Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 108 (Thursday, August 1, 2002)

[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Amendment No. 4445 Withdrawn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(The amendment (No. 4445) was withdrawn.)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.

____________________