[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 136 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10516-S10524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 
5010, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     5010), making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, signed by all of the conferees on 
     the part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of 
October 9, 2002.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15 
minutes for debate, 5 minutes each for the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. 
Inouye, and the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today with my 
cochairman Senator Stevens to present our recommendations to the Senate 
on the conference report for H.R. 5010, the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003.
  The conference agreement represents a compromise reached after a 
month-long series of discussions by the managers.
  Our recommendations bring the total in the bill to $355.1 billion, 
$298 million below the Senate passed bill and $395 million above the 
House level.
  This conference agreement represents a good faith effort to balance 
the priorities of the House and Senate in meeting our National Security 
requirements. I am confident it achieves that objective.
  Our time is brief today, so I will not detail all of the items in 
this measure. But I want to make three points.
  First, this bill is likely to be one of the two appropriations bills 
to be completed before the election. As such, there were many items 
that members sought to have included in this conference report. I am 
happy to report to the Senate that no extraneous matters were included 
by the conferees. This is a very clean bill.
  Second, last week the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the use 
of force against Iraq. It is imperative we pass this bill before we 
recess to ensure our forces have the support they require to carry out 
whatever missions our Nation asks them.
  Third, I commend my co chairman, Senator Stevens, for his work on 
this bill. He was instrumental in defending many of the priorities of 
the Senate, including our efforts to support strong financial 
management in DoD: Fully funding the C-17 program and paying off our 
unfunded liability on shipbuilding programs.
  As always, my friend was assisted in this by his very capable staff 
led by Steve Cortese, and including Sid Ashworth, Kraig Siracuse, 
Jennifer Chartrand, Alicia Farrell, and Nicole Royal. I also want to 
note the fine work of my staff: Charlie Houy, David Morrison, Susan 
Hogan, Mazie Mattson, Tom Hawkins, Bob Henke, Leslie Kalan, Menda Fife, 
and Betsy Schmid.
  Mr. President, finally I commend the House for their courtesy and 
cooperation. Chairman Lewis and Representative Murtha could not have 
been more gracious. While there were many issues upon which we 
differed, we were able to resolve those in a friendly and constructive 
fashion.
  I note as well the great work of their fine staff led by Kevin Roper 
and Greg Dahlberg, and including:
  Betsy Phillips, Doug Gregory, Alicia Jones, Greg Walters, Paul Juola, 
Steve Nixon, David Norquist, Greg Lankler, Clelia Alvarado, Paul Terry, 
Sarah Young, Sherry Young, Chris Mallard, David Killian and Bill 
Gnacek.
  Mr. President this is a good bill, it is exactly what our armed 
forces need, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with my 
distinguished colleague from Hawaii to offer this bill. It is the 
largest Defense bill in history. It is a bill that merits the support 
of every Member of the Senate.
  I do congratulate Senator Inouye for his leadership and for his hard 
work and cooperation with the Members of the House, whom he has named, 
with whom we have worked on this bill.
  We have had different views on this bill, but we have proceeded 
without rancor and I think worked out a compromise that is satisfactory 
to the administration, particularly the Department of Defense and the 
President. I believe it is a balanced and fair bill.
  There were nearly $18 billion in differences between the House and 
Senate bills. All of these have been reconciled within the limits of 
discretion and with good will. I think these compromises should receive 
overwhelming support from the Department because they actually make the 
bill much more functional, more workable. It is the kind of bill that 
we should have in the times we are in now, where we are close to a very 
difficult problem as far as Iraq is concerned.
  This bill fully funds all military requirements for the armed 
services. It contains a 4.1-percent pay increase and lifetime health 
care benefits for the military retirees.
  It further reduces the out-of-pocket costs for some of the military 
families who do not have the benefit of on-base housing.
  We really have tried to strike a balance between near-term readiness 
and the investments we must make for the future, as far as our defense 
establishment is concerned.
  This bill mandates full funding for six Stryker brigades to transform 
our ground combat forces and adds funds for future combat systems.
  For the Navy, funding the CVN-X and the DD-X and the littoral combat 
ship and the Virginia class submarine,

[[Page S10517]]

all accelerate the introduction of a completely new 21st century 
technology for the Navy. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force all 
await deployment of the Joint Strike Fighter, and so do we. The bill 
sustains the deployment of that new aircraft and adds funds for two new 
engine options. The Air Force receives funds to expand the effort for 
the production of the F-22, the C-17, and hopefully for the replacement 
of our aging fleet of air refueling tankers.
  One of the difficult dreams I have is a flight of our fighters coming 
back to meet a tanker and finding it is not there. We have to work on 
this and work very hard to make sure we have the tanker capacity 
because our air power depends entirely upon our tanker capability. 
These commitments will deliver the capabilities we must have for the 
fiscal years ahead of us.
  These systems not only contribute to the war against terrorism today, 
but they will fund replacement of equipment rapidly deteriorating. They 
must be functional for us in combat in the global war on terrorism. It 
is consistent with the President's budget request. This bill in 
particular funds a missile defense system at the President's request.
  I hope all Members will realize, ranging from ground- and sea-based 
missiles to airborne lasers, we are going to have layers of defense 
that will protect our troops abroad and at sea, and our people here at 
home. That missile defense system must go forward.
  Again, I commend my good friend, the chairman of the committee. It is 
a pleasure to work with him and the chairman of our full committee, 
Senator Byrd, in their efforts to move this bill forward. We have urged 
that the Defense bill be first, and the Defense bill is first. It 
indicates the priority that the whole national Federal Government 
places upon defense. I believe this conference report, as I said, 
merits the support of every Senator.
  I also send my personal appreciation to the chairman of the House 
subcommittee, Congressman Jerry Lewis, and the ranking member of the 
House subcommittee, Congressman Jack Murtha. They have been very 
gracious people to work with under difficult circumstances.
  I also ask that the Senate commend the staffs of both the majority 
and minority in the Senate and the majority and the minority in the 
House. These people have worked behind the scenes, around the clock, 
sometimes through weekends, to eliminate the difficult problems that 
have come up in this bill. As I said, $18 billion of difference and 
there is not an argument between us in terms of this bill. But led by 
Charlie Houy here on the majority side and Steve Cortese, who is by my 
side now, our staffs have worked, I think, just without any rancor at 
all.
  I do want to say at last, though, Kevin Roper and Greg Dahlberg, as 
Senator Inouye mentioned, made a tremendous contribution to this work 
in the House.
  I urge approval of this conference report.


     JOINT COMPUTER AIDED ACQUISITION AND LOGISTICS SUPPORT PROGRAM

  Mr. BYRD. Will my friend, the Senator from Hawaii, who ably serves as 
the chairman of the subcommittee on Defense, yield for a colloquy?
  Mr. INOUYE. I am pleased to yield to the Chairman of the Committee on 
appropriations, the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Is my understanding correct that the FY 2003 Defense 
Appropriations Bill now before the Senate contains an increase of $21.5 
million above the President's budget request for the Joint Computer 
Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support, JCALS, program, for a total FY 
2003 program level of $58.9 million?
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman for his assurances. If I may inquire 
further, it is also my understanding that it is the committee's intent 
that $21.5 million of the JCALS funds in the Army RTDE account are to 
be spent exclusively on activities directly related to the JCALS 
Tactical Logistics Data Digitization (TLDD) initiative, which operates 
out of Hinton, WV.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct that it is our strong intention 
that the TLDD initiative be expanded and deployment accelerated by use 
of the $21.5 million of JCALS Army RDTE funds provided in the FY 2003 
Defense Appropriations bill.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman. If he would yield for a final 
question, am I correct in my understanding that it is the Committee's 
further intent that the JCALS Program leverage and expand the 
capabilities of the Southeast Regional Technical Center now primarily 
located in Hinon, WV to provide support and training for the TLDD 
initiative? This action will address a key recommendation by the 
Institute for Defense Analysis in a study it prepared last year for the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense to increase training and support for 
the military services that utilize the JCALS program.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from West Virginia is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for his clarification and assistance 
with this most important issue.


  APPLICATION OF THE BERRY AMENDMENT TO THE MULTI-YEAR AIRCRAFT LEASE 
                             PILOT PROGRAM

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in order to enter into a colloquy 
with the Senator from Hawaii to seek clarification on the correct 
interpretation of report language in the conference agreement report 
that deals with the Berry amendment and the Multi-Year Aircraft Lease 
Pilot Program.
  As I read this language, it appears the report language provides an 
explanation of Section 308 in the fiscal year 2002 Supplement 
Appropriations bill that permitted the multi-year aircraft lease 
program to proceed without meeting the Berry amendment restrictions on 
the use of foreign sourced specialty metals in the procurement of air 
refueling tanker replacements. I, and many of my colleagues, are 
pleased to see that the report language seems to indicate that this 
suspension of the Berry amendment is only applicable to this unique 
multi-year leasing program. I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii, am I correct reading this report language?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond to my good friend from 
Nevada, he is correct that this report language does state that Section 
308 from the FY 2020 Supplemental Appropriations bill only applies to 
this specific Multi-year Aircraft Leasing Program and no other 
procurement or leasing program.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also would like to ask the Senator a 
question regarding another aspect of the report language. This language 
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a study and report to 
Congress on a comparison of foreign and domestic-sourced specialty 
metals to be used in this leased fleet of refueling tankers with the 
specialty metal content of military aircraft that have been procured by 
the Air Force in the last five years.
  It appears that this new study by the Air Force is designed to look 
at the specialty metal content on a new ``system-level'' basis rather 
than on the current aircraft-by-aircraft basis. Therefore, I am 
concerned that this new ``system-level basis'' study could be the first 
step in eroding the longstanding practice of determining Berry 
amendment compliance under a whole new standard and could, in turn, 
harm our domestic specialty metal industry and its employees. I would 
like to ask the Senator from Hawaii whether this new Air Force study 
will be used by the Appropriations Committee to advocate additional 
Berry amendment exemptions for other procurement programs to modify the 
overall content requirements of the Berry amendment for future military 
procurement programs?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada raises an 
excellent point. I want to assure him and my colleagues that I strongly 
support the provisions of the Berry amendment and I am not interested 
in supporting any legislative action that would harm our nation's 
specialty metal industry or its employees. The exemption of the Berry 
amendment for the Multi-Year Aircraft Leasing Program was a unique 
situation and I do not believe the multi-year leasing program should be 
the basis for any modification of the important aircraft-by-aircraft 
content requirements inherent in the Berry amendment. I hope this fully 
addresses the gentleman's concerns.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman for his support of the 
Berry amendment and for his commitment to ensure a viable and healthy 
domestic specialty metals industry.

[[Page S10518]]

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am proud today to express my support 
for the 2003 Defense Appropriations Act. The Conference Report I will 
vote for provides a much-needed boost to our Defense budget, a total of 
$355.1 billion, $21 billion more than was appropriated for this year. 
This is the largest defense budget in our Nation's history, and it 
could not come at a more important time.
  Our military is engaged in a global campaign against terror, and 
could be preparing for another war soon. It is essential that our 
military remains outfitted with the most advanced equipment to meet 
threats to our Nation today as well as into the future. But our most 
important asset is our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. I am 
proud to support this bill, and its funding for a 4.1 percent increase 
in basic pay for all service members.
  This bill is good for the military, good for the country, and good 
for Missouri. In fact, it funds over $293 million for a number of 
Missouri defense projects, many of which will directly stimulate 
economic development in my State. In particular, the projects funded in 
this bill, from Boeing F/A-18 aircraft, to new advances in chemical and 
biological defenses, will support America's war effort against 
international terrorism.
  Missouri's single largest defense contract, the F/A-18 program 
employs over 4,000 people in the St. Louis area. I am pleased that the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee increased funding for this program 
by $120 million over the Administration's Super Hornet budget proposal.
  Despite testimony by the Navy's top leaders requesting an increase in 
funding for this program, the President's original budget proposal 
reduced the number of Super Hornets that the Navy was originally 
scheduled to buy in 2003. Under the existing contract between Boeing 
and the Navy, the Defense Department was scheduled to purchase 48 
aircraft in 2003. However, the President's budget only proposed 44 
aircraft to be purchased in 2003.
  This continues a downward trend for the F/A-18's budget, which is now 
in its third year of a multi-year contract. Coupled with reductions 
made in previous years, the President's proposed 2003 budget would mark 
a total of 10 aircraft cut in the course of three years. In response, I 
worked to restore funding for aircraft purchases.
  I was pleased that earlier this year, the Senate passed a bill that 
included an additional $240 million for this program, even though the 
House did not. While the final conference report did not fund this 
increase in full, it did provide $120 million more than the original 
proposal submitted to Congress by the Administration.
  This is an important development, and I pleased to lend my support to 
this Conference Report today. Today's bill marks Congress's continued 
backing for not only these critical tactical aircraft but for the 
military's ongoing modernization to transform and meet the challenges 
our country will face in both the near and long term.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise again to address the issue of 
wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case, the 
Appropriations Committee Conference Report to accompany H.R. 5010, a 
bill to fund the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003. This 
legislation would provide $355.1 billion to the Department of Defense. 
This year's defense appropriations bill adds 1,760 programs not 
requested by the President, at a further cost of $7.4 billion with 
questionable relationships to national defense at a time of scarce 
resources, budget deficits, and underfunded, urgent defense priorities.
  Just last week the Senate passed the Iraqi War Resolution by a vote 
of 77 to 23, authorizing the President of the United States to commit 
the United States Armed Forces to achieve a regime change in Iraq. 
America remains at war, a war that continues to unite Americans in 
pursuit of a common goal, to defeat international terrorism. All 
Americans have, and undoubtably in the future will make sacrifices for 
this war. Many have been deeply affected by it and at times harmed by 
difficult, related economic circumstances. Our servicemen and women in 
particular are truly on the front lines in this war, separated from 
their families, risking their lives, and working extraordinarily long 
hours under the most difficult conditions to accomplish the ambitious 
but necessary task their country has set for them.
  Despite the realities of war, and the serious responsibilities the 
situation imposes on Congress and the President, the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees have not seen fit to change in any degree its 
blatant use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve 
some worthy purpose. Furthermore, some of the add-ons clearly impair 
our national defense by depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate 
funding.
  Even in the middle of a war against terrorism, a war of monumental 
consequences that is expected to last for some time, the Appropriations 
Committees remain intent on ensuring that part of the Department of 
Defense's mission is to dispense corporate welfare. It is a shame that 
at such a critical time, the United States Senate persists in spending 
money requested and authorized only for our Armed Forces to satisfy the 
needs or the desires of interests that are unrelated to defense and 
even, in truth, unconcerned about the true needs of our military.
  If the war against terrorism is taken to the Iraqi theater there will 
be bills to pay. White House economist, Lawrence Lindsey, estimates 
that a full scale mobilization in Iraq could cost as much as $100 to 
$200 billion. A lower estimate reported in the Washington Post puts the 
cost of committing United States forces in Iraq at $30 to $50 billion. 
This lower estimate assumes, quoting the September 24, 2002 Washington 
Post, a war `` . . . with inept enemy forces, no use of chemical or 
biological weapons, access to bases and airspace in most Gulf states 
and Turkey, and low casualties on our side.'' It is quite obvious that 
the costs of the use of force in Iraq will be substantial. With the 
possibility of such a large expenditure in our future how can 
Appropriators spend our precious defense dollars so foolishly?
  An Investor's Business Daily article published late last year 
entitled At the Trough: Welfare Checks to Big Business Make No Sense, 
stated, ``[a]mong the least justified outlays [in the federal budget] 
is corporate welfare. Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that 
business subsidies will run $87 billion [in 2001], up a third since 
1997. Although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate 
welfare [in 2001], Congress has proved resistant. Indeed many post-
September 11 bailouts have gone to big business. Boeing is one of the 
biggest beneficiaries. . . . While corporate America gets the profits, 
taxpayers get the losses. . . . The Constitution authorizes a Congress 
to promote the general welfare, not enrich Boeing and other corporate 
behemoths. There is no warrant to take from Peter so Paul can pay 
higher dividends. In the aftermath of September 11, the American people 
can ill afford budget profligacy in Washington. If Congress is not 
willing to cut corporate welfare at a time of national crisis, what is 
it willing to cut?''
  Yet, Congress didn't get the message this year. In the Fiscal Year 
2003 Defense Appropriations conference report that we are considering 
today, the Appropriations Committees added nearly $500 million in 
aircraft procurement that the Department of Defense did not request. 
There were funds appropriated for twenty-four types of aircraft; 
unfortunately none of these were identified by the military as 
requirements. It staggers the mind to think of what programs the 
services desperately need could have been funded by $500 million.
  Here is a very short list of just some of the more egregious examples 
of Defense appropriations
  $12 million for the 21st Century Truck. This program has been around 
for years and not once has the Department of Defense requested funding 
for it. While I'm sure we all would love to jump into a truck that 
could be in a James Bond movie, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the 
Department of Defense to pay for it.
  $3.4 million for the Next Generation Smart Truck. I suppose this is 
what we will drive before the 21st Century Truck is ready.
  $1 million for Canola Oil Fuel Cells. I would think that the only 
canola oil the Department of Defense should be investing in should be 
used for salad

[[Page S10519]]

dressing for our troops, not inventing batteries.
  $4.5 million for a Coastal Cancer Research Center. A worthwhile 
expenditure, but the Defense Appropriations Bill is not the place for 
these funds to come from.
  $1 million for Math Teacher Leadership.
  $3 million in Impact Aid for Children with Disabilities.
  $19 million for International Sporting Competitions.
  $7.7 million for the Alaska Wide Mobile Radio Program.
  $1 million for Animal Modeling Genetics Research.
  $2.6 million for the Pacific Rim Corrosion Project.
  $6 million for the Pacific Disaster Center Project.
  $1 million for the Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Project.
  These are just a few glaring examples of the more than 1,760 Member 
additions that leave many people scratching their heads trying to find 
the link to defense program funding.
  Here is a very abbreviated list of some of the member additions that, 
while at least connected to the Department of Defense, were still not 
requested in the President's budget nor were they on any of the 
service's unfunded priority lists. Remember, every one of these 
additions come at the expense of programs that our services need to 
carry out their missions. For every dollar spent on these additions, it 
is one taken out of priority programs.
  $53 million in Distance Learning.
  $101.3 million in Defense Wide Administration Activities.
  $44 million for Multi-Purpose Vehicles.
  $58.5 million for Automated Data Processing Equipment.
  $30.8 million for Non-System Training Devices.
  $14 million for Drones and Decoys.
  $6.7 million in Base Information Infrastructure.
  $1 million in Polar Fleece Shirts.
  $5 million for the Institute for Creative Technology.
  $2 million for the Center for Geo-Sciences.
  $3 million for the Concepts Experimentation Program.
  $2 million for the Consortium for Military Personnel Research.
  I will not list the rest of the additions as that would take hours. A 
larger list of Defense Appropriations Conference Committee earmarks is 
available on my website. I find it incredible that we are funding these 
unrequested and unneeded programs when we have more than 500 items that 
the Department of Defense says they need on their ``Unfunded Priority 
Lists''.
  You will recall that last year, during conference negotiations on the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee inserted into the bill unprecedented 
language to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 767 commercial 
aircraft and convert them to tankers, and to lease four Boeing 737 
commercial aircraft for passenger airlift to be used by congressional 
and Executive Branch officials. Congress did not authorize these 
leasing provisions in the fiscal year 2002 National Defense 
Authorization Act, and in fact, the Senate Armed Services Committee was 
not advised of this effort by Air Force Secretary Jim Roche 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 in the 
amount of $3 million for the ``Tanker Lease Pilot Program'' for the 
proposed Boeing 767 aerial tanker leasing scheme. Furthermore, 
additional language in the bill modifies a provision that had been 
carefully negotiated by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, with 
appropriators last year, and may now permit the Air Force to circumvent 
law, OMB and standard leasing arrangements and, with respect to the 100 
Boeing 767s, will allow the Air Force to defer the termination 
liability costs up-front, unprecedented in leasing arrangements 
according to leasing experts and certainly against good business 
practices.
  In multi-year contracts such as leases there is a statuary 
requirement to obligate money for termination liability payments in the 
first year of the contract. The reason is quite simple. If the 
government, the Air Force in this case, cancels the contract then the 
Air Force is required to pay Boeing for breaking the terms of the 
contract. What would happen if a Boeing 767 tanker was hit by hostile 
fire which caused a catastrophic fire onboard and the Boeing 767 tanker 
crashed. Under a similar leasing arrangement like the one that the Air 
Force signed with the Boeing Company for Boeing 737 VIP Executive 
aircraft, ``loss or destruction of the aircraft constitutes a notice of 
cancellation'' and under the terms of the lease the Air Force would be 
required to make a termination liability payment. Not planning for this 
is irresponsible, especially concerning military aircraft which operate 
in harms way with great regularity. This deferment of termination 
liability payment is an unfunded federal liability. This leaves 
Congress with no recourse but to foot the cost of this unfunded 
liability with the Boeing Company and leaves the taxpayer stuck with a 
big bill without any say in the matter. Boeing gets paid under this 
termination liability clause, yet the taxpayer is out an aircraft.
  Particularly disconcerting is a provision that would allow the Air 
Force to fund the Boeing 767 aerial tanker lease from Air Force 
readiness appropriations rather than the ususal procurement accounts 
already committed to purchase $72 billion worth of other new weapons 
systems, aircraft and ships. According to statute, readiness 
appropriations or operations and maintenance accounts, finance the cost 
of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces. Specifically, included 
are the amounts for training and operation costs, pay of civilians, 
contract services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, 
supplies, and repair parts for weapons and equipment. Using critical 
readiness dollars to pay to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers, under a new 
start program, can only be properly referred to as a mistake of great 
proportions that will eventually have great consequences for all of our 
Armed Forces and not just for the Air Force. Since 1999, the defense 
budgets have made strides to reverse years of under-funding in the 
readiness accounts, however, I have serious concerns about the future 
state of preparedness of our units and our men and women in the 
military if we continue to follow the advice of the Secretary of the 
Air Force under some ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' leasing scheme.

  There is yet another egregious legislative provision included in the 
appropriations bill that certainly could be regarded as a bail out for 
Boeing. This provision would authorize the Air Force to pay annual 
advance payments, up to one year in advance, for leasing Boeing 767 
tanker aircraft. I would like to have one of my colleagues from the 
Appropriations Committee explain to me how is this provision in the 
best interest of the government or the taxpayer for that matter. This 
Boeing leasing arrangement is projected to cost $20 billion, that means 
the Air Force may have to pay up front, each year, literally billions 
of dollars to Boeing with the promise to deliver aircraft later what a 
deal, courtesy of the Appropriations Committee. As a senior member of 
the Armed Services Committee, I would have liked to have heard some 
testimony regarding this significant change in acquisition policy. In 
fact, the Armed Services Committee is the proper committee to make 
recommendations as to reforming defense procurement policy, not the 
Appropriations Committee. The truth is there is no gain to the 
government for this provision the gain is all on the side of the ledger 
of the Boeing Company. This is waste that borders on gross negligence.
  Does the appropriations committee have any respect for the 
authorizing committees in the Senate? I don't think so.
  I believe this expensive aerial tanker lease program to be a new 
start that has been estimated by the Office of Management and Budget to 
cost between $20-$30 billion over six years. A program of this 
magnitude should require considerable consultation with the Secretary 
of Defense directly, not just that of Air Force Secretary Jim Roche or 
his staff or a nebulous entity know as the Leasing Review Panel that

[[Page S10520]]

was recently organized by the DOD acquisition secretary and DOD 
comptroller for the sole purpose to recommend leasing major weapons 
platforms such as aircraft, vessels, and combat vehicles according to 
the Project on Government Oversight. I am deeply concerned that the 
Armed Services Committees have not been given adequate time for review, 
inspection or comment on this significant, unprecedented proposal and 
that we do not have the advice of the Defense Secretary that this 
program is warranted. Recall, however, that we did hear from the 
Defense Secretary about the Army's Crusader that would have had a total 
program cost of only a half to a third as much as Air Force's scheme to 
lease Boeing 767 aerial tankers.
  I appreciate the Secretary of Defense's strong support for the 
practice of using American taxpayers' money in a cost-effective manner 
to procure the best weapon system, at the best price for our men and 
women in uniform. I strongly endorse this practice. On June 28, 2001, 
in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Defense 
Secretary said, ``[w]e have an obligation to taxpayers to spend their 
money wisely. Today, . . . there is no real incentive to save a nickel. 
To the contrary, the way the Department operates today, there are 
disincentives to saving money. We need to ask ourselves: how should we 
be spending taxpayers dollars? We are doing two things: First, we are 
not treating the taxpayers' dollars with respect--and by not doing so, 
we risk losing their support; second, we are depriving the men and 
women of our Armed Forces of the training, equipment and facilities 
they need to accomplish their missions. They deserve better. We need to 
invest that money wisely.''
  The tanker leasing debate has not benefited from authorization 
committee input or a clear understanding of the Secretary of Defense's 
views on the requirement for this large procurement plan and the 
alleged Department of Air Force's change in policy to procure major 
weapons platforms, such as aircraft, through leasing schemes. I am 
concerned the impact of these provisions has not been adequately 
scrutinized, and the full cost to taxpayers has not been sufficiently 
considered.
  I would like to note that OMB Director Mitch Daniels has often 
indicated his preference to maintain scrutiny of government leasing 
practices out of regard for U.S. taxpayers. Just last year, in a letter 
from the OMB Director to Senator Kent Conrad, OMB cautioned against 
eliminating rules intended to reduce leasing abuses. OMB's letter 
emphasized that the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) scoring rules ``were 
specifically designed to encourage the use of financing mechanisms that 
minimize taxpayers' costs by eliminating the unfair advantage provided 
to lease-purchases by the previous scoring rules. Prior to the BEA, 
agencies only needed budget authority for the first year's lease 
payment, even though the agreement was a legally enforceable commitment 
to fully pay for the asset over time.'' OMB's letter continued by 
explaining that this loophole had permitted the General Services 
Administration to agree to 11 lease-purchase agreements with a total, 
full-term cost of $1.7 billion, but to budget only the first year of 
lease payments. OMB's letter stated, ``[t]he scoring hid the fact that 
these agreements had a higher economic cost than traditional direct 
purchases and in some cases allowed projects to go forward despite 
significant cost overruns. . . .'' Sounds very familiar.
  As I mentioned before on the Senate floor when the Fiscal Year 2002 
Defense Appropriations Conference Report was being debated, this is a 
sweet deal for the Boeing Company that I'm sure is the envy of 
corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to the other. The Project 
on Government Oversight a politically independent, non-profit watchdog 
organization called Secretary Roche's Boeing tanker lease deal `` . . . 
a textbook case of bad procurement policy and favoritism to a single 
defense contractor.''
  Let me review some of the highlights of the information and costs of 
this leasing scheme that have been provided to the Congress by the 
Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, the 
Department of Defense Inspector General, the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Department of Defense, and other important outside 
independent experts:
  GAO estimates the cost to lease 100 Boeing 767 tankers for 6 years to 
be $20 to $30 billion.
  GAO estimates that the cost to modernize and upgrade 127 KC-135 Es to 
``R'' Models is $3.6 billion; a $22.4 billion savings to leasing 100 
tankers.
  GAO estimates the cost for building new infrastructure for 100 Boeing 
767 tankers to be $1.7 billion, the same cost to modernize 59 older KC-
135 tankers.
  The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have 
between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them only 33 percent of the 
lifetime flying hour limit and no KC-135E's will meet the limit until 
2040.
  According to the Air Force, the Mission Capable Rate for KC-135 
tankers is 80 percent the highest in the Air Force inventory. The B-2 
Mission Capable Rate by comparison is 39 percent.
  According to the Air Force Air Mobility Command, there is no 
requirement to begin replacing KC-135's before fiscal year 2013.
  OMB reports that the current fleet of KC-135s is in good condition.
  According to OMB, leasing 100 Boeing 767 tankers, cost $26 billion, 
will result in an overall decrease of total tanker fleet capacity of 2 
million pounds of fuel; whereas upgrading 126 KC-135 Es to ``R'' 
models, cost $3.2 billion, will result in an increase of total tanker 
fleet capacity of 1.7 million pounds of fuel over and above existing 
capacity.
  According to the Air Force ``Tanker Requirement Study 05,'' replacing 
the KC-135E fleet with leased Boeing 767 tankers would not solve, and 
could exacerbate, the shortfalls identified in the TRS-05.
  According to the DOD IG, the Air Force competition/Request for 
Information, RFI, on leasing tankers was only 14 days, not the ususal 
length of time of 90 days constituting a concern regarding the true 
nature of the competition.
  The Congressional Budget Office has reported that a long-term lease 
of tanker aircraft would be significantly more expensive than a direct 
purchase of such aircraft.
  According to DOD, while the KC-135 is an average of 35 years old, its 
airframe hours and cycles are low with proper maintenance and upgrades 
the KC-135 may be sustainable for another 35 years.
  But this is just another example of Congress' political meddling and 
of how outside special interest groups have obstructed the military's 
ability to channel resources where they are most needed. I will repeat 
what I've said many, many times before, the military needs less money 
spent on pork and more spent to redress the serious problems caused by 
a decade of declining defense budgets.
  This defense appropriations bill also includes provisions to mandate 
domestic source restrictions; these ``Buy America'' provisions directly 
harm the United States and our allies. ``Buy America'' protectionist 
procurement policies, enacted by Congress to protect pork barrel 
projects in each Member's State or District, hurt military readiness, 
personnel funding, modernization of military equipment, and cost the 
taxpayer $5.5 billion annually. In many instances, we are driving the 
military to buy higher-priced, inferior products when we do not allow 
foreign competition. ``Buy America'' restrictions undermine DOD's 
ability to procure the best systems at the least cost and impede 
greater interoperability and armaments cooperation with our allies. 
They are not only less cost-effective, they also constitute bad policy, 
particularly at a time when our allies' support in the war on terrorism 
is so important.
  Secretary Rumsfeld and his predecessor, Bill Cohen, oppose this 
protectionist and costly appropriations policy. However, the 
appropriations' staff ignores this expert advice when preparing the 
legislative draft of the appropriations bills each year. The defense 
appropriations bill include several examples of ``Buy America'' pork, 
prohibitions on procuring anchor and mooring chain components for Navy 
warships; main propulsion diesel engines and propellers for a new class 
of Navy dry-stores and ammunition supply ships; supercomputers; carbon, 
alloy, or armor steel plate; ball and roller bearings; construction or 
conversion of any naval vessel; and, other

[[Page S10521]]

naval auxiliary equipment, including pumps for all shipboard services, 
propulsion system components such as engines, reduction gears, and 
propellers, shipboard cranes, and spreaders for shipboard cranes.
  I am pleased that an amendment that I introduced on the Senate floor 
carried through Conference Section 8147. This legislative provision 
would prohibit spending $30.6 million for leasing of Boeing 737 VIP 
Executive aircraft under any contract entered into under any 
procurement procedures other than pursuant to the Competition and 
Contracting Act which promotes full and open competition procedures in 
conducting a procurement for property or services. I believe this 
amendment would ensure full and open competition with respect to Boeing 
737 VIP Executive aircraft. Although last year's DOD Appropriations 
bill specified 4 Boeing 737 aircraft, it did not authorize the lease 
solely from the Boeing Company. Yet the Air Force only negotiated a 
sole source contract totaling nearly $400 million with the Boeing 
Company, seemingly in direct violation of this statutory language if 
they disburse funds for this VIP Executive aircraft lease without a 
fair and open competition. In today's failing economy, I imagine there 
are many leasing entities that would like to compete for this lucrative 
leasing arrangement with the Air Force. With the downturn in the 
commercial aviation industry and the serious financial condition of 
most airlines in the United States, it is very likely that there are 
more than a few airlines that would like to participate in a full and 
open competition to provide excess Boeing 737 transport aircraft under 
some leasing arrangement with the Air Force.
  I look forward to the day when my appearances on the Senate floor for 
this purpose are no longer necessary. I reiterate, over $7.4 billion in 
unrequested defense programs have been added by the Committee to the 
defense appropriations bill. Consider how that $7.4 billion, when added 
to the savings gained through additional base closings and more cost-
effective business practices, could be used so much more effectively. 
The problems of our Armed Forces, whether in terms of force structure 
or modernization, could be more assuredly addressed and our warfighting 
ability greatly enhanced. The American taxpayers expect more of us, as 
do our brave servicemen and women who are, without question, fighting 
this war on global terrorism on our behalf.
  But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, seemingly blind to 
our responsibilities at this time of war, going about our business as 
usual.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Defense 
Department appropriations conference report.
  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, warfighting, or other missions 
they are given. They deserve the across-the-board pay raises of 4.1 
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 conference report.
  The report would also fully fund active and reserve end strengths, 
including well over 700 new positions for the Army National Guard, 
which will hopefully ease the current burden on our overstretched 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 
conference report goes far in addressing those needs. In addition, it 
provides $150 million for Army peer review breast cancer research and 
$85 million for prostate cancer research.
  The conference report also provides $417 million for the Nunn-Lugar 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which seeks to secure airtight 
control over fissile materials and technologies from Russia and other 
former Soviet Union states to ensure that none makes its way into the 
hands of terrorists or to places like Iraq. Further, the report gives 
$70 million more than the administration requested to fund Israel's 
Arrow antimissile program, which could protect Israel against Scud 
missiles fired by Iraq. Finally, the report shifts $368.5 million from 
Crusader research and development to a new, lighter cannon, which will 
engage the expertise of the highly skilled workforce at the United 
Defense Industries plant in Minnesota. For these reasons and others, I 
will vote for it today.
  I also thank my colleagues on the conference committee for their hard 
work and their passage of an amendment I included in the Senate version 
of the Department of Defense appropriations bill. The final bill 
includes $5 million to put confidential victim advocates on military 
installations across the country. This would ensure that victims whose 
lives are in danger have an alternative place to turn that is 
confidential and where their needs can be met without qualification.
  The bill will also ensure that funds are made available to establish 
an impartial, multidisciplinary, confidential Domestic Violence 
Fatality Review Team. The team would be charged with investigating 
every domestic fatality in the military and helping to find ways to 
prevent fatalities in the future.
  Finally, this bill would require that the Secretary report to 
Congress on progress in implementing the recommendations of the 
National Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. Domestic violence is 
something that we in Congress must constantly work to prevent, reduce, 
and eventually end. Having such reporting will help us work with the 
Military to address this terrible problem.
  The National Defense Taskforce on Domestic Violence reported that 
``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 at Fort Bragg 
would disagree.

  Sadly, the North Carolina incidents, while unusual in that they were 
clustered within such a short time, are not unique. The Naval Criminal 
Investigative Service reported 54 domestic homicides in the Navy and 
Marines since 1995. The Army reported 131 and the Air Force reported 
32. This is a problem that is by no means limited to the military, but 
its dimensions in the military context are complex. They need to be 
addressed. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary 
Wolfowitz share that view. I applaud the Secretary and the Deputy 
Secretary for the attention they have given to this issue and the 
willingness they have shown to address it. I also applaud my 
colleagues, particularly Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, for their 
leadership in passing this important legislation.
  I am however, very disappointed that the conferees took out an 
amendment, that I offered and which the Senate adopted, that would have 
barred any funds in this bill from being used to enter 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 don't think that companies who aren't willing to pay 
their fair share of taxes should be able to hold these contracts. U.S. 
companies, that play by the rules, that 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.
  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

[[Page S10522]]

can avail themselves of the Bermuda Triangle.
  I should also say, that the amendment that the conferees dropped was 
really a very mild version. It was mostly prospective, and it only 
affected fiscal year 2003. I think it is appropriate for us to say that 
if the U.S. company wants to bid for a contract for U.S. defense work, 
then it should not renounce it's U.S. citizen for a tax break.
  We all make sacrifices in a time of war, the only sacrifice this 
amendment asked of federal contractors is that they pay their fair 
share of taxes like everybody else.
  My final point on this issue is that it is now clear that this fight 
is going to take place on the Homeland Security bill. The Senate has 
adopted a very strong amendment that I offered. There is a very similar 
amendment in the House passed bill. If the Republicans would end their 
filibuster of the homeland security bill we could get it to conference 
and get a good provision signed into law to crack down on these tax 
cheats. The Congress will not dodge this issue.
 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, after many long months of 
negotiation, the fiscal year 2003 Defense Appropriations will finally 
come to a close today. I add my strong support for this bill and would 
like to thank Senators Inouye and Stevens for their work to ensure our 
continuing support for the men and women in the United States Armed 
Services.
  At the very beginning of his administration, President Bush made it a 
priority to rebuild our military after 8 years of substantial and 
dangerous levels of operation and maintenance funding shortfalls under 
the previous administration. Those of us in the Senate have also heeded 
this call and I am pleased that we are about to take the next step in 
maintaining a military fully capable of defending our Nation and 
meeting our foreign policy goals.
  While some balked at the largest defense budget increase in nearly 2 
decades, I support the President in his efforts to transform our 
military. His reasoning for this increase is firm, and I quote the 
President for his two reasons behind the plan:

       I sent up to Congress the largest increase in defense 
     spending since Ronald Reagan was the President. I did it for 
     two reasons. One, any time we commit our troops into harm's 
     way, they deserve the best pay, the best equipment, and the 
     best possible training. And secondly, the reason I asked for 
     an increase the size of which I did is because I wanted to 
     send a message to friend and foe alike that when it comes to 
     the defense of our freedoms, we're not quitting. There's not 
     calendar on my desk that says, well, we've reached this time, 
     it's time to stop. That's not how I think. That's not how 
     America thinks. We want our friends understanding that. We 
     want the enemy to know it, as well--that when it comes to the 
     defense of our country, comes to defending the values we hold 
     dear, it doesn't matter how much it costs, it doesn't matter 
     how long it takes, the United States will be firm and 
     resolved. We owe that to our children, and we owe it to our 
     children's children.

  Specifically, I would like to point out some very important programs 
that have a great deal of bearing on the safety of our country. As the 
ranking member on the Strategic Subcommittee, I have made it abundantly 
clear how important missile defense is to not only our defense, but 
also our close allies. The most advanced cooperative military project 
between the United States and Israel is the Arrow missile defense 
system--a theater wide missile defense system capable of shooting down 
ballistic missiles fired at Israel or U.S. troops stationed in the 
Middle East. The Arrow system is operational, providing Israel with a 
functioning defense against surface-to-surface missiles.
  The appropriations conferees agreed on this priority and have 
provided $70 million to continue funding this very important program. 
This funding will ensure that Arrow remains capable of providing 
reliable protection against evolving threats, such as decoys and faster 
and longer-range ballistic missiles and also speed production of 
additional Arrow missiles.
  Likewise, I am encouraged by the $15 million allocated to purchase 
commercial satellite imagery. Three high-level DOD commissions, the 
Space Commission, the NRO Commission, and the NIMA Commission, all 
stated that DOD needs to better utilize commercial imagery. The NIMA 
Commission suggested that a new OSD account should be established with 
an initial budget of $350 million for the first year. The Space 
Commission stated that the ``U.S. Government could satisfy a 
substantial portion of its national security-related imagery 
requirements by purchasing services from the U.S. commercial imagery 
industry.'' I am convinced that there is yet more untapped potential 
with commercial space imagery, and I believe this is a good first step.
  This Defense Appropriations bill also provided funding for a number 
of developmental programs critical to space-based systems and 
technologies. The Network, Information, and Space Security Center will 
facilitate cooperation for protecting information and information 
systems, which is becoming increasingly important in the face of 
cyberterrorism threats from around the world. The Center for 
Geosciences is a leading-edge environmental research center 
continuously improving weather forecasts for our military forces around 
the world. TechSat 21 will demonstrate the technical and operational 
feasibility of microsatellites--a truly transformational approach to 
space-based systems. And finally, the GPS Jammer Detection and location 
System will enable our military commanders to rely on GPS and GPS-
supported systems such without the threat of interference or jamming by 
the enemy.
  While we find ourselves at the end of another legislative year, the 
Senate and our colleagues in the House have taken a solid step toward 
the transformation of the United States military. While much work 
remains to be completed in the coming years, it bodes well for our men 
and women in the armed services that Congress will continue to support 
them in the defense of our country.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the conference 
report accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense 
appropriations bill. I regret that Congress has missed another 
opportunity to reorient the thinking, and spending, of the Pentagon.
  I strongly support our men and women in uniform in the ongoing fight 
against global terrorism and in their other missions, both at home and 
abroad. I commend the members of the National Guard and Reserves and 
their families for the sacrifices they have made to protect our 
security and freedom. All members of our military and their families, 
active duty, National Guard, and Reserves, deserve our sincere thanks 
for their commitment to protect this country and to undertake the fight 
against terrorism in the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, 
2001.
  And they deserve our support as they face the uncertainly surrounding 
possible military action against Iraq.
  Each year that I have been a member of this body I have expressed my 
concern about the priorities of the Pentagon and about the process by 
which we consider the Department of Defense authorization and 
appropriations bills. I am troubled that the Department of Defense does 
not receive the same scrutiny as other parts of our Federal budget. 
This time of national crisis underscores the need for the Congress and 
the Administration to take a hard look at the Pentagon's budget to 
ensure that scarce taxpayer dollars are targeted to those programs that 
are necessary to defend our country in the post-Cold War world and to 
ensure that our Armed Forces have the resources that they will need for 
the battles ahead.
  There can be no dispute that Congress should provide the resources 
necessary to fight and win the battle against terrorism. There should 
also be no dispute that this ongoing campaign should not be used as an 
excuse to continue to drastically increase an already bloated defense 
budget.
  The conference report on which we are about to vote accompanies what 
will be the largest defense appropriations bill that Congress has ever 
passed. It represents a $34.1 billion increase over the fiscal year 
2002 level, including supplemental defense spending that was 
appropriated in the wake of the September 11 attacks. It represents a 
$54.5 billion increase over the fiscal year 2001 funding level.
  The United States spends more on defense than all of the other 
countries of the world combined.
  Of course, a strong national defense is crucial to the peace and 
stability of

[[Page S10523]]

our nation. But a strong economy is also essential to national 
security. We must not focus on one to the detriment of the other. Many 
of the expensive weapons systems for which there are billions in 
appropriations in this conference report have little or nothing to do 
with the fight against terrorism, which is often cited as the reason 
for the $34 billion increase in defense spending for fiscal year 2003. 
I am concerned that if we continue down this path, defense spending 
will spiral further out of control, perhaps putting other areas of our 
economy at risk.
  I am pleased that this conference report contains no funding for the 
Army's Crusader mobile artillery program. I support the Secretary of 
Defense's decision to cancel this outdated program, and earlier this 
year, I introduced legislation that would have done just that. I 
commend the Secretary of Defense for his efforts to transform our 
military to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond, and 
agree that weapons that were better suited to the Cold War than to the 
battles of this century should be terminated.
  I regret that so little progress has been made to transform the 
military for these new challenges. The hard-fought battle to terminate 
the Crusader program, a program that was canceled by the Secretary of 
Defense, stands as an example of how difficult it is to change the 
mind-set of the Pentagon and the Congress. The beleaguered Crusader is 
the poster child for an obsolete, Cold War-era program, yet there are 
those in the Congress and at the Pentagon who tried desperately to save 
it. The termination of a weapon system such as the Crusader is an 
example of the hard decisions that this body will have to make as we 
face the realities of the Federal budget and as we seek to provide our 
Armed Forces with the equipment that they will need to fight the 
battles of the future.
  As I have said time and time again, there are millions upon millions 
of dollars in this bill that are being spent on outdated or 
questionable or unwanted programs. This money would be better spent on 
programs that truly improve our readiness and modernize our Armed 
Forces. This money also would be better spent on efforts to improve the 
morale of our forces, such as ensuring that all of our men and women in 
uniform have a decent standard of living or providing better housing 
for our Armed Forces and their families. For those reasons, I will 
oppose this conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Under the previous order, Mr. Wellstone is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank both of my 
colleagues, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, for their fine work. I 
also think this is a very important piece of legislation, extremely 
important to our Armed Forces, just on the basis of making sure the men 
and women who serve our country--from salaries to living conditions, 
you name it; it is just an important piece of legislation.
  I also thank both of my colleagues for fighting in the conference 
committee to keep an amendment in that deals with the problem of 
domestic violence and sexual assault. We all agree that both Under 
Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld are well aware of some of 
the problems and are more than willing to put together the necessary 
task force and really take a long, hard look at this to make sure we do 
what we need to do. I thank them for that.
  This amendment also says we really need, on our bases, to have a 
place where women can go with some confidentiality if, in fact, they 
are in a situation where they are being battered and there is nowhere 
to go for support. It is extremely important for these women. It is 
extremely important for these children. It is extremely important for 
their families. I am glad this amendment is in. I know there was some 
discussion down at Fort Bragg about the amendment and it was very 
positive. So I thank my colleagues for supporting this.
  I want to finally express my indignation, even though I believe in 
both these Senators, that this is one part of this political process 
that drives people in Minnesota nuts, drives people in the country 
nuts, and drives me nuts. I brought an amendment to the floor. It was 
eminently reasonable. It said for those companies that go to Bermuda 
and renounce their citizenship so they do not pay their fair share of 
taxes--it was only prospective, it did not look back; it was for 1 
year--they don't get Government contracts.
  If they want to renounce their citizenship and not pay their fair 
share of taxes, they are not going to get any government contract.
  There is overwhelming support on the floor of the Senate.
  I have learned my lesson now. I will have been here almost 12 years. 
Why haven't I learned my lesson and ask for a rollcall vote? Maybe that 
wouldn't have done any good, anyway. It seemed that there was strong 
support from some Senators who didn't want to vote against it but who 
didn't want to vote for it. But I thought, OK, the point is to get this 
passed.
  This was taken out in the conference committee. With all due respect, 
my understanding is the House conferees would not budge. They would not 
budge.
  I want to just say to the House Republican leadership and to the 
conferees, you are not going to be able to continue to win on these 
kinds of votes. People in Minnesota and in the United States of America 
are outraged that these companies go to Bermuda and renounce their 
citizenship and don't pay their fair share of taxes.
  You get into the conference committee, and it is the same old, same 
old, same old. Special interests do their lobbying and get the job 
done.
  Senator Lieberman is on the floor. If this homeland defense bill goes 
in, we have this provision in that bill. I am counting on Senator 
Lieberman's support.
  I thank Senator Inouye for fighting as hard as he could.
  I want to say to the House Republican conferees, you are not going to 
win this fight. This is going to come back. You are not going to win 
this fight. And you are way out of sync with about 90 percent of the 
people in this country on this question.
  Listen, I have been involved in fights on the floor of the Senate 
where I was the one who was in the minority.
  But let me tell you, on this question, you guys are just wrong. You 
took it out of conference committee, but you are not going to win this 
fight. We are going to bring this provision back, and we are going to 
get it into legislation. It is in the very sweeping homeland defense 
bill. We are going to keep it in that bill, and come back and back.
  It is not right for the businesses in your State, Mr. President--New 
Jersey--or in Minnesota. Ninety-nine percent of the businesses that 
play by the rules of the game but don't have the lawyers and the 
accountants to tell them how to evade paying their fair share of 
taxes--they wouldn't do it even if they could because they don't think 
it is right--why should they be penalized for doing the right thing? 
And why should these companies get away with murder?
  I wish this had not been taken out by the conference committee. I 
regret it. I know my colleagues did their best. We will be back.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli), is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from 
Alabama (Mr. Sessions), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden

[[Page S10524]]


     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
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     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
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
       

                                NAYS--1

       
     Feingold
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Allard
     Enzi
     Hutchinson
     McCain
     Sessions
     Torricelli
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to table was agreed to.

                          ____________________