[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6789-S6843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1050, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1050) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2004 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reed amendment No. 751, to modify the scope of the 
     prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear 
     weapons.
       Warner amendment No. 752 (to amendment No. 751), in the 
     nature of a substitute.


[[Page S6790]]


  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there are 
now 20 minutes equally divided for consideration of amendments Nos. 571 
and 572, with the time controlled by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Warner, or his designee, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, 
or his designee.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from the great State of Colorado.


                 Amendment No. 752 to Amendment No. 751

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Warner second-
degree amendment to the Reed amendment in the form of a substitute.
  The amendment would strike the Reed-Levin amendment, thereby 
retaining the repeal of the ban on research and development of low-
yield nuclear weapons that is in the committee bill. The amendment 
would also require that the Department of Energy receive an 
authorization from the Congress for engineering development, and all 
subsequent phases of weapons development, before commencing with such 
activities. This amendment would make it absolutely clear that it is 
the prerogative of Congress to decide on the funding necessary for the 
administration to proceed with engineering development of a low-yield 
nuclear weapon, but it will not stop the military planners and weapon 
designers from considering and proposing such development.
  Even after repealing the ban, as we did in the committee bill, the 
administration is still required to specifically request funding at 
each phase of research and development, as required by the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. With this amendment, 
the Department of Energy would be required to receive an authorization 
from Congress before commencing with the engineering development of 
low-yield nuclear weapons. Congress would have another opportunity to 
review such activities if they are requested by the administration.
  This amendment provides for appropriate congressional review and 
oversight without incurring the disadvantages of an outright ban on 
some portions of research and development. Retaining a ban on 
development, acquisition, and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons, 
would continue the ``chilling effect'' on exploration of certain 
advanced nuclear weapons concepts because few will choose to work on 
these concepts if their development or production is prohibited. Also, 
the Department of Defense will not spend precious research dollars on a 
weapon type they have little chance of fielding.
  I urge support of this amendment. I believe this amendment addresses 
in a serious way the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues. This 
amendment would provide all the transparency required to ensure the 
administration can proceed with research and development of low-yield 
nuclear weapons, but not until Congress has an opportunity to review 
the request and affirmatively authorize engineering development 
activities.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from the great State of 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Feinstein be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Warner amendment 
and support of the underlying amendment which I proposed. I will make 
several points.
  First, the notion of low-yield nuclear weapons is something of a 
misnomer. Indeed, it is misleading. These are nuclear weapons with 
horrific blasts and radiation effects. As I said yesterday, it is 
probably more accurate to say not low yield but small Apocalypses 
because, when we use nuclear weapons, we go beyond--except for one 
occasion in the history of warfare--what most military people 
contemplate as the appropriate use of force.

  There is no military requirement for these weapons. Ambassador 
Brooks, the head of NNSA was asked, Is there a requirement? His answer 
succinctly and conclusively: No. Yet we are eliminating the ban on the 
research, development, production, and testing of these low-yield 
nuclear weapons.
  Once again, low yield is a misnomer. These weapons are 5 kilotons or 
less. The weapons used against Japan in World War II were 14 to 21 
kilotons with devastating effects. These small weapons are a third that 
size--still horrendous weapons.
  Now, unless we act today, this approach will not simply result in 
research. It will result inevitably, inexorably, in the development and 
the testing and the fielding of these weapons. That is essentially what 
was said by Ambassador Brooks when he testified before the committee. 
His words: I have a bias in favor of something that is the minimum 
destruction. That means I have a bias in favor of that which might be 
usable.
  This is not just research. This is creating weapons that will be 
used. His comments were echoed with respect particularly to the robust 
nuclear earth penetrator when Fred Celec, Deputy Assistant to the 
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, is quoted: If we can develop 
a system that can crack through the rock and detonate a hydrogen 
weapon, in his words, it will ultimately get fielded.
  To field an atomic weapon it first must be tested. And we are walking 
down a path of testing and fielding that I think we will all regret.
  There is a presumption that arms control does not matter, it does not 
work. Why did three nations--Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine--turn 
over voluntarily their nuclear weapon and join the nonproliferation 
regime? Why? Because there is an international norm that nuclear 
weapons should not be used. In fact, there should be efforts to 
eliminate their existence. These efforts and these norms are being 
undermined by the abolition of this ban.
  This ban is more powerful than simply saying that the Congress will 
approve it. Why believe a scientist will say: I won't work on research 
unless I can produce and blow something up, an atomic weapon. If those 
are the scientists we have working, then perhaps we should look around 
for some other scientists. They, more than many other people, 
understand the power and the devastating effect of these weapons.
  If we are really talking about research, let's make it research, not 
the back door to testing, development, and deployment. My amendment 
makes it much clearer that is what we are talking about. Indeed, my 
colleagues came to the floor yesterday and said this has nothing to do 
with deployment; it is all just science; we have to raise these issues; 
we have to ask these questions; intellectual curiosity and honesty must 
be respected in this realm as elsewhere.
  Indeed, yesterday, Secretary Rumsfeld was asked: Are you pursuing 
nuclear weapons? His response: To pursue? I think it is a study. It is 
not to develop--his words--it is not to deploy, it is not to use, it is 
to study.

  That is what the Reed amendment says. Essentially it says we will 
allow the scientists who operate in phase 1 through 2A of our well-
defined process--research, development--but at the third phrase, that 
is where they stop. And similarly, if they are modifying a weapon 
rather than developing one from scratch, you would stop at phase 6.3. 
It is clearly defined.
  The Warner amendment suggests we eliminate all of these prohibitions 
and we simply say: If you are going over here, come back to us and ask 
for permission. Functionally, in both amendments the Department of 
Energy and the Department of Defense would have to come to us. But 
there is a much more powerful, much more forceful, much more effective 
symbol if this moratorium is retained.
  A few weeks ago, the Government of Pakistan offered to go nuclear 
free. They said: We would like to eliminate nuclear weapons on the 
subcontinent. The Indians would have to agree. That is a very 
interesting and very positive approach. The problem is, how do we 
reinforce that effort when we are not talking about going nuclear free? 
We are talking about new nuclear weapons, more sophisticated weapons 
that can be used. That will not encourage the Pakistanis to give up 
weapons, or the Indians. I think it will encourage their scientists to 
start looking at more and new technology.
  We can make a difference if we maintain this ban by allowing what 
everyone says. That is all we want. We just

[[Page S6791]]

want the opportunity to research. The Reed amendment gives that 
opportunity.
  I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. What is the balance of time remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia has 7 
minutes and the Senator from Rhode Island has 3 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the ranking member, the Senator from 
Michigan, 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for this very 
important amendment. The bill before the Senate, unless this amendment 
passes or the Warner amendment passes, removes a 10-year prohibition we 
have had on research and development of new nuclear weapons that could 
lead to their production.
  Yesterday, we were assured by speaker after speaker who supports 
removal of that prohibition that all that is intended is to remove the 
prohibition of research. So the amendment of Senator Reed says, let us 
put that, then, clearly, into this bill; that what will be prohibited 
will be the development of new nuclear weapons.
  What is very disturbing and why this amendment is so essential, the 
administration's position is reflected by the Deputy Assistant to the 
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Energy, a man named Fred Celec, who 
says that if a hydrogen bomb can be successfully designed to survive a 
crash through hard rock, it will get fielded.
  We have been assured by the opponents of the prohibition that, no, 
this is just research we are talking about. So the amendment of Senator 
Reed puts that clearly into law that what we are now allowing is 
research; that the prohibition on development will stay. That is a very 
important, clear message to the rest of the world. We are telling North 
Korea we do not want you to go there. We may militarily act to prevent 
you from going to the development and the production of new nuclear 
weapons. So it is essential that this body send a clear statement that 
we still have a prohibition on development, although now research would 
be permitted.
  I thank, also, Senator Warner. Even though I think the Reed amendment 
is clearly better, and the message stronger that we are not removing 
the prohibition on development by allowing the research, Senator 
Warner's second-degree amendment is also a constructive addition to 
this debate and would be surely better than not acting at all.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank both colleagues, the Senator from 
Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan. I pick up on the statement 
of my working partner here for so many years, the distinguished ranking 
member.
  What the Senator from Virginia is endeavoring to do today is much 
like what the Senator from Michigan was endeavoring to do during the 
markup.
  Let us quietly try to assist our colleagues as they formulate their 
decisions as to what position to take. The Senate spoke yesterday to 
the effect that we are not going to impose a ban on research. I say to 
the Senate, that was a wise decision. We should continue with the basic 
theme that we are not going to impose a ban on this Nation with respect 
to this system or any other system which may be needed for the defense 
of this Nation--hopefully, never in terms of weapons of mass 
destruction--but we cannot send a message to the world that we are just 
going to ignore the fact that they exist in many parts of the world. We 
have to maintain a credible inventory ourselves as a deterrent against 
others who might threaten us. So we should not have a ban. But what we 
should have is in place a law which is clearly understandable.

  Now my colleagues go back and try to revise the existing law which 
has been in effect since 1994, which I say, with no disrespect to my 
colleagues. But when it was written--it is very convoluted, it is very 
difficult to understand because it says: ``LIMITATION--The Security of 
Energy may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of, research and 
development''--now they strike those words and put in their own--
``which could lead to the production by the United States of a low-
yield nuclear weapon. . . .''
  Now, I have here a list of the seven steps followed in the life of a 
nuclear system. The first three--the concept study, the feasibility 
study, the design definition and cost study--have been authorized by 
the Senate as of yesterday in this amendment.
  So we are at this juncture, as my colleague from Rhode Island points 
to his chart, where the balance of these steps toward the full 
implementation of a nuclear system should be put in control of whom? 
And I say it should be put in control of the Congress of the United 
States, with very clear language.
  The statute, I say to my friend from Rhode Island, which you are 
trying to amend simply says, ``The Secretary . . . may not conduct, or 
provide for the conduct of'' this next step, full-scale engineering 
development.
  Theoretically, if you are so distrustful of the executive branch--
whether it is this one or a subsequent--they could jump over that--not 
easily but they could jump over and go on to the other steps. So the 
way this thing is written, it is very awkward. It says it only stops 
one step.
  So I say that is a bad way to go about it. I say the better, wiser 
way, as Senator Levin said, is the constructive way, as he pointed out 
in my amendment. It simply says we are not going to point to one step, 
we are going to point to all the steps and say as follows: ``The 
Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development 
phase''--that is the one you are endeavoring to block by amending this 
old statute--but I go on: ``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield 
nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''
  That language is as clear as crystal. This language is very awkward 
to interpret and read. It has a flaw in it, that you could literally 
jump over the one step that you are blocking and proceed, in some 
manner, albeit not the best, but proceed to the other steps.
  My amendment stops it. It is like a stop sign that says: We will not 
proceed as a nation until this body, the Congress of the United States, 
acts to authorize and appropriate the funds.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is not an issue of drafting or clarity 
of language. The amendment I propose is very clear. It simply takes the 
existing ban and walks it back from phase 1, phase 2, and phase 2-A to 
phase 3. If this language was unclear, then the Department of Energy 
and the Department of Defense would have leaped over these barriers a 
long time ago because they would have ignored the first phase and gone 
to the third, fourth, and fifth phase.
  This is about whether we are going to begin a new but different 
nuclear arms race. Last week, President Putin announced that Russia is 
beginning to develop new weapons. His words:

       I can inform you that at present the work to create new 
     types of Russian weapons, weapons of the new generation, 
     including those regarded by specialists as strategic weapons, 
     is in the stage of practical implementation.

  Most analysts interpret that as meaning they are going to develop 
low-yield nuclear weapons. With those remarks in the Russian Duma, 
initiating a reversal of history, of the beginning of a new arms race, 
the Duma applauded. I hope we do not applaud here today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the spirit of fairness, I am going to 
read, once again, the Warner amendment, which says: ``The Secretary of 
Energy may not commence the engineering development phase''--that is 
the phase blocked--``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear 
weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''

[[Page S6792]]

  Where in the old statute is there any phrase as clear as the one in 
the Warner amendment which says: Mr. Secretary, you cannot do anything 
until you are authorized by the Congress?
  Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. REED. I do not have the statute before me but the----
  Mr. WARNER. Let me provide it to you.
  Mr. REED. Let me tell you this: The original moratorium said: The 
Secretaries of Energy and Defense may not initiate research and 
development leading to the production of a low-yield nuclear weapon. We 
have replaced the term ``research and development'' with the 
development definition ``development engineering'' leading to the 
production of a nuclear weapon.
  Essentially, what we have done, Mr. Chairman, is we have taken the 
existing ban, which the DOE says restricts their efforts to do any 
meaningful research, and simply said do the research.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I reclaim my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia does have 
the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. You cannot point to any language which speaks to this 
issue with clarity, so it can be understood the world over, as does the 
Warner amendment. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if I may have a moment, 
I think the world is pretty clear as to what is taking place. Your 
amendment strikes the ban. We used to have a prohibition against low-
yield nuclear weapons development. Your amendment strikes that. In 
place, you say you have to come back to Congress.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senate did that yesterday.
  Mr. REED. My amendment leaves the ban in place.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. All 
time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays have already been 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Are there any 
other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 752) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could address the Senate----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the underlying 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. This amendment is in the nature of a substitute. However, 
in fairness to my colleagues, last night the distinguished ranking 
member and I made an agreement that we would vote once again because 
there could be colleagues who wish to now join in supporting this 
amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. Am I correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Perhaps we could have a 10-minute vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be the case.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how long did the last vote take?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if we are going to finish the bill and if 
Members want to do it in the next day or two, I suggest that we should 
have some constraint on the time we are voting.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 751) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how long did that vote take?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-two minutes.
  Mr. REID. We have been approached in the minority on several 
occasions today asking when could we finish this bill. We are doing our 
best. We have people who want to offer amendments. We have wasted at 
least a half hour this morning on people not being here for votes. I 
personally believe, for Democrats and Republicans, if they are not here 
at a reasonable time, the vote should be cut off. This is not fair. We 
have Senator Dorgan who has waited all morning. Senator Collins is 
here.

[[Page S6793]]

  I am not going to elaborate further, but this is not good for the 
Senate. I hope the majority leader will call these votes more quickly. 
We get the hue and cry to speed things up. If we waste all time during 
the votes, there is nothing to speed up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share the sentiments of my distinguished 
colleague, but I do observe that the delay on this vote, while it was 
the last vote on this side, there was a vote on the Democratic side not 
more than 5 minutes before. We share equally the burdens of the need to 
move forward on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. REID. I say to my most distinguished friend, I said in my 
statement, this applies to Democrats and Republicans.
  Mr. WARNER. Right.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the problem we have over here is we cannot 
say the vote is over. The Senator's side can call the votes. I hope 
they do it more quickly. If people start missing votes, then fewer 
people will have to wait around in the future.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will speak with my distinguished leader 
and ask if he will give me that unfortunate authority to exercise. If 
he does, I will exercise it appropriately.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan last night said he would 
agree to 45 minutes. We have a unanimous consent request the 
distinguished manager of the bill will offer. It is my understanding 
that prior to his starting, there is going to be 5 minutes for the 
Senator from Maine on an amendment that has been agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished leader. May I propound the UC 
first on the time? Then we will recognize the Senator from Maine for 
not to exceed 5 minutes. Then the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota can proceed under the time agreement; is that agreeable?
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 90 
minutes equally divided for the debate in relation to the Dorgan low-
level yield amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and 
that no amendments be in order to that amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my amendment is not a low-level yield 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. There is a misstatement in the 
written text handed to the manager. I apologize. I read it. The Senator 
is correct. It is the other subject. I ask that the UC be amended 
accordingly to the statement by the Senator.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. TALENT. Reserving the right to object, since I understand this 
follows the Collins amendment and I think the Senator had mentioned 5 
minutes for that, there are three of us here to speak on the amendment. 
We want to see if we can get another couple of minutes so we have some 
time to actually say something. If this UC is dependent on that, I 
raise that issue.
  Mr. WARNER. I think it is a fair issue to be raised. I was unaware 
there were additional speakers. If the Senator will give me a moment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may interrupt my friend from Virginia, 
how much time?
  Mr. WARNER. Ten minutes allocated? I ask the distinguished Senator 
from North Dakota. Mr. President, I will make a deal, I will yield 10 
minutes of my time under this UC request to take that up. How about 
that?
  Mr. REID. We accept that.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. TALENT. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 757

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Talent, 
Senator Hutchison, and Senator Snowe, I send an amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. 
     Talent, Mrs. Hutchison, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 757.

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

 (Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to restrict bundling 
   of Department of Defense contract requirements that unreasonably 
                    disadvantages small businesses)

       On page 222, between the matter following line 12 and line 
     13, insert the following:

     SEC. 866. CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Amendment to Title 10.--(1) Chapter 141 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     2381 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2382. Consolidation of contract requirements: policy 
       and restrictions

       ``(a) Policy.--The Secretary of Defense shall require the 
     Secretary of each military department, the head of each 
     Defense Agency, and the head of each Department of Defense 
     Field Activity to ensure that the decisions made by that 
     official regarding consolidation of contract requirements of 
     the department, agency, or field activity, as the case may 
     be, are made with a view to providing small business concerns 
     with appropriate opportunities to participate in Department 
     of Defense procurements as prime contractors and appropriate 
     opportunities to participate in such procurements as 
     subcontractors.
       ``(b) Limitation on Use of Acquisition Strategies Involving 
     Consolidation.--(1) An official of a military department, 
     Defense Agency, or Department of Defense Field Activity may 
     not execute an acquisition strategy that includes a 
     consolidation of contract requirements of the military 
     department, agency, or activity with a total value in excess 
     of $5,000,000, unless the senior procurement executive 
     concerned first--
       ``(A) conducts market research;
       ``(B) identifies any alternative contracting approaches 
     that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation of 
     contract requirements; and
       ``(C) determines that the consolidation is necessary and 
     justified.
       ``(2) A senior procurement executive may determine that an 
     acquisition strategy involving a consolidation of contract 
     requirements is necessary and justified for the purposes of 
     paragraph (1) if the benefits of the acquisition strategy 
     substantially exceed the benefits of each of the possible 
     alternative contracting approaches identified under 
     subparagraph (B) of that paragraph. However, savings in 
     administrative or personnel costs alone do not constitute, 
     for such purposes, a sufficient justification for a 
     consolidation of contract requirements in a procurement 
     unless the total amount of the cost savings is expected to be 
     substantial in relation to the total cost of the procurement.
       ``(3) Benefits considered for the purposes of paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) may include cost and, regardless of whether 
     quantifiable in dollar amounts--
       ``(A) quality;
       ``(B) acquisition cycle;
       ``(C) terms and conditions; and
       ``(D) any other benefit.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The terms `consolidation of contract requirements' 
     and `consolidation', with respect to contract requirements of 
     a military department, Defense Agency, or Department of 
     Defense Field Activity, mean a use of a solicitation to 
     obtain offers for a single contract or a multiple award 
     contract to satisfy two or more requirements of that 
     department, agency, or activity for goods or services that 
     have previously been provided to, or performed for, that 
     department, agency, or activity under two or more separate 
     contracts smaller in cost than the total cost of the contract 
     for which the offers are solicited.
       ``(2) The term ``multiple award contract'' means--
       ``(A) a contract that is entered into by the Administrator 
     of General Services under the multiple award schedule program 
     referred to in section 2302(2)(C) of this title;
       ``(B) a multiple award task order contract or delivery 
     order contract that is entered into under the authority of 
     sections 2304a through 2304d of this title or sections 303H 
     through 303K of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253h through 253k); and
       ``(C) any other indeterminate delivery, indeterminate 
     quantity contract that is entered into by the head of a 
     Federal agency with two or more sources pursuant to the same 
     solicitation.
       ``(3) The term `senior procurement executive concerned' 
     means--
       ``(A) with respect to a military department, the official 
     designated under section 16(3) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3)) as the senior 
     procurement executive for the military department; or
       ``(B) with respect to a Defense Agency or a Department of 
     Defense Field Activity, the official so designated for the 
     Department of Defense.
       ``(4) The term `small business concern' means a business 
     concern that is determined by the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration to be a small-business concern by 
     application of the standards prescribed under section 3(a) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).''.

[[Page S6794]]

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     2381 the following new item:

``2382. Consolidation of contract requirements: policy and 
              restrictions.''.

       (b) Data Review.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall revise 
     the data collection systems of the Department of Defense to 
     ensure that such systems are capable of identifying each 
     procurement that involves a consolidation of contract 
     requirements within the department with a total value in 
     excess of $5,000,000.
       (2) The Secretary shall ensure that appropriate officials 
     of the Department of Defense periodically review the 
     information collected pursuant to paragraph (1) in 
     cooperation with the Small Business Administration--
       (A) to determine the extent of the consolidation of 
     contract requirements in the Department of Defense; and
       (B) to assess the impact of the consolidation of contract 
     requirements on the availability of opportunities for small 
     business concerns to participate in Department of Defense 
     procurements, both as prime contractors and as 
     subcontractors.
       (3) In this subsection:
       (A) The term ``consolidation of contract requirements'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 2382(c)(1) of title 
     10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).
       (B) The term ``small business concern'' means a business 
     concern that is determined by the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration to be a small-business concern by 
     application of the standards prescribed under section 3(a) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
       (c) Applicability.--This section applies only with respect 
     to contracts entered into with funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 
minutes we have been allocated be allocated among the three of us as 
follows: 3 minutes for the Senator from Maine, 3 minutes for the 
Senator from Missouri, 3 minutes for the Senator from Texas, and 1 
final minute for the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, our amendment addresses an increasing practice in the 
Department of Defense to bundle contracts to award a larger contract. 
The problem with that is it disadvantages smaller companies that cannot 
bid on a giant contract but would be perfectly able to responsibly 
perform the work if the contract were broken up into smaller segments.
  Contract bundling has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. 
In fact, it has reached record levels. Contract bundling is up by 19 
percent since 1992, and the result of this is the shutout of many small 
firms from doing business with the Federal Government.
  Our amendment would require that the Department of Defense perform 
rigorous analysis on bundled contracts in excess of $5 million. It 
would require that alternatives to bundling be considered and that a 
determination be made that the benefits of bundling the contracts 
substantially exceed the benefits of identified alternatives.
  We have focused on DOD because the Small Business Administration 
indicates that ``bundling is rooted at the Department of Defense.''
  The Collins-Talent-Hutchison-Snowe amendment is necessary because 
bundling has had an unfortunate effect on the U.S. Government 
contractor base. According to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
Administrator Angela Styles:

       This issue is a dramatically reduced contractor base, and 
     the mounting lost opportunity cost of choosing among fewer 
     firms with fewer ideas and innovations to deliver products 
     and services at lower prices.

  She noted:

       The negative effects of contract bundling over the past 10 
     years cannot be overestimated. . . . Not only are there fewer 
     small businesses receiving Federal contracts, but the Federal 
     Government is suffering from a smaller supplier base . . . 
     when small businesses are excluded from Federal opportunities 
     through contract bundling, our agencies, small businesses, 
     and taxpayers lose.

  That is exactly the case. When contracts are bundled so that only a 
few large firms can bid on them, the United States does not get as good 
a deal. The United States Government is not taking advantage of the 
many innovative small firms that are capable of doing the work for the 
Federal Government if the contract was awarded in smaller amounts.
  This is a matter of making sure we have a healthy industrial base, 
that we have as many firms competing as vigorously as possible to do 
work for the Federal Government, and of making sure our smaller 
companies have a fair shot at competing for Federal contracts. This 
amendment will make a real difference for our small businesses.
  I yield to the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. I yield to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senators Collins, Talent, and 
Snowe for bringing up this subject in the Defense bill. I have small 
business advisory committees in my State and just last week hosted an 
African American leadership summit. The major complaint these small 
businesses have is bundling. They would like to have an opportunity to 
bid, but they are frozen out by this process.
  I vowed I would try to help open the door because it is good for 
small business. Small business is the economic engine of America. That 
is where the jobs are created and it will be good for taxpayers, as the 
Senator from Maine has said, to have competition, to have more people 
working to get into Federal contracting, bringing something different 
to the table. So this is a very important part of our strong national 
defense, getting the best deal for taxpayers, but it is also very 
important that we help our small businesses have access to the biggest 
contracts that are made in America. Government contracts are the 
biggest and small businesses have something to offer. Where they are 
proven and where the 8A program has come in to help our minority-owned 
businesses get those opportunities, getting the backup they need to be 
reliable minority contractors, that is what we need in this country.
  We need to open that door. The 8A program does open the door and it 
creates that level playing field that allows them then the platform to 
get some of the larger contracts.
  I appreciate the Senators working with all of us to try to bring 
about this result. I vowed I would do it. I think if we can do it in 
the Department of Defense, later we can then use that as a model for 
all of the Federal agencies in our country. We will do a better job for 
the taxpayers and we will help the small businesses of this country 
that are creating the jobs. We want more jobs in our economy. That is 
the bottom line. It is a win for everyone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I too thank the Senator from Maine for her 
advocacy on this issue, not just this year but in past years. I also 
thank our distinguished chairman and ranking member because I 
understand they have cleared this amendment and will accept it.
  There is not anything more important we can do for small business in 
a procurement issue than what we are doing with this amendment. I do 
not think there is very much more we can do that is important to 
taxpayers and important to quality in defense procurement than this 
issue.
  Bundling is choking small business. It is hurting the taxpayer. It is 
hurting quality. This amendment is a major step forward to limiting it 
to cases where it is truly appropriate.
  From 1992 through 2001, 44.5 percent of DOD procurement dollars were 
in bundled contracts and therefore essentially off limits to small 
business competition. So in each one of those, there were fewer 
competitors. There was a tendency to have higher price and poorer 
quality for the taxpayers. And small businesses, which are supposed to 
have preferences under the statutes, actually were foreclosed from 
bidding.
  The kind of contract I am talking about is this, and this is an 
engineering contract that was recently let: Indefinite delivery, 
indefinite quantity. This means whoever wins this contract has to be 
able to be prepared to provide any or all of the following in 
indefinite amounts in terms of services at any time the Government 
wants it: Planning, environmental services, inspections, operations, 
maintenance, family housing services, relocatable facilities and 
structures, public works supply management, demolition, architecture, 
and engineer and task order management.
  The Government says, yes, we are very open to small business. You can 
bid on this if you are a small business. You just have to be able to 
provide all of that at any time we want it in whatever quantity we need 
it.

[[Page S6795]]

  Naturally, small business is cut off. It is hurting the taxpayer. It 
is hurting the small businesspeople. It has a disproportionately 
negative impact on minority small business. It needs to be stopped.
  The Senator from Maine quoted Angela Styles from the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy. It cannot be said better than she said it:

       When small businesses are excluded from Federal 
     opportunities through contract bundling, our agencies, small 
     businesses, and the taxpayers lose.

  That is the short of it. I am glad this amendment is evidently going 
to go into this bill. I hope it stays in in conference. I thank the 
Senator from Maine for her advocacy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his hard work. He 
has been an advocate for attacking this problem for some time and it 
has been a pleasure to work with him.
  One woman business owner really summed up what this is all about. She 
said, bundling is a shield that keeps large companies from having to 
compete with smaller firms.
  Such a state of affairs is ultimately unhealthy for the Federal 
procurement system. We rely on a vigorous competition to keep prices 
low and to ensure we are purchasing high quality goods and services. 
This amendment is going to make a difference in our procurement system 
and a difference for small businesses. For that reason, it has been 
strongly endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses 
and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
  I end my remarks by thanking the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member for their cooperation and assistance. 
I ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the contract 
bundling amendment offered by Senators Collins, Talent, and Hutchison. 
As the new Chair of the Committee on Small Business, I am pleased to 
join with my colleagues to create a policy specifically for the 
Department of Defense, DOD, on the issue of contract bundling and to 
place restrictions on the Department's ability to bundle Government 
contracts to the detriment of small businesses in this country.
  In fiscal year 2001, the Federal Government awarded close to $235 
billion in Federal contracts. Yet, small businesses still received less 
than their fair share. As a result, the Federal Government failed to 
achieve the goal that we established for Federal agencies to ensure 
that at least 23 percent of Federal contracts go to small enterprises. 
Even more troubling is the fact that over the past 10 years, there has 
been a steady decline in the number of small business contractors 
receiving new contract awards.
  Despite our efforts over the past several years to focus on concrete 
measures and legislation to increase small business access to the 
Federal marketplace, we have instead seen a disturbing trend in the 
opposite direction. America's small businesses are being eroded by the 
practice of contract bundling by Federal agencies.
  In pursuing operational efficiencies, Federal agencies are making 
contract bundling decisions that block small business access to the 
opportunity to compete for Federal contracts. According to the Small 
Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, for every 100 bundled 
contracts awarded, small businesses lose an average of 60 contracts, 
and for every $100 awarded on a ``bundled'' contract, there is a $33 
decrease to small business. At $109 billion in fiscal year 2001, 
bundled contracts cost small business $13 billion.
  The Small Business Act provides that small firms shall have the 
maximum practicable opportunity to compete for these valuable Federal 
contracts. This policy was adopted because it is good for small 
business, good for the purchasing agencies, and good for the taxpayer 
who pays the bills.
  Small businesses benefit from having access to a stable revenue 
stream and to a marketplace for new products and services. In turn, 
these small vendors to the Federal Government contribute to business 
development, job creation and economic stimulation in our local 
communities.
  Federal agencies also benefit when small businesses participate in 
the Federal marketplace. Many of the most innovative solutions to our 
problems--such as new technologies in defense readiness--come from 
small firms, not large businesses, where complex chains of command, the 
need to consult with corporate headquarters, and repetitive sign-offs 
on a new idea that have to be cleared with accounting, human resources, 
and marketing, can stifle innovation and creativity. The absence of all 
these obstacles can increase the agility of a small business to deliver 
new innovative products at lower costs. Agencies trying to carry out 
their governmental functions can take advantage of these innovations 
and deliver better quality products and services to our constituents.
  Finally, the taxpayer wins when small businesses compete for 
contracts. Small business means more competition, lower prices and 
higher quality.
  Contract bundling, however, threatens these benefits. To simplify the 
contracting process, agencies take several smaller contracts and roll 
them into one massive contract. The result is a contract that a small 
business could not perform, due to its complexity or its obligation to 
do work in widely disparate geographic locations. This practice is 
particularly prevalent at the Department of Defense, which is the 
Federal Government's largest purchaser of goods and services.
  In light of this practice, it comes as little surprise when I hear a 
small business owner say all too often that ``I could not perform the 
contract, even if I won it. So I won't even bid.'' When that happens, 
we all lose.
  If small businesses create the majority of new jobs in America, which 
they do, and they account for half the output of the economy, which 
they do, then, they clearly deserve every possible chance to compete 
for the business of the nation's largest consumer--the Federal 
Government.
  For these reasons, I called a hearing 2 months ago in the Small 
Business Committee to examine the continuing threat of contract 
bundling to small business and to identify positive, constructive 
changes to ensure that the Federal Government continues to provide 
contracting opportunities for small businesses.
  The 1997 Small Business Administration reauthorization legislation 
established a definition of bundling and created an administrative 
process to review instances of bundling. By its terms, agencies are 
supposed to make a determination whether a proposed bundle is 
``necessary and justified.'' Yet at the March 2003 hearing, witnesses 
testified that instead of making a good faith effort to determine the 
costs and benefits of a proposed bundling, Federal agencies, and 
Defense agencies in particular, have found ways to evade these 
``necessary and justified'' determinations by identifying loopholes in 
the definition of bundling.
  As the largest agency in terms of contracting dollars spent, 
accounting for about two-thirds of the Federal Government's total 
spending, it is time to hold the Department of Defense accountable for 
these bundling determinations--to make sure they include small 
businesses in the Federal procurement process, and to make sure they 
follow the law.
  The amendment offered today provides a first step in our efforts to 
achieve positive constructive change to ensure the Department of 
Defense continues to provide contracting opportunities for small 
business. It closes loopholes and strengthens the bundling definition 
for the Department of Defense contract requirements. It also requires 
the Department of Defense to perform rigorous analysis on bundled 
contracts; to discuss alternative acquisition strategies; and, to make 
a determination that the benefits of bundling ``substantially exceed'' 
the benefits of the identified alternatives. This marks a higher level 
of scrutiny than exists under current law.
  I appreciate my colleagues' willingness to work together to establish 
legislation that counters the effects of contract bundling on small 
business. And, continuing in the spirit of cooperation, I look forward 
to building on this very positive language to address the issue more 
broadly and make this policy governmentwide as we move forward with 
legislation to reauthorize the Small Business Administration and its 
programs later this summer.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of Senator Susan 
Collins,

[[Page S6796]]

Senator Jim Talent, and my colleague from the Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Carl Levin, for their efforts today 
on behalf of small businesses. Their amendment to S. 1050, the 
Department of Defense reauthorization bill, is a step in the right 
direction towards ending the deleterious effect contract bundling is 
having on small businesses.
  Bundled contracts, while seemingly an efficient and cost-saving means 
for Federal agencies to conduct business, are anticompetitive and 
antismall business. Further, they will result in increased costs over 
time. When a Federal agency bundles contracts, it limits small 
businesses' ability to bid for the new bundled contract, thus limiting 
competition and the Government's ability to receive better and cheaper 
goods and services. Small businesses are consistently touted as more 
innovative, more flexible and responsive to an agency's needs than 
their larger counterparts. But when forced to bid for megacontracts, at 
times across large geographic areas, few, if any, small businesses can 
be expected to compete. This deprives the Federal Government of the 
benefits of competition and our economy of possible innovations brought 
about by small businesses.
  This amendment attempts to close one of the loopholes used by 
agencies to pool like-kind contracts that were previously awarded to 
small businesses. The amendment requires the Department of Defense to 
conduct market research, identify alternative contracting approaches, 
and determine if the ``consolidation'' is necessary and justified for 
any ``consolidated contract'' above $5 million.
  The amendment does not go far enough, however. It only applies to the 
Department of Defense, is only applicable for 1 year, and still allows 
a loophole that will allow bundling regardless of quantifiable dollar 
amounts. I have introduced legislation, S. 633, that would take the 
necessary steps to further limit the practice of contract bundling. I 
look forward to obtaining its Senate passage in cooperation with the 
Senators who advocated on behalf of this amendment and all those who 
are determined to remove the barriers to small business development 
created by contract bundling.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our amendment addresses a practice known 
as ``contract bundling,'' which has become increasingly prevalent in 
recent years. An October 2002 report for the Small Business 
Administration that measured the trends and impact of bundling over the 
last decade concluded that: the number and size of bundled contracts 
issued by federal agencies has reached record levels; small businesses 
are receiving disproportionately small shares of the work on bundled 
contracts; although only 8.6 percent of contracts were bundled, bundled 
contracts accounted for 44.5 percent of the money spent through 
contracts from 1992-2001; large firms won 67 percent of all prime 
contract dollars and 75 percent of bundled contract dollars; and small 
firms won only 18 percent of prime contract dollars and 13 percent of 
bundled contract dollars.
  Moreover, the problem is getting worse. In 2001, 29,000 contracts 
were bundled government-wide, up eight percent from 2000 and 19 percent 
since 1992.
  Our amendment would require that DOD perform rigorous analysis on 
bundled contracts in excess of $5 million. It would require that 
alternatives be considered and that a determination be made that the 
benefits of bundling ``substantially exceed'' the benefits of the 
identified alternatives. Savings in administrative or personnel costs 
alone would not constitute a sufficient justification for consolidation 
``unless the total amount of the cost savings is found to be 
substantial in relation to the total cost of the procurement.''
  Our amendment focuses on DOD where, the SBA report notes, ``Bundling 
is rooted.'' Although bundling rates occur at levels as high or higher 
at the General Services Administration, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Social Security Administration, and Treasury, ``the high 
level of spending by the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Office of the 
Defense Secretary focus attention on defense contracts as the primary 
source of bundling.''
  This amendment is about more than just allowing small businesses to 
compete for contracts on a level playing field; it is about preserving 
our government's contractor base.
  According to Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator 
Angela Styles the issue is a dramatically reduced contractor base, 
which has created a lost opportunity cost caused by choosing among 
fewer firms with fewer ideas and innovations to deliver products and 
services at lower prices.
  Further, she notes that when small businesses are excluded from 
federal opportunities through contract bundling everyone, including our 
agencies, small businesses, and the taxpayers lose.
  Our amendment sets in place a higher level of scrutiny than exists 
under current law and will be a good start in beginning to reverse a 
problem that has been building up over the last decade. For that 
reason, small business advocates such as the National Federation of 
Independent Business and the National Black Chamber of Commerce support 
it.
  This amendment will make a real difference for small business. One 
small business owner wrote to me in support of my amendment because, 
she said, bundling had made contracts of the size they could hope to 
obtain disappear. She had, she wrote, been knocking on the doors at the 
Department of Defense for years, without any success due to bundling.
  Another small business owner wrote to me that bundling had 
essentially created a monopoly in his line of business. Even small 
businesses that have a federal preference in contracting under various 
programs have seen the beneficial effects of the preferences all but 
wiped out due to bundling. One woman business owner pointed out in a 
letter to me what bundling truly is: a shield that keeps large 
companies from having to compete with smaller firms.
  Such a state of affairs is ultimately unhealthy for a federal 
procurement system that relies primarily upon vigorous competition to 
keep prices low and the quality of goods and services high.
  I am pleased that our amendment has received the support of the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member, and that it will become part 
of the defense bill the Senate passes today or tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I likewise encourage the adoption of the amendment. I 
think it is cleared on both sides. I commend the sponsors of this 
amendment for their hard work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 
1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will indicate our strong support for this 
amendment. A few years ago, we actually made an effort to get this 
amendment, or something very close to it, adopted. In fact, it was in 
our bill. It went to conference, where we ran into a real roadblock.
  We are going to give it a go again. In addition to the usual 
suspects, we have the two Senators from Maine and Missouri who will be 
with us in conference, and I am very hopeful that this time, with their 
support, we will be able to get it over the goal line with the House, 
because that is where the impediment was a few years ago.
  It is an important amendment. I very much support it. In fact, I ask 
unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I note that Senator Kerry has been working very hard in 
this area. I want to make that clear for the record, because of his 
strong interest and support for this approach.
  Again, I very much thank the Senator from Maine and the Senator from 
Missouri for their strong initiative in this area.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on 
agreeing to the Collins-Talent amendment.
  The amendment (No. 757) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S6797]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Under the order, my understanding is now we go to the 
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, with 90 minutes equally 
divided.


                           Amendment No. 750

  Mr. DORGAN. The amendment numbered 750 is at the desk for 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 750.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for a nuclear earth penetrator 
                                weapon)

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following:

     SEC. 3135. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR NUCLEAR EARTH 
                   PENETRATOR WEAPON.

       (a) In General.--Effective as of the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, no funds authorized to be appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for the Department of Energy by this 
     Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended for 
     development, testing, or engineering on a nuclear earth 
     penetrator weapon.
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Fiscal Year 2004 Funds for 
     Feasibility Study.--No funds authorized to be appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for the Department of Energy for 
     fiscal year 2004 by this Act or any other Act may be 
     obligated or expended for a feasibility study on a nuclear 
     earth penetrator weapon.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are debating the question of whether 
this country ought to begin developing new nuclear weapons, an 
important debate, as about important a debate we will have in this 
Senate in a while. The press gallery is empty because this is not some 
sex scandal. It does not have sensational aspects to it. It is not a 
murder investigation. It is about whether this country ought to decide 
now to begin producing additional nuclear weapons.
  I regret this is not debated and reported as a major national 
initiative so that the American people can be part of this discussion 
in our democracy. But it is not. I feel very strongly that where we are 
headed at the moment is in the wrong direction.
  I told my colleagues before about a fellow from North Dakota I have 
always kind of enjoyed watching. He is called the flying farmer from 
Makoti. Some have heard me tell about it. The flying farmer from 
Makoti, a guy in a small town of 80 people, Makoti, ND, who drives a 
car, goes to county fairs and builds himself a ramp and jumps over 
cars, kind of a dare devil. His name is John Smith. He is actually in 
the Guiness Book of Records because he drove a car in reverse 500 miles 
averaging 36 anywhere. That is the claim to fame of the flying farmer 
from Makoti.
  I think to myself, he has nothing over the Senate, especially on this 
issue. We are fixing to go in reverse a good long ways, with pretty 
aggressive speed, on the issue of nuclear policy.
  We have had in this country an understanding that with respect to 
nuclear weapons, we have them as a deterrent. We do not have them to 
use; we have them as a deterrent. We now have people walking around 
this town engaged in policy discussions, talking about ``usable'' 
nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons? It is just another weapon. In fact, 
let's talk about not just nuclear weapons, let's talk about low-yield 
nuclear weapons. Programs, they say, are mininuclear weapons or 
micronuclear weapons, usable nuclear weapons. Let's do designer nuclear 
weapons, they say. Let's now build a new nuclear weapon as a bunker 
buster nuclear weapon. I have no idea what they are thinking about.
  In the paper today we have statements in this debate. We have to go 
ahead and develop new nuclear weapons because we do not want to tie the 
hands of our military. If we would not allow additional nuclear weapons 
to be developed, we would be the only country in the world that cannot 
produce new nuclear weapons. What on Earth are we thinking about?
  Here is the nuclear stockpile for those who cannot sleep at night. 
There are some apparently who cannot sleep because we do not have 
enough nuclear weapons. I want to give you a sedative. We have roughly 
30,000 nuclear weapons in the world--roughly. No one knows exactly, but 
these are the best estimates. North Korea, we think, has two or three. 
Pakistan has some, India has some, United Kingdom has more than a few, 
Israel, France, China, the United States, 10,600 nuclear weapons--we 
think, strategic and theater nuclear weapons--and Russia, 18,600 
nuclear weapons.
  Now, I mentioned yesterday that about a year and a half ago following 
September 11 there was a threat. Our intelligence community assessed a 
threat against this country. The threat was that someone has to have 
stolen a nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal. Terrorists had stolen 
a nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal and was preparing to detonate 
that nuclear weapon in this country in either New York or Washington, 
DC. The intelligence threat picked up, deemed perhaps credible, who 
knew, and so for a period of time it did not hit the press. For a 
period of time there was a seizure that terrorists might have a nuclear 
weapon, might detonate it in the middle of an American city. And then 
we are not talking 3,000 deaths, we are talking hundreds of thousands 
of deaths. It was determined a couple of months later that was not a 
credible threat, and we moved on.

  But interestingly enough, the lesson from it was that it was 
perfectly plausible, to most, that a weapon could have been stolen in 
Russia, and it was plausible that a terrorist having stolen a nuclear 
weapon in Russia could have detonated it, had the capability to 
detonate it. Perfectly plausible.
  We have discussed before the command and control of these nuclear 
weapons in Russia. We know they do not have the safeguards we would 
like. We know there are three-ring binders with hand notations about 
inventories of nuclear weapons; 30,000 of them exist in this world. We 
had a seizure about one being stolen, one being stolen and everyone is 
greatly concerned, as they should be.
  So today we come to the Senate with a bill that says the following: 
We are not strong enough. We are not secure enough. We are worried 
about our future. What we need to do is build more nuclear weapons. We 
need to build low-yield nuclear weapons.
  What is a low-yield nuclear weapon? That is one-third the size of the 
one in Hiroshima. And we need to do bunker buster nuclear weapons, 
earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapons. That is my amendment. 
It strikes the $11 million in this bill, prevents the opportunity to 
continue a design, a development, or manufacturer of bunker busting 
nuclear weapons, development testing, engineering, no funds authorized 
for feasibility study on the nuclear earth penetrator weapon.
  So the question for the Senate in this amendment is very simple. Do 
you think you cannot sleep at night because we do not have enough 
nuclear weapons and the only way you will get a good night's rest is if 
you can build an earth penetrator bunker buster nuclear weapon?
  Is that what you think? If so, then vote against my amendment. Katy 
bar the door. Let's develop another nuclear weapon. We are saying to 
the rest of the world with this nonsense, we have the right of 
preemption. We will now renounce the doctrine of first use. We believe 
there are ``usable'' nuclear weapons, and we need to build low-yield 
nuclear weapons--new ones. We reserve the right to build nuclear 
weapons despite the fact that we have had a moratorium for a decade. We 
believe we ought to have a bunker buster nuclear weapon. You know what 
the message is to India, to Pakistan, and to other countries that want 
nuclear weapons: That this country doesn't think we ought to prevent 
the spread of nuclear weapons, or that we ought to prevent the use of 
nuclear weapons but that we need to bulk up and build new ones, and 
that we believe they are potentially usable in some future conflict.
  That is exactly the wrong message this country ought to be sending to 
anybody in the rest of the world. What we ought to be telling the rest 
of the world is we have 10,600, roughly, nuclear weapons and the means 
to deliver them as a deterrent against anyone who would threaten our 
liberty.

[[Page S6798]]

  We don't need more. To build more is simply a green light to every 
other country in the world that wants to become part of the nuclear 
community.
  I come from a State that understands defense. I support a strong 
defense. My votes in the Congress will show that. I support a very 
strong, robust defense system in this country. We have two air bases in 
the State of North Dakota. One is for K-135 tankers, and the other has 
both the Minuteman Missile with Mark 12-A warheads, as well as B-52 
bombers.
  Some have said that if the State of North Dakota seceded from the 
Union, it would be the third most powerful country in the world.
  I know a little something about this. I have seen a nuclear weapon 
close up. I have studied what they do and what the impact of nuclear 
weapons are. I have tried to understand deterrent capability.
  All of us know that with a world full of nuclear weapons we have been 
very blessed that we have not had a war with nuclear weapons. All of us 
know that. As I said yesterday, I have kept in my desk for some long 
while pieces of material that remind us that the proper approach to 
dealing with this threat is the approach we have used under Nunn-Lugar 
and other arms control and arms reduction treaties. This is a piece of 
metal taken from the shaft of an S-24 missile that had a warhead aimed 
at the United States. Where that missile was buried in the Soviet Union 
are now sunflowers. There is no missile. The warhead is gone. There are 
sunflowers at the place.
  How that happened is we paid for the destruction of that missile. We 
didn't shoot it down. We destroyed it with American taxpayer dollars 
under arms control agreements.
  This is copper metal from a ground-up Russian submarine. We didn't 
sink the submarine. We destroyed it under Nunn-Lugar and arms control 
reduction. We paid to have the submarine destroyed.
  I also have a metal piece in my desk from a wing flap from a Soviet 
bomber. We didn't shoot it down. We paid to have the wing sawed off, 
and that bomber was destroyed with arms reductions and arms control 
money from Nunn-Lugar.
  The fact is we know what succeeds. We know what has reduced tensions 
and reduced delivery systems. Yet we are told today that America will 
only be safer in this new day and in this new age of terrorism if we 
begin building new types of nuclear weapons. We are told by people in 
positions of significant responsibility in this town with policy roles 
and responsibility that it is not unthinkable for us to talk about 
``usable'' nuclear weapons. In fact, such discussions have occurred in 
the pages of our Nation's major newspapers with respect to both 
Afghanistan and Iraq.

  Let me talk for a moment about the so-called bunker buster or earth 
penetrator nuclear weapons. This is about whether we should begin the 
research in this new weapon. They are talking about a bunker buster. I 
assume they are talking bunker busters because of Afghanistan. I went 
to Afghanistan. I flew over the mountains where deep in the caves of 
Afghanistan this twisted, sick, demented murderer named Osama bin Laden 
with his people plotted the murder of innocent Americans. I understand. 
They have caves there. I understand it was not easy for us to deal with 
those caves.
  The result is that we have people saying we need an earth penetrating 
bunker buster nuclear weapon. They are talking the size of a bunker 
buster up to nearly 70 times larger than Hiroshima. Hiroshima was 15 
kilotons.
  It seems to me that if you build a 1-megaton nuclear weapon as a 
bunker buster you are going to bust a whole lot more than a bunker. I 
am guessing you bust a mountain, you bust the territory for miles and 
miles and miles around, and you bust any living creature. So I don't 
know. If the bigger the explosion, the safer we are, the more security 
we have, then be my guest; I guess this would be your weapon. But the 
question at this moment in time, at this intersection in America 
history is, Is this what we want to do?
  If today the trucks are moving in North Korea taking spent fuel rods 
from the nuclear plant, if today those trucks are moving in a way that 
takes that material to be produced in a nuclear weapon to be sold to 
terrorists, in a way that has a nuclear weapon showing up 14 months 
from now in a major American city, is our first responsibility in the 
Congress and in this country to say what we really need are more 
nuclear weapons? We have 10,600. Is that really our response? Or ought 
we decide that there are bigger issues and more important issues for us 
to be talking about with North Korea and the rest of the world?
  Those issues include stopping the spread of nuclear weapons now. I 
mean stopping the spread now. We have so many countries and so many 
groups that want access to nuclear weapons. Our job is to be the world 
leader. We are the superpower. We have the largest economic engine in 
the world, and we are the military superpower in the world. We, 
unfortunately or fortunately, have the responsibility and the mantle on 
our shoulders to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It is on our 
watch. It is our job. It is not someone else's job.
  How do we stop the spread of nuclear weapons and decide to send the 
signal to the rest of the world that nuclear weapons cannot be used in 
this world of ours? Once you start moving nuclear weapons back and 
forth in anger, this Earth as we know it is gone.
  Those people who talk about ``survivable'' nuclear weapons are nuts, 
just nuts. They still think about tank wars. You have 200 tanks; we 
have 100 tanks. Then we have a battle. Who has how many tanks 
remaining? Or if we have 200 and you have 100, that is not the way 
nuclear war will exist on the face of this Earth.

  The only opportunity we have for our children and grandchildren is to 
prevent the use of nuclear weapons--not to talk about the use of 
nuclear weapons, which some are now doing. It is in their minds 
practical to talk about this new day and new age of threat security 
issues, and to talk about the potential of use of nuclear weapons.
  It is interesting to me that in the middle of all of this 
discussion--even in this bill--I mentioned yesterday that we are going 
to have $9 billion in this bill for a national missile defense system 
to intercept an ICBM sent to us by either a rogue state or a terrorist.
  First, terrorists and rogue states aren't going to get ICBMs. It is 
very unlikely. Their delivery of choice is going to be in a container 
on a tanker ship. It is not going to come in at 18,000 miles an hour. 
It will come in at 3 miles an hour to a dock in a major American city.
  The lowest threat on the threat meter in this country we are spending 
the most money on is national defense, and the highest threat has the 
least expenditure. Regrettably, that is the appetite for these programs 
in the Senate. But when you talk about threat, the threat, it seems to 
me, is that this country will decide that it makes a U-turn on public 
policy here with respect to nuclear policy and decide it says to the 
rest of the world, here is a green light. The green light is to build 
additional nuclear weapons. We want to build so-called low-yield 
nuclear weapons, which is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a low-
yield nuclear weapon. We want to build them. Guess what Russia will be 
saying. We want to build some, too, then. There you go. We want to 
build earth penetrator bunker buster nuclear weapons. So will others. 
So we spark a new arms race. Instead of reducing the number of nuclear 
weapons and making this world a safer place, we will increase the 
number of nuclear weapons and will actually have other countries 
understanding that it is our country that talks about the potential use 
of nuclear weapons in future conflicts.
  I think this is the most Byzantine thing I have witnessed in all the 
years I have served in the Congress. I do not have the foggiest idea 
how this is not met with the reaction by the American people: What on 
Earth could you be thinking about? Or aren't you thinking at all? I 
just do not understand it.
  I likely will lose this amendment. It is a small amendment. The 
amendment deals with a relatively small amount of money but a 
critically important principle. I am just trying to take one piece out 
of this bill, the piece that says: Let's start the research to move 
toward an earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon. Let's just 
start. Let's just take the first step.
  I am saying: Let's not.
  If you cannot sleep at night because we have 10,600 nuclear weapons, 
you are

[[Page S6799]]

not going to sleep better at night because you have a bunker buster 
high-yield jumbo buster nuclear weapon. That is not going to make you 
sleep better. Take some sleeping pills.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. I listened very carefully to your statements. You say 
let's see if we can't stop taking the first step. Am I correct in that?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Am I not correct, last year the Congress of the United 
States spoke to that issue and took that first step and initiated that 
program? The first step has been taken.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am sorry, I do not understand your question. Would you 
rephrase the question.
  Mr. WARNER. Last year the Congress in the military authorization bill 
took the first step on this program, and put money in the bill. The 
research has already commenced.
  I think the point of reference, to be accurate, I would say to my 
good friend--you are not taking the first step. In other words, this 
program is ongoing. In this bill are simply the funds to continue what 
the Congress authorized last year after debate and vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. For purposes of the Senator from Virginia, giving him 
comfort, let me say my amendment will end the second step. If his point 
is the research for the bunker buster nuclear weapon was last year a 
first step, then let me suggest to you my amendment will withhold the 
money so we do not take the second step.
  However, I think the larger point the Senator from Virginia 
understands. The step this country wants to take, to say there are 
usable nuclear weapons, that there are designer nuclear weapons that 
can be produced with lower and higher yields for special kinds of uses 
is a very dangerous step and exactly the wrong step for those of us who 
believe our leadership responsibility is both to stop the spread of 
nuclear weapons and to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. I think 
the larger point the Senator from Virginia understands. But if he is 
more comfortable with my saying we will stop the second step rather 
than the first step, we will stop whatever steps are taken in the wrong 
direction, in my judgment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I just think accuracy on these very important subjects is 
absolutely vital to establish credibility among our colleagues. I read 
from the report language. It says:

       This amount includes $21 million for advanced concepts, of 
     which $15 million is authorized to continue the feasibility 
     study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

  So the Senator was incorrect in his representation that he was 
endeavoring as if to say I am going to stop it now before it gets 
started. I think that is fair, to let the Congress know, and 
particularly the Senate, this thing was authorized last year and voted 
upon, approved, funded. This is a second tranche of funds for research.
  Essentially the amendment of the Senator is to establish a total ban 
on this entire program.
  If I may say on my own time, of course, it is the intention of the 
Senator from Virginia, again in total fairness to our colleagues, to 
incorporate in this legislation, in this bill, a provision which is 
identical in purpose to the one we just voted on, the Warner amendment. 
It will say: The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering 
development phase, that's the next phase, or any subsequent phase of 
the nuclear earth penetrator program unless specifically authorized by 
Congress.
  So into this legislation--it had been my intent to put it on in the 
second degree, but the time agreement understandably precluded that. It 
may well be other Senators will join us. But this is the intention of 
the Senator from Virginia. I wish to represent to all colleagues I will 
endeavor, and I have every reason to believe there is going to be 
support on the other side, to incorporate this language which will put 
Congress entirely in control of this program, entirely in control, just 
as I amended the previous legislation to put Congress entirely in 
control of every step as it goes along.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I may use the word credibility, as the Senator from 
Virginia did, let me say to those who might listen to this debate or 
watch this debate, it is incredible to believe Congress will be in 
charge of every step of the development of this program. That is 
preposterous. That is not the case on any defense system of which I am 
aware.
  My amendment is very simple, I say to the Senator from Virginia. My 
amendment prohibits the use of these funds. You did not talk about 
prohibiting funds. You want to fund it. You want to authorize it. You 
want to move ahead with it. That is fine. We have a disagreement about 
that. But there is no credibility issue here.
  The question is whether this country wants, with this legislation, to 
say to the rest of the world, By the way, we have embarked on a new 
venture here and with this new venture, whether it is last year or this 
year, it is decided we need new nuclear weapons including bunker 
busting nuclear weapons.
  If the answer to that is yes, that's what we want to do, then the 
answer is we vote with my colleague from Virginia. If you believe it is 
moving in exactly the wrong direction, it is driving 500 miles in 
reverse like the flying farmer from Makoti, if you really believe this 
is stepping backward, as I do, and dangerous for the rest of the world, 
you vote no. You vote to strip the money.
  Look, money is money, as you know. This $11 million, $15 million is 
probably not a lot of money to some. But my amendment strips that money 
to say let's stop this. We do not need earth penetrating bunker busting 
nuclear weapons. Does the Senator from Virginia believe at this moment 
we can't sleep because we don't have bunker busting earth penetrating 
nuclear weapons?

  Mr. WARNER. The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee is here. I 
asked him to address the strategic implications and the necessity. The 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just yesterday, when I was consulting with 
him, said there is now a proliferation of effort by nations which have 
interests antithetical to ours, going deep into the ground to establish 
facilities to manufacture poison weapons, biological weapons, gas 
weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons. I think it is prudent that our 
arsenal of defense deterrence have in it weapons, if I may finish, both 
nuclear and conventional.
  Mind you, there is an ongoing effort parallel to this one to 
determine whether or not we can achieve the same strategic goals of 
destruction of deep underground facilities with conventional weapons, 
which would certainly be used prior to the use of any nuclear weapon. 
So it is a parallel program of conventional and nuclear.
  But I respect my colleague whose views are different than mine. His 
amendment bans forever this type of weapon--research, development, 
everything. It stops it cold.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am sorry, if the Senator wants to talk about 
credibility, let me correct the Senator, if you do not mind. On page 2 
of my amendment it prohibits it for the year 2004, because that's all I 
can do, with respect to 2004.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. And for the year 2004 it says: No funds authorized or 
appropriated or otherwise made available, et cetera, for a feasibility 
study.
  Mr. WARNER. Which study was authorized, I say to my colleague, last 
year.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish my point. If we are going to be completely 
accurate here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Chair will 
advise the Senator from North Dakota has the floor. All conversations 
are being charged against his time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think I said when I took the floor, it 
would be charged to the Senator from Virginia. It is in the nature of a 
colloquy which takes place, so statements on my behalf are charged 
against my time, statements by the Senator from North Dakota on his 
time.
  Mr. DORGAN. That was my understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time will be so 
charged.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me just make this point because I think it is 
important. I, too, want to be accurate. I want to be accurate on my 
side and your side. My amendment prohibits the use of funds

[[Page S6800]]

for the earth penetrator weapon to be ``obligated or expended for 
development, testing, or engineering on a nuclear earth penetrator 
weapon.'' That is perpetual. And ``(b) Prohibition on Use of Fiscal 
Year 2004 Funds'' deals only with this fiscal year.

  So to be perfectly accurate, the question of the withholding of funds 
with respect to the feasibility study only applies to this fiscal year. 
It is not permanently banning that funding because I can only ban it 
for this year. So I just want to make that point.
  I am happy to yield and happy to engage in this colloquy, but I think 
the issue is quite simple actually: Either one believes we ought to 
have new nuclear weapons, earth penetrating bunker busters--and I don't 
remember exactly who showed up to testify yesterday; someone from the 
Joint Chiefs, I guess, and they have told us that somewhere around the 
world, somebody is auguring deep into the earth, God forbid, and we 
might well need a nuclear weapon to go get them.
  I would say to people who come around here with those stories: Go get 
some fresh air. Put some sugar on your cereal. I don't, for the life of 
me--there are people around here, I swear to you, who, if told our 
adversaries were creating a cavalry, would be on the floor trying to 
buy horses. I don't understand this notion that there is a rumor that 
somebody is doing something, so let's create a new nuclear weapon.
  The reason I offer this specific amendment, I say to the Senator from 
Virginia, is that I know they talked about this in Afghanistan, in 
Iraq. And they talked about the issue of ``usable'' nuclear weapons. 
They talked about the difficulty in caves. I have flown over those 
mountains. I have seen those mountains and the caves. But for us to 
come back here and say: Oh, by the way, our new global strategy is to 
create a new class of nuclear weapons--I think that has profound 
implications with respect to the stability and the spread of nuclear 
weapons around the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I readily state you have one position on the concept of 
whether this Nation should, you said, start up--but I think you agree 
with me now, it is ongoing--so stop where it is, this program. You make 
your point. I make my point.
  What I am trying to do is to clarify, for the benefit of our 
colleagues, precisely what I understand your amendment does. What this 
Senator, or perhaps joined by others, intends to do is, namely, make 
the effect of the amendment parallel to what we have done three times 
now. Three times this body has voted not to ban research on a nuclear 
system. You are asking for a ban.
  I draw your attention to your first sentence: ``Effective as of the 
date of the enactment of this Act, no funds authorized to be 
appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Energy 
by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended for 
development, testing,'' and so forth.
  Does that not capture the existing funds that were appropriated last 
year?
  Mr. DORGAN. No, it does not.
  First of all, read the last words, ``development, testing, or 
engineering,'' and then compare that to (b) in which I am talking about 
the feasibility study. I am withholding the funds from the feasibility 
study. I was attempting to make that distinction for you.

  Mr. WARNER. But if your amendment would pass, wouldn't it be the 
effect to the Department of Defense: Why waste last year's money if you 
are prohibited from spending another nickel?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am all for that statement: Why waste money? I am all 
for that. If the proposition is, what I am trying to do is tell the 
Defense Department, don't waste money, then sign me up and count me in.
  Mr. WARNER. I think we have clarified this situation as best we can. 
But I wish to state to my colleagues, it is the intention of this 
Senator--I hope to be joined by others; and, indeed, one on the other 
side of the aisle--to put in legislation, as a part of the 
consideration of this subject of the penetrator, the exact language we 
had and voted on very strongly here just 15 minutes ago.
  Mr. DORGAN. I have deep respect for my colleague from Virginia. We 
are friends. We disagree on this issue.
  Let me make a final point. I know others want to speak on this 
matter. We are now in a new environment in which the language about the 
nuclear threat has changed dramatically. We have people who say we 
really need to begin nuclear testing once again. We have people who say 
we ought not forswear the first use of nuclear weapons; first use might 
in some circumstances be perfectly plausible. We have some who say 
nuclear weapons are ``usable'' as tactical issues, as strategic issues 
on the battlefield, they are usable nuclear weapons we ought to be 
considering. There are people who say we need new kinds of nuclear 
weapons--bigger ones, the jumbo ones, which is the earth penetrator, 
and smaller ones, the smaller, mininuclear weapons that would be one-
third the size of Hiroshima, which certainly is not mini, but that is 
what they say.
  We have people saying all these things in this country, some of them 
in very responsible policy positions. I think the rest of the world 
sees all that, listens to that, looks at bills such as this, and says: 
You know what, the United States has 10,600 nuclear weapons in its 
arsenal. And they say they need more? And they say they have a right to 
use them? They will not renounce first use.
  They say they want specific, more designer kinds of weapons for 
battlefield use.
  They are saying: You know, the United States has changed. It used to 
be the United States did everything conceivable in its power to say: 
Never shall a nuclear weapon be used. Our nuclear weapons are 
deterrents, deterrents so they never can be used against us and never 
used against others. But now it has all changed, and there are people 
who think it is perfectly plausible, it is just another weapons 
program, just part of our weapons system.
  Well, in 2003, with what is happening around the world--terrorists, 
India, Pakistan, North Korea--I cannot think of a more destructive 
piece of public policy than to continue with this kind of nonsense. It 
is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong, in my judgment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I just have 3 minutes from the Senator 
from North Dakota?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield the time to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the 
Senator from North Dakota. I think for the reasons he gives, we should 
not walk down a road which tells both our people and the rest of the 
world that we are going to consider the development of what was called 
the bunker buster, which, as a matter of fact, is from 28 to 70 times 
the size of the Hiroshima bomb.
  What we decided last year was we would put a fence around the first 
year's study and we would get, indeed, a report before that money was 
spent. It is a report which is totally unsatisfactory.
  So there was a lot of doubt--a lot of doubt--in this body about 
whether we should proceed down a road which considers the utilization 
of nuclear weapons in new forms that are 28 to 70 times the size of 
Hiroshima.
  Now we are also told, this morning, that now there may be some 
chemical and biological sites that could be underground for which these 
weapons would be used.
  Well, first of all, conventional weapons are perfectly adequate to 
close entrances and holes. But putting that aside for a minute, just 
think about it. The intelligence community said they had identified 590 
suspect sites in Iraq--590 sites, according to Secretary Rumsfeld. Now, 
that used to be a classified number, but apparently the other day it 
was just declassified by Secretary Rumsfeld, so I will use that number. 
The intelligence community said 590 sites over there in Iraq are 
suspect chemical and biological weapons sites.
  We are going to drop a nuclear weapon on those sites based on the 
intelligence of the CIA? Are we kidding? Do we know what we are dealing 
with when we are talking about nuclear weapons 28 to 70 times the size 
of Hiroshima? Those are the weapons being considered for modification 
for the so-called bunker buster. They are not

[[Page S6801]]

bunker busters. These are world peace destroyers. These are city 
destroyers. These are nation destroyers.
  For us to casually--and I think it is casual--talk about, ``Let's go 
down this road, we are not talking about development here, we are only 
talking about research,'' we have the person who is the top person in 
the Defense Department as the adviser to the Secretary of Defense on 
nuclear matters, Fred Celec, who says, ``If a hydrogen bomb could be 
successfully designed to survive a crash through hard rock, it will 
ultimately get fielded.''
  Now, that is not one of the supporters of the Dorgan amendment who is 
saying that. That is the top adviser to the Secretary of Defense who is 
saying: If we can show that it will work, and design it, it will be 
fielded.
  The rest of the world does not ignore what we do here. What we are 
doing here is marching down a road which is dangerous and reckless in 
terms of world peace and security. And we should not do it.
  This is not just simply a study. This is a step--a very important 
step--down a road, in a direction which, apparently, according to Fred 
Celec, who is the Deputy Assistant Security of Defense for Nuclear 
Matters, will be ultimately fielded.
  I support the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. I do point 
out that there was a fence around last year's money. It was not as 
though last year we decided to proceed. There were some conditions 
which were attached. As far as I am concerned, when you read that 
report, it is very unsatisfactory, very general, and not at all 
sufficient to justify moving to the next $15 million.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that fence was met. The Department 
submitted its report. On receipt of that report, the program, as 
authorized last year, commenced. It is an ongoing program.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. But it is important to point out 
that there was so much concern about step 1, there was a fence or a 
condition attached to the expenditure of the money. It is incumbent 
upon all of us to read the report and ask, does that satisfy us that we 
ought to take the next step?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the use of fences is quite common in a 
number of areas in the Defense authorization process.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is, indeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-seven minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan 
amendment. Before I make any more comments, right at the very start, I 
want to make one thing clear: We are not building new nuclear weapons. 
We are modifying existing nuclear weapons. Somehow the other side is 
trying to imply that we are building new nuclear weapons, and we are 
going to continue to add to the number of nuclear warheads we have. We 
are continuing to reduce the number of nuclear warheads under the 
Moscow Treaty.
  The Senate bill includes an authorization of $15 million to continue 
a 3-year feasibility study on the robust nuclear penetrator. I repeat, 
to continue the feasibility study. This is not a new issue for the 
Congress to consider. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2003, the Congress authorized $15 million for the first 
year of the feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator 
which is now under way.
  This bill authorizes only the continuation of the feasibility study. 
It does not authorize the production or deployment of such a 
capability.
  The RNEP for feasibility--referring to the robust nuclear earth 
penetrator--will determine if one of two existing nuclear weapons can 
be modified to penetrate into hard rock in order to destroy a deeply 
buried target. That is the challenge we face. Our potential enemies are 
trying to avoid any vulnerability to targets by going deeper and deeper 
underground. In order to destroy deeply buried targets that could be 
hiding weapons of mass destruction or command and control assets, this 
new technology needs to be an option, not that we are necessarily going 
to use it.
  The Department of Energy has modified nuclear weapons in the past to 
modernize their safety, security, and reliability aspects. We also 
modify existing nuclear weapons to meet new military requirements. The 
B-61-11, one of the nuclear weapons being considered for the RNEP 
feasibility study, was also modified once before to serve as an earth 
penetrator to hold specific targets at risk. At that time, the 
modification was to ensure the B-61 would penetrate frozen soils. The 
RNEP feasibility study is attempting to determine if the same B-61 or 
another weapon--for example, the B-83--can be modified to penetrate 
hard rock or reinforced, underground facilities. Authorizing research 
on both options, nuclear and conventional--and we hope we will never 
have to use the nuclear; we hope we can continue to advance the 
conventional technology so that would be the preferred method of choice 
to go after these deep underground hardened targets--for attacking such 
targets is a responsible step for our country to take
  Again, we are not producing new nuclear weapons. We are doing a 
modification. It is a continuing modification. We have modified the B-
61 before. We are looking at the B-83 to see if perhaps we can't do a 
modification on that.
  The sponsor of the amendment made the comment that the United States 
is setting an example for the rest of the world. We are continuing to 
set the example for the rest of the world by reducing the number of 
nuclear warheads. The problem is countries such as Afghanistan and 
Pakistan don't care what we are doing. Despite our best efforts to set 
an example, they are continuing to develop nuclear warheads. They are 
doing more than we are today as far as the triggering mechanism for 
nuclear warheads. If that continues, where will that put us as far as 
the defense of this country is concerned?

  I commend President Bush. He has taken the lead in reducing the 
number of nuclear warheads. It is great that we are able, through these 
kind of programs, to take covert silos, as my friend from North Dakota 
mentioned, and we are planting sunflower seeds. We are still doing that 
today as a result of the Moscow Treaty. Even before the treaty, the 
President announced that he would take down the Peacekeeper which is 
buried in silos in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado. That effort is 
moving forward. We are continuing to do that. The point is, we need to 
have some flexibility. Times are changing. Our targets are changing. We 
need to have new technology. We need to study. That is what this 
provides, a feasibility study of these various options. We simply 
cannot afford to be caught shorthanded. Too much is at risk. America is 
at risk.
  ADM James Ellis, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, confirmed in 
testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, on April 8, 2003, 
that not all hardened and deeply buried targets can be destroyed by 
conventional weapons. That is his view. Many nations are increasingly 
developing these hardened, deeply buried targets to protect command and 
communications and weapons of mass destruction production and storage 
assets. It is prudent to authorize the study of potential capabilities 
to address this growing category of threat.
  What the Senate bill authorizes is simply the second year of the 3-
year feasibility study and nothing more. Should the National Nuclear 
Security Administration determine through this study that the robust 
nuclear earth penetrator can meet the requirement to hold a hardened 
and deeply buried target at risk, NNSA still could not proceed to full-
scale weapons development, production, or deployment without an 
authorization and appropriation from Congress.
  We do the study. Say the study says there is a feasible alternative. 
Still they cannot move forward until they have the authorization for 
development and production through authorization and appropriation from 
the Congress.
  We should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust 
nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried 
targets to assess what would be collateral damage associated with such 
a capability. Then Congress would have the information it

[[Page S6802]]

would need to decide whether development of such a weapon is 
appropriate and necessary to maintain our Nation's security.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Dorgan amendment as 
it now stands. This is an important issue. We are talking about the 
defense of this country. A lot is at stake. I think we need to keep in 
mind that despite the fact we are doing a lot today to reduce the 
number of nuclear weapons in our arsenal, other countries are 
continuing to test. I put in the Record yesterday a whole page of tests 
that have occurred since we quit testing underground. Other countries 
are continuing to develop their weapons. We need to continue to use our 
technology to make sure we have the proper defenses and the wherewithal 
to protect our troops in the field, to protect America, and to protect 
freedom.

  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MURKOWSKI). Who yields time?
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 750, As Modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have sent a modification to the desk, 
a technical modification. I ask to have the modification agreed to.
  Mr. ALLARD. There is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 750), as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for a nuclear earth penetrator 
                                weapon)

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following:

     SEC. 3135. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR NUCLEAR EARTH 
                   PENETRATOR WEAPON.

       (a) In General.--Effective as of the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, no funds authorized to be appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for the Department of Energy by this 
     Act may be obligated or expended for development, testing, or 
     engineering on a nuclear earth penetrator weapon.
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Fiscal Year 2004 Funds for 
     Feasibility Study.--No funds authorized to be appropriated or 
     otherwise made available for the Department of Energy for 
     fiscal year 2004 by this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     a feasibility study on a nuclear earth penetrator weapon.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I urge the Senate to support this 
amendment to strike funding for nuclear bunker busters. What sense does 
it make for the Nation to do all it can to prevent the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons, and then start proliferating them ourselves?
  ``More has changed on proliferation than on any other issue.'' CIA 
Director George Tenet made this statement not too long ago to the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. He wasn't talking about the United 
States but he should have been. As we have seen already in this debate, 
the Bush administration's policy would make the United States the 
biggest nuclear weapons proliferator of all. They want to 
``nuclearize'' as many of our conventional weapons as possible.
  But nuclear weapons are different. The unique destructive power of 
these weapons gives them the capacity to threaten the very survival of 
humanity. That is why nuclear weapons have always been kept separate 
from other weapons as part of our strong commitment to do all we can to 
see that they are never used again. Only in the most dire circumstances 
should the use of nuclear weapons be considered--only if the very 
survival of our Nation is threatened.
  It makes no sense to break down the firewall we have always 
maintained between nuclear weapons and other weapons. This policy has 
worked for over half a century in preventing nuclear war. Other nations 
have complied with the basic principle, too. A nuclear weapon is not 
just another item in our Nation's arsenal. We don't need to start 
building mini-nukes when our state-of-the-art, high-tech conventional 
weapons can do the same job. And we don't need to go nuclear with our 
conventional bunker buster weapons, either.
  I was 13 years old on that fateful day in August 1945, when a B-29 
bomber flying high over Hiroshima dropped the first nuclear weapon, 
``Little Boy.'' More than 4 square miles of the city were instantly and 
completely devastated. Over 90,000 people died instantly. Another 
50,000 died by the end of that year. Three days later, another B-29 
dropped ``Fat Man'' over Nagasaki, killing 39,000 people instantly and 
injuring 25,000 more.
  Since then, no nuclear weapon has ever been used in any war. There 
have been close calls in the past half century but this weapon was 
never used. In 1948, the Soviet Union began the Berlin Blockade, and we 
considered the use of tactical nuclear weapons if the conflict 
escalated. We also considered the use of nuclear weapons in the Korean 
war. In 1957, the Soviets launched Sputink, and it became clear that 
two oceans could not protect us from a nuclear attack at home.
  In 1958, President Eisenhower declared a moratorium on all nuclear 
testing--with the understanding that the Soviet Union would also honor 
the moratorium. But testing resumed in 1961, and after negotiations 
with the Soviet Union, we issued a Joint Statement of Agreed Principles 
for Disarmament Negotiations--the so-called McCloy-Zorin accords--which 
outlines a program for general and complete disarmament.
  In the work of the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy pushed 
forcefully for a treaty to limit the development of nuclear weapons. 
The result was in the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in August 1963, 
prohibiting tests of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.
  In February 1967, a treaty prohibited nuclear weapons in Latin 
America.
  In July 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 
was signed in Moscow, London, and Washington, and entered into full 
force in March 1970. That same year brought the beginning of the first 
round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in Vienna. The SALT agreement 
was signed 2 years later in 1972 and placed restrictions on the number 
and size of nuclear warheads in the Soviet and American arsenals.
  In the 1970s, we made further progress in limiting the threat of 
nuclear war. The Senate approved treaties to prohibit the placement of 
nuclear weapons in the ocean and to limit underground testing. We 
almost reached an agreement on the second round of Strategic Arms 
Limitation Talks, or SALT II, but the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 
1970 took that agreement off the table.
  In 1987, the Soviet Union and the United States signed the 
Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In 1991, using pens made from 
melted down missiles, President Bush and President Gorbachev signed the 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty START I.
  Six months later both nations committed to further nuclear program 
reductions and eliminations. Soviet leader Gorbachev initiated a 
moratorium on nuclear testing in October 1991, and President Bush 
canceled the Midgetman Missile Program and stopped production of 
advanced cruise missiles in January 1992. That summer, the Senate voted 
for a 9-month moratorium on nuclear weapons testing beginning in 
October 1992, with a final cutoff of all testing by September 1996.
  In 1993, Presidents Bush and Yeltsin signed START II, reducing U.S. 
and Soviet arsenals of longer range nuclear weapons and eliminating all 
land-based missiles with multiple warheads over the next 10 years.
  After we finalized this testing moratorium, France and China stopped 
testing, and Russia continued its own moratorium. But now, after many 
difficult years of this progress toward preventing nuclear war, the 
Bush administration wants to change direction and go the other way. 
Last year, it requested $15.5 million to study the feasibility of 
adding a nuclear bunker buster to our arsenal. They say they need it to 
destroy hardened and deeply buried targets, and they want $15 million 
more this year to continue the project.
  They say they need it to destroy hardened targets buried deeply 
underground, but the scientific community has raised serious questions 
about the effectiveness and need for these weapons. A nuclear explosion 
in a bunker could spew tons of radioactive waste into the atmosphere. 
Obviously, trying

[[Page S6803]]

to develop nuclear weapons for this mission distracts from developing 
conventional alternatives to do the job.
  According to Dr. Sidney Drell, of Stanford University: Currently, we 
don't have the capability of digging down more than 50 feet to reach 
deeply buried hardened targets. If we detonate just 1 kiloton between 
20 and 50 feet down, a million cubic feet of dirt would have 
radioactive contamination, and a crater the size of the crater at the 
World Trade Center would be created.
  Imagine what would happen if one of these weapons was a nuclear 
weapon with a yield of 400 kilotons and was detonated. Is it even 
possible to imagine a crater 400 time the size?
  It makes no sense to start down this road. No country should be 
making weapons like that. It is wrong for this administration to start 
developing new types of nuclear weapons that have no plausible military 
purpose and that can only encourage even more nations to go nuclear.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am very concerned that the fiscal year 
2004 Defense Authorization Act provide $15 million of funding for the 
continued study into the feasibility of developing a robust nuclear 
earth penetrator.
  The robust nuclear earth penetrator is a bomb designed to bury itself 
deep into the ground before it explodes. This is not a low-yield 
nuclear weapon. According to reports, this weapon would be five times 
more powerful than the device detonated at Hiroshima--and would have an 
even greater impact because a nuclear weapon's force is multiplied when 
its shock wave penetrates the crust of the Earth.
  The aim of those who support this research into the robust nuclear 
earth penetrator believe that a usable nuclear weapon will be able to 
destroy deeply buried targets with few casualties and little fallout. 
Unfortunately, science is not on their side.
  Last year, a number of scientists, including Sidney Drell of the 
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center wrote, ``an earth-penetrating 
warhead with a yield sufficient to destroy a buried target cannot 
penetrate deeply enough to fully contain the nuclear explosion; it 
would necessarily produce an intense and deadly radioactive fallout. 
Thus, it is not technically possible to use nuclear weapons to destroy 
deeply buried targets without at the same time causing significant 
radioactive contamination and collateral damage if used in an urban 
area.''
  Another argument pushed by those in favor of these nuclear weapons is 
that they would be useful in destroying stockpiles of biological and 
chemical weapons.
  While a nuclear weapon could, in fact, incinerate biological and 
chemical weapons if the nuclear blast is nearby, it is unlikely that we 
will ever have perfect intelligence about the location of these 
weapons. Our continued inability to find weapons of mass destruction in 
Iraq is a perfect illustration.
  In addition, the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that the 
robust nuclear earth penetrator could actually disperse biological and 
chemical weapons by spreading them into the resulting crater and 
surrounding air. These weapons are not usable weapons.
  Finally, our continued development of new uses for nuclear weapons 
will only spurn other nations to do the same.
  As Rose Gottemoeller, the former Deputy Secretary of Energy, has 
said, ``I think people abroad will interpret this as part of a really 
enthusiastic effort by the Bush administration to renuclearize. And I 
think definitely there's going to be an impetus to the development of 
nuclear weapons around the world.''
  The war in Iraq showed our Nation has overwhelming superiority when 
it comes to conventional forces. It doesn't make any sense to promote 
the development of nuclear weapons and signal to the world that weapons 
of mass destruction have other uses other than a means of last resort.
  I urge the passage of the Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote at 
12:30 relative to the Dorgan amendment; that our time be equally 
divided between both sides; and that after the vote, Senator Byrd be 
allowed to speak for 20 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Is this a UC request?
  Mr. ALLARD. It is my understanding Senator Reid discussed this with 
the chairman and it was agreed that Senator Byrd would have an 
opportunity to speak for 20 minutes after the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. That's correct. If I may add a word or two to this. In 
the course of my colloquy with the Senator from North Dakota, it was 
indicated there would be an effort to place in this bill language 
comparable to what was in the amendment that was voted on immediately 
prior to this one to give a consistency in the manner in which we are 
treating these very serious questions. So I will put this on the desk 
and I will represent to our colleagues that this language will be 
forthcoming and a part of this bill.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, that doesn't mean we are 
going to have two votes, or does it?
  Mr. WARNER. I have indicated to the ranking member that this 
language, I think, could be voice-voted because I think there is 
consensus on both sides in an effort to make parallel and to put the 
Congress clearly into play.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is also my understanding that Senator 
Lautenberg would be willing to offer an amendment following the 
statement of the Senator from West Virginia. He also indicated he would 
agree to a time limit.
  Mr. WARNER. We are prepared to enter into that now.
  Mr. REID. I haven't had a chance to talk about the time with him. I 
just wanted to alert people of that. Shortly after Senator Lautenberg 
offers his amendment, there would be a vote.
  Mr. WARNER. It is my hope that in the course of Senator Byrd's 20 
minutes, if that decision could be made, Senator Byrd would certainly 
understand the need to maintain the momentum.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me conclude with a few comments and 
indicate, as I should have, that Senator Feinstein of California, 
Senator Byrd, and Senator Bingaman are all cosponsors of my amendment. 
Let me conclude by saying I understand there is a difference of opinion 
about what defending America really is. I don't think it is defending 
our interests or providing greater national security to be involved in 
the creation of new nuclear weapons.
  I believe the best way to defend our country, especially in a new day 
and age of terrorism, is to understand we must find ways to prevent 
terrorists from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, for they surely will 
use them. We saw what they did with a low-tech weapon, with jet 
airplanes full of fuel. That was a low-tech weapon.
  The ability to acquire nuclear weapons will be a devastating 
consequence, especially for us in the United States, because terrorists 
will surely want to use them. It seems to me our job is to stop the 
spread of nuclear weapons, do everything conceivably possible to stop 
the spread of nuclear weapons and provide no green lights, no go signs 
for anybody in the world to believe that we think it is acceptable for 
the use of nuclear weapons; that we believe nuclear weapons are 
``usable'' in battlefield circumstances; that we believe we ought to 
build additional nuclear weapons, understanding that others will as 
well. If we want to do low yield, they will also want to. If we want to 
do penetrating bunker busters, they will want to do them.
  Our job, it seems to me, is to say the only success we will be able 
to claim in the future is that we prevented the spread of nuclear 
weapons and prevented their use and, over a long period of time, began 
to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.
  Thirty thousand nuclear weapons exist on this earth. The detonation 
of one will represent the greatest calamity, or potentially represent 
the greatest calamity in the history of the world. The detonation of 
one relatively small nuclear weapon in the middle of a major American 
city could likely cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.
  This is a big issue. This is very important. I think people walking 
around this town talking about usable nuclear weapons, beginning to 
test nuclear weapons once again, building new designer nuclear weapons, 
is a terrible mistake. It is sending a signal to the

[[Page S6804]]

rest of the world that nuclear weapons are like other weapons. They are 
not. They are not like other weapons. The only value of a nuclear 
weapon for us has been as a deterrent to prevent others from using 
them.
  We must, it seems to me, from this day forward, with the world 
populated by 30,000 nuclear weapons, find a way to keep them out of the 
hands of the wrong people, to stop the proliferation, and to begin to 
reduce their number. That ultimately represents our security. That is 
the way to defend this country: to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, 
not to build more.
  I suspect we will see on this amendment, as we have on the previous 
amendments, that I will come up short on the vote. I regret that very 
much. I so strongly believe this country is sending a terrible signal 
to the rest of the world--Russia, China, Pakistan, India, you name it. 
I think this is a dreadful mistake. It does not strengthen this 
country. In my judgment, it makes this country more vulnerable in the 
long term.
  Let me finish as I started. I have been the strongest supporter of 
this country's system of defense. I voted for the Defense bills. I 
worked on weapons systems. I think this country needs a robust, strong 
defense. I have always felt that way. I come from a State with two 
military airbases and the best Air National Guard in the country. I 
understand B-52s, KC-135 tankers, and Minuteman missiles.
  I support a strong, robust defense. Nuclear weapons are different. 
They are different. They threaten the very existence of the world as we 
know it, and that is why it must be dealt with differently. That is why 
I offer this amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion is not in order while time remains 
for debate.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield back the time on our side. It is my understanding 
they will be yielding back time on their side.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. All time having been yielded back, I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we will consult with the proponent of 
the underlying amendment. But for the moment, the Senate has tabled 
this matter.
  It is my hope we could proceed to the Nelson amendments. I thank our 
distinguished colleague from Florida for his cooperation. We can do 
both by voice vote, it is my hope.
  On the one amendment, I would like to be associated with you because 
I represented throughout the vote, to my side, that the language be 
incorporated. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time there is a previous order to 
recognize the Senator from West Virginia.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have spoken to the Senator from West 
Virginia. He has no objection to the two managers of the bill disposing 
of the two Nelson amendments.
  If I could just be heard briefly? We have several people on our side 
who want to offer amendments. I hope those people who want to offer 
amendments would contact the two managers of the bill. We are running 
out of names of people to offer amendments. Both leaders have indicated 
they want to complete this bill as quickly as possible. We are not 
going to be able to work late into the night tonight.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I could bring some new information on 
that subject? The majority leader had a conversation with me just a 
minute ago. I have not had a chance to share it.
  I intend to stay here, as will other Members on my side, tonight. The 
majority leader is open to having votes, if necessary, at about 9:30 
tonight.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, this is an excuse so he doesn't have to go 
to this dinner.
  Mr. WARNER. As we say in the law, I plead nolo contendere.
  Mr. LEVIN. What dinner would we also be missing?
  Mr. REID. We are not invited.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are not invited.
  Mr. REID. I would say then there is a possibility we could complete 
this legislation tonight.
  Mr. WARNER. If we get the cooperation and Senators call--we are right 
here on the floor--and indicate that you desire to have an amendment, 
we will see if we can accept it. If we cannot, we will proceed to put 
it in line.
  I say to the leadership that we are going to hear from the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Following that, I know 
of one amendment on this side by Senator Hutchison, the Senator from 
Texas. And we have the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey.
  Is that my understanding?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Could we put those in order now, but maybe not lock them 
in?
  Mr. REID. That would be good, if Senator Hutchison could go first 
before Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. WARNER. I think I can make those arrangements.
  Mr. REID. How long will she take?
  Mr. WARNER. Fifteen minutes, or less. We may be able to accept it 
without requiring a vote.
  Mr. REID. Senator Lautenberg would be 1:45, and he will take one-half 
hour. He probably will not use the whole one-half hour. I would be 
happy to ask unanimous consent that Senator Hutchison from Texas be 
allowed to offer her amendment, followed by the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. WARNER. I am agreeable to that unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I have an amendment on which I 
will not take much time, if I could just have 15 minutes. I do not know 
if it will be accepted or not. I ask for 15 minutes.

[[Page S6805]]

  Mr. WARNER. How soon would the Senator be willing to share the text 
of the amendment with the managers?
  Mr. HARKIN. Right now.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator be able to go immediately after the 
disposition of the Lautenberg amendment, which would be about 2 
o'clock, or 1:30 or 2?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. Around 1:30. Yes, I can do that.
  Mr. LEVIN. It may be later than 2.
  Mr. REID. He is not going to start until quarter to 2.
  Mr. LEVIN. It would be about 2:30 or quarter to 3. Would the Senator 
from Iowa be able to do it in that time period?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will make time to do it.
  Mr. WARNER. We thank the Senator from Iowa for that cooperation 
because, frankly, we don't know of many more amendments. We are nearing 
the end.
  Mr. REID. Following Senator Lautenberg, could I modify my request for 
him to be next in order?
  Mr. WARNER. There is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I thank the two leaders of 
our committee who have been so accommodating and so gracious to work 
this out.


                           Amendment No. 766

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr. 
     Warner, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 766.

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

   (Purpose: To require a specific authorization of Congress for the 
 commencement of the engineering development phase or subsequent phase 
                 of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator)

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following:

     SEC. 3135. REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS 
                   FOR COMMENCEMENT OF ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT 
                   PHASE OR SUBSEQUENT PHASE OF ROBUST NUCLEAR 
                   EARTH PENETRATOR.

       The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering 
     development phase (phase 6.3) of the nuclear weapons 
     development process, or any subsequent phase, of a Robust 
     Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon unless specifically 
     authorized by Congress.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, this amendment brings 
symmetry to the bill by our action earlier this morning. Senator Warner 
had an amendment agreed to which said the Congress should authorize the 
production of a low-yield nuclear weapon. In other words, the Congress 
was going to have to step in if we were going to make a major step in 
the production of a new nuclear weapon from our present policy of years 
standing and of not producing any new kinds of nuclear weapons. That 
was agreed to earlier with regard to a low-yield nuclear weapon under 
the philosophy recognizing that the United States is trying to keep 
proliferation of nuclear weapons down, and that once you start letting 
that nuclear genie out of the bottle, it is very hard to reverse. That 
was the theory upon which the earlier amendment was agreed to.
  So, too, the amendment I sent to the desk, cosponsored by the two 
leaders of our committee, will require the Congress to authorize any 
production of a robust nuclear earth penetrator. A nuclear weapon would 
have to be modified to go into this new robust earth penetrator. That 
is a decision reserved to the Congress and its authorization for such a 
weapon to go from the research stage to the production stage.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I join in this amendment. It had been my 
intention to add the second-degree amendment to the amendment we just 
voted on. I so indicated to my colleagues on this side, recognizing I 
think it is a benefit for the amendment to originate by our 
distinguished colleague and member of the committee from Florida on 
this side of the aisle. This makes ``parallel'' almost to the exact 
word treatment of both of these initiatives with regard to nuclear 
weapons in the current 2004 authorization bill.
  I commend the Senator. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I very much support this effort on the 
part of the Senator from Florida. It is a very precise, 
straightforward, and short amendment. The language has great meaning. 
The Secretary of Energy is not allowed, under this language, to 
commence the engineering development phase of a robust nuclear earth 
penetrator without specific authority of the Congress. Each word has 
meaning. There are not a lot of words in this amendment. It is one of 
the shortest amendments we have seen around here. But every single word 
in that amendment has meaning.
  I thank not just my good friend from Florida but also the Senator 
from Virginia because they have really made a constructive contribution 
to this entire debate by supporting this approach. It is not as strong 
as some of us would have liked, but it nonetheless is very clear and 
very specific and says you may not proceed to engineering development 
unless Congress specifically authorizes that action. It is a 
significant improvement of the bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the modesty of my distinguished 
colleague sometimes is overwhelming. The concept of this language which 
he described and written in the King's English originated with him in 
the course of the markup of our bill. I then plagiarized it for the 
purpose of earlier legislation. I don't know whether the Senator from 
Florida has plagiarized it. But we owe him a great debt. I am so glad 
we had the early discussion today about the clarity of certain statutes 
and that the Senator recognized this one speaks with great clarity. 
That is why it prevailed on our side.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for his generosity. His mind works 
extremely clearly and extremely quickly. However, the good Senator from 
Florida deserves much of the credit because he has been taking the lead 
in a whole lot of these areas. I thank both of them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Is there further debate? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 766) was agreed.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 767

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr. 
     Warner, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 767.

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

(Purpose: To require a study on the application of technology from the 
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Program to conventional hard and deeply 
              buried target weapons development programs)

       At the appropriate place in Title XXXI in the bill add the 
     following new section:

     SEC.--

       (a) Findings.--Much of the work that will be carried out by 
     the Secretary of Energy in the feasibility study for the 
     Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator will have applicability to a 
     nuclear or a conventional earth penetrator, but the 
     Department of Energy does not have responsibility for 
     development of conventional earth penetrator or other 
     conventional programs for hard and deeply buried targets.
       (b) Plan.--The Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of 
     Defense shall develop, submit to Congress three months after 
     the date of enactment of this act, and implement, a

[[Page S6806]]

     plan to coordinate the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 
     feasibility study at the Department of Energy with the 
     ongoing conventional hard and deeply buried weapons 
     development programs at the Department of Defense. This plan 
     shall ensure that over the course of the feasibility study 
     for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator the ongoing results 
     of the work of the DOE, with application to the DOD programs, 
     is shared with and integrated into the DOD programs.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, basically we have in the 
authorization bill the ability to conduct this study that has been 
ongoing for the last year and a half about the robust nuclear earth 
penetrator. There is a certain sum of money in the underlying bill that 
allows the conduct of that study to continue.
  What we raised in the committee was the fact that a robust earth 
penetrator may well be in the interest of the United States, that it 
contain a conventional weapon as opposed to a nuclear weapon. So the 
attempt of this amendment is to clarify that the research that will be 
conducted by the Department of Energy, with regard to the modification 
of a nuclear weapon that would go in the earth penetrator, that the 
research will be coordinated with the Department of Defense in their 
conduct and research of an earth penetrator that includes a 
conventional weapon.
  I urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to endorse the amendment because it 
has a very sound predicate, a very sound philosophy; namely, that we 
should do everything possible to channel all of our scientific efforts 
toward not using a nuclear weapon, and this does just that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I very much support the amendment for the 
reasons given by the Senator from Virginia. I commend our good friend 
from Florida for his initiative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  There being none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 767) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our colleague from West Virginia. 
He has shown us the usual senatorial courtesy to allow the managers to 
move timely amendments.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is recognized now for a 
period of 20 minutes. I thank him very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the two managers of the bill, Mr. 
Warner and Mr. Levin, for the very professional, highly dignified 
manner in which they have conducted their work on this bill. I thank 
them for the many hours they spend in the committee, which they so ably 
chair and act within as ranking member.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could I just say, I appreciate the 
expression of those remarks by our senior colleague. Senator Levin and 
I are in our 25th year--that is a quarter of a century--in the Senate. 
Throughout that period of time, the Senator from West Virginia has been 
a tutor, and we have learned much. To the extent we may have progressed 
in our learnings, it is owing in part to his teachings. I thank the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful for those unmerited and 
highly charitable remarks from the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hate to interrupt our dear friend and 
mentor from West Virginia but I must do so just to tell him that those 
remarks of our dear friend from Virginia were merited, indeed.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. President:

       Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again,
       The eternal years of God are hers;
       But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
       And dies among his worshippers.''

  Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure 
it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what 
lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, 
truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.
  But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The 
danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely recognized and 
realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore 
uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently 
in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it-- 
more than I ever would have believed--right on this Senate floor.
  Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the 
American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked 
invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing 
international law, under false premises.
  There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have 
been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden 
and al-Qaida who masterminded the September 11 attacks, to Saddam 
Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the 
President and members of his Cabinet invoking every frightening image 
that they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ 
warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major 
cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning 
Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was 
guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering 
from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after 
the attacks of 9/11. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo 
for the anger.
  Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to 
refute the previous dire claims of the Bush administration has been 
brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the 
White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction 
have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. And perhaps 
they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on 
Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what 
we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for 
the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection 
team that he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix 
always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they 
do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile bin Laden is still on the loose out there 
somewhere and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.
  The administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and 
over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people 
and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public 
and to blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden until they 
virtually became one.
  What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq 
was no immediate threat to the United States, and many of us here said 
so before the war. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even 
lift an airplane against us. Saddam Hussein could not even get an 
airplane off the ground. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of 
unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype 
made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of 
limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and 
our well trained troops.
  Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of 
diligently searching for weapons of mass destruction. They have so far 
turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and 
the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission 
and they continue to be at grave risk. I am talking about the sons and 
daughters of the American people. The Bush team's extensive hype of WMD 
in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than 
embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and 
the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were 
countless Iraqi civilians--women, children--killed and

[[Page S6807]]

maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public 
deliberately misled? Was the world?
  What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are 
``liberators.'' Vice President Cheney, 3 days before the war, said we 
will be welcomed as liberators. The facts don't seem to support the 
label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have 
unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but ``liberation'' implies the 
followup of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the 
common people of the invaded country. In fact, if the situation in Iraq 
is the result of ``liberation,'' we may have set the cause of freedom 
back 200 years.
  Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, 
water is scarce, and often foul; electricity is a sometime thing; food 
is in short supply; hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed. 
Historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been 
looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows 
where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil 
supply. That is what they were told to do.
  Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and 
refurbish its oil industry are awarded to administration cronies, 
without benefit of competitive bidding, and the United States 
steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there 
any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. Government are the subject 
of worldwide speculation and mistrust?
  And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to 
be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been 
summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling 
face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an 
occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the 
beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that 
image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by 
poverty and disease. ``Regime change'' in Iraq has so far meant 
anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. 
administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to 
depart.
  Democracy and freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an 
occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and 
ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect 
to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a 
country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so 
suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping 
materialism which drives the western-style economies?
  As so many warned this administration before it launched its 
misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crackdown in Iraq is 
likely to convince 1,000 new bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the 
type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the 
terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not 
complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack 
Iraq. Now it appears that al-Qaida is back with a vengeance. We have 
returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized 
the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have 
alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty 
insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our 
way. The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be 
replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I 
read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our 
longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our 
Government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its 
affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic 
institutions.
  Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as 
countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off 
a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. bully which 
claims the right to hit where and when it wants. In fact, there is 
little to constrain this President. This Congress, in what will go down 
in history as its most unfortunate and spineless and thoughtless act, 
gave away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and 
empowered this President to wage war at will, and not only this 
President, but also future Presidents.
  The amendment that I offered to sunset this nefarious handover of 
power was rejected by the Senate and garnered only 31 votes. I was 
amazed, and I am still amazed, that this Senate would reject an 
amendment to sunset a thoughtless, nefarious, spineless act on the part 
of this same Senate to hand over this power to declare war to this 
President. I cannot believe that the Senate did that. Even now, I 
cannot believe it. It is abhorrent that the Senate would have rejected 
the sunset provision. So, as it is, there is no sunset. That power goes 
on after this President. The next President will have the same power, 
unless Congress steps in and changes the law. Of course, a President 
can veto a change in the law and that veto, as students of the 
Constitution will know, will require a two-thirds vote to override. It 
is hard to believe that grown, sensible men and women would reject that 
sunset provision--to say nothing of having voted to shift this power 
over to any President, whether he is a Democrat or Republican.
  As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to 
ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy 
Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops that will 
be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the 
occupation and the reconstruction be? No one has given a straight 
answer. How will we afford this long-term, massive commitment, fight 
terrorism at home, address the serious crisis in domestic health care, 
afford behemoth military spending, and give away billions in tax cuts 
amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year 
alone? If the President's tax cut passes, it will be $400 billion. We 
cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft 
answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or 
unpopular, or may be politically costly.
  But I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American 
people, unfortunately, are used to political shading, political spin, 
and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently 
tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn 
in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark 
colors tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood, and 
when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent women, men, 
and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth 
that kind of lie--not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's 
grand pipe dream of a democratic domino theory.
  Mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of 
late by the ``powers that be'' will only keep the loyal opposition 
quiet for just so long because, eventually, like it always does, the 
truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of 
deceit, will fall!
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues who serve on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee and their staffs for the superb 
work done on the bill before us today. The bill comes to the floor of 
the Senate at an important time in our Nation's history. We have been 
at war for the past 20 months, ever since the devastating attacks on 
September 11, 2001 brought the violence of terrorism to our own 
country. We have come far since then, but we have much farther to go.
  Our first goal in the war on terrorism was to topple the brutal 
Taliban regime in Afghanistan, to destroy the camps where the al-Qaida 
terrorists who attacked us trained. We have done that. Our Nation's 
military, the finest in the world, successfully led that charge.
  Today we see in Afghanistan the beginnings of a democracy. We will 
continue to help in the future to make sure that order is kept in 
Afghanistan and that it will be a part of the flourishing world 
community.
  Our second goal was to disarm the dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein 
in Iraq before he could surface and use weapons of mass destruction 
once more against innocent civilians. We have done that. Again, our 
brave men and women in uniform successfully

[[Page S6808]]

achieved that important goal in an astounding 3 weeks. It was a charge 
that was lightning fast in its speed and thunderous in its conclusion. 
Now we are working with other nations and world bodies to guide the 
Iraqi people toward stability. In our quest to unearth Saddam Hussein's 
weapons of mass destruction, we are digging up mass graves of thousands 
of innocent people whom Saddam Hussein put to death for opposing him.
  Mr. President, we may not have found the weapons of mass destruction 
yet, but we have found horrifying mass graves that show the world the 
grim importance of our success in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  The bill before us provides our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
marines, and their families with the important tools they need to 
continue the vital work they are doing.
  Whether they are active duty or reservists or members of the National 
Guard, they are the ones who must continue the global fight against 
terrorism and against nations ruled by despots who develop or possess 
weapons of mass destruction.
  I commend my colleagues for authorizing a military pay raise in this 
bill that provides a 3.7-percent across-the-board increase and for an 
additional raise targeted for experienced midcareer personnel, ranging 
from 5.25 to 6.25 percent.
  I commend the committee for establishing incentive pay in the amount 
of $100 per month for service members who are serving in the Republic 
of Korea. One need look no further than the news headlines on any given 
day to appreciate the stability our presence has on the Korean 
peninsula to keep in check the totalitarian regime in North Korea.
  I am also glad to see this bill increase family separation pay from 
$100 to $225 per month and increased pay for imminent danger or hostile 
fire from $150 to $225 per month. This is not enough, and anyone 
listening or who will read this will say it is not enough. It is not. 
But it is one more thing we can do to show people who are making these 
sacrifices that we want to compensate them in every way we possibly can 
for a debt we know we will never really be able to repay.
  I was also pleased the committee agreed to continue the development 
of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft in the amount of $4.4 billion. 
There is no question the Joint Strike Fighter is the fighter of the 
future, and it will keep America preeminent in defenses for whenever we 
may need them in whatever place and in whatever way.
  I also thank my colleagues on the committee for including the 
Bipartisan Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Structure 
of the United States. That is a long way of saying that we are going to 
look at foreign bases, as well as American bases, as we are making the 
transition for our Department of Defense into the security assessment 
that we face today.
  This is a bill I introduced with Senator Dianne Feinstein of 
California. I am the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee 
of the Appropriations Committee. Senator Feinstein is the ranking 
member. In looking at military construction, as we have, and the issues 
facing us with military construction for American bases versus foreign 
bases, it occurred to us that the Department of Defense is in a huge 
transition now, trying to assess the threats we have and the different 
kinds of threats we have been seeing since 9/11, and we have not kept 
up in military construction requests.
  As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cold war concept guiding 
the overseas basing for the U.S. military is obsolete. Yet the number, 
structure, and scope of our overseas bases is still largely alive with 
the threat of Soviet aggression. The process of when, how, and why we 
base troops abroad is in need of a thorough examination to assure that 
our basing structure is adequate for the new security environment. This 
legislation will assess every overseas installation.
  During the cold war, our primary military mission was to defend our 
Nation and our allies from the symmetric Soviet threat of aggression, 
and ``boots on the ground'' in Europe and Asia allowed us to do that. 
Even though the cold war has been over for a decade, our Nation still 
has 112,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in Korea, and 45,000 in Japan, 
largely in installations designed, devised, and intended for the 
threats of an earlier era.

  Training constraints are evident on many of these bases. The threats 
we face today are asymmetrical. They are terrorist groups or rogue 
states gaining weapons of mass destruction. Events of the past decade, 
especially since 9/11, have taught us that we not only need to maintain 
a military presence abroad, but we need to be in a position to support 
contingencies where we have no permanent bases, such as Kosovo, 
Afghanistan, Africa, and throughout the Middle East.
  In the final analysis, we may need more troops overseas, not fewer, 
but clearly the needs are different than they once were, and it is 
critical that the United States move beyond the cold war basing 
concepts. This is not simply a matter of security, although that is a 
sufficient concern, but also of assuring that taxpayers' dollars are 
well and wisely spent.
  The Defense Department has requested as of right now $174 million for 
Korea and $284 million for Germany for new military construction next 
year. That is a large bill for a model in transition. In South Korea, 
our soldiers often serve on the same patches of ground U.S. troops 
occupied when the Korean war ended in 1953.
  Today, these training areas are inadequate to accommodate the 
extended reach of our weapons and the rapid pace of modern maneuver 
warfare. In fact, more than 7,000 U.S. troops are stationed at the 
Yongsan Army Garrison which was built by the colonial Japanese Army 
before World War II.
  In Grafenwoehr, Germany, our troops train on tank and artillery 
ranges used by the Bavarian Army over 100 years ago. The army has 
poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the complex in the past 
decade, even though the best training area consists of 18,000 acres of 
land, a postage stamp compared to the 400,000 acres of maneuver area 
and ranges available at the National Training Center in California, or 
the more than 1 million acres at Fort Bliss's MacGregor Range on the 
Texas-New Mexico border.
  Further complicating matters, the Defense Department is preparing for 
another round of domestic base closures in 2005. As we scrutinize 
stateside military installations, we must take a look at our worldwide 
structures as well.
  To make sure we get the answers to these questions right, our 
bipartisan legislation that Senator Feinstein and I introduced and is 
included in this bill would create a congressional commission to take 
an objective and thorough look at our overseas basing structure.
  The commission will consider criteria to determine whether our bases 
are prepared to meet our needs in the 21st century. It will be 
comprised of national security and foreign affairs experts who will 
provide a comprehensive analysis of our worldwide base and force 
structure to the 2005 domestic Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
  We certainly want to work with the Pentagon. This is a timely review. 
Some in the Pentagon have suggested that the 2005 BRAC could result in 
the closure of one in every four domestic bases. But if we are going to 
reduce our presence overseas, we will certainly need stateside bases to 
station returning troops.
  It is senseless to close bases in the United States only to later 
realize we made a costly and irrevocable mistake, a painful lesson we 
learned in the last rounds of closures.
  Our national security strategy is shifting to take on the new threats 
facing our Nation. The position of U.S. troops around the globe must 
reflect that thinking.

  I appreciate what the committee did in including this legislation 
that Senator Feinstein and I introduced. It will be a major component 
of a future BRAC, and I hope a major part of the thinking at the 
Pentagon about what our threats are and where we need troops to be able 
to address those threats.


                           Amendment No. 763

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 
763, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 763.


[[Page S6809]]


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

(Purpose: To add availability of family support services to the matters 
required to be included in the report on the conduct of Operation Iraqi 
                        Freedom in section 1023)

       On page 273, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       (P) The results of a study, carried out by the Secretary of 
     Defense, regarding the availability of family support 
     services provided to the dependents of members of the 
     National Guard and other reserve components of the Armed 
     Forces who are called or ordered to active duty (hereinafter 
     in this subparagraph referred to as ``mobilized members''), 
     including, at a minimum, the following matters:
       (i) A discussion of the extent to which cooperative 
     agreements are in place or need to be entered into to ensure 
     that dependents of mobilized members receive adequate family 
     support services from within existing family readiness groups 
     at military installations without regard to the members' 
     armed force or component of an armed force.
       (ii) A discussion of what additional family support 
     services, and what additional family support agreements 
     between and among the Armed Forces (including the Coast 
     Guard), are necessary to ensure that adequate family support 
     services are provided to the families of mobilized members.
       (iii) A discussion of what additional resources are 
     necessary to ensure that adequate family support services are 
     available to the dependents of each mobilized member at the 
     military installation nearest the residence of the 
     dependents.
       (iv) The additional outreach programs that should be 
     established between families of mobilized members and the 
     sources of family support services at the military 
     installations in their respective regions.
       (v) A discussion of the procedures in place for providing 
     information on availability of family support services to 
     families of mobilized members at the time the members are 
     called or ordered to active duty.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as I have traveled across Texas and 
visit military bases, I have met with many military members and their 
families. The feedback I have received from the members and the spouses 
was that the military services provided wonderful family support during 
the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I also heard that some family members who were deployed, particularly 
from the National Guard and Reserve, need better access to family 
support resources at the nearest military base. Because many Guard and 
Reserve personnel do not live where they serve, family members do not 
get to develop the relationships with the nearest family support 
service, and if it is provided by a different military service or 
component, than their own, it is a special hardship.
  To work toward ensuring that families of our Guard and Reserve 
personnel are adequately served, I have introduced an amendment that 
requires the Secretary of Defense to include in his report on the 
conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom a study of family support services 
provided to the dependents of National Guard and other Reserve 
components of the Armed Forces who are called to active duty.
  This amendment requires the Secretary to address the extent to which 
interservice cooperative agreements are in place to support dependents 
of mobilized members, regardless of the member's service or if they are 
a member of the National Guard or Reserve, and to outline what 
additional outreach programs should be established to support 
dependents in the region of an existing military base or post.
  It also asks the Department of Defense to identify additional 
resources necessary to ensure that adequate family support services are 
available to dependents of mobilized members at the nearest military 
installation to the residence of the dependents.
  Family support access is one key lesson that we are learning from the 
frequent and extended mobilization of members of the National Guard and 
Reserve to help fight our ongoing wars. We never intended to use our 
Guard and Reserve this much. It is important to note that their 
families also serve through their sacrifices and commitment, and 
approving this amendment is the least we can do to help them.
  I ask for a vote on the amendment, but I also want to say that 
because of the constraints put forward about the relevancy of 
amendments, I ask the distinguished chairman and ranking member if they 
would work with me in conference to give this amendment the direction 
that it originally had. It is now part of a report. It would not cost 
anything, but it would hopefully eventually direct the Department of 
Defense to establish these communication systems so our Guard and 
Reserve families will have the same access to support services when 
they are on active duty that an active-duty person's family would have.
  So I ask for that commitment from the distinguished chairman to work 
with me in conference to give that direction and then I will ask for a 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to our distinguished colleague, I compliment her on 
the need to have more focus on these very important subjects regarding 
families. As I listened, I harkened back to my days and the composition 
of the Armed Forces in World War II and Korea. Far less than half were 
family. Today, three-quarters are family. The Army--and I expect other 
services but I have certainly heard in the Army--today they call it a 
family army. As we marched along this road to where, say, three-
quarters now are hopefully blessed by a strong family background, I 
guess we have not kept apace with those matters which the Senator has 
enunciated today.
  So speaking for myself, I certainly indicate that I will work closely 
with the Senator, and knowing the interest of my good friend and 
colleague from Michigan in this area, I can assume we will work 
together to strengthen the concepts in the report.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman very much for that comment. I 
think the Senator is right. People do not realize that the makeup of 
our Armed Forces is much different today demographically than it was in 
the past. There are more families. There are two-service families, and 
it used to be mostly single people. So we have had to make 
accommodations which I think the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member and the committee have done in many areas, such as in health 
care. We did not have to have pediatricians as a reliable component of 
health care in the military so much in the past as we do now, or OB/
GYN, but those are the issues we must address today.
  I am pleased the Senator is doing so, and I hope we will all work 
together.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague. Back in prehistoric 
times when I joined the Marines, on the first day you were issued your 
rifle and the second day they told you if you were contemplating a 
wife, you bad better wait. The Marine Corps would issue that, too, at 
the appropriate time. So things have changed.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Things have changed for sure.
  If the ranking member would also work with, that would be very much 
appreciated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I commend the Senator from Texas for this amendment. I 
have, as recently as last weekend been reminded about the role of 
families as I joined hundreds of families and family members in 
welcoming home the National Guardsmen and Reserve officers from their 
tour of duty in Iraq. I was in Battle Creek, MI, to receive back the 
110th Tactical Fighter Wing. The contribution of our Guard and Reserve 
is more and more relied upon, I agree with the Senator, to too great an 
extent. We have to do something about that.
  In the meantime, families are at the center of this effort and we 
must do more for families. I know the chairman of our committee will 
seek to protect the language we are adding and enhance it in 
conference, and I will join him in that effort.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as so many Members in the past few months, 
we have experienced moments of joy and moments of sorrow, sorrow in 
attending funerals for those who paid the ultimate price in our 
engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Members have attended those 
funerals and there we see the family in a way that brings to mind the 
importance of, up until that moment did we give them the care they 
deserved? And are we now giving them the care they need after the loss 
of their uniformed member?

[[Page S6810]]

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of 
the committee, I think the committee went a long way toward exactly the 
point we are making, and that is we will never be able to repay fully 
those family members who have lost their loved ones.
  I have talked to a mother who lost her only son, and she had lost her 
husband. She has nothing else left in life. There are many stories like 
that. But the chairman has gone a long way toward trying to compensate 
in the only way Congress can, by adding money for support services, 
adding money for the hardships, making sure health care is better, 
doing what we can do in Congress, though we know from our hearts we 
will never repay these people in totality. We cannot. We do want them 
to know that with the monetary compensation and the benefits we are 
giving, there is a deep respect for what they have done for our country 
that will last throughout eternity.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. She 
very much was active in the work of the committee. In years past, she 
was on the committee. She has not left it in a sense because the 
Senator gave us the encouragement to put in a number of these measures. 
So I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. I find that the Senate is heavily engaged in committee 
meetings and briefings, and if it is agreeable to the Senator from 
Texas, I suggest we do a voice vote. Is that acceptable?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That would be acceptable.
  Mr. WARNER. Would that be acceptable to the Senator from Michigan?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hutchison 
amendment No. 763.
  The amendment (No. 763) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 722

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 722 which is 
at the desk.
  I want to be sure we have an understanding as to the time 
distribution. I ask the manager of the bill if an agreement has been 
entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No unanimous consent exists with respect to 
time.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] for himself, 
     Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 722.

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

   (Purpose: To modify requirements applicable to the limitation on 
 designation of critical habitat for conservation of protected species 
under the provision on military readiness and conservation of protected 
                                species)

       On page 48, beginning on line 16, strike ``if the Secretary 
     determines that'' and all that follows through page 48, line 
     20, and insert the following: ``if the Secretary of the 
     Interior determines in writing that--
       ``(1) the management activities identified in the plan will 
     effectively conserve the threatened species and endangered 
     species within the lands or areas covered by the plan; and
       ``(2) the plan provides assurances that adequate funding 
     will be provided for such management activities.

  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent agreement 
which I believe the Senator is interested in.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent there be a time limitation of 60 
minutes equally divided in the usual form with debate on the 
Lautenburg-Jeffords amendment No. 722 prior to a vote in relation to 
the amendment, and that no other amendments be in order prior to a vote 
in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the managers.
  The amendment is cosponsored by Senator Jeffords. I ask unanimous 
consent also that Senators Akaka and Lieberman be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this bill would exempt the 
Department of Defense from respecting critical habitat for endangered 
species on its lands. This provision of the bill is flawed for three 
reasons.
  One, it would severely weaken our country's efforts to protect 
endangered species. There is a lot of effort that has gone into 
developing legislation in protecting endangered species. Seeing them 
disappear is a painful recognition. We are now beginning to see species 
disappear from our oceans, the Atlantic Ocean. The newspapers have been 
featuring stories about the disappearance of species like cod, halibut, 
and blue marlin. We have to be careful because each of these affects 
the rest of the ecology. That could be disastrous.
  Second, this action is simply not necessary to maintain our military 
readiness. An example is the dispute over Vieques Island in Puerto 
Rico, the territory off the mainland of Puerto Rico.
  Third, it ignores the Defense Department's long record of 
successfully balancing readiness and conservation. We want to do both.
  Protecting critical habitat has long been an essential tool that 
Federal, State, and local jurisdictions have used to protect endangered 
species. When endangered species have no place to live, they perish. 
The bill before the Senate would allow the Defense Department to ignore 
the Endangered Species Act in favor of using something called the 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, called INRMP, for 
threatened and endangered species. INRMPs are not subject to the same 
strong standards as those under the Endangered Species Act.
  Under this bill, no area could be designated a critical habitat on 
DOD property. No matter how threatened the species, no matter what is 
found on the land, it will not be strongly protected.
  It is conceivable that the Defense Department could make this 
decision under that program, even if it is not needed, for them to 
conduct their exercises or their duties. The species have to be 
protected.
  My amendment is a reasonable approach. It adds two protections to 
reinforce the effectiveness of the INRMP plans. First, the Secretary of 
the Interior must determine that the plan would conserve a threatened 
or endangered species, that it has to make sure we try our best to have 
that species endure. Second, there must be sufficient funding to 
implement these plans.
  By applying this two-part standard, DOD could continue to maintain 
its historical success, balancing conservation and military readiness. 
This type of approach does work.
  Only two species have gone extinct after being put on the endangered 
species list, while over 600 species not on the list have gone extinct 
during that time.
  DOD has 25 million acres of land that are home to 300 federally 
listed, threatened, and endangered species. The Department of Defense 
has played a crucial role in preventing these species from sliding into 
extinction. It is not suggested anywhere that they want these things to 
happen, but we have a disagreement on what it will take to keep the 
species alive.
  Camp Pendleton in California is a good example of how the balance has 
worked on the ground. Of 18 species listed as threatened and endangered 
on the 125,000 acres, critical habitat has been recommended for only 5 
of those threatened species. Yet using the flexibility built into the 
Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to 
restrict less than 1 percent of all potential training areas from use 
for training exercises.

  In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee last March, GEN 
Nyland, Assistant Commandant for the Marine Corps, agreed that 
codifying an effectiveness test for the INRMPs would provide DOD with 
greater certainty in its decisionmaking. That is the purpose of this 
amendment.
  The American people have also spoken on this issue. We should listen. 
According to a recent Zogby poll, 85 percent of registered voters 
believe the

[[Page S6811]]

Defense Department should follow the same environmental laws as 
everyone else. The two-part test in my amendment will help assure that 
DOD continues to do its part in conserving endangered species.
  As I said before, I think they really want that to happen. The 
question is what the approach is going to be. The issue is about 
balancing national security with our environmental security and the 
Pentagon has shown in the past that we can do it. I urge my colleagues 
to support my amendment.
  From our half hour of time, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Like many of my colleagues, I am a veteran. I have the 
greatest respect for those who serve this Nation. I served the Naval 
Reserves for 30 years and was on active duty in the Navy in the 1950s. 
My ship, the McNair, was the first U.S. military ship to navigate the 
Suez Canal after the Egyptians took control of the canal in 1955. I am 
a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW.
  Like every Senator, I am concerned about our troops on our military 
bases in the States and throughout the world. I want them to have every 
advantage as they prepare for and engage in military conflict.
  However, sweeping changes to environmental laws, even with changes 
that are proposed during the time our country is at war, should be 
considered by the Environment and Public Works Committee. Our committee 
is charged with understanding the implications of change in these laws 
as well as the need for change and to weigh the consequences to public 
health and the environment.
  As our distinguished colleague who chairs the Armed Services 
Committee observed in a recent hearing in our Committee, these laws 
have taken years to put in place.
  However, Section 322 of S. 1050, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 contains a provision that would change how 
critical habitat is designated under the Endangered Species Act, a law 
within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public works Committee.
  Section 322 prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from designating 
critical habitat on any Department of Defense lands that have an 
integrated natural resources management plan, known as INRMP, prepared 
under the Sikes Act, if the Secretary determines that the plan 
addresses special management consideration, or protection.
  The INRMP provisions of the Sikes Act were never intended to be a 
substitute for the Endangered Species Act, but rather a complement to 
it.
  As a complementary conservation measure, INRMP is not subject to the 
same rigorous implementation requirements as conservation measures 
taken under the Endangered Species Act, such as being based on the 
``best available science.''
  INRMPs are often substandard compared to the ESA, and the required 
INRMP components under the Sikes Act cannot be universally relied upon 
to accomplish species conservation goals.
  In addition, Section 7(j) of the Endangered Species Act already 
allows the law's requirements to be waived, at the request of the 
Secretary of Defense, when national security concerns outweigh those of 
species conservation. To date, no Secretary of Defense has ever 
utilized this flexibility in the Act. Granting a blanket exemption to 
the ESA removes the ability for decisions to be made on a case by case 
basis when national security concerns are real.
  After hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee both 
last year and this year, on this issue and the other DOD proposals 
within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee, I do not believe the case 
has been made to warrant these changes to existing law.
  However, the bill before us contains a provision that would 
substantially change the way critical habitat is protected on 
Department of Defense lands.
  The amendment offered by myself and Senators Lautenberg and Akaka 
will help to ensure that important protections underlying the 
Endangered Species Act will not be lost under the integrated natural 
resource management plans developed under the Sikes Act and this 
Defense Authorization bill.
  The amendment would require that the Secretary of the Interior 
determine in writing that the Integrated Natural Resources Management 
Plan will effectively conserve the threatened and endangered species 
covered by the plan and assure that adequate funding is provided for 
the management activities.
  This means that if land is needed for a species and military 
training, the Secretary of the Interior will review the Defense 
Department's plan for managing the lands and funding the management 
activities to make sure that species will be adequately protected.
  The Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior have 
been working together to balance needs of the military for training 
with the needs of endangered species for survival. This amendment 
affirms that balance.
  It is my hope that the two agencies will continue to work 
cooperatively and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
Lautenberg-Jeffords amendment to establish minimum criteria for whether 
an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan or INRMP for a military 
installation provides sufficient protection for endangered species to 
make a critical habitat designation unnecessary. As I have previously 
stated, I commend the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee for the 
manner in which he handled this difficult issue. We had two very good 
hearings to address the Department's proposal.
  I am particularly appreciative that the provision in this bill takes 
a case-by-case approach to the Endangered Species Act instead of 
providing the blanket exemption sought in the administration proposal. 
I believe the provision fall short, however, of codifying the existing 
case-by-case approach.
  During the Committee's consideration of this bill, I offered an 
amendment which would have codified the case-by-case approach by 
including minimum criteria for INRMPs on military lands. Unfortunately, 
my amendment was defeated. I am pleased to join Senators Lautenberg and 
Jeffords in this amendment which, I believe, provides the necessary 
criteria to be included in INRMPs for military lands in order for the 
Secretary of the Interior to determine that the designation of critical 
habitat is unnecessary.
  As the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, I remain 
committed to the readiness of our military through proper training. We 
have heard from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that our Armed Forces are 
more ready today than they have been before. Our military has found 
ways to comply with applicable laws by working with neighboring 
communities, state and local officials. I firmly believe that this 
approach provides the Department of Defense with the necessary tools 
and assurances it needs to conduct training activities without 
unnecessarily undermining environmental provisions. I urge my colleague 
to support this amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I have no further requests for time. I 
see my chairman standing. I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have been listening with great 
interest to the debate. I start out saying I have some similarities to 
the previous speaker from Vermont. I am a veteran, I should say.
  Also, the reference was made to the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. I do agree with the Senator from Vermont that there is a 
jurisdiction thing there in which we are interested. However, there is 
also one having to do with the readiness, with the authorization bill 
that is under consideration now.

[[Page S6812]]

  I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this particular amendment. 
This is something we have been discussing now, not for just days or 
weeks but for years. We have actually had several hearings. Right now, 
we have had some 12 hearings in the past 2 years on this subject. Some 
of this was when I chaired the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee. We have had hearings there and, of course, 
hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  I share the compliments to Senator Ensign, in the way he has been 
chairing this committee and spending the time on this very critical 
subject.
  Let me just remind everybody that when INRMP first came along, the 
Integrated National Resource Management Plan, they came along not in a 
Republican administration, they came along in the Clinton 
administration. They recognized at that time the seriousness of proper 
training and the fact that we have a very serious problem affecting 
some of the environment encroachments on our limited land area. It is 
something that is measured, not by cost of training, not by 
effectiveness of training, as much as it is human lives.
  The Senator from New Jersey talked about the Endangered Species Act. 
I spent 3 years and lost trying to stop the prohibition of live-fire 
training on a Navy range on land we own in Vieques. I have a 
background, as does the Senator from Vermont, in having gone through 
training. I am sure he would share this with me. When we went through 
training and crawled under inert fire, it was quite a bit different 
from crawling under live fire. This is the kind of training that I 
think we had in Vieques--integrated training, which we don't have 
today. In Kuwait, we lost five lives, four of whom were Americans. If 
you read the accident report, it very clearly states that we lost those 
lives because we didn't have adequate live-fire training. It was denied 
us right before that time at the range in Vieques.
  I am going to talk about Camp Pendleton.
  Before I do so, the Senator from New Jersey had talked about Camp 
Pendleton and how compatible everything has been in Camp Pendleton. He 
suggests that in Camp Pendleton there are some 17 miles of shoreline. 
We can only train in some 200 yards of that area. It is a very serious 
matter.
  I agree that we have very well-trained troops in the field. But I 
also say we are not enjoying the state of readiness that our troops are 
entitled to have--unlimited capability of training in a live and 
integrated relationship.
  The Lautenberg amendment would essentially gut the bill language 
because it would impose an unachievable standard of recovering species 
according to the legal definition of concern. DOD would be forced to 
guarantee sufficient funding to accomplish species recovery while the 
Department of Interior and Endangered Species Act have not been able to 
recover species.
  This is very important. We have had since 1973--30 years--the 
Endangered Species Act. Yet no species have come off the list as a 
result of operation of the Endangered Species Act. In other words, he 
is putting on a test that cannot be fulfilled. In other words, we are 
not going to be able to have this type of training.
  This is the quote from a committee hearing which we had. This was the 
Deputy General Counsel for Environment and Installations. It gets into 
the question as to how this is going to affect the training:

       With respect to the ESA, what our proposal seeks to do is 
     to codify a policy that was adopted during the Clinton 
     administration with respect to the INRMPs.

  Then Craig Manson said:

       I concur as to the ESA provision.

  The amendment is very similar to the amendment that Senator Akaka 
tried to get approved in committee. Normally, Senator Akaka and I agree 
on these issues. During the years when I was chairman of the Readiness 
Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he was my 
ranking member, and during the years he was chairman, I was his ranking 
member, we normally agreed on these issues.
  However, I believe the Lautenberg amendment goes much further than 
the Akaka amendment went because it is an amendment that gets very 
serious in terms of forcing something to come off the list.
  The essential difference between Senator Akaka's failed amendment in 
committee and Senator Lautenberg's amendment is a subtle but crucial 
difference between ``provide conservation benefit for the species,'' 
which Senator Akaka wanted to do and which I can understand, and 
provide a conservation benefit as Senator Lautenberg wants to do, which 
is ``conserve the species.'' In other words, recover. Recovery is 
something that can't happen. It has never happened. I will read to you 
from the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It said in addressing the 
terms ``conserving'' and ``conservation'' that it means ``to use and 
use all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any 
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided pursuant to this act are no longer necessary. Such 
methods and procedures include but are not limited to all activities 
associated with scientific resources and management, such as research, 
law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance promulgation, live 
trapping, transplanting,'' and it goes on and on.

  It says you must be able to recover. As he said, never have we been 
able to recover a species that was actually a result of the operation 
of the ESA.
  The Department of Defense opposes the amendment because, No. 1, the 
language could have perverse and unintended consequences such as 
depriving the Fish and Wildlife Service the flexibility to refine the 
conditions in light of further experience or to tailor them more 
specifically to diverse sites. The language would give rise to 
litigation.
  As the chart shows, again quoting Craig Manson:

       In fact, the process of using the Integrated Natural 
     Resources Management Plan is a collaborative process that 
     requires the agreement of the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
     INRMP and cannot be approved without the agreement of the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service will continue to be 
     involved. Habitat will continue to be afforded the 
     protections that are necessary for the conservation of the 
     species.

  I think most of us understand. That is the seriousness that we are 
dealing with right now.
  The next concern we have is the lawsuits which are now preventing 
continuation of a policy started by the implementation of the Clinton/
Gore administration. And we are talking about the INRMP.
  This is Jamie Irappaport Clark, the Clinton administration's Director 
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He said:

       Do I believe that Integrated Natural Resource Management 
     Plans can provide the needs for conservation of listed 
     species? Absolutely.

  This came from the Clinton administration--not from the current 
administration. That was the Clinton Fish and Wildlife Director, Jamie 
Clark, who initiated the practice and gave the testimony before our 
committee.
  The marine field training is rated ``not combat capable'' at Camp 
Pendleton.
  I am glad the Senator from New Jersey brought up Camp Pendleton. Camp 
Pendleton is a good model to use as to what we don't want to do. Camp 
Pendleton has all of these 17 miles of shoreline. We can only use some 
200 yards. In fact, if you look at the shoreline, that 200 yards is so 
small that it doesn't even show up on the map. This shows the proposed 
critical habitat at the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, 57 
percent. That tells us what is happening to our training area.
  What is the result of that? The encroachment impact of training 
degradation at Camp Pendleton in the field of ``not combat capable'' is 
fifty percent. Fifty percent of the training that takes place has that 
category of T-4, which is ``not combat capable,'' and 69 percent is 
``combat capable'' for only a low threat. That is what is happening.
  How does that translate into lives? We don't know. As I mentioned, we 
have lost lives because of a lack of training. This is one that is very 
serious.
  The Department of Defense set out to establish quantity of data on 
encroachment selecting the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton as the 
subject of the study and came to the conclusion that 50 percent of that 
training would not be combat ready.

[[Page S6813]]

  That is how serious this is.
  More holistic than mere designation of critical habitat, the 
management plan we are talking about, the INRMP approach, pioneered by 
the Clinton-Gore administration, considers habitat, food, water, 
predators, noise, and many more factors.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service opposed the Lautenberg amendment.
  Let me conclude by saying this is very serious. I could be talking 
about ranges other than Pendleton. Pendleton I talked about because 
that was brought up by the Senator from New Jersey. In the case of Camp 
Lejeune, in the case of Fort Bragg in the southeastern part of the 
United States, we are down now to just a small portion that can be used 
for training.
  I invite my colleagues to go down to Fort Bragg, go down to Camp 
Pendleton, and look and see how they are inhibited from being able to 
have the type of training that will really prepare them properly for 
combat in harm's way to which we will be sending them.
  I think it is very significant. There is not an issue in this bill 
that is more significant now than trying to do what we can to provide 
good training. It has been said before--and I would have to echo it--
that the military has been an excellent steward of the environment. And 
that is part of the problem. If you go to Fort Bragg today, after 
having been there 2 years ago, you see many more of these red ribbons 
around areas precluding them from being able to train there because of 
the urban sprawl and other encroachments on our training capabilities.
  Our language is very good, and I would encourage us, at the time we 
vote, to reject the Lautenberg amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague from Oklahoma. I 
also thank our distinguished colleague from this side. It looks as if 
we are going to conclude this debate such that the Senate can turn to a 
rollcall vote at about 2:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, how much time is left on this side on this 
amendment that is now pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen and a half minutes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask my friend from Vermont, how much 
time do you need?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. About 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Would that be appropriate?
  Mr. WARNER. I do want our distinguished colleague from Nevada, who is 
the chairman of the subcommittee----
  Mr. REID. How much time does the Senator from Nevada need?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Probably 7 or 8 minutes. I will try to cut it off by 
2:45.
  Mr. REID. Why don't we have the vote at 2:50?
  Mr. WARNER. That would be helpful and enable Senators to speak.
  Mr. REID. That would be 15 minutes, each having 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, while we are here, the Senator from 
Virginia has also said he would agree that the next amendment in order 
is Harkin. That is already the order, but the time on that will be one-
half hour evenly divided in the usual form regarding second-degree 
amendments.
  Mr. WARNER. Right.
  Mr. REID. Following that amendment, Senator Bingaman has an amendment 
on missile defense which Senator Warner has reviewed.
  Mr. WARNER. Right.
  Mr. REID. Senator Bingaman has agreed to a 30-minute time agreement 
on that. That would be under the usual form relating to second-degree 
amendments. I ask that in the form of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WARNER. No objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. The reason we have done this is there is a briefing at 3 
o'clock. We could stack the two votes, the Harkin and Bingaman votes, 
at around 4 o'clock, thereabouts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to talk just a minute 
about the need for available space for training. I was in the Navy. I 
was on board a destroyer. I was a gunnery officer. We were involved in 
wartime activity in Lebanon. Our training and all was for shore-fire 
bombardment. I understand what is needed and what is necessary, and I 
know this bill is carefully crafted to ensure there will be adequate 
space for the types of operations I participated in. I know our 
military is pretty efficient and there are areas that are designated 
that they cannot hit. There is always a chance they might, but they can 
rearrange things to make sure those areas are not in their gun sights. 
It is not anything that is of great difficulty to do. These are huge 
areas.
  So I think the arrangement we have under this amendment is very 
reasonable and, from my own experience, quite possible to keep 
everybody happy. So I disagree with the comments of my chairman.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, as chairman of the subcommittee which 
reviewed this proposal and included this proposal on the Endangered 
Species Act, I want to spend a couple minutes to educate our colleagues 
on why it is important to defeat this amendment that has been proposed.
  First of all, we held two hearings--Senator Akaka and I did--and we 
worked beautifully together. Senator Akaka is a wonderful person to 
work with. Our staffs worked really well together. On several of the 
proposals the administration had put up on the environment, we held 
hearings. We brought in experts from both sides. Everybody was 
represented. We had very fair hearings. I think everybody who was in 
attendance would agree the hearings were fair and balanced.
  Out of those hearings came a couple of findings: One is that over the 
last 20 years the military has done a fabulous job with its ranges in 
protecting habitat as well as endangered or threatened species. I think 
there is no disputing that.
  In the past, I think there certainly were some mistakes that were 
made by the military. But in the last 20 years or so we have done a 
really good job with our armed services protecting the habitat and the 
species on these various ranges.
  What has happened now is we are in a situation where the courts, 
instead of allowing what has happened with some of these what are 
called Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, which are in place 
and have done a great job protecting the species and the habitat--what 
the courts are threatening to do, and it looks as if it is going to 
happen, is those will no longer be able to be used. We will have to go 
with much stricter definitions, much more costly ways of doing 
business, and a lot of the ranges will be shut down.
  I am the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. We are in charge to 
make sure our armed services are ready when they are called upon to 
defend the United States of America.
  I have a letter I would like to have printed in the Record. I ask 
unanimous consent that be the order.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   Chairman of the


                                        Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2003.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I would like to underscore the 
     critical importance of the Endangered Species Act language as 
     currently contained in S. 1050, the Defense Department 
     Authorization Bill.
       The Department of Defense's primary mission is to maintain 
     our Nation's military readiness. We possess the most ready, 
     capable armed forces in the world; however, expanding trends 
     in environmental restrictions are significantly impacting 
     military training and operational readiness.
       We need your continued support to restore needed balance 
     between environmental and national security concerns, and to 
     protect activities essential to prepare our men and women for 
     combat.
       Thank you again for your strong leadership and concern for 
     America's military.
           Sincerely,

                                             Richard B. Myers,

                                                   Chairman of the
                                            Joint Chiefs of Staff.

  Mr. ENSIGN. This letter pretty much sums up what we try do in this 
bill. We

[[Page S6814]]

are balancing environmental protections with military readiness. 
Sometimes these are competing concerns.
  We did not overreach in this bill. We struck a balance. We struck a 
very delicate balance, but we think we have struck a balance.
  If anybody has any questions, they just have to go visit our military 
ranges in Southern California, in the Carolinas. Wherever you go across 
the country, visit our ranges and you will see some of the most 
pristine areas you can find, some of the best protected habitat you can 
find, and these endangered and threatened species are flourishing.
  It is not a question of this bill rolling back environmental 
protections. We do not want the courts putting such limits on the 
military that they cannot go forward in this balance in the future, 
where we protect species and habitat and we ensure military readiness 
for our armed services.
  A couple of specific problems with this amendment: The INRMP sites 
and the Endangered Species Act are complementary statutory frameworks 
that together ensure protection of endangered and threatened species. 
The Lautenberg amendment introduces an unnecessary and complicated 
requirement, and we believe--the Department of Defense and the 
Department of the Interior believe--it will lead to more lawsuits, not 
less. We are trying to get away from the lawsuits and make sure we are 
spending the money instead of fighting legal battles in protecting the 
species and making sure we are ready for what our armed services are 
called to do.

  I ask our colleagues to seriously take a look at this. We just saw 
the results of great readiness in Iraq. The arguments were made: We are 
ready; there is not going to be a problem.
  We were ready because our ranges were able to be used. If we roll 
back the ability to use our ranges, we will not be ready. We will not 
have the kind of military readiness we need in future conflicts. That 
is why it is so important that we do as the language in the bill 
suggests, protect the balance between environmental protection and 
military readiness.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is opportune the Senate is considering 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 just after 
the successful military action in Iraq. Unfortunately, as is the case 
with many of the efforts undertaken by this administration, there is an 
attempt to bypass environmental regulations under the cover of some 
national guise--in this instance military preparedness. In particular, 
I am incensed by section 322, which would prohibit the Secretary of the 
Interior from designating critical habitat on any Department of 
Defense, DOD, lands that have an Integrated Management Natural 
Resources Plan, INRMP.
  The Sikes Act was never intended to be a substitute for the ESA but 
rather a complement to it. The Sikes Act is clear that it does not 
``affect any provision of a Federal law governing the conservation or 
protection of fish and wildlife resources.'' As a complementary 
conservation measure, INRMPs are not subject to the same rigorous 
implementation requirements as conservation measures taken under the 
ESA, such as being based on the ``best available science.'' In 
addition, existing Fish and Wildlife Service policy allows the presence 
of ESA requirements to function as an incentive to DOD land managers to 
develop the best INRMPs possible. This policy encourages the 
development of good INRMPs. A blanket exemption to critical habitat 
designations would remove this incentive to practice the best 
stewardship possible.
  Why the need for such an exemption? The administration would have the 
American public believe that environmental laws, in this instance the 
Endangered Species Act, ESA, infringes upon the readiness of American 
troops by drastically impeding training exercises. Yet there is even 
discord within the administration. At an Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA, hearing held in the Senate earlier this spring, EPA 
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman noted that she did not ``believe 
that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being 
held up or taking place because of an environmental protection 
regulation.'' I have to wonder if it is statements like this, where 
Administrator Whitman was speaking for the environment and not just 
toeing the administration line, that helped lead to her recent 
resignation. I hope the administration will fill her shoes with someone 
that will make protecting the environment his or her first priority as 
I believe Administrator Whitman did under very difficult circumstances.
  Finally, it is absurd to provide such an exemption when the ESA 
allows for the law's requirements to be waived, at the request of the 
Secretary of Defense, when national security concerns outweigh those of 
species conservation and other solutions cannot be found. To date, no 
Secretary of Defense has ever utilized the flexibility in this act. 
Granting a blanket exemption to the ESA removes the ability for 
decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis and only when national 
security concerns are real.
  This administration's continued attack on over 30 years of 
implementing environmental laws is in blatant disregard to the 
sentiment of the American public. A recent poll showed that over one-
half of the American public felt that the U.S. Government was not doing 
enough to protect the environment and three-quarters of those polled 
wanted to see stronger enforcement of these laws. Yet, again and again, 
whether allowing for future inclusion of wilderness into the Federal 
lands, mining in protected grizzly bear habitat in Montana, or the 
possible forfeiture of thousands of miles of road systems on Federal 
lands, this administration continues to shut the American public out of 
the debate over the protection of their environment. I call upon my 
colleagues to stop this attack by the administration and strip section 
322 from the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered 
by Senators Lautenberg and Jeffords to the Department of Defense 
authorization bill.
  The bill before us would block any designation of critical habitat 
under the Endangered Species Act on any Department of Defense lands.
  The Department of Defense controls 25 million acres of land where 
some of the best habitat remains for more than 300 threatened and 
endangered plants and animals.
  Since critical habitat designations would not be applied to military 
lands, the Lautenberg-Jeffords amendment would add two simple 
requirements to ensure that the Department of Defense develop 
integrated natural resource management plans to protect species.
  The amendment would also require the Secretary of the Interior to 
ensure that a resource management plan conserves threatened and 
endangered species and is adequately funded.
  Critical habitat is an important component of the Endangered Species 
Act and provides help to species near extinction by identifying areas 
that are needed for species survival and recovery.
  This provision in the bill is not necessary to maintain our military 
readiness. According to a General Accounting Office report, issued on 
June 2, 2002, on military training: ``training readiness, as reported 
in official readiness reports, remains high for most units and that the 
level of readiness does not support DOD's claims its readiness is being 
hurt by environmental laws.'' The Department of Defense has a strong 
record of balancing readiness and conservation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to reiterate that there 
is plenty of room for the training. All we ask is to make sure before 
that training is conducted there are studies done to make sure 
endangered species can be saved and they can reorient where the 
training is to accommodate them.
  The GAO found the military has presented no evidence that the 
Endangered Species Act has impaired training. If the DOD needs an 
exemption from the Endangered Species Act, sections 7(j) and 4(b)(2) 
provide relief from the designation of critical habitat. The DOD has 
never sought an exemption under 7(j). How can we say the law needs to 
be changed when the relief under current law has never been used?
  I refer the attention of my colleagues to this quote:


[[Page S6815]]


       The President has said that he wants the Federal Government 
     to be held to the same standards of environmental cleanup as 
     the private sector . . . so, we've [EPA] said you have got to 
     meet the same standards as the private sector.

  That was Christine Todd Whitman on the Dianne Rehm show on May 21, 
2003. And quoting again:

       I don't believe that there is a training mission anywhere 
     in the country that is being held up or not taking place 
     because of the environmental protection regulations.

  That is EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman's testimony before 
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on February 26, 
2003.
  This is a perfectly reasonable amendment. It will protect and not 
interfere at all with the training requirements of our Nation. I 
seriously counter the remarks made recently.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. In response to the EPA administrator's quotes we have 
before us today, I spoke to the administrator. We had testimony from 
the EPA following this to try to clear up any kind of confusion. As I 
mentioned, we have not had problems with readiness up to this point 
because the Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans have been 
working well as a balance, making sure habitat and species are 
protected, but also where readiness could go forward and be maintained 
at a high level. What the military is concerned about is the court 
decisions that look like they are going to go against the military to 
where they will not be able to use the ranges in an effective manner. 
The statement that was made by Administrator Whitman, 5 years from now, 
whoever the EPA administrator would be at that time, would not be able 
to be made.
  People are very concerned that readiness will be severely affected if 
the court decisions are allowed to go forward. This bill language says 
to the courts, balancing environmental concerns with military readiness 
is working. Let's keep with what is working instead of putting huge 
requirements on to the military where they will not be able to use the 
ranges.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Vermont controls the balance of the time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the ranking member of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time does the Senator from Vermont have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four-and-a-half minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I support the Lautenberg-Jeffords-Akaka 
amendment. It has been said earlier in the debate that the DOD 
spokesperson said all the Department wants to do is codify the Clinton 
administration approach to this issue of endangered species on military 
lands. That is precisely what the Lautenberg amendment does. If we want 
to codify--as the opponents of the amendment say they want--what the 
Clinton administration did relative to this issue, this is the way to 
codify it. If we don't adopt this amendment, it is not in our code. It 
is not codified.
  I support the amendment and hope it can be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 722. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Edwards
       
  The amendment (No. 722) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Under the previous order, what is the next?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Harkin amendment.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 774

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have an amendment I send to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 774.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for acquiring for inventories of 
 the Department of Defense property in excess of the requirements for 
                            the inventories)

       On page 44, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 313. INVENTORY MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Limitation on Purchase of Excess Inventory.--(1) 
     Subject to paragraph (4), no funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     purchasing items for a secondary inventory of the Department 
     of Defense that would exceed the requirement objectives for 
     that inventory of such items.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall, within 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, review all pending 
     orders for the purchase of items for a secondary inventory of 
     the Department of Defense in excess of the applicable 
     requirement objectives for the inventory of such items, and 
     shall ensure compliance with the limitation in paragraph (1) 
     with respect to such items.
       (3) The Secretary shall, within 30 days after the date on 
     which a requirement objective for an item in a secondary 
     inventory of the Department of Defense is reduced, review all 
     pending orders for the purchase of that item and ensure 
     compliance with the limitation in paragraph (1) with respect 
     to that item.
       (4) The Secretary may waive the limitation in paragraph (1) 
     in the case of an order for the purchase of an item upon 
     determining and executing a certification that compliance 
     with the limitation in such case--
       (A) would not result in significant savings; or
       (B) would harm a national security interest of the United 
     States.
       (b) Reduction of Excess Inventory.--(1) No funds authorized 
     to be appropriated by

[[Page S6816]]

     this Act may be obligated or expended after March 31, 2004, 
     to maintain or store an inventory of items for the Department 
     of Defense that exceeds the approved acquisition objectives 
     for such inventory of items unless the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that disposal of the excess inventory--
       (A) would not result in significant savings; or
       (B) would harm a national security interest of the United 
     States.
       (2) Not later than January 1, 2004, the Secretary shall 
     establish consistent standards and procedures, applicable 
     throughout the Department of Defense, for ensuring compliance 
     with the limitation in paragraph (1).
       (c) Report on Inventory Management.--(1) Not later than 
     March 31, 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress a report on--
       (A) the administration of this section; and
       (B) the implementation of all recommendations of the 
     Comptroller General for Department of Defense inventory 
     management that the Comptroller General determines are not 
     fully implemented.
       (2) The Comptroller General shall review the report 
     submitted under paragraph (1) and submit to Congress any 
     comments on the report that the Comptroller General considers 
     appropriate.

  Mr. HARKIN. Is the time 15 minutes equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, this amendment seeks to reduce the 
wasteful buildup of unneeded inventory at the Department of Defense. 
Based on the findings of the General Accounting Office, I believe this 
amendment would save at least $2 billion annually.
  Last year, as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I 
requested that the GAO prepare a report on the inventory requirements 
of the Department of Defense. That report has just been printed and 
released dated May 2003. This is the newest in a series that I have had 
GAO undertake in recent years on related topics.
  Pentagon waste is not a new issue, nor is the issue addressed by my 
amendment the only kind of waste that occurs within DOD. People have 
pointed out numerous examples of waste in DOD over the years, some 
quite spectacular.
  Later in my statement I will talk about the other kinds of waste we 
uncovered by past GAO reports that I requested. Much has been done to 
reduce Pentagon waste, and I commend those efforts. The chairman and 
ranking member, both, and when they have been in reversed positions, 
have made a great effort in this regard. We have reduced Pentagon 
waste.

  However, the Department of Defense remains the largest purchaser of 
goods in the Federal Government. The size of the bill continues to 
increase, and we have an authorization bill of $400 billion. That 
includes $75 billion for procurement. At those levels, we do need to be 
vigilant and we need to perform an ongoing watchdog role. That is what 
this amendment is aimed to ensure.
  I am sorry to say, despite the long history of investigations and GAO 
reports, many of the problems still have not been solved. That is why I 
offer this amendment.
  What the amendment addresses is, the Department of Defense routinely 
purchases and keeps on hand, for the purpose of meeting the 
Department's requirements, many items in a category it calls secondary 
inventory. Secondary inventory means spare and repair parts for 
weapons. It also includes clothing, medical, and many other items that 
are not weapon systems themselves. Obviously, there is a large amount 
of such supplies our military needs to keep on hand--over 2 million 
items.
  According to the GAO, the Pentagon has approximately $70 billion 
worth of this secondary inventory. Unfortunately, out of the $70 
billion worth of secondary inventory, there was about $38 billion in 
excess or unneeded inventory. So we have $70 billion in secondary 
inventory, much of which is needed; but GAO identified $38 billion in 
what they call excess inventory, inventory that the Pentagon says they 
do not even need. That is more than half of the secondary inventory 
classified as excess. This is totally unacceptable. It is unacceptable 
that DOD could find itself with more than half of its secondary 
inventory above their own requirements. I am sure there are valid 
explanations why some requirements are misjudged, but to end up with 
$38 billion worth of unneeded inventory out of a total of $70 billion 
of inventory seems to me to be a pretty good definition of waste.
  It is worth pointing out that the Department of Defense generally 
concurred with this GAO report. The Department did not disagree with 
these findings.
  But that is not all. Of the $38 billion in excess secondary 
inventory, according to the GAO, $1.6 billion was still on order. In 
other words, we are still paying contractors to make $1.6 billion worth 
of stuff the Pentagon itself has acknowledged it does not even need. So 
why weren't the orders canceled?
  My amendment addresses this problem in two simple ways. First, it 
requires the Pentagon to cancel those orders for unneeded items where 
it makes sense; that is, unless the Secretary determines, one, that it 
will not save money; or, two, the Secretary determines that it will 
harm national security. Unless he finds either one of those, then the 
Department must cancel orders for items it does not think it needs.
  Second, my amendment requires the Pentagon to reduce the excess 
inventory it already has on hand. Again, if the Secretary determines 
that, (a), it will not save money or, (b), it will harm national 
security, then the Department can keep right on storing these items. 
Otherwise, they have to sell the stuff so we do not pay to keep storing 
it. According to the GAO, that excess inventory on hand was worth about 
$36 billion.

  I believe these two simple steps should save taxpayers at least $2 
billion annually without imposing burdensome requirements on the 
Department of Defense and without compromising defense readiness.
  I have requested GAO reports in the past, and many of those reports 
also found significant waste in the Department of Defense. Reports on 
inventory that the Army and the Navy ship from one location to another 
found that each service loses track of at least $1 billion worth of 
shipped items every year. Imagine that. They ship it, they do not know 
if they shipped it, and they do not know if anyone got it. They lose 
track of $1 billion a year in inventory.
  Last July, another report revealed a complete breakdown in tracking 
and control of Air Force inventory shipped to contractors. The Air 
Force could not make sure that contractors had asked for items they 
needed, they could not make sure they had received what was sent, and 
they could not make sure they used what they got on Government 
contracts, and they did not follow up on known problems. This was just 
a report from last summer.
  Other reports have found that the Pentagon pays too much for common 
items and buys things we do not need, and on and on.
  I believe we do have a serious problem in inventory control with the 
Department of Defense. I half facetiously, a year or two ago when I 
offered a similar amendment, said that the Government is now 
contracting out a lot of functions, and the Bush administration seems 
to be intent on contracting out, that maybe what we really ought to do 
is contract out inventory control for the Department of Defense to Wal-
mart. I can guarantee that Wal-Mart does not lose $1 billion a year in 
inventory. I guarantee when Wal-Mart orders items, they know if they 
have been shipped and they know who gets it. I picked on Wal-Mart, but 
I could name another company. But my point is made.
  We have a huge bureaucracy, the Department of Defense. They are 
buying billions of dollars' worth of items with taxpayers' money, and 
in many cases they cannot account for it. We have the stockpiling of 
excess items, and they keep right on buying items that they say they do 
not even need.
  Would someone please make sense of this to this Senator? Why is the 
Department of Defense ordering items that it has already said it does 
not need, yet keeps the orders going? That is what my amendment is 
attempting to do.
  Some of the past GAO reports have resulted in improvements. The Navy, 
for example, claims to have accounted for $2.5 billion of inventory 
discrepancies. But I am sorry to say the recommendations are frequently 
not followed. Just on inventory issues, the GAO has more than 30 open 
recommendations on using accurate data, setting consistent procedures 
and following them, adopting commercial best

[[Page S6817]]

practices and modern inventory systems, taking timely actions, and many 
more--30 open items the GAO has identified to which the Department of 
Defense simply is not paying attention.
  My amendment also requires that the Department of Defense report to 
Congress on what the Department is doing to implement these open GAO 
recommendations on defense inventory issues.
  Again, this amendment is a modest step forward. It is needed because 
the Department has either not been willing or not been able adequately 
to address, by itself, past findings by the GAO of serious waste. I 
have chosen to address the single, narrow area of secondary inventory 
because that is the area where we have fresh information from the GAO, 
information with which DOD generally concurs.
  Now, while $2 billion may not be a large amount compared to the $400 
billion authorized in this bill, it is still a lot of taxpayer money, 
and it is being wasted. We ought to stop it. That is what my amendment 
seeks to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time is there on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes, evenly divided.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first I thank and commend the Senator 
from Iowa for this amendment. It is an amendment which raises a lot of 
very significant issues about the Department of Defense inventory. It 
is a subject I had quite a bit to do with many years ago, particularly 
when we raised issues about the amount of the warehousing that exists 
in the Department of Defense, the amount of purchases which were made 
which contributed to that inventory, which was excessive.
  We made some progress. This was a number of years ago, but 
nonetheless we made some progress. I think we actually reduced the 
number of warehouses at that time by about 40 percent. But it is 
obvious we still have a problem and we are going to have a greater 
problem if we do not address it because of the increased size of the 
Defense budget and the purchases of the Defense Department.
  The GAO has issued a report. It is a fairly new report. Frankly, we 
have not had a chance to even analyze that report. Many years ago, when 
we took up this subject and had hearings and made some progress on this 
issue, we had some differences with the GAO over their approach, over 
the way in which they measured things. I don't know whether that is 
still a problem because, again, we have just not had a chance to review 
this report. It is very recent. We have not had a chance to meet with 
the GAO or the Senator from Iowa and his staff.
  If the Senator is willing, I would make a commitment--I know the 
chairman would join me in this commitment because I have spoken with 
the chairman about this subject--to look into the GAO report and to do 
so promptly, to review it, and then to meet with the Senator from Iowa 
to review it and address those issues he thinks need to be addressed. 
We will do that promptly. We are not trying to delay it because the 
Senator has pointed out matters which could save us significant amounts 
of money.
  On the other hand, if we do it wrong, for instance, if we sell things 
which are excess to inventory which will not be excess a few months 
from now, if we bring the inventory down--for instance, if we have 2 
years of inventory for things we only need a year and a half of, we may 
not want to sell that extra 6 months; we may want to bring the 
inventory down to a year and a half.
  There are some complications. I have had a chance to talk with our 
dear friend from Iowa. His heart is absolutely in the right place. His 
head is in the right place. His staff is in the right place. We want to 
try to be in the right place with him and join him in this effort and 
have the opportunity which I have just described to review this GAO 
report with him and take the appropriate action.
  I urge he consider allowing that course to occur and not to press his 
amendment at this time. I know the chairman of the committee has some 
thoughts on the subject as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I associate myself with the remarks of 
my colleague from Michigan.
  I say to the Senator from Iowa, really, in a way we appreciate what 
you have done because you have identified an issue that has been of 
concern to our committee for some many years. The Armed Services 
Committee has held hearings and sponsored much of the GAO's best-
practices work. But there remain to be done some important aspects of 
this problem.

  DOD has made some progress but much more needs to be done. We 
recognize that. I want to work with the Senator from Iowa and the 
Senator from Michigan and other members of the committee to address the 
inventory management problems at the Defense Department.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank both the chairman and the 
ranking member for their attention, and their responses. I know the 
Senators and their staffs, on both sides, have worked on this matter 
going back some years. I appreciate that.
  This seems like that whack-a-mole type thing; you keep hitting it and 
something else pops up. From our side, the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee side, I have been addressing this since 1995. GAO even 
said here:

       Since 1995, we have reported on imbalances in DOD's 
     inventory, and our current work shows that these imbalances 
     continue to exist.

  I know the chairman and ranking member have a lot on their plate. 
This is a big bill. There is a lot you have to pay attention to. But 
somehow we just have to get our hands on this.
  In response to what Senator Levin had said, we found in one of our 
reports--I am sure the chairman is very familiar with it--where we had 
at one point 100 years or more of inventory of some items. Of course 
they are going to be long obsolete before that hundred years is out.
  Some of that has been taken care of. I compliment the chairman and 
ranking member, now and in the past, for attending to that, because a 
lot of that has been reduced. I compliment you for that.
  But we still have one problem here--well, one among others--of the 
secondary inventory and the fact they keep buying, even though they 
themselves say they do not need it.
  So I appreciate what you said. I know you have not had a chance to 
take a look at it. I look forward to my staff and your staff working 
together and maybe coming up with some things so we can get them moving 
in the right direction.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I might say to my colleague, on a 
personal note, he and I have reminisced many times how we have been 
privileged to wear the uniform of our country. I am struck by the 
hundred years. That parallels the commode scene we had hear some years 
ago, if the Senator remembers.
  People operating in the Department of Defense have good intentions, 
be they in uniform or civilians. It is their country and their 
taxpayers' money. What we have to do is provide them with the proper 
direction when they need it to try to correct these things. But we have 
always, being military persons ourselves, to remember readiness is 
foremost. We have to err sometimes on the side of caution to maintain 
the readiness needed, particularly in today's environment, where unlike 
when you and I served there was time to get ready for military 
operations.
  World War II basically took a year to get cranked up and going. We 
don't have that time anymore with these modern weapons and terrorism 
and the like. We have to be ready because what is on the shelf and what 
is in inventory is about all the men and women in the Armed Forces have 
when they have to move out with such swiftness now to address the 
threats of today.

  I thank the Senator, but I just wanted to bring up that one note.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate my friend from Virginia mentioning that. 
That is true. That is why I understand we have to have some of this 
inventory. You are right, we should err on the side of caution in this 
area. But with the tremendous buildup we have and the amount

[[Page S6818]]

of money we are talking about here, let's face it, big mistakes can be 
made and things can happen.
  I went back one time and I read a lot about the old Truman Commission 
in World War II that was set up. Here we were, World War II, and we had 
to respond, as the Senator knows, rapidly at that time. We had to go 
almost from nothing to build up an Air Force and a Navy and an Army. 
The enemy was at our gates. But at the same time, the Senate set up a 
special Committee then under Senator Harry Truman of Missouri. That 
commission did a number of things. Some people went to jail. Some 
people paid fines. They saved the taxpayers literally--I don't know if 
it was billions, at least hundreds of millions of dollars at that time, 
which would translate into billions at today's inflated levels. They 
did that in the midst of the Second World War.
  I am just saying we need some more oversight, and we need some better 
accounting practices and inventory control systems.
  Maybe the chairman did not hear me when I said earlier, half 
facetiously, a couple years ago maybe that when we are contracting out 
we ought to contract out inventory control to Wal-Mart. They don't lose 
much. They keep track of everything. As the chairman knows, there are 
some new technologies out there that are coming on line that will allow 
us to track----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for a couple more minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. There is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Maybe some of this new technology would be what would 
help us get more control.
  I thank the chairman.


                      Amendment No. 774 Withdrawn

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. I 
look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to try to 
get a better handle on this.
  Mr. WARNER. We thank our colleague very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding 
is that the Bingaman amendment is the order at this point in time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the next amendment to be considered.
  Mr. WARNER. Could that temporarily be set aside for 5 minutes so the 
Senator may be recognized and then we will return to that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman and 
my friends on the Democratic side for allowing me to make this 
presentation.


                           Amendment No. 776

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

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for himself, Mr. Reid, 
     and Mr. Allen, proposes an amendment numbered 776.

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

(Purpose: To repeal the MTOPS requirement for computer export controls)

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1039. REPEAL OF MTOPS REQUIREMENT FOR COMPUTER EXPORT 
                   CONTROLS.

       (a) Repeal.--Subtitle B of title XII of, and section 3157 
     of, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) are repealed.
       (b) Consultation Required.--Before implementing any 
     regulations relating to an export administration system for 
     high-performance computers, the President shall consult with 
     the following congressional committees:
       (1) The Select Committee on Homeland Security, the 
     Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (2) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after implementing any 
     regulations described in subsection (b), the President shall 
     submit to Congress a report that--
       (1) identifies the functions of the Secretary of Commerce, 
     Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of 
     State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and any other relevant 
     national security or intelligence agencies under the export 
     administration system embraced by those regulations; and
       (2) explains how the export administration system will 
     effectively advance the national security objectives of the 
     United States.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, this amendment deals with the subject 
which I have dealt with before. It has to do with the National Defense 
Authorization Act which requires the President to use as a measure for 
computer performance in setting export control thresholds a measurement 
known as MTOPS, which stands for millions of theoretical operations per 
second.
  The interesting thing about MTOPS is that, like Topsy, which sounds 
like they are named after, they are constantly growing, and the level 
of MTOPS keeps growing from 4,000 to 8,000 to 16,000 to 56,000, and on 
and on. Every time we set an MTOPS level as saying we can control the 
exportation of supercomputers by insisting that this level not be 
exceeded, technology catches up. Quite literally, the last time we 
dealt with this, someone could go down to Toys-R-Us and buy a Sony 
PlayStation and have a device with more MTOPS in it than we were 
allowing to be exported in the name of protecting supercomputers from 
falling into improper hands.
  This matter has been discussed at some length. It has been decided 
and confirmed by the GAO that the use of MTOPS as the measure for 
controlling exports in this area is not productive and that MTOPS no 
longer presents any kind of logical measure of what has happened. 
Nonetheless, it is written into the law that MTOPS should remain as our 
present measure.
  My amendment would repeal that requirement in the law. It is 
supported by virtually everyone who understands the reality of where we 
are in the high-tech industry.
  I would go on to debate the amendment at greater length and outline 
its need, but I understand from conversations with the chairman's staff 
and with the Parliamentarian that this amendment would not be 
considered relevant to this bill at this time. For that reason, I will 
withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the Senator offering this amendment. 
He and I have worked on this matter through several Congresses. It is 
an extremely important amendment. It is unfortunate that it is not 
going to be relevant to this matter. I hope there is some way during 
this Congress that we can expedite this most important amendment which 
the Senator is talking about.
  Talking about job creation, this is a way to create jobs--get rid of 
this arbitrary rule that at one time may have had a little bit of 
reason but now has absolutely no reason to be on the statutes of this 
country.
  Our current MTOPS metric measure which is used to regulate the export 
of U.S.-made technology hardware is outdated, hurts our high-technology 
industry, and should be better crafted to address our Nation's specific 
security concerns.
  If U.S. companies are to effectively compete outside the United 
States in foreign markets, the current MTOPS metric measure must be 
repealed.
  Once repealed, the current MTOPS measure will remain applicable to 
all export controls until the President, after consultation with the 
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and 
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate has 
taken into consideration all relevant and necessary security concerns 
to ensure that U.S.-developed technology cannot be abused for the 
purposes of tyranny and terrorism.

[[Page S6819]]

  The President shall also consult with the Secretary of Commerce, 
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of State, 
Secretary of Homeland Security, and any other relevant national 
security or intelligence agency under the export administration system 
affected by the MTOPS provisions.
  We must act now to protect our status as world leaders in technology 
development.
  In the interests of national security and economic productivity, we 
must clear a path to reform the current MTOPS metric measure that is 
unnecessarily restraining our high-technology industry.


                      Amendment No. 776 Withdrawn

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I will 
tell him, there is a way this can be done this Congress. It is my 
understanding an attempt will be made in the House to place this 
amendment in the bill in the House where it does not run into the 
relevancy difficulty I ran into here today.
  I would hope our chairman and ranking member, when they get to 
conference, if they find the language in the bill, would feel so 
disposed to accept it as it becomes a conferenceable item.
  Madam President, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 765

 (Purpose: To require a specific authorization of Congress before the 
   conduct of the design, development, or deployment of hit-to-kill 
                ballistic missile defense interceptors)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 765 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] for himself, Mr. 
     Dorgan, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 765:
       At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 225. REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS 
                   FOR DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, OR DEPLOYMENT OF HIT-
                   TO-KILL BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS.

       No amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any 
     other Act for research, development, test, and evaluation, 
     Defense-wide, and available for Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Systems Interceptors (PE 060886C), may be obligated or 
     expended to design, develop, or deploy hit-to-kill 
     interceptors or other weapons for placement in space unless 
     specifically authorized by Congress.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Dorgan, Senator Reed, and Senator Biden. This is an 
amendment I hope can be approved to clarify that this Congress, this 
Senate, does not intend to be authorizing--by this bill, the language 
we have before us here in the legislation--does not intend to be 
authorizing the weaponization of space.
  The amendment proposes to require specific authorization from 
Congress if we are going to proceed to design or develop or deploy hit-
to-kill interceptors or other weapons we intend to have placed in 
space.
  This is an issue that has not had a great deal of debate in the 
Senate in recent years. In fact, I think we discussed it some when the 
former President Bush--not this President Bush, but the former 
President Bush--had his proposal for the program called Brilliant 
Pebbles. But there has not been a lot of discussion in the last few 
years. I do not believe this issue was addressed, either, in the markup 
of the Defense authorization bill in the Armed Services Committee. In 
my view, it is a very important issue.
  Specifically, within this program there is a new start for fiscal 
year 2004 that is titled: ``Space-Based Interceptor Test Bed.'' This 
program proposes to develop a test bed in outer space consisting of 
several satellites that would deploy kinetic energy rounds to strike 
missiles in their boost phase. They also, of course, could be used to 
strike satellites as well.
  I have great concern with this whole proposal. As all colleagues 
know, as a nation this President chose to withdraw from the ABM treaty. 
Now, the ABM treaty did contain a prohibition against deploying 
antiballistic missile systems in space. As I see this new start that is 
in the bill the administration has proposed to the Congress, we really 
are seeing here a follow-on to our decision to withdraw from the ABM 
treaty. In my view, it sends a very unfortunate signal to other 
countries--to China, to Russia, to North Korea, to other countries--
that might have capability to follow our lead.
  It essentially sends them the signal that we are beginning the 
process of weaponizing space. This is not a signal I think this 
Congress or this administration should be sending.
  I note we have a longstanding policy, a policy that has been in place 
since President Eisenhower was in the White House, not to put weapons 
in space. There is a crucial distinction I want to make here between 
using space for military purposes and actually putting weapons in 
space. We do use space for military purposes. We use space for 
reconnaissance. We use space to gather information in a great variety 
of ways to support our defense needs. But we have never stepped over 
the threshold and actually put weapons in space. I think for us to 
choose to do so is a very important decision which should not be taken 
lightly and should not be taken without great care.
  This program that is in the bill contains a seed element which I 
think should concern all Members. Under the Department of Defense so-
called Spiral Development Policy, initial test beds--which is what this 
provision calls for--but initial test beds, such as the ground-based 
test bed at Fort Greely, are seen as being used simultaneously, at 
least for partial deployment of systems. It is my fear a similar result 
could happen with regard to this space-based test bed; that is, the 
initial fielded satellites would be converted, like the ground system 
at Fort Greely, to a fielded weapons system in space.

  For that reason, I think it is important we make clear--we in the 
Congress make clear--we do not want that to happen, we do not want 
funds in this bill used for design and development and deployment of 
weapons in space unless Congress focuses on the issue and actually 
authorizes that action to take place.
  There is a great deal I could point to here that elaborates on what I 
have been saying. I think the main point I want to make, again, is I do 
not believe most Americans support the notion that the United States 
should become the first country to deploy weapons in space. I do not 
think a military need has been demonstrated. In particular, I do not 
think the administration and the Congress should do so without a 
thorough discussion and debate about the issue, so that we, in fact, 
know what we are doing and the implications of what we are doing.
  This is a very large step for us to take, to become the first nation 
to proceed to put weapons in space, and I do not think this is 
something that should be done lightly. This decision is one I think we 
will hear about for a very long time, and I think it will have 
repercussions for a very long time. I think this amendment I have 
proposed tries to make it clear we do not want to make that decision 
today, that the Congress has not debated this adequately, that the 
Armed Services Committee has not debated this adequately, and we are 
not prepared today to authorize--or at least we have not as yet, in my 
view, taken the step of specifically authorizing the design and 
development and deployment of weapons in space.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Eight minutes remain.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just talk about one other aspect. 
The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which oversees missile defense 
research and development, did an interview in February talking about 
their so-called space-based test bed, which is what I am addressing my 
amendment to here.
  The thrust of what they described in that interview was they intend 
to field satellites armed with multiple hit-to-kill interceptors that 
are capable of destroying a ballistic missile through a high-speed 
collision shortly after it is launched.
  This might be something we decide we have to do, but, to my 
knowledge, that debate has not occurred in Congress, and I do not want 
to see us proceeding down that road without the Congress having focused 
on it, having actually specifically authorized it.

[[Page S6820]]

Therefore, my amendment tries to clarify that is, in fact, what is 
required before we can proceed down that road.
  There is funding also in this same program element, and that is the 
PE 060886C. There is funding in there for the ground-based 
interceptors, for their development.
  Certainly that is a decision we have made as a country, and I am not 
trying to revisit that. I do think we go a substantial additional step 
when we decide we are also going to be designing, developing, and 
deploying weapons in space. We will do so. We will begin that process 
by setting up this so-called test bed in space. Those satellites will 
be the beginning of that process.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. It is my understanding I have 15 minutes under my 
control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I wonder if I may ask my colleague a question or two. For 
many years you served on the Armed Services Committee. You have a 
complete familiarity as to how we address issues. My recollection--and 
I don't think it is to be disputed--of the markup in the subcommittee 
is, when we looked at this line of funding, no one on your side of the 
aisle or anyone else raised an issue. We went to full markup, and no 
one raised an issue about it.
  Essentially you are coming in, which you have a perfect right to do, 
but you are coming in to kill a program. Am I not correct, this 
amendment kills the program?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me respond that I am certainly not trying to kill 
the development of any of the program that is ground based. I am 
saying, however, that we should not proceed to establish, to design, 
develop, and deploy a space-based weapons capability absent some debate 
about it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is quite clear.
  Is the answer to my question, yes, you are trying to kill the 
initiation of an element that could lead to space-based weapons? Isn't 
that correct?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. That is correct. I think that should not be done 
without much more deliberation than we have given it.
  Mr. WARNER. I just point out that on your side of the aisle, 
participating actively in markup in the full committee, there was no 
effort to examine it.
  The next question I ask my colleague: Are you aware how much money 
the taxpayers of this Nation put in previous programs for space-based 
weaponry prior to when President Clinton--I don't say this in a 
critical way; it is just a fact way--determined that we would not put 
another dollar in space based?

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to my colleague's question, 
I am aware that we put substantial funding in and most of that funding 
was for research.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. There is nothing in my amendment that would interfere 
with research. What I am trying to head off is the actual design and 
development and deployment of space-based weapons as part of this new 
program start. But research has proceeded. We have funded it at a high 
level. I have supported that.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is on my time, and he is kind of getting into 
it a little bit. I need a few minutes here.
  We spent, as a nation, $1.8 billion on space-based intercepts from 
1985 to 1993. This is for $14 million to go in and take a look at what 
has taken place in years prior thereto, by virtue of an expenditure of 
$1.8 billion, to determine the feasibility of whether this concept 
should be resumed. Essentially you are stopping us from even taking a 
look at this enormous investment which has been expended to determine 
whether we should once again begin in a substantial way to look at 
space-based interceptors. That is what is before the Senate, $14 
million to go back and look at a program of $1.8 billion. It is for 
that reason that we vigorously oppose the amendment.
  I yield the floor at this time. I see the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time does each side have?
  Mr. WARNER. Each side had 15 minutes. I am not sure for which side 
the distinguished ranking member is speaking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 5 minutes 43 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time does the sponsor have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 43 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. And the opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten and a half minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I think it is important that we hear from the ranking 
member because I have asked a question. We did not address this at all 
in the subcommittee or full committee markup. I presumed, since it was 
in our bill--I say respectfully to my colleague--I believe he was here 
to support the bill as written. I come at somewhat of a surprise now on 
exactly where my distinguished colleague from Michigan is on this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, I certainly am not committed to the bill as written 
because there are a number of provisions in the bill that I opposed in 
committee and that I have opposed on the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. But there was no opposition in the course of the markup, 
either in subcommittee or full committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. The chairman is correct. This issue was not brought to my 
attention until the floor. But there are a number of issues which are 
brought to our attention for the first time on the floor. I hope any of 
us can support those issues when they are brought to the floor. We 
ought to all feel free to do that.
  Mr. WARNER. I will save this debate for another day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Colorado?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, 
this is an issue on which we have held discussions. We have put 
together the provisions that deal with many of the modernization 
elements of the defense and Armed Forces of the country. This is an 
amendment that did not get brought forward during deliberation in the 
subcommittee, nor deliberation in the Armed Services Committee, as far 
as I recall.
  I am concerned about continued efforts on the floor of the Senate to 
stymie our reaching out to new technology. We have had an amendment 
concerning low-yield nuclear weapons that allows for a study to think 
about what our alternatives might be. We have had amendments here 
concerning robust nuclear earth penetrators, just to study the concept.
  Here is another concept that the committee has decided we should 
study. It seems to me that in a modern military, these are things we 
should be looking at. Things are changing.
  I commend the President's Secretary of Defense. He is trying to 
modernize our military forces, get them to work together on the 
battlefield more than we ever had before. We saw that happen in Iraq. 
These are all issues that are part of a joint force effort.
  I hope we can defeat the amendment. I oppose the Bingaman amendment. 
Again, it prohibits us even taking the time to study the concept. After 
you do the study, you list the pros and cons and then decide if this is 
something you want to move forward, whether it is feasible. We need to 
gather facts on actual costs. We may decide, after doing the study, 
that it is too expensive. On the other hand, we may do the study and 
look at the threats facing the country and say: This is something we 
need to be doing.
  It is foolhardy that we have amendments that continually keep coming 
up that don't allow us to study our alternatives. We need to have the 
studies. We need to be thinking about what kind of threats and what we 
want the military to look like 10, 20, 30 years down the road.
  I hope other Members of the Senate will join me in opposing this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.

[[Page S6821]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if I can get the attention of the 
Senator from New Mexico, and Senator Allard as well. I ask the Senator 
from New Mexico to yield me 1 minute.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield to the Senator as much time as he needs.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just a minute. In a conscientious effort 
to resolve this, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 
another 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Colorado 
have raised a point that there has been a significant amount of money 
that has been invested in this item, and there should not be a 
prohibition on reviewing the work, studying the work, on doing research 
in this area. As I understand the language in the amendment of the 
Senator from New Mexico, it is not intended to prevent studies or, 
indeed, research. It is intended to say that before you get to the 
design stage, which is beyond research and beyond studies, you come 
back for specific authorization.
  So the point being made is, if the Senator from New Mexico is not 
intending to prevent a review of all the work, which was done 
apparently in the 1980s, and is not intending to prevent studies or 
even research under 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2, I wonder whether the Senator 
from New Mexico would be willing to make that clear and explicit in 
that amendment, if that addresses satisfactorily the issue raised by 
the Senator from Virginia.
  I have just talked to the Senator from New Mexico. There is no intent 
in the language to prevent a study of previous work. All this language 
says is that before you begin the design stage--that is beyond pure 
research--before you begin the design and development stage, come back 
and get specific authority. I don't think that is what is intended to 
be done with this money this year, from what the chairman and Senator 
Allard have said.
  So I ask the question of the Senator from New Mexico whether the 
Senator would be willing to add language to his amendment that nothing 
in here is intended to prevent the study of the hit-to-kill capability, 
or previous analyses, or research prior to the design stage?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to my colleague's question, 
I think it is very clear what my amendment is trying to do, that the 
Department of Defense cannot obligate or expend funds to design, 
develop, or deploy hit-to-kill interceptors or other weapons for 
placement in space, unless they get specific authorization.
  So if they want to do more research or go back and look at previously 
performed research or analyses, certainly I have no problem with that. 
I think that is----
  Mr. WARNER. I draw the Senator's attention to the first words:

       No amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act for 
     research. . . .

  It is right in there.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I think the operative language is on page 2, where I 
say what this sentence is intended to mean: that no amount authorized 
to be appropriated by this act for research, development, test, and 
evaluation may be expended for design, development, or the deployment 
of these types of weapons in space.

  I think I have made it very clear we are trying to head off the use 
of funds for designing weapons in space until Congress has a chance to 
debate this issue and until there is a specific authorization required.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think there is some expression by our 
colleague to amend the amendment. I take that in good faith. I believe 
we need a little time to examine this proposal. The chairman of the 
subcommittee, the Senator from Colorado, is prepared to sit down with 
the Senator and see what we might be able to do to bridge the gap 
because this is essentially another vote, as it is now written, to stop 
the program cold, to put in a ban. We have been through a series of 
votes on that now and, thus far, we have prevailed to not let bans be 
put in place, and here is another one coming up.
  So, in good faith, we will take a look at such amendments that the 
Senator may wish. Therefore, I simply ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment be laid aside for a period of time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Prior to that, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island. He has been waiting to speak on this general issue, if 
that is possible.
  Mr. WARNER. We have no objection if the Senator takes some time to 
speak.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. We can postpone a vote until we visit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to underscore the major issue that 
the Senator from New Mexico is raising and that is the weaponization of 
space. We have talked today earlier about different nuclear programs 
and should we have low-yield weapons bans or robust nuclear earth 
penetrator bans. But the realm of nuclear weaponry has been upon us now 
for five decades.
  To date, we have been successful in preventing weapons from being 
deployed in space. So this is a completely different issue. This is not 
the issue of shall we do more of what we have been doing for 50 years. 
This is a threshold question: Do we want to introduce weapons into 
space? And will this introduction come surreptitiously, innocuously by 
research programs that put weapons in space for a test bed without 
debate in the U.S. Congress on behalf of the American people and a 
clear decision?
  I think that is the Senator's amendment. He has identified 
programmatic funding that could be stretched to inch our way--perhaps 
through the back door, if you will--into placing weapons in space. I 
think that is such a critical and important issue that we not only have 
to debate it but we should decide it, not scientists and technologists 
in the Department of Defense. I cannot think of any scientist who would 
not like more permission to study more things.
  So I urge, hopefully, the resolution of this amendment. If it is not 
resolved and comes to a vote, I hope we can support the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the two managers of the 
bill. They are both in agreement that we could set aside the Bingaman 
amendment and move to the next amendment which would be offered, and 
that is by Senator Dayton. Senator Dayton is offering an amendment on 
buy America. He has agreed to 30 minutes equally divided. We would, of 
course, have the normal agreement that no second-degree amendments will 
be offered.
  So I ask unanimous consent that we set aside Bingaman and move now to 
the Dayton amendment, and that no second-degree amendments be in order 
prior to the vote on the matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. It would be in the usual form in relation to any language 
that might be stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 725

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 725.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), for himself, and 
     Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment No. 725.

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

   (Purpose: To strike section 833, relating to waiver authority for 
                domestic source or content requirements)

       Strike section 833.

  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Feingold, be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S6822]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield?
  Mr. DAYTON. I yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Warner, who has been so heavily 
engaged in this legislation, allowed me to go forward with a unanimous 
consent request. However, it was brought to our attention that there is 
a Senator who wishes to offer a second-degree amendment, or might want 
to offer a second-degree amendment to this matter. I have consent that 
we go forward with the Dayton amendment but we would remove the time 
agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. And recognize that there could be a second degree.
  Mr. REID. That is right. If that does not come to be, we will worry 
about a time agreement at a subsequent time. The agreement is we are 
setting aside Bingaman and moving to Dayton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. I know the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from 
Nevada are working together on this and I am in good hands.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up this amendment and point out 
that at a time when millions of Americans are unemployed, looking for 
jobs, unable to find jobs, and are suffering terrible emotional and 
financial hardships as a result, it is astonishing to me that the 
administration would seek in this bill to move more American jobs to 
other countries. It is astonishing, but given this administration, it 
is not surprising. It is well on its way to becoming the most anti-jobs 
administration in our Nation's history.
  Since President Bush took office 2\1/2\ years ago, 2.7 million jobs 
have been lost throughout the United States of America. In the first 3 
months of this year alone, 500,000 jobs disappeared. The only idea for 
economic stimulus that the administration has is to cut taxes for the 
Americans who are already rich, whether they work or not.
  In this bill, the administration wants to gut the ``buy American,'' 
which is an existing law passed by the Congress in 1933, which for the 
last 70 years, under Republican administrations, Democratic 
administrations, has been a policy of this Congress--that we will 
attempt to buy American.
  The Berry amendment was enacted in 1941, at the onset of World War 
II, applying specifically to the Department of Defense procurements. It 
says, in pertinent part:

       Provided: That no part of this or any other appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be available for the procurement 
     of any article of food or clothing not grown or produced in 
     the United States or its possessions, except to the extent 
     that the head of the department concerned shall determine 
     that articles of food or clothing grown or produced in the 
     United States or its possessions cannot be procured of 
     satisfactory quality and in sufficient quantities and at 
     reasonable prices as when needed. . . .

  That is not unreasonable. That is not onerous. It says you must buy 
products grown or made or manufactured in the United States except when 
the Secretary of Defense will determine, on his sole authority, that it 
cannot be procured of satisfactory quality or sufficient times at 
reasonable prices as and when needed. That is not even a ``buy 
American'' requirement but ``try to buy American'' requirement, try to 
buy American products.
  This administration does not even want to try. They added into this 
committee bill section 833 which, in pertinent part, says:

       Waiver of domestic source or content requirements
       (a) Authority--Except as provided in subsection (f), the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive the application of any 
     domestic source requirement or domestic content requirement 
     referred to in subsection (b) and thereabout authorize the 
     procurement of items that are grown, reprocessed, reused, 
     produced, or manufactured--
       (1) in a foreign country that has a reciprocal defense 
     procurement memorandum or agreement with the United States.

  That is 21 foreign countries. And it is not even so important that 
the Secretary himself or herself has to make that determination.
  It grants later that:

       (A) may not be delegated to any officer or employee other 
     than the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
     Technology and Logistics.

  If this bill passes with the current language, there will be 21 other 
countries around the world which can be given equal priority as the 
United States of America for contracts that provide jobs which are 
being paid for by American tax dollars. Those dollars had been 
appropriated and they will be spent on the U.S. Armed Forces, to clothe 
them, feed them, and equip them with the best, which is what they 
deserve because they are the best young men and women in the world and 
they proved their courage, their valor, and skills once again in Iraq, 
as they have before so many times and as they will probably be called 
upon to do again. They deserve the best. They should get the best. 
Congress has made clear in existing law that they will get the best and 
they will get it when they need it.
  Current law says whenever it is reasonably possible, however, to 
supply those needs with goods and products and equipment that are 
produced in this country, using materials that are made, where 
feasible, in this country, then do so, recognizing that will provide an 
additional public benefit for those expenditures of tax dollars of 
creating or saving jobs for Americans. If it is not reasonably 
possible, the law says, then don't, but at least try to buy American. 
At least try to spend public funds in the United States rather than in 
other countries. At least try to benefit the U.S. economy rather than 
another nation. At least care enough to try.
  For 70 years, every administration has been willing to make that 
effort. But not this administration, evidently, because at their 
request the language was inserted that says the Department of Defense 
does not even have to try; they can buy in the United States or they 
can buy in 21 other foreign countries, and the Secretary of Defense 
does not even need to be bothered with those decisions. They evidently 
do not consider it important enough to require him to do so. An Under 
Secretary can handle it. These are decisions that will decide whether 
some Americans keep their jobs and get new jobs. And they say it is not 
that important.
  My colleagues, that is the question before the Senate today. Should 
we just give up at this point in time, right now especially, a 70-year 
policy that creates or saves American jobs for American citizens, when 
it is reasonably possible to do so? Or, no, no, it just really does not 
matter?
  It matters a great deal to millions of Americans who are looking for 
work today. It matters a great deal to their husbands and their wives 
and their children. It matters a great deal to me, which is why I 
brought this amendment forward. If it matters to the Senate today, 
Members will support my amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend President Bush for his 
leadership in invigorating our Nation's missile defense programs. Just 
yesterday, the President publicly released his vision and guidance to 
provide for a ballistic missile defense system. National Security 
Policy Directive 23 formalizes the administration's missile defense 
policy, and it is consistent with the National Missile Defense Act of 
1999, which is now Public Law 106-38. It was adopted during the 106th 
Congress.
  The National Missile Defense Act stated:

       It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as 
     is technologically possible an effective National Missile 
     Defense system capable of defending the territory of the 
     United States against limited ballistic missile attack 
     (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with 
     funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriation 
     and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile 
     Defense.

  With the President's leadership, our Nation is now moving forward to 
provide the most technologically feasible defenses as soon as possible.
  I commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and those who 
have worked with him to craft this authorization bill. It carries 
forward and builds upon the need for testing,

[[Page S6823]]

development, and deployment of adequate missile defense systems to 
protect not only our homeland but our forces in the field and our 
interests around the world.
  Today, I am pleased to report that our national resolve and 
technological superiority are being brought to bear in ways not 
possible under the restrictions of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
  For the first time, our missile defense research and development 
efforts are being integrated at all levels. As a result, our Nation 
will benefit from deployed missile defense capabilities, while we 
continue to test and field technologies in logical increments.
  We are moving forward with one integrated program consisting of 
several elements rather than separate programs linked in name only. In 
short, the evolutionary and integrated approach to research and 
development will allow defensive capabilities to be fielded years 
before they otherwise might have.
  Systems we are pursuing are capable of intercepting missiles 
throughout the predicted flight path of various types of ballistic 
missiles. The threat of these missiles to our Nation, to our deployed 
Armed Forces, and to our allies exists today. It is prudent to continue 
with the immediate testing and fielding of the variety of systems 
needed to counter these challenging threats.
  Testing to date has proven to be increasingly promising. Next year, 
ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California will be activated 
and will serve as a foundation upon which continental defenses may 
later be expanded. Testing locations along a Pacific test-bed will 
allow for near-term defense against rogue threats.
  We will continue to develop and test incrementally. The plan is to 
field systems as we go and build upon capabilities as they are tested 
and proven.
  Ground- and sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot, PAC-3, units, 
and sensors based on land, at sea, and in space are planned for 
operational use in 2004 and 2005. We will work with our allies to 
upgrade key early-warning radars to help enhance capabilities.
  Equally promising systems will be deployable much sooner, due to the 
administration's incorporation of an aggressive research, development, 
and testing regimen.
  In developing defensive capabilities along the land, sea, air, and 
space spectrum, our missile defense system will help protect our 
homeland and international interests, as well as contribute to the 
defense of our Allies.
  The President has made clear that defending the American people 
against the threats to our homeland and our sovereignty is the 
administration's highest priority. I commend the President for this 
leadership.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. COLLINS). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, what is the business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Dayton amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside 
and that we return to the amendment I offered, No. 765.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, how long will it take?
  Mr. ALLARD. About 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 765, As Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I send a modification of the amendment 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his own 
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 225. REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS 
                   FOR DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, OR DEPLOYMENT OF HIT-
                   TO-KILL BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS.

         (a) No amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
     for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-
     wide, and available for Ballistic Missile Defense System 
     Interceptors (PE 060886C), may be obligated or expended to 
     design, develop, or deploy hit-to-kill interceptors or other 
     weapons for placement in space unless specifically authorized 
     by Congress.
       (b) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2004 for Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptors, 
     $14,000,000 is available for research and concept definition 
     for the space based test bed.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me explain to my colleagues what 
we have done, both working with Senator Levin and Senator Allard and 
Senator Warner and the various staff who have worked on this issue.
  First, let me describe very briefly what my amendment does. The 
language of the amendment I offered originally was fairly clear in that 
we were trying to restrict the use of funds in a particular program 
element so that they could not be used, obligated, or expended to 
design, develop, or deploy hit-to-kill interceptors or other weapons 
for placement in space unless there was specific authorization by 
Congress. That is an important provision to try to get into the law. 
And in order to do that, I have agreed to a modification of that which 
Senator Allard recommended.
  That modification would add a subsection (b) that would say:

       Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2004 for Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptors, 
     $14,000,000 is available for research and concept definition 
     for the space based test bed.

  As I see the effect of this modified amendment, the general provision 
would be agreed to that there cannot be funds used for either design or 
development or deployment of these weapons in space out of these funds, 
with the only exception being that $14 million is available for 
research and concept definition with regard to this space-based test 
bed. That is an acceptable alteration and one that still keeps intact 
the basic provision I intended with my amendment. On that basis, I have 
agreed to modify it.
  I yield to Senator Allard. I know he wants to describe the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. First, I thank the sponsor of the amendment, Senator 
Bingaman, for working in this compromise language. We do maintain, out 
of the ballistic missile defense system interceptors account, we have 
the $14 million kept available for research and concept definition for 
the space-based test bed. I thank Senator Levin and his contribution to 
help us work out the compromise, as well as the chairman, Senator 
Warner.
  I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. The other side 
is prepared to yield back the remainder of their time. Then we are 
ready to voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 765, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 765), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 783 To Amendment No. 725

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 783 to the language proposed to be stricken by 
     amendment No. 725.

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

  (Purpose: To propose the insertion of matter in lieu of the matter 
                        proposed to be stricken)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be stricken, insert the 
     following:

[[Page S6824]]

     SEC. 833. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR DOMESTIC SOURCE OR CONTENT 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Authority.--Subchapter V of chapter 148 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 2539c. Waiver of domestic source or content 
       requirements

       ``(a) Authority.--Except as provided in subsection (f), the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive the application of any 
     domestic source requirement or domestic content requirement 
     referred to in subsection (b) and thereby authorize the 
     procurement of items that are grown, reprocessed, reused, 
     produced, or manufactured--
       ``(1) in a foreign country that has a Declaration of 
     Principles with the United States;
       ``(2) in a foreign country that has a Declaration of 
     Principles with the United States substantially from 
     components and materials grown, reprocessed, reused, 
     produced, or manufactured in the United States or any foreign 
     country that has a Declaration of Principles with the United 
     States; or
       ``(3) in the United States substantially from components 
     and materials grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or 
     manufactured in the United States or any foreign country that 
     has a Declaration of Principles with the United States.
       ``(b) Covered Requirements.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) A domestic source requirement is any requirement 
     under law that the Department of Defense satisfy its 
     requirements for an item by procuring an item that is grown, 
     reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured in the United 
     States or by a manufacturer that is a part of the national 
     technology and industrial base (as defined in section 2500(1) 
     of this title).
       ``(2) A domestic content requirement is any requirement 
     under law that the Department of Defense satisfy its 
     requirements for an item by procuring an item produced or 
     manufactured partly or wholly from components and materials 
     grown, reprocessed, reused, produced, or manufactured in the 
     United States.
       ``(c) Applicability.--The authority of the Secretary to 
     waive the application of a domestic source or content 
     requirements under subsection (a) applies to the procurement 
     of items for which the Secretary of Defense determines that--
       ``(1) application of the requirement would impede the 
     reciprocal procurement of defense items under a Declaration 
     of Principles with the United States; and
       ``(2) such country does not discriminate against defense 
     items produced in the United States to a greater degree than 
     the United States discriminates against defense items 
     produced in that country.
       ``(d) Limitation on Delegation.--The authority of the 
     Secretary to waive the application of domestic source or 
     content requirements under subsection (a) may not be 
     delegated to any officer or employee other than the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
     Logistics.
       ``(e) Consultations.--The Secretary may grant a waiver of 
     the application of a domestic source or content requirement 
     under subsection (a) only after consultation with the United 
     States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and 
     the Secretary of State.
       ``(f) Laws Not Waivable.--The Secretary of Defense may not 
     exercise the authority under subsection (a) to waive any 
     domestic source or content requirement contained in any of 
     the following laws:
       ``(1) The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.).
       ``(2) The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46 et seq.).
       ``(3) Sections 7309 and 7310 of this title.
       ``(4) Section 2533a of this title.
       ``(g) Relationship to Other Waiver Authority.--The 
     authority under subsection (a) to waive a domestic source 
     requirement or domestic content requirement is in addition to 
     any other authority to waive such requirement.
       ``(h) Construction With Respect to Later Enacted Laws.--
     This section may not be construed as being inapplicable to a 
     domestic source requirement or domestic content requirement 
     that is set forth in a law enacted after the enactment of 
     this section solely on the basis of the later enactment.
       ``(i) Declaration of Principles.--(1) In this section, the 
     term `Declaration of Principles' means a written 
     understanding between the Department of Defense and its 
     counterpart in a foreign country signifying a cooperative 
     relationship between the Department and its counterpart to 
     standardize or make interoperable defense equipment used by 
     the armed forces and the armed forces of the foreign country 
     across a broad spectrum of defense activities, including--
       ``(A) harmonization of military requirements and 
     acquisition processes;
       ``(B) security of supply;
       ``(C) export procedures;
       ``(D) security of information;
       ``(E) ownership and corporate governance;
       ``(F) research and development;
       ``(G) flow of technical information; and
       ``(H) defense trade.
       ``(2) A Declaration of Principles is underpinned by a 
     memorandum of understanding or other agreement providing for 
     the reciprocal procurement of defense items between the 
     United States and the foreign country concerned without 
     unfair discrimination in accordance with section 2531 of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 2539b the following new item:

``2539c. Waiver of domestic source or content requirements.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment narrows the numbers of 
countries to six that would be eligible under the provisions of the 
bill and would modify the pending amendment to remove the restrictions 
that would be imposed by the pending amendment at least in the case of 
six nations which are our closest allies.
  Last week we passed an AIDS bill through the Senate, and there were 
numerous amendments. One of them was a very interesting amendment 
because it basically protected an industry in the United States of 
America, thereby causing AIDS drugs to be only available at much higher 
prices, which then had the obvious effect of reducing the number of 
people who will be treated for AIDS. I forget the vote. I think it was 
54 something to 40 something.
  By protecting a major American industry, the pharmaceutical 
industry--in the estimates of some--hundreds of thousands if not 
millions of people will not be able to obtain a cure for AIDS because 
the drug money is obviously finite.
  I was embarrassed by that. I think the Senator from Minnesota voted 
with the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, in his amendment of 
which I was a cosponsor. Basically what we are doing now is to set up 
protection for other industries--primarily, the defense industries in 
the United States--by prohibiting the United States from purchasing 
military equipment that is manufactured in other countries which is the 
effect of the Dayton amendment. It is rather remarkable because we just 
came out of a conflict from which we suffered Americans dead and 
wounded. One would think that the priority should be not where the 
equipment is manufactured, whether it be in the United States or 
England, Great Britain, one of our closest and most steadfast allies, a 
friend whose men and women fought alongside of ours, but the question 
should be, What kind of equipment can best secure victory as quickly as 
possible with a minimum of casualties?
  Believe it or not, there is equipment that is manufactured in other 
countries which is superior to our own--defense equipment--not many, 
because there is a tremendous imbalance between the amount and kinds of 
equipment that is purchased by our NATO Allies as opposed to the 
equipment that is purchased by the United States from our NATO 
Allies. But there still is some. For example, body armor. Body armor is 
used by the police departments, border patrol, and many law enforcement 
agencies, but not by the American military, because it is prohibited 
from doing so. Yet anyone who compares that manufactured in the U.S. to 
that manufactured in the Netherlands will testify it is superior 
equipment.

  What is our priority here in the Dayton amendment? Is the priority to 
protect an American industry, and not allow our closest allies and 
friends to compete to sell their products, their defense equipment, to 
the United States of America, as we do in their countries? Everything 
from F-16s, to tanks, to incredible amounts of military equipment, 
because of our superiority, is purchased by our NATO allies, but we are 
going to be prohibited from purchasing any of theirs even if, in the 
judgment of the men and women in the military who test these things and 
make the judgments, and the Secretary of Defense--we are not going to 
buy it even if it is better equipment because we want to protect an 
industry in the United States of America? We have seen this 
protectionism going on here in the textile industry, even though the 
Caribbean countries are decimated because they cannot export their 
product to the United States.
  Here we are talking about the lives of the men and women in the 
military. Can we not at least allow our military to look at equipment 
made by our closest allies to see if it is superior; that we might want 
to purchase it just as they purchase massive amounts of military 
equipment from us? Is the Senator from Minnesota--who, unfortunately, 
is not on the floor to respond--more interested in protecting an 
industry or more interested in protecting the lives of the men and 
women

[[Page S6825]]

fighting in the military? Don't they deserve the very best equipment we 
can procure? I am sorry, you cannot have the following equipment which 
is superior to that made in Minnesota because we want an industry in 
Minnesota to be protected. I don't get it. Frankly, neither will the 
men and women in the military who are unable to function in the most 
effective fashion if they are deprived of the ability to procure the 
most effective equipment.
  We are talking about not every country in the world but our closest 
allies; we are talking about our closest friends--those who supported 
us in the war on Iraq and those who even sent troops, in the case of 
the British, to fight alongside ours.
  If the Dayton amendment is approved, no British manufacturer can 
compete to sell equipment to the United States military. How do you 
justify that if it happens to be superior equipment? In the name of 
protectionism, we would deprive the men and women in the military of 
the best equipment we can find for them to fight and risk their lives.
  Well, I have a second-degree amendment that states this removal of 
the Buy America equipment would not apply to our six closest Allies. I 
hope my colleagues will see their way clear to vote in favor of it.
  Let me also tell my colleagues one other practical effect. We now 
tell these countries that we cannot, under any circumstances, buy their 
equipment. These are the same countries that are buying billions of 
dollars of our military equipment--F-16s, Abrams tanks, Apache 
helicopters. The list goes on and on. If you are running a company and 
you manufacture military equipment and you get the word that the United 
States, under no circumstances, will purchase it from you, what would 
you say about proposed purchases of American-made equipment? I think 
the answer is obvious. These are all freely elected governments, all 
governments that have to respond to their constituents. What will they 
say?

  So the effect of this Dayton amendment, if passed, would be some $5.5 
billion, which is the difference between what we buy from these 
countries and what they buy from us on an annual basis. I hope we will 
be able to adopt the substitute.
  I understand my colleague's dismay and unhappiness about the 
performance of the French government and, to a lesser degree, the 
Germans and the Belgians but I also remind my colleagues there was a 
very large number of European countries that supported us, even in the 
face of public opinion which was against the government policy of 
supporting us in Iraq. So their support will now be rewarded by a 
prohibition from buying any military equipment they manufacture in 
their country. I don't think that is fair. I don't think it is right. 
Most of all, I think it is wrong if we are not going to purchase the 
best equipment no matter where it is produced in the world so our men 
and women in the military can best function in the safest and most 
efficient fashion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I applaud the senior Senator from 
Arizona for offering this second-degree amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. To characterize this amendment and this whole debate, we 
are getting down to where this is truly a referendum on the people who 
supported us in the recent war. Our closest allies--people we are going 
to continue to go forward with in a very uncertain world--are they 
people we are going to continue to work closely with when it comes to 
times of conflict?
  The waiver is only for those six countries that worked with us very 
closely in the recent Iraq conflict. We are probably limiting it down 
too far, but we are doing that to try to at least say to the people who 
want the underlying Dayton amendment that we are going to at least 
limit it to those six countries that worked with us most closely in the 
last conflict.
  Right now, we sell to them and they sell to us. We sell to them in 
much greater numbers than they sell to us. Normally, when we are 
talking trade around this body, most countries are selling more to us 
than we are to them. Yet we are still trying to lower tariffs on a lot 
of those countries to try to increase more trade back and forth. But in 
this case, we dominate the defense industry in the world.
  This amendment could threaten the domination we have of the defense 
industry in the world. This amendment would say to our allies we want 
to sell you our products, but we are not willing to buy your products. 
This, in effect, sets up a trade war with our closest allies. Do we 
want to do that? No one wins in a trade war. Everybody loses. This 
would send a very poor message at exactly the wrong time to set up a 
trade war.
  Our closest allies worked with us, as we saw, in Iraq. They were 
working so well together in training, with our equipment, so that when 
we go into a conflict, our communications devices could talk to each 
other. If we set up this kind of a trade war, we can threaten that type 
of integration in our training.
  I fully support this amendment the Senator from Arizona has proposed 
today. I think the underlying amendment is faulty, and we need to have 
this second-degree amendment in the nature of a substitute to make sure 
we do not go down the wrong path.
  I want to inform the rest of the Senators what we are trying to do 
time-wise, as far as the schedule is concerned. We are trying to work 
out a unanimous consent agreement now to have a vote, hopefully 
somewhere around 6 o'clock, if that is possible tonight, on the 
underlying amendment, and then possibly on the second-degree amendment, 
and possibly after that have a side-by-side vote on the Dayton 
amendment. We don't know whether or not that is possible. We are trying 
to work that out and to alert people of the potential schedule for 
tonight. There is no agreement worked out yet.
  With that, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, following the disposition of the matter 
pending before the Senate--that is the Dayton amendment and the second-
degree amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona--I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from Washington be recognized to offer an 
amendment and make a statement and withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we are waiting for the imminent return 
of Senator Warner so we can start a vote on the second-degree 
amendment. While we are waiting--F-16s: The Netherlands, Belgium, 
Norway, Denmark, Singapore, United Arab Emirates; F-18s: Switzerland, 
Finland, Canada, and Australia; Tomahawk missiles: United Kingdom, 
Israel; F-15s and F-16s, AAMs, air to air missiles, 31 countries we 
sell those to. All of that equipment is sold to these other countries, 
and they are at least under the understanding that they can compete to 
sell some of their equipment in our Nation.
  It is remarkable. I would imagine that if the Dayton amendment goes 
through, we will see cancellations of a number of those commitments to 
buy that equipment from the United States of America. No other freely 
elected government would do anything else.
  I ask the Senator from Minnesota again the following question: If 
there is a country that is a close ally of ours that can produce a 
better piece of military equipment at a lower price, and our military 
decides it is the best with which we can provide our men and women in 
the military, would the Senator from Minnesota reject that?
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I would not, in answer to the Senator's 
question, reject that. In fact, under

[[Page S6826]]

current law, that is permitted. The Secretary of Defense can determine 
under his sole authority that the items in question can be bought.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reclaiming my time, Madam President.
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator asked me a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Minnesota ought to read his own 
amendment because the effect of his amendment would be to prohibit 
these countries from competing to sell their military equipment in the 
United States of America. I think that is a great disservice to the men 
and women in the military, and it is protectionism at its worst.
  I would hope my colleagues will vote for the second-degree amendment. 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator from 
Arizona, I believe the Senator misunderstands my amendment. My 
amendment strikes the language in the committee bill that would change 
current law. My amendment returns us to existing law. It is a law that 
has been on the books for 70 years. It is a law that has been followed 
by Democratic and Republican administrations. It permits everything the 
Senator described in terms of these various sales of equipment, 
machinery, food, light clothing made by other countries when the 
Secretary of Defense shall determine on his sole authority that it is 
not reasonably possible to acquire those products made in the United 
States. It just says try to buy American. It does not even require it. 
It says try to buy American.
  It is a law that was passed in 1933. The Barry amendment was added 
specifically to the Department of Defense in 1941. The Senate committee 
bill would change current law, and my amendment simply strikes that 
change in the committee bill. It simply reverts us to current law, 
which has been good enough for Republican and Democratic 
administrations for 70 years and permits just what the Senator said.
  I share the Senator's desire, absolutely. Our Armed Forces should 
have the best--the best equipment, the best clothing, the best food, 
the best of everything. They should get it as rapidly as possible. They 
deserve it because they are the most courageous men and women anywhere 
in the world, and they proved that once again in Iraq. Specifically, 
for all these years, Congress has made clear in existing law that none 
of that shall be sacrificed. Quality shall not be sacrificed, speed 
shall not be sacrificed, nothing shall be sacrificed. But when all 
things are equal and we have a choice, buy American because then those 
public dollars are all going to have an additional benefit of providing 
jobs or preserving jobs in the United States of America rather than 
going to people overseas.
  That is a secondary public purpose. It does not conflict with the 
first, but when it can complement the first, Congress says do it that 
way. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, there is an old saying about everybody 
is entitled to their opinion, but not everybody is entitled to their 
facts. The Department of Defense, to whom we give the responsibility to 
carry out the procurement of weapons, says:

       These flexibilities--

  Which are in the bill--

     are needed to counter restrictions that severely impede the 
     ability of the Department of Defense to promote our national 
     security policy that calls for standardization and 
     interoperability of conventional defense equipment used by 
     U.S. armed forces and used by the armed forces of our allies 
     and coalition partners. The Department of Defense should have 
     authority to make exceptions to these restrictions in the 
     interest of national security comparable to the public 
     interest exception authorized by the Buy America Act. By 
     providing these flexibilities, Congress better enables the 
     Department of Defense to acquire the best equipment and 
     technology available, promotes improved readiness and 
     capabilities of the U.S. armed forces, strengthens coalition 
     warfighting capabilities, promotes competition in contracting 
     needs of the U.S. armed forces. . . .

  Obviously, the Department of Defense has a very different view of the 
impact of this legislation than the Senator from Minnesota. My 
colleagues can decide where the expertise lies. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We 
are ready to vote.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I would like to have one minute to make 
a final comment, if I may.
  Mr. WARNER. How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. DAYTON. One minute.
  Mr. WARNER. Of course.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I acknowledge this current 
administration in charge of the Department of Defense is entitled to 
its point of view. I point out my amendment returns us to current law. 
That has worked and has given to Secretaries of Defense, including the 
present one, discretion to do what the Senator from Arizona described 
has already been enacted or put in effect in terms of defense 
procurement.
  It also, however, says that American jobs are important. At this 
point in time when we have lost 2.8 million jobs in this country since 
this administration took office, I think this is symptomatic of their 
lack of awareness and concern for employing Americans and doing so 
whenever possible or putting them back to work. For this Congress and 
the Senate to take the position, with 2.8 million people out of work in 
the last 2\1/2\ years looking for jobs, exhausting their unemployment 
benefits because they cannot find jobs, to say we cannot even be 
bothered to try to buy American before we go elsewhere I think is 
shameful.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Before we commence the vote, I ask the distinguished 
Democratic leader if he would be willing to agree to a firm time 
agreement on this vote of 15 minutes to be followed immediately by a 
second vote of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic minority whip.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I ask the 
Senator to modify his amendment so we would have a vote on the McCain 
amendment; regardless of the outcome of the McCain amendment, that will 
be followed by a vote on the Dayton amendment; that the McCain 
amendment be 15 minutes in length and the Dayton amendment be 10 
minutes in length.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, if the pending amendment 
prevails, then it prevails. If the pending amendment fails, then we 
would be agreeable to a voice vote.
  Mr. REID. That may come later. At this stage, the Senator from 
Minnesota wishes a recorded vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. After his amendment has been second-degreed?
  Mr. REID. Yes. The arrangement we worked out--and that is why we 
modified the unanimous consent request of the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia. Regardless of the outcome of the McCain amendment, we 
have asked for a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WARNER. That would be 10 minutes?
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia so modify his 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WARNER. So modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 783.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

[[Page S6827]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Domenici
     Edwards
       
  The amendment (No. 783) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall on 
the Dayton amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Adoption of the McCain amendment makes the Dayton amendment moot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the order, the Senator from Washington 
is to be recognized.
  I ask if my understanding is correct, that there will be no more 
rollcall votes tonight? Senator Warner and Senator Levin are going to 
work to see how much of the bill can be completed tonight--maybe all of 
it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that is a bit strong. The 
understanding on this side is that we would proceed on into the night.
  Quite candidly, I say to colleagues, we are hoping to, one way or 
another, either accept the amendments or stack votes tomorrow morning 
which would be consistent with the Senator's representation that there 
will no further rollcall votes tonight. But tonight many Senators are 
going to participate on the floor in the proposal of these amendments 
or action on them.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Nevada if we have 
all of the amendments from that side which are going to be proposed?
  Mr. REID. No. The minority has not offered all the amendments which 
they intend to offer. I have kept in very close touch with the two 
managers of the bill. They know which amendments we now have.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Democratic leader and I have 
pretty well stated the case for the evening.
  Mr. REID. Senator Schumer is near ready to offer his amendment. That 
will require a vote tomorrow for sure. There are a couple of other 
amendments we are working on.
  Mr. WARNER. Might I inquire about the amendment of the Senator from 
California?
  Mr. REID. She has indicated that she will not be ready to vote 
tonight. We are going to have to work on that in the morning. The 
Senator from California has been working with our manager. We hope to 
be able to work something out on that. We don't have that finished yet.
  We also have explained to the Senator from Virginia that Senator Byrd 
has a problem, and we are going to try to work that out.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am working on that problem. It is a very 
legitimate request. I am working on that tonight.
  Mr. REID. Until we get Senator Byrd's problem resolved, we can't have 
time for final passage.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator has made that case clear. So far as I know, I 
can say for my side, I know of no request at this time for a rollcall 
vote. We will work through the amendments this evening.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Do we have a list 
of all of the amendments on the Republican side?
  Mr. WARNER. I think we are pretty near complete on that list. I have 
indicated to my colleagues that by this time they should have brought 
the amendments to the managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I have 
come to the floor for 6 of the past 7 years to offer the Murray-Snowe 
amendment to lift the restrictions on privately funded abortions for 
our military women serving overseas. We have offered this amendment 
virtually every year since 1996 with the hope that one day women in the 
military would not be required to sacrifice their constitutional right 
when they serve overseas.
  Since 1996, this amendment has twice passed on the Senate floor only 
to be killed during conference. This amendment has always been relevant 
and germane, even in postcloture debate. The amendment simply ensures 
access to safe and legal reproductive health care for our military 
personnel. Access to safe and legal health care is certainly relevant 
when discussing the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  I find it extremely hard to understand how after these 7 years this 
topic is suddenly no longer relevant. It does not make sense. I think 
it is an outrage and an insult to the women who serve in our military. 
I would never want to have to tell a woman in our Armed Forces who is 
risking her life to serve our country overseas that her health care is 
irrelevant in the Senate.
  The intent of the Defense authorization bill is to ensure that our 
military has the resources and support it needs to protect all of us. 
The health of our female service members is certainly a key ingredient 
in a successful military. Today, women are serving side by side in 
combat situations and in hostile war zones. Women are a critical part 
of our military. They serve in leadership roles, and they provide 
outstanding service. Their health care is relevant. I don't know how 
many of my colleagues could come to the floor and argue any 
differently.
  I thank the cosponsors of the amendment, including Senators Snowe, 
Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, and Corzine.
  My amendment would eliminate the restrictions on privately funded 
abortions only. It doesn't change conscience clauses for military 
personnel. It doesn't require direct funding, and it would not result 
in a huge new mission for military health care.
  Under current restrictions, women who volunteer to serve their 
country--and female military dependents--are not allowed to exercise 
their legally guaranteed right simply because they are serving 
overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as free 
citizens. Yet they are denied one of the most basic rights accorded all 
women in this country. Women depend on their base hospital and military 
care providers to meet all of their health care needs. Singling out 
abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health.
  The truth is, women serving overseas have very few options when 
facing a difficult pregnancy. They can seek care in a host country, but 
few countries have the standard of health care that we take for granted 
here at home. These women service members can seek leave--not medical 
leave--and be transported back to the United States.
  These are difficult options which put women's lives in jeopardy. That 
is why retired GEN Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman three-star 
general, supported my amendment. She has firsthand knowledge of women 
who face this difficult experience, and she wrote to me about one of 
those women. She told me:
       [T]hat in a very vulnerable time, this American who was 
     serving her country overseas could not count on the Army to 
     give her the care she needed.

  The impact of this unconstitutional restriction on women's health is 
supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
the American Medical Women's Association, Physicians for Reproductive 
Choice and Health, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.

[[Page S6828]]

  In the past, some have argued that allowing privately funded 
abortions in military facilities overseas would be a huge burden that 
the military couldn't meet.
  I wish to point out that the previous administration endorsed my 
amendment and saw no problems implementing this policy.
  I also add that under current law the military is required to provide 
abortion-related services when a woman's life is in jeopardy in the 
case of rape or incest. To say that the military cannot provide this 
service calls into question that ability to meet current law.
  In the past, we have had concerns raised about objections from host 
countries. Abortion is illegal in many countries, as is family planning 
for unmarried women. In some countries, simply allowing them to drive 
can violate local customs and laws.
  I think the military has a long tradition of respecting the laws and 
customs of host countries without delegating women to second-class 
citizenship status or sacrificing our own proud history of equal 
treatment under law. Current restrictions humiliate servicewomen by 
forcing them to seek the approval of their commanding officer in order 
to travel back to the United States for abortion services.
  We know from a previous GAO report issued in May of 2002 that many 
commanding officers ``have not been adequately trained about the 
importance of women's basic health care.'' Department of Defense 
officials say that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be 
reluctant to allow active-duty members, both women and men, time away 
from their duty stations to obtain health care services.
  Many women are forced to seek care off the base or wait until leave 
can be arranged without approval from a commanding officer.
  Many women are forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until 
they can travel to a location where safe and adequate care is 
available.
  I have to tell you, I do not see why lifting this offensive and 
dangerous restriction now--this year--is not relevant to a Department 
of Defense authorization bill. Isn't it our goal to provide the 
resources and support for our military personnel? How can the health 
and safety of women who serve in the military all of a sudden be called 
not relevant?

  I have been told that if I offer this amendment, the Chair is going 
to rule it out of in order on the claim it is not relevant, so I have 
no choice but to withdraw my amendment.
  I do not know how we explain to military servicewomen that their 
health care is not relevant or that supporting their access to safe and 
legal reproductive health care is somehow now not part of the Defense 
authorization bill.
  This is a sad day for our country when women who are serving their 
country overseas are told their health care is not relevant by the 
Senate.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am asking the Senator from Washington to 
yield for a question.
  Frankly, I am surprised, and I think it is a travesty that you are 
not able to offer your amendment. I do not understand on what 
legislation this would be relevant if not this legislation. I know you 
have offered it previously on the Defense authorization. I have voted 
for it on the Defense authorization on previous occasions. And this 
seems to me to be the same kind of trap we have discovered now with 
respect to the amendment dealing with concurrent receipts for retired 
veterans who also have been disabled who are prevented from collecting 
both. We are told that is not relevant. My amendment to scrap the 2005 
base closing round, we are told that is not relevant.
  I wonder if there is any legislation on which these kinds of 
amendments would be more relevant than the Defense authorization? It is 
where they should be offered. It is the location of this debate. It is 
where this debate must be held. Somehow we have gotten into this trap 
of being told this is not relevant. Clearly, it is relevant.
  So can the Senator from Washington tell me, is there another piece of 
legislation where this would be more appropriately offered? I cannot 
think of one.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  There is no other piece of legislation that is before us where this 
is relevant. In fact, I have offered this six times on the Department 
of Defense authorization bill, even postcloture, and it was considered 
relevant.
  I am shocked and amazed that women are being told today they are not 
relevant. I am furious that women are being told they are not relevant 
when it comes to the Department of Defense, when it comes to their 
health care, and when it comes to the Senate.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further for another question, 
if you offered this postcloture on previous occasions--it relates to a 
question that was asked yesterday--has the judgment about what is 
relevant changed here in this Chamber? The answer to that, in my 
judgment, is yes. In my judgment, this would have been relevant under 
almost any other set of circumstances.
  But I wonder if the Senator from Washington would agree with me that 
we should never, ever again--I will never, ever again allow a unanimous 
consent agreement on the floor of the Senate on an authorization bill 
of this type to decide that we will restrict ourselves to relevant 
amendments. If the definition of ``relevancy'' is reasonable and 
thoughtful, then that is just fine with me, but in this case it has not 
been.

  It is a travesty of justice that the Senator from Washington is not 
able to offer her amendment today. The same is true with concurrent 
receipt, and the same is true with base closings. So I would say there 
will not be a unanimous consent request that gets consent to say on the 
next authorization bill we will limit ourselves only to relevant 
amendments.
  It is quite clear now the definition of ``relevancy'' has changed in 
a way that disadvantages the Senator from Washington and others who 
want to offer amendments that are clearly relevant to this bill and 
have always been relevant to this bill, but now we are discovering, for 
some reason, it has been ruled nonrelevant. I think that is a travesty.
  I say to the Senator from Washington, would the Senator agree that 
she would want to join those of us who object to these further 
unanimous consent requests on future bills with respect to relevancy, 
if this is the way ``relevancy,'' if this is the way ``relevant'' is 
going to be defined here in the Senate?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I hear the Senator, and I absolutely agree. And I will 
join with any Senators who object to any bill coming up when the word 
``relevant'' is being used.
  I have been in public policy for almost two decades now, and 
``relevancy'' and ``germaneness'' have meant specific things to all of 
us, and we have offered relevant amendments, including the amendment I 
meant to offer tonight, and they have always been relevant. They have 
been relevant on this bill six times already, even postcloture.
  It seems to me now we have a definition for ``relevancy'' that is 
above the definition of ``germaneness,'' and that is simply 
unbelievable to me. I concur with the Senator, the only thing we have 
left is to not agree to any unanimous consent requests that use the 
word ``relevancy.''
  But I say to my colleague, it seems to me the word ``relevancy'' is 
now putting a lot of people into being irrelevant: veterans, when it 
comes to concurrent receipt; communities that are trying very hard to 
keep stable, when it comes to base closures; and now women--we are all 
irrelevant. I find that extremely upsetting.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just want to say to my friend from North Dakota and my 
friend from Washington State--who has been such a leader on women's 
issues, family issues, and children's issues--and to my friend from 
Illinois, who is in the Chamber, who I know is also concerned about 
this--this is really the first time I have ever seen a circumstance 
quite like this.
  When the Senator from North Dakota says it is putting the Senator

[[Page S6829]]

from Washington at a disadvantage, I have a question for the Senator 
from Washington.
  When the Senator from North Dakota says she is put at a disadvantage, 
let me just say it goes far beyond that. Who are being put at a 
disadvantage here, I would say, are the women who serve in the Armed 
Forces. My God, we lost them in Iraq. We all know the story of Jessica 
Lynch. We all revere the men and women in uniform. And in this bill, we 
know, unless my friend gets a chance--a chance--to remove a 
restriction, a woman in the military who finds herself in a very 
troubling situation, who wants to exercise her legal rights, a health 
care right that is legal and constitutional--she cannot even use her 
own money and have a safe abortion. This is the fact.

  I say to my friend, yes, my friend is being inconvenienced, but I 
know she stands up for the women in the military tonight. It is a very 
sad night to hear that the most relevant of amendments that deals with 
women in the military cannot be offered.
  I say to my friend--because I will ask her a question--does she not 
believe this is a slap from the Senate to the women who are serving so 
bravely in uniform?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California is correct. This is a real 
slap in the face to the women who serve us overseas in the military, 
who are asked every single day to protect us, to fight for what we 
believe in, to fight for our freedoms. They are being told they are 
second-class citizens and, worse yet, they are irrelevant in the 
Senate.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I asked the Senator if she would yield for 
a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that you have not offered this 
amendment at this point.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I have not offered it yet. I am about to make a request 
to do so.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask, on your consent, to be added as a 
cosponsor of this amendment, if that meets with your approval, first.
  I would like to ask, initially, is it not true that this question of 
relevancy has been directed to the Parliamentarian of the Senate?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. And you have submitted your amendment to the 
Parliamentarian, and they have said it is not relevant to the bill?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct. We have submitted it to the 
Parliamentarian, who told us it was not relevant. We came back and 
worked to try to change the language. We were told it needed to touch 
four corners. I don't have a clue what that means, but we were told it 
would be ruled irrelevant.
  Mr. DURBIN. You offered this amendment to this same bill on six 
different occasions?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. It appears we either have a new rule or the rule has 
changed when it comes to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The rules have definitely changed, I say to the Senator, 
because I have offered this amendment postcloture and it has been 
considered relevant before.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I recall correctly--the Senator can correct me if I am 
wrong--but postcloture there would even be a higher standard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. That has always been my understanding of the issue of 
germaneness and relevancy. So I am at odds with the definitions we have 
been presented with at this time.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from North Dakota has made it clear, when we 
tried to offer an amendment on the Base Closing Commission--which is 
included in this bill, incidentally, and which was created by this 
bill--it, too, has been judged irrelevant.
  I would like to ask the Senator this question: If an amendment is 
considered germane, does the Senator not agree with me that it, in most 
interpretations, has passed the test of relevancy? Isn't that a lower 
standard by parliamentary rule?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I have always understood the definition of ``relevancy'' 
to be a lower standard than the issue of germaneness.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Chair state for the record the standard that is 
being used to determine the relevancy of amendments being offered?
  Mr. WARNER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is not in order.
  Mr. WARNER. I apologize to the Chair. I have six things going on at 
one time.
  Mr. DURBIN. I made a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has made a 
parliamentary inquiry. The Chair is considering the inquiry. There is a 
parliamentary inquiry pending.
  This is the test of relevancy:

       When relevancy of amendments is required by a unanimous 
     consent agreement, that test is broader than the germaneness 
     test as it is a subject matter test, and amendments that deal 
     with the subject matter of the bill to which this requirement 
     attaches are in order, provided they do not contain any 
     significant matter not dealt with in that bill.

  Mr. DURBIN. May I ask a further inquiry of the Chair. Could he make 
reference to what he has just read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. From page 1362 of Riddick's Procedures, 
footnote 352.
  Mr. DURBIN. Might I ask, further parliamentary inquiry, do I 
understand what the Chair has just said as a response to my inquiry 
that the standard for relevance is higher than the standard of 
germaneness?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it is not.
  Mr. DURBIN. So if this amendment has been found to be germane 
postcloture with previous bills, it would suggest to me it obviously 
has met the standard, at least the standard of relevance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would suggest the language in 
previous bills is not exactly the same as the language in this bill.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reclaiming my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I find that simply astounding. Department of Defense 
bills are essentially language that changes for different military 
programs, all kinds of things in the bills. But certainly the issue of 
whether or not a woman has a right to have safe and legal health care 
overseas when she is serving her country has been ruled as germane in 
the past. It seems obviously pretty out of order and extraordinary that 
that would be where we are tonight.
  Let me just do this, because I think all of us agree this amendment 
is one that has been considered on the bill before. It does deal with a 
woman's ability to have safe health care. It is one that has been ruled 
germane twice in postcloture times. I would just ask unanimous consent 
that the rule on relevancy at this time be waived so I can offer the 
amendment tonight, because I think it is important that we allow a 
procedure that has been done many times before to continue under this 
bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to waiving the unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. WARNER. Objection from the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I find that very troubling. I find it 
troubling the Senate has now decided to change the definition of 
relevancy we have operated under in the Senate as long as I have been 
here. It appears very clear to me now that the issue of relevancy is a 
much higher standard than the issue of germaneness. We have stepped 
into a realm most of us are going to be very sorry we are in.

  I again will say to my colleagues that having objected to waiving 
this relevancy, having listened to how we have now changed the 
definition of relevancy, what we are really doing is saying to women in 
this country they are irrelevant. I find that to be very sad, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. May I say to my distinguished colleague from Washington 
that I recognize through the years she has been a steadfast proponent 
for those women in the armed services faced with the difficult choice 
you have

[[Page S6830]]

outlined to the Senate tonight. I express regret, but the distinguished 
ranking member and myself have been, throughout the deliberations on 
this bill, not acting in any way as the Supreme Court to overrule the 
ruling of the Parliamentarian on these amendments. We have tried to be 
fair, equitable on both sides. We have not waived one time. It is with 
regret that I had to interpose this objection because I recognize the 
merits of the amendment which you have had. You have done it now how 
many years, Senator?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Seven years.
  Mr. WARNER. Seven years.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, indeed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from Virginia, what I am having 
trouble understanding is why an amendment that has been considered 
germane in the past tonight under the ruling is not considered 
relevant. I would ask the Senator from Virginia if he is not also 
troubled that we have now set a definition for relevancy that is higher 
than the standard for germaneness that may indeed trouble us far into 
the future?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I respond to my colleague, with all due 
respect, I will not try and engage in an evaluation of how the 
Parliamentarian goes about the votes; that is, determining whether or 
not each amendment is relevant. But I would say I do not recall in 
years past the issue of relevancy having been raised on the Senator's 
amendment. I stand to be corrected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could just respond to the Senator, 
this amendment I am offering tonight in the past has been ruled in 
postcloture as germane. I am now tonight being told it is not relevant.
  Mr. WARNER. It depends on the content of the bill to which that 
ruling was addressed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would add this amendment has been offered seven times, 
virtually every year since 1996, on this exact bill, the Department of 
Defense authorization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me try to understand this a bit, what 
the circumstances are. My understanding is the Senator from Washington 
has propounded a unanimous consent request that has been objected to 
that would have allowed her to offer her amendment notwithstanding the 
ruling on relevancy. My understanding is this amendment is now viewed 
as nonrelevant to this bill, despite the fact it has been offered seven 
times before. If it is nonrelevant to the Defense authorization bill, I 
would like to ask the Chair what would be the circumstances in the 
Senate from a parliamentary standpoint if the Senator from Washington 
offered this amendment to the Defense appropriations bill? In a moment 
I would like to get a response if I could because there are two bills 
that come to the floor of the Senate that we know each year are going 
to deal with the issue of defense. One is the Defense authorization 
bill, and the other will be Defense appropriations. If this is deemed 
nonrelevant to the Defense authorization bill, I would ask the 
Presiding Officer whether the amendment could be offered to the Defense 
appropriations bill without a point of order being made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not possible to prejudge a ruling when 
the content of a bill is not before us.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me inquire further, if I might. Would this amendment, 
based on the knowledge of the Parliamentarian about the amendment, 
would this amendment be considered legislating on an appropriations 
bill should it be offered to an appropriations bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We do not have the amendment in front of us 
because the Senator has not called it up.
  Mr. DORGAN. To the extent the Office of the Parliamentarian has ruled 
the amendment nonrelevant, my assumption is the Office of the 
Parliamentarian has certainly understood the amendment, reviewed it, 
and determined it to be nonrelevant.
  If that is the case, if the Office of the Parliamentarian understands 
the amendment, my question remains, if this amendment is offered during 
consideration of Defense appropriations, would there be a point of 
order against the amendment as legislating on an appropriations bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is probably a legislative amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that means if it is a legislative 
amendment on an appropriations bill, there would be a point of order 
against it; is that the case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is possible a point of order would lie.
  Mr. DORGAN. So a point of order could be raised that would lie 
against the amendment because it is then legislating on an 
appropriations bill. If that is the case, as I understand the answer 
from the Chair, we are in a circumstance where we have told the Senator 
from Washington that her amendment dealing with an important issue--
clearly to the center of this bill on Defense--cannot be offered on the 
Defense authorization bill because it is not relevant to the Defense 
authorization bill.
  Then the Senator would be told later, when she tries to offer it to 
the Defense appropriations bill, this is legislating on a Defense 
appropriations bill and a point of order would rise against it. Why? 
Because she should have offered it to the authorization bill.
  Can someone tell me whether that is not a Catch-22 for the Senator 
from Washington and others? Have we not put her and others in a 
circumstance where they are prevented from offering this amendment 
under every circumstance? Isn't that the case? We say to her, you 
cannot offer it on the authorization bill. So then she comes to the 
Defense appropriations bill and offers it. The point of order is 
raised, and the point of order says, you know what, you cannot offer it 
on appropriations. You should have offered it on the authorization 
bill.
  That is what the Senator from Washington is going to be told. I just 
ask the rhetorical question, Does anybody in the Chamber think that is 
fair? Not me.
  I know there wasn't a deliberate attempt for anybody to be unfair, 
but I make the point that the consent request entered into with respect 
to this issue of relevancy has put people in a position--especially 
Senator Reid, myself, and Senator Murray from Washington on this 
issue--that is pretty untenable. But that is the position we are in.
  I think the way to get out of it is to understand that somehow these 
things could be offered, or should be offered, and a unanimous consent 
be allowed for these issues to be debated and voted on. I cannot 
believe it would have been the intent of my colleague from Virginia, or 
the ranking member from Michigan, to say we want to prevent an 
amendment that has been offered seven times previously to this bill, 
which we all understand is clearly relevant to the bill.
  Again, I say as I said yesterday, the folks who understand this 
process from our side were very surprised at the issue of relevancy and 
how the rulings on relevancy occurred. I know yesterday during this 
discussion a question was propounded by my colleague from Virginia, the 
chairman, to the Presiding Officer to ask whether the standard of 
relevancy has changed. And the answer was, no, it has not.

  That is not accurate. It clearly has changed. My colleague from 
Washington is evidence of that. If her amendment was germane 
postcloture previously, then her amendment, by definition, had to have 
been relevant postcloture. And if it is relevant then, and it is not 
relevant now, the standard has changed.
  I don't think that was the intention of the chairman or ranking 
member with respect to her amendment--mine or any other amendment. I am 
not asking or suggesting bad faith on anybody's part, but we have an 
unintended consequence. If an unintended consequence says to the 
Senator from Washington, I am sorry, you cannot offer your amendment on 
the authorization bill, and when you try it later--as she will and 
must--on the appropriations bill, she will be told she should have 
offered it on the authorization bill, that puts her in a position that 
is unfair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask for clarification 
because I

[[Page S6831]]

think this is an important question. If you would provide a response to 
the following parliamentary inquiry, it is my understanding--in fact, I 
have the amendment before me that has been suggested by the Senator 
from Washington. This is an amendment that relates to the use of 
Department of Defense medical facilities, and it amends section 1093 of 
title X of the U.S. Code, as amended.
  Now, if the Chair would just take legislative notice of the bill, S. 
1050, and turn to page 157, you will see title VII, ``Health Care.''
  Now, if you turn to page 10, you will find in section 703 an 
amendment--language within the authorization bill relative to extension 
of authority to enter into personal service contracts for health care 
services to be performed at locations outside medical treatment 
facilities. It goes on to amend section 1091(a)(2) of title X. Here we 
have an amendment relative to health care, relative to the medical 
treatment facilities managed by the Department of Defense, which seeks 
to amend section 1093.
  Already in this provision of the bill, we amend section 1091. Can the 
Chair tell me how we can amend the same section of the law relative to 
medical treatment facilities, and the amendment being offered by the 
Senator from Washington not be a relevant amendment? It is in the same 
section relative to health care, on the subject of health care. It 
relates to Defense medical facilities, as do many of the amendments 
within that section.
  Yet the Chair is telling us it is not relevant language to this 
section of the pending bill, which the Senator from Washington seeks to 
amend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is considering the inquiry.
  The point is whether the issue presented by the Senator's amendment 
is addressed in the bill, which it is not.
  Mr. DURBIN. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The issue being addressed by the Senator from Washington is the 
treatment afforded at Defense medical facilities. If the Chair will 
note in section 703 of the bill, it relates to the treatment afforded 
at Defense medical facilities. How much more relevant could this be?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The advice given on this were preliminary 
rulings, subject to further information, based upon information 
available at the time the amendment was presented.
  The Chair is not aware that this argument has ever been presented to 
the Parliamentarian's Office. The burden would be on the sponsors to 
make that case.
  Mr. DURBIN. Further inquiry: If the Senator from Washington should 
submit this amendment now, will it then be incumbent upon the Chair and 
the Parliamentarian to rule on its relevancy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ruling would only be made if the amendment 
is challenged under the unanimous consent request. The Senator from 
Washington--
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if this amendment is presented at this time 
to the Parliamentarian, will we obtain a ruling as to whether or not it 
is relevant?
  Is there any reason why the request of the Parliamentarian, relative 
to this amendment as to whether or not it is relevant, cannot be 
responded to by the Parliamentarian at this time or at any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If a ruling is requested, a ruling will be 
issued.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 691

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Ms. Boxer, and Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 691.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To restore a previous policy regarding restrictions on use of 
                   Department of Defense facilities)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 708. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING 
                   RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   MEDICAL FACILITIES.

       Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b); and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Restriction on Use of 
     Funds.--''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to allow 
time in which the Parliamentarian can examine the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Murray is waiting for a ruling from 
the Chair on her parliamentary inquiry.
  In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carper be 
recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes, and that following his 
speech, the Senator from Washington be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. President, in considering the military priorities of our country, 
we are addressing one of the most important challenges facing our 
Nation and its Government. That challenge is to transform America's 
military to meet the threats of this century the 21st century, and to 
do so in an environment of increasingly severe budgetary constraints.
  The spectrum of potential conflict in which America could find itself 
engaged over the coming years is practically limitless. From fighting 
major regional powers to pursuing shadowy bands of terrorists, the 
missions our military must be ready to perform are many, and they are 
varied.
  Unfortunately, the resources available to us in preparing to meet 
these challenges are not without limit.
  What was the largest surplus in the history of this Government just 2 
short years ago has given way to the largest deficit in our Nation's 
history. And this has happened at a time when the demands on the 
Federal budget are growing and will continue to grow.
  Recent reports out of Iraq indicate that the task of post-war 
reconstruction will be neither easy nor cheap. Recent events in Saudi 
Arabia and Morocco indicate that the war on terrorism may still be in 
its infancy.
  There are also domestic priorities that demand attention. The 
bipartisan education reform initiative passed in the first year of the 
President's term has yet to be fully funded. There is a growing 
recognition that our health care system is fraying at the seams. And 
the baby boomers, my generation, are marching toward retirement. When 
they get there, it will place unprecedented strains on Social Security 
and Medicare.
  Our present course is not sustainable. We will soon be asked to raise 
the ceiling on the national debt by nearly $1 trillion. At the same 
time, the administration is projecting that within 5 years funding for 
defense will rise to more than 20 percent above cold-war levels. Even 
at that high level, moreover, it is doubtful that the defense budget 
could accommodate the full cost of the administration's plans as they 
currently stand.
  This is our dilemma. We cannot afford to forego military 
transformation. The threats to our security are simply too great. But 
neither can we afford to proceed without consideration to cost. After 
all, it is our quality of life that the military is charged with 
defending. It is that same quality of life that will eventually begin 
to erode in the absence of a sense of fiscal balance.
  What I want to talk about for a few minutes this evening is one of 
the central components of military transformation. I want to talk both 
about its importance and about some of the choices we can make to 
address our security requirements in this area in a cost-effective 
manner.
  Strategic airlift will be one of the cornerstones of successful 
military transformation. The imperative to transform our military is 
driven by the necessity to project force faster, with

[[Page S6832]]

greater precision, and over greater distances. As President Bush stated 
in his commencement address at the U.S. Naval Academy in May 2001, 
America's future force will be ``defined less by size and more by 
mobility and swiftness.''
  In the wake of the cold war, the United States has closed two-thirds 
of its forward operating bases. Yet the four services are all in the 
process of speeding up the timeframe in which they expect to deploy 
troops and equipment to the far corners of the globe.
  The Army's stated goal, for example, is to deploy an Interim Brigade 
Combat Team--complete with 3,500 personnel, 327 armored vehicles, 600 
wheeled vehicles, air defense weapons, artillery, and engineering 
equipment--anywhere in the world within 96 hours. Airlift is the only 
means to accomplish this objective.
  In March 2001, the Joint Chiefs of Staff completed a review of our 
Nation's strategic airlift requirement. This study was completed before 
September 11 and all that has flowed from that terrible day. Still, the 
conclusion of that study was that the Nation's airlift requirement had 
risen 10 percent sine the last study was conducted just 5 years before.
  Many believe that the changed security environment post-September 11 
has actually increased our strategic airlift requirement still farther. 
We are requesting, as part of this bill, that a new review of the 
strategic airlift requirement going forward be conducted. We expect 
that what we will find is that the airlift requirement is higher than 
the 54.5 million ton miles per day specified before September 11.
  Regardless of whether the requirement has risen or not, however, the 
fact remains that our present capacity falls short of the requirement 
as it was spelled out just 2 years ago. The question we must answer, 
therefore, is how will we maintain and how will we build a strategic 
airlift fleet that will meet the relevant requirement and do so without 
busting our budget even more. In other words, how do we provide cost-
effective strategic airlift for the 21st century?
  Some of the Air Force have launched a campaign to retire more than 
half of the Air Force's C-5 fleet over the next few years, specifically 
those that date back to the 1970s, the C-5As. Maintenance problems, 
particularly engine problems, have plagued the C-5As for years. The 
solution for some in the Air Force is to simply get rid of them and to 
rely primarily on the procurement of new aircraft to meet our growing 
strategic airlift requirement.
  In order to meet the new, higher requirement for strategic airlift in 
the 21st century, we will certainly need to purchase new aircraft. The 
Air Force is currently in the process of purchasing some 180 new C-17s. 
I support this purchase. The C-17 is an excellent aircraft, and we are 
excited that a squadron of 12 C-17 cargo aircraft will be stationed at 
Dover Air Force Base in Delaware beginning in 2008.
  Having said that, sending more than half of our Nation's C-5 fleet to 
the ``boneyard'' makes no sense. The C-5 is, and will continue to be, 
the workhorse of American airlift. The C-5 completed nearly 5,000 
sorties during the recent Iraq war and delivered nearly half of the 
cargo and troops into combat.
  Moreover, a balance of C-5s and C-17s offers the Air Force an 
advantageous mix of complementary capabilities. The C-5 can carry more, 
and can carry farther. The C-17 is more maneuverable on the ground. 
During the war in Afghanistan, much of the cargo was flown from the 
continental United States to Europe in large loads aboard C-5s. The 
cargo was then broken down into smaller loads and flown into theatre by 
C-17s.
  As a former naval flight officer who has known firsthand the 
frustration of naval aircraft that had a propensity to break down, I 
can empathize with the frustration that some in the Air Force feel with 
respect to the C-5As chronically low mission-capable rates. But 
scrapping the entire platform is not the answer.
  The wings and the fuselages of both the C-5As and the C-5Bs have 
useful lives--listen to this--of another 30 to 40 years. For the cost 
of purchasing a single new C-17 cargo aircraft, three C-5s can be 
outfitted with reliable new engines, modern hydraulics systems, and 
landing gear components, plus a new avionics package and radios that 
will bring C-5 cockpits into the 21st century.
  All of these upgrades are off the shelf. They are readily available, 
and they are capable of bringing the mission capable rates of the C-5s 
in line with those of the C-17s.
  Given the fact that one C-5 can haul 80 percent more cargo than one 
C-17, the same dollar invested in modernizing C-5s produces more than 
five times the airlift capacity of the same dollar invested in the 
purchase of new C-17 aircraft.
  A strategic airlift fleet with a full complement of C-5s and C-17s 
offers the best of all worlds. Retaining the enormous cargo capacity of 
our C-5s, both As and Bs, will make it easier to achieve the full 
airlift requirement of our Armed Forces in the 21st century. 
Maintaining a healthy balance of C-5s and C-17s will offer the Air 
Force maximal operational flexibility. And taking full advantage of the 
cost savings that comes from modernizing, as opposed to scrapping, the 
C-5As will free-up resources to meet other Air Force priorities and 
reduce our Federal deficit over the long run.
  Choices that are more cost-effective by ratios of 5-to-1 are 
precisely the kinds of choices we ought to be interested in making as 
we seek to transform our military without burying our children in red 
ink.
  I want to take a moment, in closing, to thank a number of members of 
the Armed Services Committee. I particularly thank Senators Warner, 
Levin, Kennedy, and Talent for the work they have done to ensure that 
we continue to capitalize on the contribution that the C-5 can make to 
cost-effective strategic airlift in the 21st century. Besides calling 
on the Air Mobility Command to look again at our Nation's airlift 
requirement, this bill keeps C-5 modernization on track. In particular, 
it specifies that 18 C-5Bs and 12 C-5As will be revamped with modern 
avionics in fiscal year 2004.
  This is a win--a win for our fighting men and women, and it is a win 
for the American taxpayer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commend our distinguished 
colleague from Delaware. He has worked very diligently on this issue 
since the first moment he joined the Senate. You have been very helpful 
to the distinguished ranking member and myself in bringing these 
matters to our attention and to other members of the committee. I think 
the Department of the Air Force and indeed the whole Armed Forces that 
are so heavily dependent on airlift owe you a debt of gratitude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield for 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I join in the commendation to the Senator of Delaware for 
his tenacity in keeping airlift available.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand the Senate is waiting for a 
ruling from the Parliamentarian of the relevancy of the amendment I 
sent to the desk and I ask if that ruling is ready.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the opinion of the Chair, with the 
additional information provided, the Senator's amendment is relevant.
  The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the Senator 
from Washington. She would be willing to enter into a reasonable time 
agreement. She would want to complete that debate tomorrow, however, in 
that the hour is late and she has spent so much time here already. I 
would be happy to work with the two managers of the bill to come up 
with a reasonable time she can debate this in the morning and have a 
vote on it in the morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. My understanding is you are not making a request, you are 
just advising the Chair and the Senate. I wish to, in courtesy, advise 
you I know of at least one amendment in the second degree and there 
could be two.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator yield? Who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

[[Page S6833]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I am wondering whether we will have the language of those 
amendments or amendment this evening?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would have to inquire of the language of 
the amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. Any second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to make two comments in 
morning business, not on the bill. I want to leave it to the Senators 
from Virginia and Michigan if there is anything they want to do on the 
bill this evening.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are endeavoring to do a good deal of 
work on the bill this evening. I don't know the duration of the time 
the Senator wishes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for 5 minutes in morning business.
  Mr. WARNER. As soon as we are able to conclude the matters relating 
to the amendment of the Senator from Washington, I can better answer 
the question.
  Mr. President, I wish to advise my colleagues on our side we, of 
course, had relied upon the previous ruling of the Parliamentarian. 
Therefore, these amendments are not yet ready.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Do you expect they would be ready tonight if we are here 
for an additional half hour?
  Mr. WARNER. I think there is an opportunity they could be ready. We 
are checking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. We would be willing to enter into a time agreement if we 
saw the amendments and they were reasonable and we thought we could do 
that. But not having them, we can't do that. The Senator from 
Washington, if there would have been an up-or-down amendment, would 
have agreed to a 40-minute time limit evenly divided.
  Mr. WARNER. Do I understand the distinguished leader to say 40 
minutes equally divided?
  Mr. REID. That is right. I would note we have very few amendments. 
Senator Dodd has one. Senator Daschle has one. Senator Boxer has one we 
have already discussed, and Senator Biden has one. We have very few 
amendments. Some of these may be worked out by the managers. The 
Daschle amendment, as we have indicated, would be 20 minutes evenly 
divided. The Schumer amendment has been declared not relevant so we 
can't take that up. The Boxer amendment, we agreed to a one-hour time 
agreement on that. Both managers know what that amendment is. Senator 
Biden has agreed to 30 minutes on his amendment if it is not agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am informed we have not seen the Boxer 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Well, she was showing it to anybody who wanted to look at 
it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let us try to obtain a copy of that 
amendment, if I could ask the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. WARNER. I think it would be best served if we put in a quorum 
call so we can try and put the pieces together.
  Mr. President, as I understand, the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois wishes to address the Senate as in morning business for 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my thanks to the Senators from Virginia 
and Michigan for accommodating me. I thank the Parliamentarian. I have 
been in a similar position in another legislative body. It is a tough 
assignment. I thank them for their courtesy and diligence and the 
ruling they have offered to us.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield the floor, but I 
would like to give the Senator from Virginia or any other Senator on 
the floor an opportunity to claim the time. Otherwise, I will raise the 
question of the presence of a quorum.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with the two managers--I 
was going to say more than I wanted to, but I will not say that, but I 
conferred with the two managers often tonight, and it appears the 
Senate will be best served by clearing a number of amendments that the 
two managers have worked on for several days now. They have 
approximately a dozen amendments. They would do that tonight.
  I put this in the form of a unanimous consent request: that tomorrow 
morning, when the Senate convenes, after the prayer and the pledge, we 
would move to the Boxer amendment, which is a post-Iraq war contracting 
matter, and that there would be 45 minutes of debate on that 
amendment--30 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer, 15 minutes 
under the control of Senator Warner--and in keeping with the usual 
unanimous consent request for second-degree amendments that we have 
done throughout the day; and that following that, we could move to 
perhaps the Daschle amendment, perhaps the Dodd amendment.
  We are really getting few amendments over here. We all recognize we 
have to dispose of the relevant amendment that Senator Murray filed 
this afternoon. And Senator Brownback, Senator Warner, and others will 
work on that tonight to see what is contemplated regarding that 
tomorrow.
  So the only unanimous consent request I make tonight is that in the 
morning we go to the Boxer amendment in keeping with the request I just 
made.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could I 
have just another 3 minutes to determine if there is a problem on our 
side with that? And I regret that I could not tell you before you 
started.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know colleagues and others are following 
the proceedings on the floor tonight. We have been able to achieve 
quite a good deal. As the distinguished Democratic leader mentioned, we 
will proceed now to 12 amendments which have been cleared on both 
sides.


                           Amendment No. 792

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I offer an amendment 
which realigns funds during the committee markup for the Joint 
Engineering Data Management Information and Control System from the 
Navy procurement to the Navy research development, test and evaluation 
accounts. I believe this amendment is cleared on the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is indeed cleared.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 792.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To correct the authorization of appropriations for the Joint 
Engineering Data Management Information and Control System (JEDMICS) so 
   as to be provided for in Navy RDT&E (PE 0603739N) instead of Navy 
                              procurement)

       On page 25, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 213. AMOUNT FOR JOINT ENGINEERING DATA MANAGEMENT 
                   INFORMATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM.

       (a) Navy RDT&E.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 201(2) is hereby increased by $2,500,000. Such 
     amount may be available for the Joint Engineering Data 
     Management Information and Control System (JEDMICS).
       (b) Navy Procurement.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 102(a)(4) is hereby reduced by 
     $2,500,000, to be derived from the amount provided for the 
     Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control 
     System (JEDMICS).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

[[Page S6834]]

  The amendment (No. 792) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for the duration of this and all other 
amendments which Senator Warner and I are offering this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 793

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Wyden, Collins, 
Clinton, Byrd, and Lautenberg, I offer an amendment which requires a 
report on contracting for the reconstruction of Iraq.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Wyden, Ms. 
     Collins, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 793.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for the reporting requirement regarding Iraq to 
  include a requirement to report noncompetitive contracting for the 
             reconstruction of the infrastructure of Iraq)

       On page 273, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (d) Reporting Requirement Relating to Noncompetitive 
     Contracting for the Reconstruction of Infrastructure of 
     Iraq.--(1) If a contract for the maintenance, rehabilitation, 
     construction, or repair of infrastructure in Iraq is entered 
     into under the oversight and direction of the Secretary of 
     Defense or the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian 
     Assistance in the Office of the Secretary of Defense without 
     full and open competition, the Secretary shall publish in the 
     Federal Register or Commerce Business Daily and otherwise 
     make available to the public, not later than 30 days after 
     the date on which the contract is entered into, the following 
     information:
       (i) The amount of the contract.
       (ii) A brief description of the scope of the contract.
       (iii) A discussion of how the executive agency identified, 
     and solicited offers from, potential contractors to perform 
     the contract, together with a list of the potential 
     contractors that were issued solicitations for the offers.
       (iv) The justification and approval documents on which was 
     based the determination to use procedures other than 
     procedures that provide for full and open competition.
       (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a contract entered 
     into more than one year after date of enactment.
       (2)(A) The head of an executive agency may--
       (i) withhold from publication and disclosure under 
     paragraph (1) any document that is classified for restricted 
     access in accordance with an Executive order in the interest 
     of national defense or foreign policy; and
       (ii) redact any part so classified that is in a document 
     not so classified before publication and disclosure of the 
     document under paragraph (1).
       (B) In any case in which the head of an executive agency 
     withholds information under subparagraph (A), the head of 
     such executive agency shall make available an unredacted 
     version of the document containing that information to the 
     chairman and ranking member of each of the following 
     committees of Congress:
       (i) The Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (ii) The Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives.
       (iii) Each committee that the head of the executive agency 
     determines has legislative jurisdiction for the operations of 
     such department or agency to which the information relates.
       (3) This subsection shall apply to contracts entered into 
     on or after October 1, 2002, except that, in the case of a 
     contract entered into before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, paragraph (1) shall be applied as if the contract 
     had been entered into on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
     affecting obligations to disclose United States Government 
     information under any other provision of law.
       (5) In this subsection, the terms ``executive agency'' and 
     ``full and open competition'' have the meanings given such 
     terms in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, 
and I have offered this amendment that will pull back the curtain on 
government contracts to rebuild post-war Iraq, one of the most 
ambitious reconstruction projects since World War II.
  The government already has awarded numerous contracts towards this 
purpose. These contracts provide for an enormous scope of goods and 
services ranging from capital construction to the administration of key 
air and sea port facilities to the rebuilding of Iraq's education and 
health systems. One contract even provides for such fundamentals as 
teaching local leaders about the basics of the democratic process.
  In all, billions of Federal taxpayer dollars are being spent. It is 
Congress's job to ensure that they are spent wisely and fairly.
  Our amendment would ensure that the basic facts regarding these and 
other contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq are publicly available. For 
those contracts that have been awarded outside of the usual process of 
full and open competition, our amendment would require that, within 30 
days of entering the contract, the contract's price, the scope of the 
work to be performed, the contractors asked to bid, and the criteria by 
which they were chosen must be made known, through publication in the 
Federal Register.
  In addition, the agency head also would need to make publicly 
available the justification for awarding the contract on a basis less 
than the full and open competition standard.
  These provisions have become necessary because of the way in which 
Federal agencies contracting for goods and services in Iraq have been 
awarding these contracts.
  Not a single Iraq reconstruction contract has been awarded on the 
basis of ``full and open competition'' embodied in the 1984 Competition 
in Contracting Act, whereby interested parties are notified and given a 
chance to bid. The rationale for this standard was not only to provide 
basic fairness for all potential bidders, but also to reassure the 
public that their tax dollars were being spent wisely and in the public 
interest.
  Instead, these contracts have either been awarded on the basis of 
limited competition, where the bidders are handpicked, or, in some 
cases, without any competition at all.
  The agencies involved generally have singled out a small number of 
bidders based on the agency's preconceived notions about the bidders' 
ability to perform the contract. Such a process, we are told, was 
necessitated by the short time frame in which the contracts had to be 
planned and awarded.
  Such a process, however, necessarily raises questions regarding 
fundamental fairness and impartiality and whether tax money is being 
spent in a responsible manner. Because we don't have all of the facts 
regarding these contracts, speculation has arisen over their content, 
their price tags, and the basis of their awards.
  For example, I was distressed to learn that a sole source contract 
entered into by the United States Army Corps of Engineers called for 
much more work to be performed than was initially indicated. This is 
because the Corps only released the information that it deemed 
relevant. Under our amendment, the public will be able to judge for 
itself whether the government was justified in awarding a contract 
bundle on less than full competition. The public deserves no less.
  At the same time, we have included in our amendment provisions to 
ensure that classified material remains safe and is provided only to 
congressional committees with oversight authority.
  It is my hope that the publication of the key information in these 
contracts will serve some of the same goals as the Competition in 
Contracting Act, such as reassuring the public that reconstruction in 
Iraq is being done in a fair manner and in furtherance of the public 
interest.
  Alternatively, keeping these justifications secret defeats the legal 
safeguards that protect full and open competition. Further, it breeds 
what may be unjustified fear that the contracting process is being run 
for the benefit of a select few rather than the Iraqi people.
  Ensuring that this information is available to the public will help 
maintain confidence that our work in rebuilding Iraq is being 
undertaken in a manner best calculated to advance the well-being of the 
Iraqi people, and will help dispel criticisms that the process by which 
these contracts are being awarded is unfair or unjustified.
  I want to thank the distinguished chair and ranking member of the ASC

[[Page S6835]]

for working with Senator Wyden and me on this amendment, which I 
understand will be made part of the manager's package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 793) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 794

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer an 
amendment which makes the necessary technical changes to the National 
Call to Service Act which was enacted last year. This amendment, which 
was requested by the Department of Defense, will enable DOD to make 
payments for education benefits to volunteers under this program from 
the DOD education benefits program. This amendment has been cleared on 
the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 794.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the funding of education assistance enlistment 
incentives to facilitate National service through Department of Defense 
                        Education Benefits Fund)

       On page 109, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 535. FUNDING OF EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ENLISTMENT 
                   INCENTIVES TO FACILITATE NATIONAL SERVICE 
                   THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION 
                   BENEFITS FUND.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (j) of section 510 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(j) Funding.--(1) Amounts for the payment of incentives 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (e) shall be 
     derived from amounts available to the Secretary of the 
     military department concerned for the payment of pay, 
     allowances and other expenses of the members of the armed 
     force concerned.
       ``(2) Amounts for the payment of incentives under 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (e) shall be derived 
     from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund under 
     section 2006 of this title.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2006(b) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4) 
     of section 510(e) and'' after ``Department of Defense 
     benefits under''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(E) The present value of future benefits payable from the 
     Fund for educational assistance under paragraphs (3) and (4) 
     of section 510(e) of this title to persons who during such 
     period become entitled to such assistance.''.

  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Presiding Officer hold for one moment.
  The amendment is agreed to on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment.
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 794) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 795

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Roberts, I offer an 
amendment to enhance defense contracting opportunities for persons with 
disabilities. I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared. I urge the Senate to adopt 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Roberts, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 795.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To enhance the defense contracting opportunities for persons 
                           with disabilities)

       On page 81, strike lines 12 and 13, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 368. CONTRACTING WITH EMPLOYERS OF PERSONS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       On page 82, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       (e) Demonstration Projects for Contractors Employing 
     Persons With Disabilities.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may 
     carry out two demonstration projects for the purpose of 
     providing opportunities for participation by severely 
     disabled individuals in the industries of manufacturing and 
     information technology.
       (2) Under each demonstration project, the Secretary may 
     enter into one or more contracts with an eligible contractor 
     for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for the acquisition 
     of--
       (A) aerospace end items or components; or
       (B) information technology products or services.
       (3) The items, components, products, or services authorized 
     to be procured under paragraph (2) include--
       (A) computer numerically-controlled machining and metal 
     fabrication;
       (B) computer application development, testing, and support 
     in document management, microfilming, and imaging; and
       (C) any other items, components, products, or services 
     described in paragraph (2) that are not described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B).
       (4) In this subsection:
       (A) The term ``eligible contractor'' means a business 
     entity operated on a for-profit or nonprofit basis that--
       (i) employs not more than 500 individuals;
       (ii) employs severely disabled individuals at a rate that 
     averages not less than 33 percent of its total workforce over 
     a period prescribed by the Secretary;
       (iii) employs each severely disabled individual in its 
     workforce generally on the basis of 40 hours per week;
       (iv) pays not less than the minimum wage prescribed 
     pursuant to section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     (29 U.S.C. 206) to the employees who are severely disabled 
     individuals;
       (v) provides for its employees health insurance and a 
     retirement plan comparable to those provided for employees by 
     business entities of similar size in its industrial sector or 
     geographic region; and
       (vi) has or can acquire a security clearance as necessary.
       (B) The term ``severely disabled individual'' means an 
     individual with a disability (as defined in section 3 of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)) 
     who has a severe physical or mental impairment that seriously 
     limits one or more functional capacities.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 795) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 759

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bill Nelson, I offer 
an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary 
of Defense should authorize and publicize a reward of $1 million for 
information leading to a conclusive resolution of the cases of missing 
members of the Armed Forces.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Nelson of 
     Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 759.

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

  (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
 Defense should disburse funds to reward the provision of information 
  leading to the resolution of the status of the members of the Armed 
       Forces of the United States who remain missing in action)

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1039. SENSE OF SENATE ON REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING 
                   TO RESOLUTION OF STATUS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES WHO REMAIN MISSING IN ACTION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Defense estimates that there are more 
     than 10,000 members of the Armed Forces and others who as a 
     result of activities during the Korean War or the Vietnam War 
     were placed in a missing status or a prisoner of war status, 
     or who were determined to have been killed in action although 
     the body was not recovered, and who remain unaccounted for.
       (2) One member of the Armed Forces, Navy Captain Michael 
     Scott Speicher, remains missing in action from the first 
     Persian Gulf War, and there have been credible reports of him 
     being seen alive in Iraq in the years since his plane was 
     shot down on January 16, 1991.
       (3) The United States should always pursue every lead and 
     leave no stone unturned to completely account for the fate of 
     its missing members of the Armed Forces.

[[Page S6836]]

       (4) The Secretary of Defense has the authority to disburse 
     funds as a reward to individuals who provide information 
     leading to the conclusive resolution of cases of missing 
     members of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
       (1) that the Secretary of Defense should use the authority 
     available to the Secretary to disburse funds rewarding 
     individuals who provide information leading to the conclusive 
     resolution of the status of any missing member of the Armed 
     Forces; and
       (2) to encourage the Secretary to authorize and publicize a 
     reward of $1,000,000 for information resolving the fate of 
     those members of the Armed Forces, such as Michael Scott 
     Speicher, who the Secretary has reason to believe may yet be 
     alive in captivity.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to consult with my colleague about 
this.
  Senator Levin and I have read the text of the amendment. The text of 
the amendment is quite clear as to what the intent was of the 
proponent. We have no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment.
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 759) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 740

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an 
amendment to provide military health care entitlement to Reserve 
officers awaiting orders to active duty. It has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follow:

       The Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 740.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide entitlement to health care for reserve officers of 
   the Armed Forces pending orders to initial active duty following 
                             commissioning)

       At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. ELIGIBILITY OF RESERVE OFFICERS FOR HEALTH CARE 
                   PENDING ORDERS TO ACTIVE DUTY FOLLOWING 
                   COMMISSIONING.

       Section 1074(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
       (2) by striking ``who is on active duty'' and inserting 
     ``described in paragraph (2)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Members of the uniformed services referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are as follows:
       ``(A) A member of a uniformed service on active duty.
       ``(B) A member of a reserve component of a uniformed 
     service who has been commissioned as an officer if--
       ``(i) the member has requested orders to active duty for 
     the member's initial period of active duty following the 
     commissioning of the member as an officer;
       ``(ii) the request for orders has been approved;
       ``(iii) the orders are to be issued but have not been 
     issued; and
       ``(iv) the member does not have health care insurance and 
     is not covered by any other health benefits plan.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 740) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 796

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Feinstein and 
Stevens, I offer an amendment to prohibit funding from being used in 
fiscal 2004 for research, development, test and evaluation, 
procurement, or deployment of nuclear-tipped ballistic missile defense 
intercepts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mrs. Feinstein 
     and Mr. Stevens, proposes an amendment numbered 796.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for research, development, test, 
      and evaluation, procurement, or deployment of nuclear armed 
               interceptors in a missile defense system)

       At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 225. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR NUCLEAR ARMED 
                   INTERCEPTORS IN MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS.

       No funds authorized to be appropriated for the Department 
     of Defense by this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation, procurement, or 
     deployment of nuclear armed interceptors in a missile defense 
     system.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 796) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 700

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an 
amendment which would express the sense of the Senate that the Senate 
strongly supports the Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise of the National 
Shipbuilding Research Program, and that the Secretary of Defense and 
the Secretary of the Navy should continue to fund this program at a 
sustaining level.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 700.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate in support of the Advanced 
 Shipbuilding Enterprise of the National Shipbuilding Research Program)

       On page 291, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1039. ADVANCED SHIPBUILDING ENTERPRISE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The President's budget for fiscal year 2004, as 
     submitted to Congress, includes $10,300,000 for the Advanced 
     Shipbuilding Enterprise of the National Shipbuilding Research 
     Program.
       (2) The Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise is an innovative 
     program to encourage greater efficiency among shipyards in 
     the defense industrial base.
       (3) The leaders of the Nation's shipbuilding industry have 
     embraced the Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise as a method of 
     exploring and collaborating on innovation in shipbuilding and 
     ship repair that collectively benefits all manufacturers in 
     the industry.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Senate strongly supports the innovative Advanced 
     Shipbuilding Enterprise of the National Shipbuilding Research 
     Program that has yielded new processes and techniques to 
     reduce the cost of building and repairing ships in the United 
     States;
       (2) the Senate is concerned that the future-years defense 
     program submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2004 does not 
     reflect any funding for the Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise 
     after fiscal year 2004; and
       (3) the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy 
     should continue funding the Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise 
     at a sustaining level through the future-years defense 
     program to support subsequent rounds of research that reduce 
     the cost of designing, building, and repairing ships.


                              shipbuilding

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I first want to acknowledge the hard work 
done by the Armed Services Committee and Senator Warner and his staff 
on the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill. Having served on 
this committee for many years, I know how intense the discussions are 
in the committee and how difficult the decisions are when crafting a 
bill this complex and so critical. I do, however, want to engage the 
chairman on a subject of great national interest: Navy ship 
construction.
  Over the years, this country has seen a steady decline in not only 
our naval ship force structure, but in the capacity to construct these 
great warships. Instead of building the requisite 12 ships a year to 
maintain our current and modest naval capability, we are merely 
producing 6 to 7 per year. The erosion in our naval capability should 
not continue. I know this is a subject of acute interest by Chairman 
Warner, a former Secretary of the Navy, and would like to hear his 
thoughts on the issue!
  Mr. WARNER. The level of shipbuilding is clearly of concern to me. 
The Navy is in transition, and we find ourselves building the last of 
the older 20th century surface combatants, submarines, aircraft 
carriers, and amphibious assault ships and transitioning to those ships 
of the line for the 21st century. Understandably, there is a 
development period we are involved in as

[[Page S6837]]

well as recapitalization. The committee chose to support the Navy's 
proposals for DDX, LCS, LHA(R), LPD and CVN-21. These are the naval 
vessels of the future.
  Mr. BREAUX. As the Senator knows well, this transition period has a 
substantial impact on the shipyards and their workers who will be asked 
to construct these future vessels. After the decline in shipbuilding in 
the last quarter century, our ability to build naval ships of all kinds 
has been substantially reduced. During this period of transition, I am 
concerned, as well as you, that the shipyards retain their engineers 
and workers, so they may build the next generation of ships when these 
ships are mature.
  Mr. WARNER. They key here is balance during the transition period. 
The ongoing global war on terrorism places enormous budgetary pressure 
on the Defense bills. For example, we were certainly aware that the 
LPD-17 design is in production, but at a very low rate. The committee 
supported funding for the fiscal year 2004 ship. I also understand that 
the Navy is attempting to accelerate production to allow procurement of 
a ship in fiscal year 2005.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The LPD-17 is certainly an excellent example of the 
dilemma posed in our Navy's shipbuilding program. I am hopeful that as 
we move through the authorization process, some accommodation will be 
found to move that shipbuilding program along. Certainly, this ship 
class, if produced at greater levels can clear the decks, so to speak, 
for the other, advanced ships, which are in development now.
  Mr. WARNER. I acknowledge the Senator's comments and concerns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 700) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 779

  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senator Allard, I offer an amendment on the 
protection of the operational files of the National Security Agency 
that would strike section 1035 of S. 1050 and replace it with this 
amendment. It is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Allard, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 779.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide a substitute for section 1035, relating to the 
  protection of the operational files of the National Security Agency)

       Strike section 1035 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1035. PROTECTION OF OPERATIONAL FILES OF THE NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY AGENCY.

       (a) Consolidation of Current Provisions on Protection of 
     Operational Files.--The National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by transferring sections 105C 
     and 105D to the end of title VII and redesignating such 
     sections, as so transferred, as sections 703 and 704, 
     respectively.
       (b) Protection of Operational Files of NSA.--Title VII of 
     such Act, as amended by subsection (a), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:


          ``operational files of the national security agency

       ``Sec. 705. (a) Exemption of Certain Operational Files From 
     Search, Review, Publication, or Disclosure.--(1) Operational 
     files of the National Security Agency (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as `NSA') may be exempted by the Director 
     of NSA, in coordination with the Director of Central 
     Intelligence, from the provisions of section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code, which require publication, disclosure, 
     search, or review in connection therewith.
       ``(2)(A) In this section, the term `operational files' 
     means--
       ``(i) files of the Signals Intelligence Directorate, and 
     its successor organizations, which document the means by 
     which foreign intelligence or counterintelligence is 
     collected through technical systems; and
       ``(ii) files of the Research Associate Directorate, and its 
     successor organizations, which document the means by which 
     foreign intelligence or counterintelligence is collected 
     through scientific and technical systems.
       ``(B) Files which are the sole repository of disseminated 
     intelligence, and files that have been accessioned into NSA 
     Archives, or its successor organizations, are not operational 
     files.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), exempted operational 
     files shall continue to be subject to search and review for 
     information concerning--
       ``(A) United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence who have requested information on 
     themselves pursuant to the provisions of section 552 or 552a 
     of title 5, United States Code;
       ``(B) any special activity the existence of which is not 
     exempt from disclosure under the provisions of section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code; or
       ``(C) the specific subject matter of an investigation by 
     any of the following for any impropriety, or violation of 
     law, Executive order, or Presidential directive, in the 
     conduct of an intelligence activity:
       ``(i) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(ii) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
       ``(iii) The Intelligence Oversight Board.
       ``(iv) The Department of Justice.
       ``(v) The Office of General Counsel of NSA.
       ``(vi) The Office of the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense.
       ``(vii) The Office of the Director of NSA.
       ``(4)(A) Files that are not exempted under paragraph (1) 
     which contain information derived or disseminated from 
     exempted operational files shall be subject to search and 
     review.
       ``(B) The inclusion of information from exempted 
     operational files in files that are not exempted under 
     paragraph (1) shall not affect the exemption under paragraph 
     (1) of the originating operational files from search, review, 
     publication, or disclosure.
       ``(C) The declassification of some of the information 
     contained in exempted operational files shall not affect the 
     status of the operational file as being exempt from search, 
     review, publication, or disclosure.
       ``(D) Records from exempted operational files which have 
     been disseminated to and referenced in files that are not 
     exempted under paragraph (1), and which have been returned to 
     exempted operational files for sole retention shall be 
     subject to search and review.
       ``(5) The provisions of paragraph (1) may not be superseded 
     except by a provision of law which is enacted after the date 
     of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2004, and which specifically cites and 
     repeals or modifies such provisions.
       ``(6)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), whenever 
     any person who has requested agency records under section 552 
     of title 5, United States Code, alleges that NSA has withheld 
     records improperly because of failure to comply with any 
     provision of this section, judicial review shall be available 
     under the terms set forth in section 552(a)(4)(B) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       ``(B) Judicial review shall not be available in the manner 
     provided for under subparagraph (A) as follows:
       ``(i) In any case in which information specifically 
     authorized under criteria established by an Executive order 
     to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or 
     foreign relations is filed with, or produced for, the court 
     by NSA, such information shall be examined ex parte, in 
     camera by the court.
       ``(ii) The court shall determine, to the fullest extent 
     practicable, the issues of fact based on sworn written 
     submissions of the parties.
       ``(iii) When a complainant alleges that requested records 
     are improperly withheld because of improper placement solely 
     in exempted operational files, the complainant shall support 
     such allegation with a sworn written submission based upon 
     personal knowledge or otherwise admissible evidence.
       ``(iv)(I) When a complainant alleges that requested records 
     were improperly withheld because of improper exemption of 
     operational files, NSA shall meet its burden under section 
     552(a)(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code, by demonstrating 
     to the court by sworn written submission that exempted 
     operational files likely to contain responsible records 
     currently perform the functions set forth in paragraph (2).
       ``(II) The court may not order NSA to review the content of 
     any exempted operational file or files in order to make the 
     demonstration required under subclause (I), unless the 
     complainant disputes NSA's showing with a sworn written 
     submission based on personal knowledge or otherwise 
     admissible evidence.
       ``(v) In proceedings under clauses (iii) and (iv), the 
     parties may not obtain discovery pursuant to rules 26 through 
     36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that 
     requests for admissions may be made pursuant to rules 26 and 
     36.
       ``(vi) If the court finds under this paragraph that NSA has 
     improperly withheld requested records because of failure to 
     comply with any provision of this subsection, the court shall 
     order NSA to search and review the appropriate exempted 
     operational file or files for the requested records and make 
     such records, or portions thereof, available in 
     accordance with the provisions of section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and such order shall be the exclusive 
     remedy for failure to comply with this subsection.
       ``(vii) If at any time following the filing of a complaint 
     pursuant to this paragraph NSA agrees to search the 
     appropriate exempted operational file or files for the 
     requested records, the court shall dismiss the claim based 
     upon such complaint.
       ``(viii) Any information filed with, or produced for the 
     court pursuant to clauses (i) and (iv) shall be coordinated 
     with the Director of Central Intelligence before submission 
     to the court.
       ``(b) Decennial Review of Exempted Operational Files.--(1) 
     Not less than once every 10 years, the Director of the 
     National Security Agency and the Director of Central 
     Intelligence shall review the exemptions in

[[Page S6838]]

     force under subsection (a)(1) to determine whether such 
     exemptions may be removed from a category of exempted files 
     or any portion thereof. The Director of Central Intelligence 
     must approve any determination to remove such exemptions.
       ``(2) The review required by paragraph (1) shall include 
     consideration of the historical value or other public 
     interest in the subject matter of a particular category of 
     files or portions thereof and the potential for declassifying 
     a significant part of the information contained therein.
       ``(3) A complainant that alleges that NSA has improperly 
     withheld records because of failure to comply with this 
     subsection may seek judicial review in the district court of 
     the United States of the district in which any of the parties 
     reside, or in the District of Columbia. In such a proceeding, 
     the court's review shall be limited to determining the 
     following:
       ``(A) Whether NSA has conducted the review required by 
     paragraph (1) before the expiration of the 10-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 or before the 
     expiration of the 10-year period beginning on the date of the 
     most recent review.
       ``(B) Whether NSA, in fact, considered the criteria set 
     forth in paragraph (2) in conducting the required review.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 701(b) of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 431(b)) is amended 
     by striking ``For purposes of this title'' and inserting ``In 
     this section and section 702,''.
       (2) Section 702(c) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 432(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``enactment of this title'' and inserting 
     ``October 15, 1984,''.
       (3)(A) The title heading for title VII of such Act is 
     amended to read as follows:

            ``TITLE VII--PROTECTION OF OPERATIONAL FILES''.

       (B) The section heading for section 701 of such Act is 
     amended to read as follows:


``protection of operational files of the central intelligence agency''.

       (C) The section heading for section 702 of such Act is 
     amended to read as follows:


``decennial review of exempted central intelligence agency operational 
                               files.''.

       (d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents for the 
     National Security Act of 1947 is amended--
       (1) by striking the items relating to sections 105C and 
     105D; and
       (2) by striking the items relating to title VII and 
     inserting the following new items:

              ``Title VII--Protection of Operational Files

``Sec. 701. Protection of operational files of the Central Intelligence 
              Agency.
``Sec. 702. Decennial review of exempted Central Intelligence Agency 
              operational files.
``Sec. 703. Protection of operational files of the National Imagery and 
              Mapping Agency.
``Sec. 704. Protection of operational files of the National 
              Reconnaissance Office.
``Sec. 705. Protection of operational files of the National Security 
              Agency.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 779) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 746, As Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I offer an 
amendment which requires the Army to study the use of a second source 
of production for gears incorporated into CH-47 helicopter 
transmissions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 746, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require an Army study regarding use of a second source of 
production for gears incorporated into helicopter transmissions for CH-
                            47 helicopters)

       On page 17, strike line 11 and insert the following:

     SEC. 111. CH-47 HELICOPTER PROGRAM.

       (a) Requirement for Study.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
     study the feasibility and the costs and benefits of providing 
     for the participation of a second source in the production of 
     gears for the helicopter transmissions incorporated into CH-
     47 helicopters being procured by the Army with funds 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report on 
     the results of the study to Congress.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 746), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 784

  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senator Chambliss, I offer an amendment to 
require the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to provide a report on 
certain imagery exploitation capabilities. It is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Chambliss, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 784.

  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To require a report on the efforts of the National 
 Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to utilize certain data extraction and 
exploitation capabilities within the Commercial Joint Mapping Tool Kit 
                               (C/JMTK))

       On page 226, between the matter following line 14 and line 
     15, insert the following:
       (c) Report on Utilization of Certain Data Extraction and 
     Exploitation Capabilities.--(1) Not later than 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report on the status of 
     the efforts of the Agency to incorporate within the 
     Commercial Joint Mapping Tool Kit (C/JMTK) applications for 
     the rapid extraction and exploitation of three-dimensional 
     geospatial data from reconnaissance imagery.
       (2) In this subsection, the term ``appropriate committees 
     of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Subcommittee on 
     Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Subcommittee on 
     Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment.
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 784) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 797

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Lieberman that would provide for a Department of Defense strategy for 
the management of the electromagnetic spectrum. I believe it is cleared 
on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Lieberman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 797.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for a strategy for the Department of Defense for 
            the management of the electromagnetic spectrum)

       At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 235. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STRATEGY FOR MANAGEMENT OF 
                   ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) in accordance with subsection (b), develop a strategy 
     for the Department of Defense for the management of the 
     electromagnetic spectrum to improve spectrum access and high-
     bandwidth connectivity to military assets.
       (2) in accordance with subsection (c), communicate with 
     civilian departments and agencies of the Federal Government 
     in the development of the strategy identified in (a)(1).
       (b) Strategy For Department of Defense Strategy for 
     Spectrum Management.--(1) Not later than September 1, 2004, 
     the Board shall develop a strategy for the Department of 
     Defense for the management of the electromagnetic spectrum in 
     order to ensure the development and use of spectrum-efficient 
     technologies to facilitate the availability of adequate 
     spectrum for both network-centric warfare. The strategy shall 
     include specific timelines, metrics, plans for implementation 
     including the implementation of technologies for the 
     efficient use of spectrum, and proposals for program funding.
       (2) In developing the strategy, the Board shall consider 
     and take into account in the strategy the research and 
     development program carried out under section 234.
       (3) The Board shall assist in updating the strategy 
     developed under paragraph (1) on a

[[Page S6839]]

     biennial basis to address changes in circumstances.
       (4) The Board shall communicate with other departments and 
     agencies of the Federal Government in the development of the 
     strategy described in subsection (a)(1), including 
     representatives of the military departments, the Federal 
     Communications Commission, the National Telecommunications 
     and Information Administration, the Department of Homeland 
     Security, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other 
     appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal 
     Government.
       (c) Board Defined.--In this section, the term ``Board'' 
     means the Board of Senior Acquisition Officials as defined in 
     section 822.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 797) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 739

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an 
amendment to authorize reimbursement for travel expenses of covered 
beneficiaries of CHAMPUS for specialty care in order to cover 
specialized dental care.
  The amendment is cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 739.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To expand reimbursement for travel expenses of covered 
     beneficiaries of CHAMPUS for specialty care in order to cover 
                        specialized dental care)

       At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. REIMBURSEMENT OF COVERED BENEFICIARIES FOR CERTAIN 
                   TRAVEL EXPENSES RELATING TO SPECIALIZED DENTAL 
                   CARE.

       Section 1074i of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In any 
     case''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Specialty Care Providers.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the term `specialty care provider' includes a dental 
     specialist (including an oral surgeon, orthodontist, 
     prosthodontist, periodontist, endodontist, or pediatric 
     dentist).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 739) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 798

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment that would strike 
subsection (c) of section 2101 to authorize military construction 
projects for the Army. It is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 798.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To strike subsection (c) of section 2101 relating to 
   unspecified worldwide military construction projects for the Army)

       On page 322, strike line 8 and all that follows through 
     page 324, line 10.
       On page 326, strike lines 1 through 3.
       On page 328, line 21, strike ``(1), (2), and (3)'' and 
     insert ``(1) and (2)''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 798) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that concludes the total of cleared 
amendments that we can work on tonight. Our staffs will continue to 
work through the evening. Hopefully, another dozen or so will be ready 
first thing in the morning. I thank my distinguished colleague for his 
usual cooperation and advice.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Virginia. We are both in the 
debt of the Presiding Officer, who has been patient through some long 
delays. They have been essential.
  Mr. WARNER. Our Parliamentarians have been put to the test and they 
deserve a measure of recognition for a job well done. I thank the Chair 
and the staff. If you think this has been a late night, wait until 
tomorrow.
  Mr. LEVIN. Something to look forward to.
  Mr. WARNER. I believe we are making good progress on this bill. It is 
my hope and, indeed, my expectation that we can complete this bill by 
midday tomorrow. I know that my colleague from Michigan and I, together 
with our respective leadership, are endeavoring to achieve that. When I 
made reference to tomorrow night, it related to other matters of 
legislation, not this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. A great sigh of relief.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about an 
amendment that I had hoped to offer to help our troops and that has 
strong bipartisan support. But the Parliamentarian says it doesn't 
quite meet the relevance test under the consent agreement, so I will 
offer it on another day.
  The amendment is intended to recognize the enormous contributions to 
our country by immigrants serving in the military. It gives immigrant 
men and women in our Armed Forces more rapid naturalization, and it 
establishes protections for their families if they are killed in 
action.
  In all our wars, immigrants have fought side by side and given their 
lives to defend America's freedom and ideals. One out of every five 
recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest honor our 
Nation bestows on our war heroes, has been an immigrant. Their bravery 
is unequivocal proof that immigrants are as dedicated as any other 
Americans to defending our country.
  Today, 37,000 men and women in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, 
and Coast Guard are not yet citizens, but have the status of permanent 
residents. Another 12,000 permanent residents are in the Reserves and 
the National Guard. Sadly, 10 immigrant soldiers were killed in Iraq; 2 
are missing; and 2 were POWs. The President did the right thing by 
granting posthumous citizenship to those who died, but it is clear that 
we can do more to ease the path to citizenship for all immigrants who 
serve in our forces.
  My amendment improves access to naturalization for permanent 
residents in the military and it protects spouses, children, and 
parents of soldiers killed in action by preserving their ability to 
file for permanent residence in the United States.
  Specifically, the amendment reduces from 3 to 2 the number of years 
required for these immigrants to become naturalized citizens. It 
exempts them from paying naturalization filing fees, and it enables 
them to be naturalized while stationed abroad. Affordable and timely 
naturalization is the least we can do for those who put their lives on 
the line to defend our nation.
  During times of war, recruiting needs are immediate and readiness is 
essential. Even though the war in Iraq has ended, our commitment to 
ending global terrorism will continue, and more of these brave men and 
women will be called to active duty. Many of them are members of the 
Selected Reserve--Reserve and National Guard members who may be called 
up for active duty during a war or other national emergency. Many have 
already been activated, and many more could be called up at a moment's 
notice to defend our country and assist in military operations.

  Over the years, Reserve and Guard units have often become full 
partners with their active-duty counterparts. Their active-duty 
colleagues cannot go to war without them. Being a member of the 
Selected Reserves is nothing less than a continuing commitment to meet 
very demanding standards, and they deserve recognition for their 
bravery and sacrifice. The amendment allows permanent resident members 
of

[[Page S6840]]

the Selected Reserves to expedite their naturalization applications 
during war or military hostilities.
  Finally, the amendment provides immigration protection to immediate 
family members of soldiers killed in action. Grieving mothers, fathers, 
spouses, and children would be given the opportunity to legalize their 
immigration status and avoid deportation in the event of death of their 
loved one serving in our military. We know the tragic losses endured by 
these families, and it is unfair that they lose their immigration 
status as well.
  The provisions of the amendment are identical to those in S. 922, the 
Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act, which 
has strong bipartisan support and is also endorsed by numerous veterans 
organizations including: the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Air Force 
Sergeants Association, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association, and 
the Blue Star Mothers of America.
  The amendment is a tribute to the sacrifices that these future 
Americans are already making now for their adopted country. They 
deserve this important recognition and I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to see that these provisions are enacted into law.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
disappointment that the Senate is not able to act on my amendment to 
the Defense Authorization bill: the NASA Workforce Flexibility Act. 
NASA and DoD have a long history of collaboration on numerous programs 
that are central to the success of each agency and the expertise NASA 
provides DoD is critical to our national security.
  For over a year, NASA has been discussing with us the impending 
crisis within their workforce. In March, my Subcommittee on Oversight 
of Government Management and the Federal Workforce held a hearing on 
this very issue. Of great concern to me is the fact that 15 percent of 
NASA's workforce currently is eligible to retire; that number climbs to 
25 percent in just five short years. Also disconcerting is the fact 
that scientists and engineers over age 60 outnumber those under age 30 
by nearly three to one.
  With so many experienced people eligible to retire in the next few 
years, who knows how much institutional knowledge and expertise is 
going to walk out the door? This creates substantial risk to NASA and 
our national security.
  During the war in Iraq, we saw some of the tremendous benefit our 
advanced technology provides to our troops. Many people may not be 
aware that NASA and DoD collaboration is central to providing for our 
national security.
  We have many examples in my own State of Ohio. As the former Mayor of 
Cleveland and Governor of Ohio, I have seen firsthand the collaboration 
between the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland and Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton.
  In Ohio alone, NASA and DoD work together on projects that include: 
Joint fuel cell research to be used in space applications, Army use of 
Glenn Research Center expertise in testing helicopter rotor engines, 
and Navy use of Glenn Research Center expertise in missile propulsion 
program.
  These joint efforts are not limited to Ohio; this collaboration 
exists nationwide. At other Centers throughout the Nation DoD depends 
on NASA facilities, such as its wind tunnels, for development and 
testing of all military aircraft, including the Joint Strike Fighter; 
DoD relies on NASA for technical assistance in investigating and 
correcting DoD flight problems; the National Aerospace Initiative, 
formed at the direction of the Presidential Commission on the Future of 
Aerospace, is a joint DoD-NASA project to develop the future of 
aerospace technology that is critical to national defense.
  The American Helicopter Society awarded the 2002 Howard Hughes Award 
to NASA's Langley Research Center. Established in 1977, the Howard 
Hughes award is given in recognition of accomplishments in the 
helicopter industry. NASA partnered with the Army, and working in 
conjunction with academia and the private sector, developed what it 
calls ``Tilt Rotor Aeroacoustics Code.'' This is the technology to 
reduce the noise generated by helicopter rotors.
  My amendment addresses NASA's current and future workforce needs. It 
would direct NASA to work with OPM and its employees to develop an 
agency-wide workforce plan.
  In the highly competitive science and engineering fields, my 
amendment would authorize NASA to offer enhanced recruitment and 
relocation bonuses to attract and retain top talent. It also would 
allow NASA to offer a mid-career individual in the private sector a 
vacation package competitive with the private sector and comparable to 
career federal employees. In addition, my amendment would establish a 
competitive scholarship program for students in return for employment 
at NASA.
  Mr. President, this body took remarkable action last year when it 
included in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security the 
first major governmentwide reforms to the civil service in 25 years, 
since 1978. That was a good first step, but we have much more work to 
do. I am concerned that human capital remains on GAO's high-risk list 
for 2003 throughout the federal government.
  In such a critical area as national security, it is clear that the 
Department of Defense needs NASA. And NASA needs workforce reform.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words regarding 
the Defense Authorization Act.
  On Saturday of last week, May 17, people all across our Nation 
commemorated Armed Forces Day. As President Eisenhower wrote in 1953: 
``It is fitting and proper that we devote one day each year to paying 
special tribute to those whose constancy and courage constitute one of 
the bulwarks guarding the freedom of this Nation and the peace of the 
free world.''
  I agree with that sentiment but I would also say that it is fitting 
and proper to pay tribute to the heroism and sacrifice of our brave men 
and women in the Armed Forces on each and every day.
  We must always remember that our own freedom was not won without 
cost, but bought and paid for by the sacrifices of generations that 
have gone before. We must take every opportunity to honor these heroes 
for their courage and their commitment to the dream that is freedom.
  I know I speak for the people of my State of Texas, and for all 
Americans, when I give thanks that the operation in Iraq has recently 
reached such a swift conclusion, with so few coalition lives lost.
  One in 10 active-duty military personnel call Texas their home, and 
as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am dedicated to looking 
after their interests and the interests of all of our military 
personnel. We must ensure that the United States military has the 
training, the equipment, and the facilities they require to remain the 
greatest fighting force the world has ever known, in times of war and 
peace.
  I support this legislation because it is focused on that goal. And I 
would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished Senators 
from Virginia and Michigan for their hard work and leadership as 
chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.
  As members of the committee, we have recommended a $17.9 billion 
increase above the amount appropriated by the Congress last year. This 
funding will enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to 
fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities, and sustain the ability 
of our Armed Forces to conduct military operations with the fewest 
lives lost.
  We also addressed a number of other defense priorities in this bill, 
including a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed 
service personnel, an increase in the family separation allowance from 
$100 per month to $250 per month, and an increase in the special pay 
rate for duty in imminent danger from $150 per month to $225 per month.
  The only area where I do want to draw some distinctions between my 
own position and the position of this bill concerns the F/A-22 
aircraft. The committee's decision to decrease funding for the F/A-22 
Raptor by $217 million, representing two fighters, simply does not make 
sense to me.
  The F/A-22 is our next generation fighter aircraft, and it will serve 
to replace the aging fighters currently in

[[Page S6841]]

our inventory. President Bush requested funding for 22 Raptors, and I 
believe we should fulfill that request. Reducing our funding in 
response to the President's budget request will only raise questions 
about our commitment to this program, unsettle the confidence of the 
subcontractors and suppliers, and ultimately make the entire program 
more expensive.
  Overall, the committee has produced a good bill. These pay raises are 
needed and deserved. The funding provides for much-needed support for 
our military infrastructure and equipment. And I am proud to support 
these measures.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Warner 
for including language in the legislation which directs the Department 
of Defense to determine if any additional measures can be taken to 
assist the naturalization of qualified service members and their 
families.
  This language is consistent with the Military Citizenship Act, a bill 
that I recently introduced, that will expedite the naturalization 
process for the nearly 37,000 men and women serving in our Armed Forces 
who are not U.S. citizens. I believe there is no better way to honor 
the heroism and sacrifice of those who serve than to offer them the 
American citizenship they deserve.
  As we labor on this bill, we should take care to remember the 
sacrifices--not just the sacrifices of the brave men and women who 
fight on the battlefield, but also the sacrifices of the families they 
leave behind.
  I remember watching as the deployment was occurring from Camp 
Lejeune, where a young mother with her child was saying goodbye to her 
husband. I will never forget her words. She said: ``I used to think 
that if he loved us, he would never leave us. But now I know that he is 
leaving us because he loves us.''
  We as a grateful Nation thank the brave men and women who serve in 
uniform for the cause of freedom. We wish them all godspeed, and we 
hope and pray for their swift return to the loving arms of their 
families.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Senator 
from Virginia, Mr. Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, the ranking member 
of the Armed Services Committee, for the work they have done to bring 
before the Senate a Defense authorization bill that will serve as a 
blueprint to ensure the U.S. Armed Forces have the resources they need 
in the upcoming fiscal year and beyond.
  The Department of Defense faces many challenges in carrying out its 
various missions across the globe. This legislation authorizes critical 
funds to make sure our troops have the weapons systems and munitions 
they need to continue to do the outstanding work they do every day for 
our freedom, allowing for $75.6 billion in procurement funding. The 
legislation does right by these men and women and their families by 
providing them with a pay raise of 3.7 percent. Moreover, it mandates a 
$100 a month pay incentive for military personnel in North Korea, 
increases the family separation allowance $150 a month, increases 
hostile fire and imminent duty pay by an additional $175 a month, and 
doubles the death gratuity retroactive to September 11, 2001.
  S. 1050 not only addresses the short-term needs of the military but 
gives equal consideration to the long-term challenges facing the 
services. The $63.2 billion authorized in the bill for research and 
development is critically needed to make sure our troops will continue 
to have access to the most advanced equipment to keep them safe and one 
step ahead of those who would do us harm. We have seen on countless 
occasions over the last several months how investments in research and 
development lead to a fighting force capable of unprecedented precision 
and mobility, which saves lives and allows for decisive military 
victories.
  This legislation addresses some important nonfinancial policy issues 
as well. S. 1050 strikes a balance between environmental protection and 
the need to provide our troops with important training. It allows for 
the examination and evaluation of weapons and countermeasure systems to 
make sure current and future Presidents and military leaders have all 
options available to them when making decisions pertaining to military 
action and national security. The bill also provides tens of millions 
of dollars to aid in homeland defense initiatives such as the Chemical 
and Biological Installation/Force Protection Program, and the WMD civil 
support teams.
  I recognize this measure is not perfect and there are some funding 
and policy provisions on which Senators may disagree. For example, I am 
very concerned by the committee's decision to cut the President's 
request for the procurement of 22 F/A-22 Raptors. Yet I know these and 
other issues will continue to be addressed by both the committee and 
the administration as this bill moves forward and should not be cause 
to delay passage of this important piece of legislation.
  I am pleased to support S. 1050, and I thank the chairman and ranking 
member for their work.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in this important debate on the Fiscal 
Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, I am deeply disappointed 
that the Parliamentarian has ruled irrelevant the amendment which 
Senator Collins and I planned to offer. Our amendment would establish 
the National Security Personnel System for the more than 700,000 
civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The impact of the 
parliamentarian's ruling is that the Senate will be silent on one of 
the most substantial modifications to civil service law in the last 25 
years. This is most unfortunate.
  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this amendment should be 
considered by the Senate--if for no other reason than the House of 
Representatives has already acted on a similar measure. Both the House 
Government Reform Committee and the House Armed Services Committee 
approved a version of the National Security Personnel System, and it 
will be included in the Defense Authorization Act that the House sends 
to Conference.
  I remind my colleagues that a new human resources management system 
for the Department of Defense will emerge from Conference. It will be 
one in which the Senate as a whole has had no voice, and the first time 
this chamber votes on it will be during the final passage of the 
Defense Authorization Act later this year. This is regrettable.
  I have worked on Federal Government personnel issues generally, and 
Department of Defense personnel issues specifically, since I arrived in 
the Senate 4 years ago.
  In March 2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management 
held a hearing entitled, ``National Security Implications of the Human 
Capital Crisis.'' This hearing is just one of 13 that have been held by 
my Subcommittee on the Federal Government's human capital challenges.
  Among our panel of distinguished witnesses that day was former 
Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, a member of the U.S. Commission on 
National Security in the 21st Century. Secretary Schlesinger discussed 
a comprehensive evaluation on national security strategy and structure 
that was undertaken by the Commission. Regarding human capital, the 
Commission's final report concluded:

       As it enters the 21st century, the United States finds 
     itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence 
     in government. The maintenance of American power in the world 
     depends on the quality of U.S. government personnel, civil 
     and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in 
     the personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet 
     future challenges.

  Secretary Schlesinger added further:

     . . . it is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel 
     problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything 
     else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of U.S. 
     national security policy.

  Just last week, my Subcommittee held a field hearing in Ohio 
entitled, ``An Overlooked Asset: the Defense Civilian Workforce.'' 
During this hearing, I heard testimony on the National Security 
Personnel System from Dr. David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness, and the head of the U.S. General Accounting 
Office, Comptroller General David Walker.
  Dr. Chu testified that, ``the rigidities of the title 5 system of 
personnel management make it difficult for our civilians to support the 
military.'' He stated that the Defense Department's top three 
priorities were hiring flexibilities, reform of the compensation 
system, and bargaining at the national level with the Department's 
unions.

[[Page S6842]]

  Mr. Walker stated that ``We strongly support the concept of 
modernizing Federal human capital policies within DOD and the Federal 
Government at large,'' and ``the Federal personnel system is clearly 
broken in critical respects.'' However, he also noted that the ``senior 
civilian and military leaders have devoted `far less' attention to 
civilian personnel challenges than the challenges of maintaining an 
effective military,'' and that the Department needs to further develop 
and integrate its departmentwide human capital strategies.
  But even before these hearings in which the national security 
establishment's personnel needs were outlined so clearly, I have been 
working to improve the management of the Defense civilian workforce. 
Many of the acute challenges confronting the Defense civilian workforce 
were brought to my attention several years ago through conversations 
with senior managers, both military and civilian, at Wright Patterson 
Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.
  When the Senate was considering the 2001 National Defense 
Authorization Act in June 2000, Senator DeWine and I offered an 
amendment that would provide the Defense Department the ability to 
reshape its workforce through the use of early retirement and voluntary 
separation incentives.
  Securing passage of that relatively simple amendment was not easy. I 
worked closely with the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator John Warner, the distinguished Ranking Member of the 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, and my distinguished 
colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator James Inhofe, to 
ensure the adoption of that modest reform.
  I wish the Senate had built on this earlier reform and the broader 
reforms that were included in the Homeland Security Act last year.
  I would like to outline briefly what should be included in the 
National Security Personnel System.
  First, the system should feature the broad flexibilities that were 
provided to the Department of Homeland Security. I believe that the 
labor-management collaboration process that was mandated for that new 
Department, and which would be replicated for the Defense Department, 
is proving effective in ensuring employee participation in the 
establishment of a new human resources system.
  The Defense Department should use its flexibility to design and 
implement a modern pay-banding and pay-for-performance system which 
emphasizes accountability, as opposed to the current system in which 
seniority and pay increases are based primarily on the passage of time.
  In addition, the new National Security Personnel System must include 
substantial hiring flexibility, broad workforce reshaping authorities, 
and must grant the Department of Defense the ability to bargain with 
its unions at the national level.
  The new system also should provide the Secretary of Defense 
additional flexibility in hiring personnel outside of the United States 
on short notice, as well as additional benefits for certain Defense 
personnel serving abroad.
  I support retaining the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management as a strategic partner with the Secretary of Defense in the 
establishment of this new personnel system, and I do not believe that 
the Secretary should have ``sole, unreviewable'' authority over this 
new system.
  The provisions I just described will give the Defense Department the 
authority to create a modern personnel system to meet the challenges of 
the 21st century.
  Despite the documented need for further significant reform of the 
civil service, and the Defense Department's concerted and diligent 
efforts in this area that culminated in the proposed National Security 
Personnel System, the Senate apparently will take no action. Mr. 
President, in this regard, the United States Senate has abrogated its 
responsibility to the civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and what 
this bill does for our national security.
  I am honored to be the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces. I thank Senator Allard, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for his leadership and generous spirit of cooperation.
  This bill accomplishes much that is good for America, and I am proud 
to have been a part of shaping the direction of our current and future 
security.
  The Strategic Forces Subcommittee has had a good year with a number 
of hearings on the difficult and complex issues that fall within the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction. With just a few exceptions, the provisions 
in the bill on the floor today are balanced and enjoy strong bipartisan 
support.
  In the space program area, an area of great interest to both Senator 
Allard and myself, I note our strong support of the additional funds 
provided for the GPS-3 satellite.
  The Nation cannot afford to delay the important technological 
advances that GPS-3 will provide.
  The Defense Department wanted to delay this program, but this year's 
budget request was put together long before the war in Iraq.
  Given the performance of and the demand for the precision provided by 
GPS in the war and U.S. reliance on GPS generally, the GPS-3 must be 
accelerated. Hopefully, this bill will get this vital program back on 
track.
  The approach taken in the bill on missile defense is balanced. My 
colleagues on this side of the aisle and I appreciate that this bill 
addresses a number of our concerns and incorporates some of our 
recommendations to strengthen our missile defense programs.
  I fully support the provision in the bill that will provide Congress 
important information on the funding required to actually procure, not 
just research, our missile defense systems.
  This provision, when enacted, will provide Congress and the American 
people a window into the costs of our missile defense plans, and will 
also help ensure that we know up front how much funding is required to 
deploy future missile defense systems.

  I also am pleased that the bill will restore a national missile 
defense intercept test in fiscal year 2004. The administration has 
decided to cancel 9 of 20 previously planned intercept tests for this 
system. One of the cancelled tests was to have occurred in 2004.
  This is of concern to me--I believe we need to test systems before we 
deploy them. Restoration of the test in 2004 will substantially enhance 
our knowledge of the missile defense system the President has decided 
to field at the end of 2004. Adding this one test will increase the 
number of full-up tests of the system between now and the fielding date 
by 50 percent.
  The bill also contains a requirement for the Department to report to 
Congress on why the national missile defense test plan has changed so 
radically. This is a positive step.
  Unfortunately, the bill does not urge the administration to restore 
the other eight cancelled tests, or require the administration to 
notify Congress if it decides to cancel even more tests.
  Congress has a modern tradition of using testing--developmental and 
operational--as a critical element of its constitutional oversight 
responsibility. We should not abandon this now.
  The President plans to field a missile defense system in 2004, yet 
that system is still years from being fully tested and proven. When 
deployed in 2004 it is not clear how well the system would work if 
called upon. Only a disciplined, fully funded, and rigorous test 
program will determine that.
  During the debate on this bill, I hope we can find a way to restore 
some of the testing unwisely removed from the program.
  One of the areas the committee bill does not address is the lack of 
any yardstick with which to measure the developmental progress of our 
missile defense programs. Essential management tools, common to any 
technology program, are not in place for missile defense.
  With the exception of the Patriot PAC-3 program, developed mostly 
under President Clinton, no other missile defense programs have any 
established standards by which to measure their progress in 
development. Are we ahead or behind schedule? Are we over, at, or under 
budget? Is the technology ready, or is there more to learn?

  How can Congress effectively meet our constitutional duty in 
oversight of

[[Page S6843]]

this extremely complex and expensive national effort if we do not have 
an objective, scientifically based yardstick to measure our progress?
  Americans know that before you buy a car, you would like to know its 
fuel economy, power, load capacities, and whether it has a good 
maintenance record. Buying a major weapon system is not different--no 
matter how complex. Before the Department of Defense or Congress buys a 
multibillion-dollar system, we, and the American people, should want to 
know how well it should and does perform. For a missile defense 
program, this means how reliably interceptors will launch, how many 
missiles it should be able to shoot down, how many decoys it can deal 
with, and so on.
  The administration has no such standards for missile defense. At this 
moment, neither Congress nor the American people know what we are 
getting for our money in missile defense. Even for the ``limited'' 
system the administration plans to field in 2004, there is no 
description of and commitment to the types of missiles it must or will 
defend against, or how many decoys it can handle. I hope we can find 
some way to develop some performance standards for our missile defense 
program.
  In the area of signals intelligence, I fully support the funding 
increases for signals intelligence aircraft. These assets have played a 
disproportionately large role in the war on terrorism and continue to 
be heavily utilized. It is essential that we provide the critical 
funding to sustain and improve these important aircraft.
  Unmanned aerial vehicles have played a remarkable role in the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in the greater war on terrorism. This 
is one reason that a number of Senators from both sides of the aisle 
were disappointed with the Navy's decision not to buy the new Fire 
Scout unmanned helicopters. The Fire Scout has performed well during 
its development and holds significant promise for the future. I fully 
support the additional $40 million provided for Fire Scout that should 
allow production to start in 2004.

  I also note my support on the provision that will focus the attention 
of the National Nuclear Security Administration's efforts to address 
the maintenance backlog at its facilities. The Department of Energy, 
DOE, has been trapped in a death spiral of deferring maintenance for 20 
years. We all hope that a provision in this bill brings a new 
dedication to facilities management that ends the spiral.
  Finally, one additional area in the bill that troubles me, and many 
of our colleagues, is its approach to nuclear weapons.
  It appears that the Bush administration is making a significant 
change in U.S. nuclear weapons policy by blurring the distinction 
between nuclear and nonnuclear weapons.
  This blurring appears to be leading to a new and unsettling notion of 
usable nuclear weapons, a possible resumption of nuclear weapons 
testing, and an overall approach that would lend renewed credibility 
and legitimacy to nuclear weapons at levels well below their 
traditional strategic deterrence role. This bill supports those goals.
  It is important that the United States maintain a strong nuclear 
deterrent. But it is equally important for the United States to 
maintain the longstanding policy that nuclear weapons are a weapon of 
last resort--not just another weapon.
  Today the United States sits firmly atop the moral high ground when 
it comes to the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Our 
leadership and commitment to nonproliferation is undisputed.
  Just over the last few years, the United States has successfully 
assisted the third and fourth largest nuclear weapons states, Ukraine 
and Kazakhstan, to be signatories of the NPT as nonnuclear weapons 
states.
  The United States is working hard to reduce tensions and nuclear 
risks between Pakistan and India. At the same time, we are locked in a 
tough strategic challenge over nuclear weapons in North Korea.
  With strong leadership we can continue making progress against the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear 
weapons. But we must continue to lead by example.
  But we will fail if our leadership suggests to the world that we have 
accepted the legitimacy of nuclear weapons as a realistic tactical 
option.
  I acknowledge that we have legitimate scientific interests in the 
reliability and effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal and new 
technologies that may improve safety or reduce costs. Members tend to 
agree on these research interests. But Members, and the American 
people, tend to divide over committing the Nation to programs that will 
develop and deploy new weapons for purposes other than nuclear 
deterrence.
  We are entering dangerous territory here and must move forward 
carefully, mindful of our global leadership, without illusions of those 
threats that are most likely and most dangerous, and without 
ideological blinders.
  I will join with several of my colleagues later in a series of 
amendments that will, if adopted, address some of these concerns. The 
debate that lies ahead will be important to this bill and our national 
security.
  Mr. President, my thanks again to Senator Allard for his leadership 
of our subcommittee this year, and to Senators Warner and Levin for 
their leadership of the full committee. I look forward to the work we 
will do together as we move this important bill to final passage.



                          ____________________