by 
the Air Force for 737 aircraft.
  I encourage my colleagues to again support this important option to 
lease aircraft, to get assets into the field that are of great 
importance to our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to address the subject of our 
Nation's security needs in the context of the Defense appropriations 
bill presently before the Senate.
  I believe we must provide the best possible training, equipment, and 
preparation for our military forces, so they can effectively carry out 
whatever peacekeeping, humanitarian, war-fighting, or other missions 
they are given. They deserve the targeted pay raises of 4.1-6.5 
percent, the incentive pay for difficult-to-fill assignments, and the 
reduced out-of-pocket housing costs from the current 11.3 percent to 
7.5 percent contained in this bill. The bill would also fully fund 
active and reserve end strengths, including an additional 724 positions 
for the Army National Guard, which will hopefully ease the current 
burden on our over-stretched men and women in uniform. For many years 
running, those in our armed forces have been suffering from a declining 
quality of life, despite rising military Pentagon budgets. The pressing 
needs of our dedicated men and women in uniform, and those of their 
families, must be addressed as they continue to be mobilized in the war 
against terrorism. This bill goes far in addressing those needs, and I 
will vote for it today.
  I am also supporting the bill because it contains two important 
amendments that I offered. The first would bar any funds in this bill 
from being used to enter defense contracts with U.S. companies who 
incorporate overseas to avoid U.S. taxes.
  Former U.S. companies who have renounced their citizenship currently 
hold at least $2 billion worth of contracts with the Federal 
Government. I do not believe that companies who aren't willing to pay 
their fair share of taxes should be able to hold these contracts. U.S. 
companies, who play by the rules, who pay their fair share of taxes, 
should not be forced to compete with bad actors who can undercut their 
bids because of a tax loophole.
  In the last couple of years a number of prominent U.S. corporations, 
using creative paperwork, have transformed themselves into Bermuda 
corporations purely to avoid paying their share of U.S. taxes. These 
new Bermuda companies are basically shell corporations: they have no 
staff, no offices, and no business activity in Bermuda. They exist for 
the sole purpose of shielding income from the IRS.
  U.S. tax law contains many provisions designed to expose such 
creative accounting and to require U.S. companies that are foreign in 
name only to pay the same taxes as other domestic corporations. But 
these bad corporate former-citizens exploit a specific loophole in 
current law so that the company is treated as foreign for tax purposes, 
and therefore pays no U.S. taxes on its foreign income.
  The loophole gives tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks to major 
multinational companies with significant non-U.S. business. It also 
puts other U.S. companies unwilling or unable to use this loophole at a 
competitive disadvantage. No American company should be penalized 
staying put while others renounce U.S. ``citizenship'' for a tax break.
  Well, the problem with all this is that when these companies don't 
pay their fair share, the rest of American tax payers and businesses 
are stuck with the bill. I think I can safely say that very few of the 
small businesses that I visit in Detroit Lakes, MN, or Mankato, in 
Minneapolis, or Duluth can avail themselves of the Bermuda Triangle.
  They can't afford the big name tax lawyers and accountants to show 
them how to do their books Enron-style but they probably wouldn't want 
to anyway if it meant renouncing their citizenship. So the price they 
pay for their good citizenship is a higher tax bill.
  My amendment closes this loophole. We all make sacrifices in a time 
of war, the only sacrifice this amendment asks of Federal contractors 
is that they pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else.
  The bill also contains a second amendment which would significantly 
improve the Department's response to domestic violence. I was deeply 
concerned to hear about the four domestic

[[Page S7806]]

violence homicides that occurred over the past six weeks at Fort Bragg 
in North Carolina. But these incidents, while unusual in that they are 
clustered within such a short time, are not unique. The military 
reports 207 domestic violence homicides since 1995.
  My amendment, which is based on the recommendations of the 
Department's Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, would ensure that 
funds are available to establish an impartial, multi-disciplinary 
Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team at the Military Community and 
Family Policy Office. It would also help the Department ensure that 
there are victim's advocates at every military installation to provide 
confidential support and guidance exclusively to victims, by providing 
$10 million for this purpose. Finally, the amendment would require that 
the Secretary report to Congress on progress in implementing the 
recommendations of the Task Force.
  In the introduction to 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 do not 
think anyone who has followed the recent events in North Carolina would 
disagree.
  I also believe the bill addresses some of the serious flaws in the 
process by which the Defense Department summarily terminated the 
Crusader Artillery system. I strongly believe in fair, transparent, and 
informed government-decision making processes, which did not occur in 
the case of the Crusader. Three Defense secretaries, three Army 
secretaries, and three Army chiefs of staff, as well as numerous 
administration officials, testified in support of the Crusader. Yet 
within a few weeks of this testimony, the Secretary of Defense abruptly 
terminated the Crusader. The decision was made without consultation 
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, without consultation with the Army, and 
without consultation with members of Congress. The Defense 
Authorization bill then required the Army Chief of Staff and Secretary 
of Defense to conduct a serious study of the best way to provide for 
the Army's need for indirect fire support. At the same time, it 
provided the Secretary of Defense, following the study, a full range of 
options. These include termination to continued funding of Crusader, to 
funding alternative systems to meet battlefield requirements. That 
report having been completed, the bill before us expresses concern 
about the way the termination was proposed, and instructs the Army to 
move forward with a follow-on contract immediately to leverage the 
Crusader technology to field a lighter, more mobile cannon in 2008. 
This is good news for the workers and officials at the United Defense 
Industries plant in Minnesota, whose advanced skills and expertise will 
be necessary for the success of this new cannon.
  I also have concerns about the bill, especially about its missile 
defense provisions. The Defense Authorization bill reported out by the 
Armed Services Committee would have cut total funding for missile 
defense from $7.6 billion to $6.8 billion. Unfortunately, the Senate 
adopted an amendment to restore the entire $814 million, with the 
President given the option of spending funds on either missile defense 
programs or on counter-terrorism. This bill retains this change. I 
would have preferred that the cut be restored, and if not, that the 
President at least be required to use the funds solely for counter-
terrorism.
  I've long been a critic of Ballistic Missile Defense, BMD, and I 
still have strong reservations about the feasibility, cost and 
rationale for such a system. When I addressed missile defense on the 
Senate floor on September 25, just 2 weeks after terrorists destroyed 
the World Trade Center, I argued that pressing ahead on BMD would make 
the U.S. less rather than more secure. Instead, I suggested the Senate 
give homeland defense the high priority it deserves by transferring 
funds to it from missile defense programs. But the administration 
obviously didn't agree and approved only $26 million.
  In conclusion, I believe in maintaining a strong national defense. We 
face a number of credible threats in the world today, including 
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We must 
make sure we carefully identify the threats we face and tailor our 
defense spending to meet them. We could do a better job of that than 
this bill does, and I hope that as we move to conference, the committee 
will make every effort to transfer funds from relatively low-priority 
programs to those designed to meet the urgent and immediate anti-
terrorism and defense of our forces.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that 
is of great importance to me, the retention of key military personnel 
in our Armed Forces. It has been brought to my attention that in order 
for us to retain top notch military personnel, we need to, among other 
things, improve the quality of family life on our military bases. I 
believe that we need to do everything in our power to improve the 
morale and welfare of our military personnel and their families. I also 
commend the President and the managers of this bill, as I believe this 
year's Department of Defense appropriations bill goes a long way to 
this end.
  In working toward this, we should do what we can to provide our Armed 
Forces with access to training in cutting-edge technologies. We can 
improve the quality of military family life, while at the same time 
provide military personnel and their families with valuable lifelong 
employable technological skill sets. This may even have the ancillary 
benefit of providing families and service personnel technology training 
applicable in both military and civilian settings and could help 
provide service personnel and their family members with the 
technological currency critical to excelling in today's society as Web 
designers, 3-D animators, programmers, media artists.
  The men and women of our Armed Forces, whether they be active duty, 
Guard or Reserve, stand ready to aid both State and Nation when called 
upon. They come from all walks of life and all corners of this great 
country. They sacrifice time with their families, so that when they are 
called upon, both here and abroad, they honor the call and give their 
very best to those they serve. I believe that it is our duty to honor 
their commitment to us by providing them with the tools they need to be 
their best and the resources they need to compete in today's 
competitive environment.
  Unfortunately due to funding constraints and the numerous worthy 
programs included in this year's bill, funding was not available for a 
couple of projects which may have value in this regard. I hope Congress 
gives consideration to these programs next year.
  I want to make sure that during this time, when we are spending so 
much funding on equipment, ammunition, etc., and rightly so, that we do 
not lose sight of the importance of quality of life issues. We can have 
all of the cutting-edge technology and fancy machinery that money can 
buy, but it means nothing and is useless without our brave men and 
women behind it.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in a few moments, Senators will be called 
upon to cast their votes on the Defense appropriations bill. At this 
moment, I wish to express my gratitude to the Senator from Alaska for 
his cooperation in moving this bill through the Senate.
  This is a massive spending bill totaling more than $355 billion. With 
the cooperation of Senator Stevens and his Republican colleagues, we 
were able to work through the issues of this bill with comity and a 
minimum of controversy. The defense of our Nation is too important to 
be a matter of partisan politics. My friend, Senator Stevens, knows 
that and follows that in all of his actions, and so I thank him and his 
staff for all their hard work: His chief assistant, Mr. Steve Cortese, 
and Ms. Sid Ashworth, Mr. Kraig Siracuse, Ms. Alycia Farrell, and Ms. 
Nicole Royal.
  Finally, Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the hard work of my 
staff. They put in very long hours year round but especially as we seek 
to act on the annual appropriations bill. I express my deep gratitude 
to them as well: Mr. Charles Houy, Mr. David Morrison, Ms. Susan Hogan, 
Ms. Mazie Mattson, Mr. Tom Hawkins, Ms. Lesley Kalen, Ms. Menda Fife, 
and Ms. Betsy Schmid.

[[Page S7807]]

  Mr. President, finally I say to all my colleagues, this is a very 
good bill, and I urge all Senators to vote for it.
  I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me a minute?
  Mr. INOUYE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, Scriptures say:

       Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand 
     before kings. . . .

  These two Senators are diligent in their business. They are 
experienced legislative craftsmen, and they have studied this subject 
for many years. In defense of our country, they have traveled all over 
the globe searching for answers to questions, searching for solutions 
to problems, and coming back to the Senate and applying their 
experience, their knowledge to the problems at hand. The Senate is in 
their debt.
  I personally thank them for the good work they have done on this 
bill, the good work they always do. The Nation is in their debt. I 
thank them both.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back my time.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. Under the previous 
order, the committee-reported substitute is agreed to.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, H.R. 5010, as 
amended, pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

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

                                NAYS--3

     Feingold
     McCain
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Akaka
     Helms
       
  The bill (H.R. 5010), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendments and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Byrd, 
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, and Mrs. 
Hutchison conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________