[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.
____________________