[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7120-S7134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2400, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2400) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2005 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 
     Services, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Bond Modified Amendment No. 3384, to include certain former 
     nuclear weapons program workers in the Special Exposure 
     Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program and to provide for the disposal of 
     certain excess Department of Defense stocks for funds for 
     that purpose.
       Brownback Amendment No. 3235, to increase the penalties for 
     violations by television and radio broadcasters of the 
     prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and 
     profane language.
       Burns Amendment No. 3457 (to Amendment No. 3235), to 
     provide for additional factors in indecency penalties issued 
     by the Federal Communications Commission.
       Reed Amendment No. 3353, to limit the obligation and 
     expenditure of funds for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 
     program pending the submission of a report on operational 
     test and evaluation.
       Bingaman Amendment No. 3459, to require reports on the 
     detainment of foreign nationals by the Department of Defense 
     and on Department of Defense investigations of allegations of 
     violations of the Geneva Convention.
       Warner Amendment No. 3460 (to Amendment No. 3459), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Dayton/Feingold Amendment No. 3197, to strike sections 842 
     relative to a conforming standard for waiver of domestic 
     source or content requirement and 843 relative to the 
     consistency with United States obligations under trade 
     agreements.
       Warner (for McCain) amendment No. 3461 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by Amendment No. 3197), in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Feingold Modified Amendment No. 3288, to rename and modify 
     the authorities relating to the Inspector General of the 
     Coalition Provisional Authority.
       Landrieu/Snowe Amendment No. 3315, to amend title 10, 
     United States Code, to increase the minimum Survivor Benefit 
     Plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 62 and older, 
     and to provide for a one-year open season under that plan.
       Levin Amendment No. 3338, to reallocate funds for Ground-
     based Midcourse interceptors to homeland defense and 
     combatting terrorism.


                           Amendment No. 3338

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form in relation to the 
Levin missile defense amendment. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to strongly 
oppose the Levin amendment. This amendment would realign critical funds 
for the ground-based midcourse interceptors. The consequences of that 
decision, in my judgment, would be devastating. By reallocating those 
funds, Congress would effectively cripple the deployment and testing of 
the interceptors in Alaska. Let me hasten to add, that decision to go 
to Alaska with these interceptors was not a political decision. It was 
made by the scientists. But I support that decision, and I believe 
Alaskans do also.
  Ballistic missiles are a serious threat to the United States, and our 
interests, forces, and allies throughout the world are threatened by 
them. The missiles our enemies possess are growing in range, 
reliability, accuracy, and number. A missile carrying nuclear, 
biological, or chemical weapons could inflict damage that would make 
the tragedy our country experienced on September 11 pale by comparison.
  We cannot afford to ignore this threat. We must confront it, if we 
want to address the challenges that characterize our Nation's new 
security environment. The new security challenges of the 21st century 
require us to think and act differently.
  With that in mind, the decision was made to field the ground-based 
midcourse system in Alaska. Alaska's location gives us a strategic 
advantage. Interceptors launched from Alaska will be capable of 
protecting all 50 States. If Congress rejects Senator Levin's amendment 
and remains committed to the ground-based midcourse program, the United 
States will be able to meet any potential threat from a rogue nation or 
terrorist group.
  The Fort Greely interceptors are the centerpiece of our integrated, 
layered, national missile defense system. The funding contained in the 
2005 budget is a downpayment on additional interceptors that will 
enable us to conduct additional flight testing and maintain industrial 
base production lines for key components of the ground-based system. 
Senator Levin's amendment cuts this funding.
  The amendment also disregards what years of experience have shown--
that it is wise to move into a deployment phase before the testing 
phase of a program has been completed. I remind Congress of the gulf 
war, when we fielded a number of systems that were under development at 
that time, including JSTARS. I personally witnessed that test in the 
deployment phase, in the testing phase, and early deployment of JSTARS 
in the gulf war. The Patriot missile was also tested in this way.
  Over many years we enhanced the Patriot batteries that first saw 
action by 1991, by implementing a follow-on enhancement program and 
replacing the original missile with a completely new interceptor.
  Similarly, the B-52 bomber that first flew in 1952 is hardly the same 
aircraft that dropped the bombs over Afghanistan in the war against 
terror. The original B-52 gave us early intercontinental bombardment 
capability, and it was enhanced over time with hardware and software 
improvements that helped us meet evolving operational challenges. These 
examples are reminders that a requirement written into a system's 
development phase can quickly become irrelevant or yield a dead end. 
That is a lesson we must keep in the forefront of our minds as we 
confront today's dynamic security environment.
  The time to move forward with the deployment of a ground-based 
midcourse operational capability is now. We must continue to improve 
the system. It must be allowed to evolve over time and take advantage 
of the breakthroughs in technology as they occur. Congress should 
follow the proven wisdom of experience and resist the urge to build to 
perfection a national security strategy that has never served us well.

  That is exactly what this amendment would have us do--turn our backs 
on the proven wisdom of experience and wait until there is a tragedy to 
confront the national security threats we know are emerging now.
  I urge the Senate to support the ground-based midcourse system and 
oppose Senator Levin's amendment.
  Again, this system has been deployed in my State already in the test 
phase. We should continue that concept.
  I yield back any time I have not used.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has 25 minutes 30 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Michigan has 30 minutes remaining. 
Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment which I am offering does not 
touch the first 20 interceptors. They are fully funded. They are going 
to be deployed before they are independently tested. The Senate decided 
that last week in a number of debates and in a vote on an amendment, 
the Boxer amendment. Whether it was the right decision or the wrong 
decision, time will tell, but nonetheless it is the decision and was 
the decision of this Senate that those 20 interceptors be deployed in 
those silos in Alaska prior to their being independently tested.
  The question before us now is whether the added missiles--21 through 
30, those interceptors that are paid for in this bill--are going to be 
provided or whether we will use that money, $515 million, for a much 
greater need, to address a much more immediate threat, and that is the 
threat of loose nukes, the threat of nuclear fissile material

[[Page S7121]]

falling into the hands of terrorists, and also whether we will use at 
least some of that money to put more into the security of our borders, 
the security of our ports.
  I will start with a CIA assessment that was made not too many years 
ago. It was made after September 11. There was an unclassified 
assessment made by the CIA as to what our greatest threat was. They 
were comparing the missile threat to the nonmissile threat. ``Foreign 
Missile Developments and Ballistic Missile Threats Through 2015,'' was 
the title. They were looking at the missile threat. Here is the 
judgment:

       The Intelligence Community judges that U.S. territories are 
     more likely to be attacked with WMD using non-missile means, 
     primarily because such means, 1, are less expensive than 
     developing and producing ICBMs; 2, can be covertly developed 
     and employed; 3, the source of the weapon could be masked in 
     an attempt to evade retaliation; 4, probably would be more 
     reliable than ICBMs that have not completed rigorous testing 
     and validation programs; 5, probably would be much more 
     accurate than emerging ICBMs over the next 15 years; 6, 
     probably would be more effective for disseminating a 
     biological warfare agent than a ballistic missile; 7, would 
     avoid missile defenses. For all of those reasons, we have an 
     assessment that non-missile means of delivery are a more 
     serious threat than a missile means of delivery.

  Now, the amendment I offered does not touch those 20 missiles that 
were part of that test bed announced last year. Last year, the chairman 
of our committee, Senator Warner, said this body is authorized in 
moving ahead on 20 test bed sites, 16 in Alaska and the balance in 
California. That was the decision that we made last year--a 20-silo 
test bed site in Alaska and in California.
  Now, this year, the administration said they want additional 
interceptors. It is those additional interceptors on which we are 
focusing.
  My amendment would take $515 million of the $1.7 billion proposed for 
fiscal year 2005 and say let's put that $515 million into far more 
needed, immediate purposes; in other words, to try to address this 
massive fissile material threat, the loose nuke threat, the dirty bomb 
threat, which everybody says is the most serious terrorist threat we 
face.
  That is what this $515 million should be spent on; also, security of 
our borders, security of our ports. Most of the containers coming into 
this country are still uninspected.
  We still do not have a means of determining what is an explosive 
material at a distance. We must, if we are going to stop terrorists 
from blowing up themselves and us, be able to identify explosive 
material at a distance. We don't have that technology. My amendment 
would add money for that technology.
  We had the near destruction of the USS Cole because a tiny boat was 
able to get next to it. If we could identify that explosive material at 
a distance before the explosion of the car bomb or the suicide bomb or 
the little boat that almost blew up the USS Cole, we would be making 
ourselves far more secure. That is the kind of expenditure my amendment 
would provide. It leaves, I emphasize, $1.2 billion in funding for 
interceptors, which is more than we have provided in any prior fiscal 
year. In 2002, we provided $1.1 billion. In fiscal year 2003, we 
provided $763 million. In 2004, we provided $1.1 billion for 
interceptors.

  If my amendment is adopted and we use this money to address the loose 
nuke issue and the other issues I have identified, we would still have 
$1.2 billion for interceptors. Now, would there be an effect on 
testing? No, for two reasons. No. 1, there is no effect of this 
amendment on the funding for interceptors which are dedicated to flight 
tests. The only interceptors affected by this amendment are the 
deployed interceptors, 21 through 30. Those interceptors are not 
planned for flight testing.
  We were told last night, many of you folks say you want testing, but 
then you cut interceptors that are going to be used for testing. Let me 
emphasize that none of the interceptors that we cut are going to be 
used for flight testing; they are not going to be launched. They are 
going to sit in those silos. They will not be launched. We just 
received that word, again, from the missile defense folks.
  We asked them: Is it still your plan not to launch those interceptors 
from the silos in Alaska?
  Their answer is: That is correct. That is not our plan for testing. 
We are not going to launch those interceptors. The interceptors used 
for testing will be used somewhere else. They are not going to be part 
of this test bed. We are not cutting those three test interceptor 
missiles that are going to be used for testing.
  When we are all done, if this amendment is adopted, there would still 
be more spent on missile defense than on any weapons system in the 
history of this country in any single year. So the idea that somehow or 
other this is a devastating blow to missile defense is simply not 
correct. It is 5 percent of the missile defense budget request for this 
year. It is less than one-third of the interceptors, and none of the 
test interceptors. These are the extra missiles that were not asked for 
last year when we were assured by Senator Warner that the test bed was 
for 20 silos in Alaska, mainly, and 4 in California.
  Now, we talk about the greatest threats that we face. It seems to me 
that it is almost a consensus that the greatest threats we face come 
from the loose nukes. As a matter of fact, this body just adopted a 
Domenici-Feinstein amendment, and that amendment said we ought to fund 
what is called the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which has 
recently been announced by Secretary Abraham.
  Secretary Abraham, with great fanfare, announced the $450 million 
Global Threat Reduction Initiative on May 26. That is just a month 
ago--not even a month ago. Speaking to the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, Secretary Abraham said that this new effort, the $450 million 
Global Threat Reduction Initiative, aimed at the loose nukes, aimed at 
this fissile material that is distributed around the world--any few 
kilograms or pounds of which fell into the hands of a terrorist could 
blow up a city--this new effort, according to Secretary Abraham will 
``comprehensively and more thoroughly address the challenges posed by 
nuclear and radiological materials and related equipment that require 
attention anywhere in the world, by ensuring that they will not fall 
into the hands of those with evil intentions.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, the purpose of the initiative was to secure, 
consolidate, destroy, or return to the United States and Russia nuclear 
materials from around the world, concentrating on the least secure and 
the most dangerous materials first. Secretary Abraham committed the 
United States to dedicate more than $450 million to this effort. Well, 
there is no money in the 2005 budget for the effort.
  The words are there, the commitment is there, Lord knows the threat 
is there, but the money is not there. So in our bill, Senators 
Domenici, Feinstein, and others--and I was a cosponsor--offered an 
amendment which authorized this new initiative about which Senator 
Domenici said the following:

       Many of us have worked very hard to put together a program 
     where we and other nations will go to work at ridding the 
     world of proliferation of nuclear products from the nuclear 
     age. We think it is an exciting approach. Eventually, we have 
     to fund it and Presidents have to implement it. But the 
     Senate would be saying today it is good policy to get the 
     world concerned about getting rid of radioactive material 
     from the nuclear age.

  This amendment today does what Senators Domenici and Feinstein said 
and this Senate said when we adopted their amendment, which is to fund 
the initiative. Not just to talk about it, not just to say words which 
are important, but to actually put dollars behind the words.
  As Senator Domenici said in offering the amendment, which we adopted, 
which added this provision in this bill which authorized the Global 
Threat Reduction Initiative, this amendment:

       [I]s aimed--

  As his amendment was and is--

     at expediting global cleanout of nuclear materials and 
     equipment that could represent proliferation risks.

  He went on to say:

       Even though we are making progress, the focus on terrorism 
     over the last few years has substantially amplified the level 
     of our concern. In the process, we have learned more about 
     the complicated routes through which important equipment 
     technologies, such as enrichment capabilities, has moved to 
     unfortunate destinations.

[[Page S7122]]

       Our focus on Russia was appropriate a decade ago. But it is 
     very clear today that proliferation must be viewed as a 
     global problem. We must broaden our programs so that they 
     have a global impact, not only focused on the former Soviet 
     Union.
       The increased threat of terrorism should encourage us to 
     seek new ways to expedite the management, security, and 
     disposition of materials that could be dangerous to our 
     national security if they were to fall into the wrong hands. 
     These materials include a range of fissile materials, with 
     highly enriched uranium and plutonium being the ones of 
     greatest concern.

  My amendment today would ensure that this real and immediate threat 
to our security is funded, that the money is there.
  The money is being transferred from these extra missiles, missiles 
which have not been tested. If we decide we are going to proceed to 
deploy 20 untested missiles, so be it, but 21 through 30, not discussed 
last year when the test bed of the of 20 was described, but added this 
year, those additional missiles do not come close to being as important 
to our security as trying to help get rid of fissile and nuclear 
material that can fall into the hands of terrorists.
  Secretary Abraham said, and the words were good:

       We will take these steps because we must. The circumstances 
     of a dangerous world have thrust this responsibility on the 
     shoulders of the civilized world. We don't have the luxury of 
     sitting back and not taking action.

  We do not have that luxury, Mr. President. We do not have the luxury 
of not addressing that new global initiative that Secretary Abraham and 
the administration said was so important. We have a responsibility to 
look at how we allocate resources and to weigh the greater risks with 
the available resources.
  It seems so obvious to me that when we compare what is provided in an 
additional 10 missiles, not tested and not to be used as part of a 
test--we do not touch any test missiles. We do not touch the 20 
missiles in the test bed in Alaska and California. When we compare the 
funding of $515 million for those additional 10 missiles, those extra 
10 missiles not in the 20 silo test bed, with the critical need to 
obtain this fissile material and to secure it around the world before 
it falls into the hands of terrorists, it seems to me that the outcome 
should be very clear. We should put that $515 million into securing 
that material, to obtaining that material, to securing our ports, and 
to doing some of the other homeland defense needs that are provided for 
in my amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used the 5 additional minutes. 
He has 14 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair, and I reserve the remainder of that 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan reserves the 
remainder of his time. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  I rise to strongly oppose the Levin amendment. Senator Levin proposes 
to cut $515 million from missile defense and shift funds to a variety 
of homeland security and counterterrorism provisions. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment on a number of grounds.
  First, it makes a false distinction between missile defense and 
homeland security. Missile defense is quintessentially homeland 
security. That is right, missile defense is homeland security. It 
protects our homeland from long-range missiles and the most destructive 
weapons on the planet.
  Second, it makes a false distinction between missile defense and 
counterterror. Throughout the cold war, we were concerned with the 
balance of terror. Rogue nations with missiles and weapons of mass 
destruction will use those missiles and weapons to threaten and 
terrorize the United States, our allies, and our friends.
  Third, it would do serious harm to the Missile Defense Program. The 
$515 million cut in the Levin amendment is for the next 10 ground-based 
midcourse defense interceptors. Cutting these funds would break the 
production line for these missiles. It would cause the loss of key 
personnel, expertise, subcontractors, and suppliers, and then they 
would have to start all over again, with lead-in delays and extra costs 
to the program.
  The Missile Defense Agency would have to reconstitute the production, 
requalify and recertify subcontractors and suppliers, and it would have 
to restart production. Losing these funds for a year could result in a 
long delay in fielding the next 10 interceptors--between 2 and 3 
years after we would have fielded them, I am told--and result in 
restart costs of nearly $300 million.

  Those who oppose missile defense obviously would like to delay. That 
is what we have been arguing over the last few days. They would like to 
add costs and then come back and say how this program is not proceeding 
the way it should. This is an essential program. We should not have 
delays. We should do everything we possibly can to cut down unnecessary 
costs because of time delays.
  Fourth, it would do serious harm to the defense of the Nation against 
long-range missile threats. The Missile Defense Agency's assessment is 
that delaying the next 10 interceptors would leave us critically short 
of assets in the 2007 timeframe to defend against known and potential 
threats.
  We cannot talk about all the information that is available that 
informs Senators and how that judgment comes about, but it is available 
to all Senators, and if they have any questions about that, I urge them 
to get that information and review it.
  And fifth, this amendment is inconsistent with national policy 
established in legislation and signed into law by President Clinton. 
The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 established a national policy 
to deploy a national missile defense as soon as technologically 
feasible. It is feasible, and these additional interceptors are 
important to that effort. The Senate approved that act by a vote of 97 
to 3, I remind Members of the Senate.
  Furthermore, this amendment would move the funds to accounts that are 
already well funded. Again, I remind my colleagues in the Senate, this 
missile defense is homeland security.
  I want to talk a little bit about these funds. For example, the 
President's budget includes $47.4 billion for homeland security 
activities, not including ballistic missile defense throughout the 
Government, an increase of $6.1 billion, or 15 percent, compared to 
last year, a $26.8 billion increase to fiscal year 2002.
  Being on the Budget Committee, I had an opportunity to do a 
comparison. Homeland security is getting far more percentage increase 
than any other agency the President proposed in his budget. Now we are 
piling in on top of that.
  Funding for the Department's activities to counter terrorism has more 
than doubled in 3 years to $10.2 billion. Of that amount, the 
President's budget request included $8 billion in DOD programs for 
homeland defense. The committee's mark added more than $300 million 
above the budget request.
  All of the programs for which Senator Levin proposes to add funds in 
his amendment were funded either at or above the amount of the 
President's budget request. Many of the recommendations for increased 
funding in this measure are simply flawed.
  For example, one of the first items recommends an increase of $50 
million in Air Force research and development to be allocated to NORAD 
for low altitude threat detection and response technology. This item 
appears to be directed at cruise missile defense, but it is not clearly 
enough defined to know how the proposed funding increase would be used. 
A $50 million increase for ill-defined purposes would not be 
executable.
  I note that the proposal was apparently justified on the basis that 
the NORTHCOM integrated priority list includes cruise missile defense. 
This proposed amendment also reduces one of the highest NORTHCOM 
priorities on its list--that is ballistic missile defense--by $515 
million, again reminding the Members of the Senate that missile defense 
is homeland security.
  Finally, I have a letter that was sent to the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee from Admiral Ellis, commander of the Strategic 
Command at Omaha, NE, the head military integrator for missile defense, 
who expresses his opposition to any cuts to missile defense funding. I 
will read this letter for the benefit of my colleagues.

       Dear Mr. Chairman:

[[Page S7123]]

       I am writing to express concern about possible efforts to 
     cut funding from the President's FY05 budget request for 
     continued fielding of missile defense capabilities, including 
     additional Ground-based Interceptors. As the operational lead 
     for Global Missile Defense, USSSTRATCOM supports the 
     continued appropriate development of missile defense 
     capabilities that will be incrementally fielded and improved 
     under the evolutionary approach of Concurrent Test and 
     Operations. It is especially important to our early success 
     that we have funding support for the production of ground-
     based interceptors at a rate and quantity sufficient to 
     sustain the evolutionary developmental approach, testing 
     milestones, and our initial defense operational capabilities.
       A reduction of interceptor funding would: (1) limit the 
     capability and capacity of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     System to defend the U.S. against long-range missile attack, 
     and (2) limit the opportunity to gain operational test 
     experience as it will reduce the number of interceptors 
     available to replace deployed interceptors subsequently used 
     in operational testing.

  He goes on to say he further appreciates the chairman's support to 
both develop and provide the Nation with a rudimentary missile defense 
capability and indicated that this letter was also forwarded to the 
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So the sponsor 
of this amendment has seen this letter, which is from an individual 
whom I have had before my committee and somebody whom I highly respect. 
So there we have it, somebody who is part of STRATCOM giving us a clear 
reason for why we need to have those additional missiles.

  In response to what the sponsor of the amendment said about whether 
all the missiles are going to be used, that was addressed in a full 
committee hearing on March 9 in which Senator Levin himself, the 
sponsor of the amendment, asked General Kadish, after he commented 
about the fact that the missiles would work: How many of the Fort 
Greeley ones would be launched?
  General Kadish answered--and this is not new evidence or new facts 
that have been brought before the Armed Services Committee or even 
before the full Senate. General Kadish said: Eventually, all of them.
  That response was further pursued by my colleague on the Armed 
Services Committee, who asked: They would be moved somewhere else, is 
that it?
  General Kadish said: No. Well, they may--this is part of the ongoing 
planning. That is why we all get frustrated from time to time when we 
change our plans.
  The current plan is to use all of those out at Fort Greeley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes of his time.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not object, will the Chair advise both sides as to the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14\1/2\ minutes remaining now on the 
side of the Senator from Virginia and 14 minutes remaining on the side 
of the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. ALLARD. I will respond to the concerns that were raised by the 
sponsor of the amendment about what he referred to as ``loose nukes,'' 
and from that same report which he quoted, I would point out that in 
the report it says the probability that a weapons of mass destruction 
armed missile will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher 
today than during most of the cold war.
  This is a real threat, and we should not be saying we have a higher 
priority on homeland defense or a higher priority on missiles. The fact 
is we are vulnerable in all areas. We need to address that, and we have 
been adequately addressing it with our funding for homeland security. 
Now we need to take care of missile defense and make sure we have 
adequately taken care of the threat with weapons of mass destruction 
through missiles that might be launched.
  In response to a hearing we had earlier on the need for a missile 
defense test bed, I will share with my colleagues some testimony by 
Admiral Ellis, who is the commander of STRATCOM. I asked Admiral Ellis: 
Do you support the use of the missile defense test bed to provide 
limited operational capability, yes or no?
  Admiral Ellis replies: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
  Then I asked him a further question: Does such a capability 
contribute to deterrence?
  Admiral Ellis says: Absolutely.
  Then I responded back: Does such a capability provide a useful 
strategic option?
  Admiral Ellis says: Yes, it does.
  Then I further questioned: Does such a capability raise the nuclear 
threshold?
  Admiral Ellis says: It certainly does.
  The fourth point I would like to talk about is the funding of the 
nonproliferation initiative. The biggest portion of Senator Levin's 
proposal adds $211 million for a new nonproliferation initiative in the 
Department of Energy, but DOE cannot spend the funding it has already 
for nonproliferation. Right now, DOE has $735 million in unobligated 
balances for nonproliferation programs, and Senator Levin's amendment 
would push that total up to nearly a billion dollars.
  In summary, we are on the right track. The Armed Services Committee 
has received testimony both in my subcommittee as well as in the full 
committee and the testimony indicates we have a real need in missile 
defense and we are taking care of homeland security. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing the Levin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama seeks recognition.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for his leadership. I 
support his position on this issue that is before us today, as well as 
that of Senator Allard who chairs the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of 
the Armed Services Committee where this matter is dealt with in 
depth. Both these Senators have worked on this issue for quite some 
time and have given it serious consideration. I believe they are 
correct. Indeed, I believe the Levin amendment runs counter to the 
policy of this Senate that has been established for some time. It is, I 
believe, now the fourth amendment of its kind, designed to erode the 
support and commitment we made to deploying a national missile defense 
system.

  A number of years ago, in 1998 or so, this Senate in a bipartisan way 
adopted the Cochran-Lieberman amendment that declared it was the policy 
of the U.S. Congress that we should deploy a national missile defense 
system as soon as practical--not develop one, not research one, but to 
deploy it as soon as possible. That passed, I believe, with about 90-
plus votes in the Senate and was signed by President Clinton. It 
represents the policy and commitment of the United States.
  Over the years, we have moved toward that goal. We were told it could 
not be done. We were told a missile could not hit a missile in the air. 
We were told, yes, there may be a threat out there, but it probably is 
not very real, and even if it is you can't make the technology work. 
This is Star Wars. It goes back to some degree to the ridicule that was 
directed toward former President Reagan for his steadfast belief that 
this country needed to move from just trying to see how many missiles 
we can aim at our enemies, see how much threat we can focus on them, to 
the concept he believed was more peaceful, which would be to develop a 
system that would allow us to defend ourselves against attack. That is 
what we voted on, and we voted on it virtually unanimously. I think 90 
percent plus of the Senators in this body voted for that amendment.
  That is where we are today. Now we have here at the last minute, as 
this bill moves forward, one more attempt to drawdown money and to 
spend it on other things. Yes, there are a lot of needs in this 
country. You can go to education, you can go to health care, you can go 
to homeland security, you can go to a lot of things we believe we need 
desperately in America, but we are here to make choices. We made a 
commitment and a choice to field a national missile defense system.
  I will point out that a lot of Americans probably do not know this 
system is working. The science is being proven

[[Page S7124]]

day after day. In fact, in September we will be placing in the ground 
in Alaska a national missile defense system that can help protect us 
from missile attack--not just from North Korea, but from an accidental 
launch. They could be effective in protecting this country, and as we 
go forward we will continue to improve this system.
  As you test and develop this system, spiraling as we are doing now, 
then we may find we can develop a better radar system, we can develop a 
system that can be deployed on ships more effectively than what we have 
today. We may be able to develop a local land-based system. We may 
improve our computer system. We may be able to improve our guidance 
systems. We may be able to improve our ability to defeat even the most 
sophisticated attempts to confuse a national missile defense system. 
But it does not have to be perfect before we put it into place today. I 
say we are going to continue to do that.
  I believe we are committed to going forward with this. It would be a 
terrible mistake to cut $515 million from a system that is on track now 
to be effective and to be deployed. This will shut down the assembly 
lines. This will shut down the production that is ongoing. It is going 
to cost us much more money in the long run. It is not going to be good 
for our productive system. It is the kind of on-again, off-again 
political management of the production and deployment of systems that 
is not healthy for our Defense Department.

  I see my time has expired. I thank the chairman for his leadership. I 
also oppose the Levin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama yields the floor.
  The Senator from Virginia has 5 minutes 5 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague from Alabama. He has 
been in the forefront of this debate for all the years he has been a 
member of the Armed Services Committee.
  At this time, I think it would be fair we allow the distinguished 
proponent of the amendment to speak for a bit. Then I will follow, and 
I presume he would like to do a few minutes' wrap-up; is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. That will be great. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I will yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. President, the threat we are talking about addressing in my 
amendment is not one of our domestic priorities. As important as those 
priorities are, it is not transferring money from missile defense to 
education or health care. It is transferring money from the next 10 
missiles, untested, numbers 21 through 30, which were not stated to be 
part of that 20-silo test bed which was presented to us last year, 
instead taking that money and using that money not for my project but 
for the administration's stated project of trying to address the 
``loose nuke'' issue.
  This is a program, this $450 million program, the administration 
announced a few weeks ago in Vienna. With great fanfare, Secretary 
Abraham said we have to address the loose nuke problem around the 
world. Agreements were signed to counter a nuclear threat; $450 million 
to prevent research materials going to terrorists as part of a global 
cleanup plan.
  But there is no money in this program. So the Senate comes along a 
few days ago, and Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein, with the 
support, I believe, of most of us--surely mine--say we have to move in 
this direction. They authorize the program. But still no money. The 
words are there, but the money is not there.
  We are talking about the money for a global program, not cleanup in 
Russia. That money has already been identified. This is for nuclear 
material around the world that we and the Russians have to identify and 
secure. That is what that $450 million is. There is not a penny in this 
budget to secure that nuclear material.

  The Russia task force of the Secretary of Energy said that the most 
urgent unmet security threat to the United States is the danger that 
weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material could be sold to 
terrorists and used against us. That was the so-called Baker-Cutler 
task force. Then they said the funding that is provided in the 
Department of Energy budget falls short of what is required to 
adequately address the threat.
  We had the Harvard task force come forward and say the facts are that 
the amount of inadequately secured bomb material in the world today is 
enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons, that terrorists are 
actively seeking to get it, and that with such material in hand a 
capable and well-organized terrorist group plausibly could make, 
deliver, and detonate at least a crude nuclear bomb capable of 
incinerating the heart of any major city in the world. Securing the 
vast stockpiles of nuclear materials and weapons around the world is an 
essential priority for nonproliferation, for counterterrorism, and for 
homeland security. That is the issue we have to face. Are we going to 
fund this kind of program, or are we just going to talk about it?
  The hundreds of millions of dollars which were identified by Senator 
Allard have nothing to do with this effort to secure nuclear material 
around the world. The money he identified has to do with a program to 
try to secure plutonium between ourselves and Russia, a program which 
is currently stalemated. That is something which hopefully can be 
worked out between the Russians and the State Department. But the money 
we are talking about which was so widely proclaimed by Secretary 
Abraham as being forthcoming has not been forthcoming. There is no 
money in the budget for it.
  It is the loose nuke material that exists around the world that 
threatens us more than any other single threat, and we don't have any 
money for it in here. The question is whether we are going to do it or 
whether we are going to add another 10 interceptors, numbers 21 through 
30, add them to the test bed. That is the issue we face. Which is a 
higher priority for us? Again, I emphasize this amendment does not 
touch those 20 interceptors which are part of that test bed. We do not 
touch that. That debate was last week. That is not this amendment.

  Last week, we decided we are going to deploy those interceptors. Even 
though they have not been independently tested, they will still be 
deployed. Maybe they will work, maybe they will not work, but they will 
be deployed. OK, that decision was made.
  We are talking now about Nos. 21 through 30 and whether that $550 
million is better spent the way it is proposed in this budget, or to 
address the loose nuke problem around the world, to address our border 
security, to try to inspect the containers by the tens of thousands 
that come into this country, to put additional funds into new 
technologies to address how we can identify explosive material at a 
distance so we do not face a blowup of a ship like the USS Cole, a car 
bomber, or a suicide bomber. That is the issue, whether we are serious 
about the effort to address the greatest terrorist threats we face or 
whether we want to put another $500 million into another 10 
interceptors which have not yet been tested.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 6 minutes. The time 
remaining on the Senator's side is 7 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to our colleagues, I think the 
Senator and I can agree on this point that there is no vote on this 
current 2005 authorization bill of greater significance than the vote 
we will take momentarily.
  I frame this vote as follows: The whole of America watched within the 
past few days the September 11 Commission, its Chairman, face the 
cameras and say, in response to the astonishment of the American people 
about the tragic events of September 11, we didn't foresee it, we 
didn't plan for it, we didn't fund for it, we didn't train for it, and 
it happened.
  I say respectfully to my colleagues, that is precisely what this vote 
is all about.
  The Senator laid down the priorities of the Central Intelligence 
Agency. I have them before me. I should repeat this one. They say the 
possibility that a WMD armed missile will be used

[[Page S7125]]

against the U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most 
of the cold-war period.
  Senator Levin and I have been partners for 25 years on this 
committee. We went through the cold-war era together. That is an 
astonishingly high expectation. True, the CIA put somewhat greater 
emphasis on a number of the programs that will be funded should the 
Senator's amendment pass, but the Senator would acknowledge to me, I 
think, that the administration, in sending forth this budget, covered 
those 10 programs. Six of those programs receive more money than asked 
for in the budget, and the remaining four programs were funded at the 
budget level.
  He points out a most recent program raised by the Secretary of 
Energy. I share his concern, but the Secretary of Energy said that can 
be financed through reprogramming, which is a procedure we follow 
regularly.

  In summary, we are at the crossroads momentarily of whether the 
Missile Defense Program that this Nation has been working on for these 
many years, that has been acted upon by the Congress in successive 
sessions, will continue.
  While the Senator said we are not dislodging what has been done by 
the past Congress, I ask, why we should even go forward with those 
expenses if we are going to stop the program and gap it, gap it for an 
indeterminate period? Should we be able to put it together again after 
several years, at a minimum, who can assure the technical workforce 
that put together the first missiles will be there? Who can say the 
contractor wants to pick up, once again, the burden of trying to 
restart a program, given the background of the stop/start by the 
Congress if this Levin amendment is adopted?
  This amendment will spread uncertainty into this program. The world 
will begin to say: America is not serious about missile defense.
  Much of the technology of these programs for missile defense could 
well be used in future years by other nations that will recognize their 
vulnerability to the missiles. When we say ``vulnerability,'' it is not 
necessarily limited to an aggressor firing, it could be an accidental 
firing. That has happened. I need only point out the tragic submarine 
experience. Both Russia and the United States have experienced errors 
with those magnificent platforms, causing death and destruction. 
Accidents happen even with the best of intent with military equipment.
  We see China coming on, we see North Korea. I think there is no 
dispute as to their potential today.
  We must look at ourselves and go back to that refrain of Lee 
Hamilton: We didn't plan, we didn't foresee, we didn't train, and it 
happened. A future generation of America can look on this Senate at 
this very moment and would have to see, henceforth, if this Nation ever 
experiences the type of attack to which the Central Intelligence Agency 
says we are vulnerable.
  I urge Members to stay the course and not send a signal that America 
has stumbled backward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we should stay the course. We have to 
address the threats that we know are the major threats. We are not 
doing that. The loose nuke threat in this world is the No. 1 threat 
against us. That is what we all believe.
  Yet a $450 million program to address those loose nukes is not funded 
in this budget. There is not a dollar for that program in this budget. 
We are told now that the Department of Energy will reprogram $450 
million. I would like to see that request come in from the Department 
of Energy. But we do not have that request, either.
  What we do have, what we do know, is that the major threat we face is 
the loose nuke threat. That is what the experts at the Department of 
Energy tell us. We surely have to address the less likely threats. I 
could not agree with that more. We should address threats that are not 
as likely.
  But, my heavens, to put nothing in this budget when we have adopted 
the Domenici-Feinstein amendment which says we will have this global 
program--there is no money authorized behind it in this budget. We have 
adopted the Domenici amendment. Senator Domenici is exactly right. This 
is the greatest threat we face, loose nukes. Loose nukes globally are 
the greatest threat we face. What he said is someday we have to put the 
funds behind it. That someday is now. We have to compare that threat 
which we all believe is the most certain threat against the less likely 
threat identified by the CIA, which is a missile attack.
  Now it has been suggested that maybe we should then totally disband 
the missile defense we have in Alaska. That is not what this amendment 
is about. I want to emphasize that because it has been 
mischaracterized. This does not end missile defense in Alaska. Quite 
the opposite, it continues the funding for those first 20 missiles.
  My dear friend from Virginia said last year that test bed is 20 
missiles in Alaska. He asked Senator Boxer a few days ago whether this 
body last year ``authorized moving ahead on 20 test bed sites, 16 in 
Alaska and the balance in [California].'' And Senator Boxer said: 
``Yes.'' That is what we decided last year. It would be a 20-silo test 
bed site.
  We do not disturb that in any way. We leave more money in this budget 
after the $500 million is put into ``loose nukes.'' We leave more money 
in there for interceptors than has been in any fiscal year budget. Mr. 
President, $1.2 billion is left in the budget this year after my $500 
million subtraction. That is more than was there in 2004, 2003, 2002. 
Any of those years had less money for interceptors.
  So the idea that somehow or other we are destroying a missile defense 
system--when we leave that test bed in Alaska the way it is, we leave 
the funding for it exactly the way it is, with 20 silos, the way it was 
stated to be last year, but what we are saying is: Do not add another 
10. Do not add another 10 interceptors, not independently tested. We 
have been through that argument, but they are not tested missiles.
  The money that goes into those 10 missiles can be used for a much 
greater threat, not just the ``loose nuke'' threat, but the threats 
that have been identified by NORAD and by the Northern Command. There 
are many unfunded needs we have listed from NORAD, including low-
altitude threat detection and response technologies.
  This is another one from the Navy which we fund. Let me read this 
because it goes right to the USS Cole issue. They have an unfunded 
program that would procure ``mobile and shore Explosive Ordnance 
Disposal detachments to fill gap in required capability to detect 
chemical, biological, and explosive hazards during Improvised Explosive 
Device/Weapons Mass Destruction and Force Protection responses.'' So 
the Navy says they have an unfunded program need of $21 million to try 
to identify explosives at a distance.
  We all know--surely the chairman of our committee knows--what 
happened with the USS Cole. If we could have identified those little 
boats carrying explosives at a distance, we would not have had the 
damage and loss of life we had on the USS Cole.
  So we have these real needs we would fund in my amendment. We have to 
compare that to the extra 10 interceptors, Nos. 21 through 30, that do 
not touch that 20-silo test bed in Alaska.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of documents be 
printed in the Record. One would be the NORAD statement relative to 
their shortfalls, some of which are funded in my amendment. Second 
would be two editorials, one from the Washington Post and one from the 
Los Angeles Times.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will not object, but I would state that 
the Department of Energy, addressing the ``loose nuke'' issue, says 
they expect to spend $87 million on it this year, and they can't spend 
any additional money on it. So I think that should be stated likewise.
  Mr. LEVIN. If it is $87 million, despite the $450 million which the 
Secretary of Energy announced, that $87 million is not provided for in 
this authorization bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S7126]]

               Low Altitude Air Defense of North America

       NORAD is leading the development and employment of 
     capabilities for the air defense of North America. Given the 
     proliferation of advanced technologies and improvised 
     delivery platforms operated by terrorist groups and others, 
     on 13 June 2002 the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 
     directed NORAD to develop the ``Low Altitude Air Threat 
     Defense of North America Capstone Requirements Document.''
       This critical homeland defense effort addresses the 
     increasing gap between the growing danger from low altitude, 
     low observable threats and NORAD's current air defense 
     capabilities.
       Such threats include cruise missiles, unmanned aerial 
     vehicles, crop dusters, radio controlled low observable 
     aircraft and ultra-lights.
       Limited capabilities exist for fusing surveillance 
     information and the effective engagement and elimination of 
     these increasingly advanced threats launched from air, land 
     or sea.
       Emerging technologies should be examined to enable NORAD to 
     detect, identify, track, engage and assess these threats.
       There are two aspects to this NORAD-led multi-year effort, 
     which is supported by U.S. Northern Command and the Joint 
     Theater Air Missile Defense Organization:
       a. Develop and write a Capstone Requirements Document. The 
     Capstone Requirements Document will provide the overarching 
     set of ``plug and play rules''--called requirements--by which 
     all systems, regardless of Service or interagency origin, are 
     to be developed and/or employed in support of detecting, 
     deterring and defending against low altitude air threats. 
     That is, regardless of agency or Service of origin, the 
     systems necessary for the full-spectrum air defense of North 
     America must be interoperable in order to provide NORAD the 
     actionable information it needs to defend against such low 
     altitude air threats.
       b. Complete development and evaluation of a suite of 
     technologies. The following technologies have great potential 
     for the successful detection of and defense against low 
     altitude air threats:
       Homeland Defense Battle Management Command and Control 
     architecture--will ensure the requisite interoperability of 
     systems to fuse sensor information and pass actionable 
     information to NORAD command and control centers and 
     defending forces;
       Technologies for cruise missile detection and 
     identification, including lightweight radar technologies;
       Stratospheric airship;
       Maritime surveillance;
       Surveillance platforms and other sensors; and
       Defensive weapons.
                                  ____

     From: Nanette Nadeau.
     Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2004.
     To: Evelyn Farkas, (Armed Services).
     Subject: Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection.

       Hello Evelyn: Here is the information you requested on 
     Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP). In our earlier 
     conversation, you mentioned the FY05 $209.2M AT/FP shortfall 
     for Army Forces Command. Please be aware that USNORTHCOM's 
     other components have AT/FP shortfalls as well.


                anti-terrorism/force protection (at/fp)

        U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and its Service 
     Components; people, installations, forward/deployed 
     facilities and equipment are at increased risk of attack 
     based on recent and emerging asymmetric threats. The Command 
     should have the capability to deter and/or mitigate the risks 
     of terrorist acts against people and property whether in-
     place or deployed. This includes a physical security program 
     to provide detection (alarms/guards), hardening of 
     structures, replacement of current explosive material 
     detection and personal protection gear (various detectors, 
     night vision goggles, etc.). The AT/FP program would also 
     include resources to conduct anti-terrorism exercises, 
     perform training and promote AT/FP awareness. FY05 AT/FP 
     funding lines for USNORTHCOM's Service Components follow.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline    Shortfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Forces Command...........................       $172.4       $209.2
Marine Forces Atlantic........................          0.0         26.4
Air Force/Air Combat Command..................          0.4         14.0
Navy Forces Atlantic..........................        128.7         82.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Our first action on Thursday morning will be to provide you 
     UNCLASSIFIED information on the FY05 $13.3M shortfall for 
     Consequence Management.
       We appreciate all your support.
           Thank you,

                                            Nanette A. Nadeau,

                                       Chief, Legislative Liaison,
     Commander's Action Group.
                                  ____

     From: Nanette Nadeau.
     Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2004.
     To: Evelyn Farkas (Armed Services).
     Subject: Consequence Management.

       Hi Evelyn: Here is the information you requested on 
     consequence management.
     consequence management
       USNORTHCOM, through its components, needs to be able to 
     communicate with federal, state and local agencies to begin 
     damage control and minimize the effects of actual or 
     suspected chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high 
     explosive incidents, civil disturbances and other events, 
     when directed by the President or Secretary of Defense. 
     Currently, the Army National Guard (ARNG) has only limited 
     capability to establish communications to support civil 
     authorities. This degrades alternate site operations, High 
     Frequency radio transmissions and prevents secure 
     communications required during domestic support operations.
       The FY05 consequence management funding profile for ARNG 
     command and control networks follows:
       ARNG: Baseline--$2.4M; Shortfall--$13.3M.
       Hope this helps!

                                            Nanette A. Nadeau,

                                       Chief, Legislative Liaison,
     Commander's Action Group.
                                  ____

         Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval 
           Operations,
                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 2004.
     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Skelton: In response to your letter of 
     February 9, 2004, I am providing a list of unfunded programs 
     to which additional funding could be applied. While the Navy 
     is grateful for and has benefited from the increased 
     resources recently provided by the President and the 
     Congress, there still remain additional shortfalls that are 
     detailed herein.
       The Department's FY 2005 Budget continues to focus on our 
     new defense strategy and emergent challenges of the 21st 
     Century. The resources contained in this budget go far in 
     helping us to maintain heightened readiness in uncertain 
     times, to provide further investment in transformational 
     programs, and to take care of our sailors and their families. 
     However, the Global War on Terrorism and current operations 
     incident to Operation Iraq Freedom continue to stretch our 
     resources in many areas. Additionally, the road to attaining 
     our shipbuilding and aircraft procurement program goals 
     remains exceptionally challenging.
       For FY 2005, Naval unfunded programs total $2.5 billion. 
     These unfunded items are listed under Enclosure (1).
       As always, if I may be of any further assistance, please 
     let me know. A copy of this letter is also being provided to 
     Chairman Hunter and Warner, and Senator Levin.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Vern Clark,
                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy.
       Enclosure.

                                   USN FY-05 UNFUNDED PROGRAM LIST (PRIORITY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30  CH-46 ERIP Inventory Adjustment.........................      APN      5.0  The CH-46 will be in service
                                                                                 longer than initially projected
                                                                                 due to V-22 program delays. The
                                                                                 Engine Reliability Improvement
                                                                                 Program is the engine
                                                                                 reliability and performance
                                                                                 solution to the H-46 #1 issue
                                                                                 over the last 5 years. The
                                                                                 program delivers an engine with
                                                                                 twice the reliability of
                                                                                 today's engine, is ahead of
                                                                                 schedule and meets engine
                                                                                 demand and operational
                                                                                 readiness requirements from
                                                                                 OIF. This funding provides (7)
                                                                                 ERIP modifications.
31  LHD 8...................................................        SCN  106.0  Fully fund LHD 8 SCN shortfall
                                                                                 as well as Ship Self-Defense
                                                                                 System (SSDS), AT/FP, and
                                                                                 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
                                                                                 (EFV) support on ship. Funds
                                                                                 IPVT shortfalls in TPX-42 and
                                                                                 GCCS-M interfaces with SSDS
                                                                                 Mk2; Implementation of USS COLE
                                                                                 SRG recommendations; Collective
                                                                                 protection system;
                                                                                 Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
                                                                                 integration.
32  LHA(R)..................................................        SCN  250.0  Provides funding that will
                                                                                 deliver a transitional platform
                                                                                 fielding transformational
                                                                                 capabilities.
33  5"/54 Upgrades on CGs...................................    RDTEN     10.0  As part of the CG Modernization
                                                                                 program, upgrades existing 5"54
                                                                                 gun to interface with upgraded
                                                                                 fire control system and SPQ-9B
                                                                                 radar. Allows use of Task Force
                                                                                 Hip Pocket 5" rounds against
                                                                                 small boats. Supports Sea
                                                                                 Strike and Sea Shield pillars.
34  ARCI/Advanced Process Build Integration.................    RDTEN     20.0  Additional funds needed to
                                                                                 accelerate Acoustic Rapid COTS
                                                                                 Insertion (ARCI) upgrades to 13
                                                                                 ships that will not get ARCI
                                                                                 upgrades before deployment.
                                                                                 Includes Adv. Processor Build
                                                                                 (APB) 04 integration which
                                                                                 includes High Frequency
                                                                                 Tactical Control Sonar, AI&R-
                                                                                 SPVA sensor and processing,
                                                                                 real time reach back analysis
                                                                                 and spectral trackers.
35  CHEM/BIO................................................    MULTI     21.4  Procures systems for mobile and
                                                                                 shore Explosive Ordnance
                                                                                 Disposal (EOD) detachments to
                                                                                 fill gap in required capability
                                                                                 to detect chemical, biological,
                                                                                 and explosive hazards during
                                                                                 Improvised Explosive Device/
                                                                                 Weapons Mass Destruction and
                                                                                 Force Protection responses.
                                                                                 Currently the EOD detachments
                                                                                 are limited in this capability.
                                                                                 Replaces 2800 CBD respirators
                                                                                 that have exceeded service life
                                                                                 plus 2-year extension. Allows
                                                                                 USN/USMC aircrew to operate in
                                                                                 CBRN threat environment until
                                                                                 Joint Service Aircrew Mask is
                                                                                 fielded in FY09.
36  ESSM on Large Decks.....................................    MULTI     34.2  Funds completion of Ship Self
                                                                                 Defense System (SSDS) MK2 and
                                                                                 procurement of one CEC system,
                                                                                 one SPQ-9B system, and one
                                                                                 complete Re-architectured NATO
                                                                                 Seasparrow Missile System
                                                                                 (RNSSMS) including a shipset
                                                                                 and installation costs for two
                                                                                 Mk29 (ORDALT) missile
                                                                                 launchers.
37  AV-8B Engine Life Management Program....................    RDTEN      5.0  The AV-8B Engine Life Management
                                                                                 Program (ELMP) improves the
                                                                                 F402 engine's safety and
                                                                                 reliability to increase the
                                                                                 Mean Time Between engine
                                                                                 Removal (MTBR) from 275 hours
                                                                                 to 800 hours, and to ensure the
                                                                                 AV-8B will remain a ready and
                                                                                 relevant combat aircraft until
                                                                                 transition to the JSF (STOVL).
                                                                                 Accelerated Simulated Mission
                                                                                 Endurance Testing III (ASMET
                                                                                 III) ensures engine test
                                                                                 experience remains ahead of
                                                                                 Fleet experience. $2.0M will
                                                                                 complete the remaining unfunded
                                                                                 portion of the ASMET III test
                                                                                 scheduled for FY2005. $3.0M is
                                                                                 required to reinstate the
                                                                                 previously cancelled Engine
                                                                                 Monitoring System (EMS) plan in
                                                                                 FY 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S7127]]

               [From the Washington Post, June 11, 2004]

                           Too Slow on Nukes

       The group of eight industrialized nations took a couple of 
     steps at their summit meeting in Georgia this week to prevent 
     the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Urged on by the Bush 
     administration, the leaders of Europe, Japan, Canada and 
     Russia agreed to a one-year moratorium on supplying equipment 
     for producing fissile material to countries that do not 
     already have it. Mr. Bush seeks a permanent ban, which will 
     be discussed in the coming months. The G-8 also announced 
     seven new participants in its program for funding the 
     securing of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and 
     agreed to press more non-nuclear countries to accept expanded 
     inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The 
     various initiatives followed several recent steps by the Bush 
     administration--including a new $450 million program to 
     collect enriched uranium and plutonium from 40 countries 
     around the world--that have added momentum to its efforts to 
     prevent the spread of nukes to nations or terrorist groups.
       This program nevertheless looks paltry in comparison with 
     recent developments in the opposite direction. Both North 
     Korea and Iran appear to be continuing with nuclear weapons 
     development, overcoming ineffective containment efforts by 
     the Bush administration and oft-divided groups of its allies. 
     Next week the IAEA board will meet to consider a report that 
     a formal Iranian commitment to freeze work on enriching 
     uranium was never honored. It's not clear that all the 
     nuclear equipment secretly produced and traded by the 
     Pakistan-based network of Abdul Qadeer Khan has been tracked 
     down: Some seems to have disappeared. Evidence has emerged, 
     meanwhile, that North Korea already has exported nuclear 
     technology, to Libya. Though Libya is dismantling its 
     program, there is an obvious danger that North Korea will 
     sell bombs or the technology for them to others. It's easy to 
     fault the ineffective strategies for these threats pursued by 
     the Bush administration or, in the case of Iran, by European 
     governments. But it's also unclear whether any approach, from 
     negotiation to military action, would succeed--though the 
     effort at containment must go on.
       What's odd in such circumstances is the relative 
     sluggishness with which the world has attacked the part of 
     the nuclear menace that is relatively easier to deal with, if 
     equally frightening: that of ``loose nukes'' and the 
     materials needed to make them. All the elements needed to 
     manufacture a nuclear weapon are readily available in global 
     markets, save the fissile core of highly enriched uranium or 
     plutonium--and hundreds of tons of these materials are stored 
     under insecure conditions in the nations of the Soviet Union 
     and other countries. A decade-old U.S. program has 
     safeguarded only 20 percent of the material in Russia and 
     less than that elsewhere. According to a recent report by a 
     team of Harvard University researchers, less fissile material 
     was secured in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001, than in 
     the two years before the attacks.
       Though it is working harder at securing the loose nukes, 
     the Bush administration is still giving this effort a 
     fraction of the resources it is spending to deploy a missile 
     defense system against a threat--a rogue state with an 
     intercontinental missile--that does not currently exist. At 
     the current rate of work, it will take 13 years to secure the 
     remaining bomb-grade material in the former Soviet Union and 
     more than a decade to collect it from other countries. Mr. 
     Bush's challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass), has laid out 
     a plan to complete the same job within four years. The 
     president could help his own political cause as well as U.S. 
     security by matching that commitment.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2004]

                      A Bigger Peril: Dirty Bombs

       During the Cold War, the United States, under the Atoms for 
     Peace program, and the Soviet Union actively exported nuclear 
     materials abroad to friendly countries. The justification was 
     that they were helping to promote the peaceful use of nuclear 
     energy. Now the U.S. and Russia are reviving efforts to 
     retrieve uranium before it ends up in a terrorist dirty bomb 
     detonated in a major city.
       On Thursday, in a deal that followed a welter of new terror 
     warnings from the Justice Department, Energy Secretary 
     Spencer Abraham signed a $450-million agreement with Russia 
     to retrieve nuclear materials.
       Information about contributions to the global nuclear black 
     market by top Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan has 
     prompted the administration to revive its lagging non-
     proliferation efforts. In a Feb. 11 speech, President Bush 
     warned that ``terrorists and terror states are in a race for 
     weapons of mass murder, a race they must lost.''
       Yet, as a new Harvard University study obtained by the 
     Washington Post reports, not enough is being done against 
     such weapons. Less fissile material was put in safekeeping in 
     the two years after Sept. 11 than in the two years preceding 
     it. More than 40 countries could supply materials for an 
     atomic weapon. The U.S. has spent billions since 1992 to 
     secure nuclear materials, but bureaucratic wrangling has 
     stalled many programs inside Russia. According to the General 
     Accounting Office, even rudimentary safety measures to deter 
     the theft of dangerous materials are lacking at many Russian 
     nuclear labs. What's more, the Energy Department's own 
     auditors warned in February that substantial caches of 
     uranium produced here were ``out of U.S. control.''
       Abraham's initiative states that the U.S. will retrieve 
     radiological material it has sent abroad and earmarks $100 
     million to aid Russian efforts. According to Atomic Energy 
     Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, Moscow will remove uranium 
     from 20 Soviet and Russian-built reactors in 17 countries. 
     Russia also promises not to complete Iran's Bushehr nuclear 
     power plant without a guarantee that spent fuel will be sent 
     to Moscow.
       Though Abraham's move is a welcome one, the Bush 
     administration continues to waste far larger sums on a 
     missile defense system intended to defend the country against 
     nuclear missile attacks from rogue states or terrorists. For 
     2005, the administration's funding request is more than $10 
     billion, about 22 times the cost of the Energy Department 
     effort. Yet most experts agree that groups such as Al Qaeda 
     are far more likely to produce dirty bombs than nuclear 
     missiles. It makes more sense to invest in preventing nuclear 
     materials from falling into the hands of terrorists than to 
     pour billions into a system that has succeeded only in what 
     amounts to rigged testing.
       The Abraham initiative deserves credit as a cost-effective 
     program against an immediate danger. Missile defense, on the 
     other hand, is most effective as a profit center for the 
     defense industry.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Washington Post editorial says:

       What's odd in these circumstances is the relative 
     sluggishness with which the world has attacked the part of 
     the nuclear menace that is relatively easier to deal with--

  And they are comparing it to the North Korean transfer of technology; 
and that is the ``loose nukes'' and the materials that are needed to 
make them.
  The Post editorial says:

     . . . [T]his Bush administration is still giving this effort 
     a fraction of the resources it is spending to deploy a 
     missile defense system against a threat--a rogue state with 
     an intercontinental missile--that does not currently exist. 
     At the current rate of work, it will take 13 years to secure 
     the remaining bomb-grade material in the former Soviet Union 
     and more than a decade to collect it from other countries.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would make an offer to my distinguished 
colleague, if he wishes to advance an amendment on the issue of the 
``loose nukes,'' to work with him to see whether, in this bill right 
now, we could take that one change, if you feel it is inadequately 
funded.
  Mr. LEVIN. There is no funding. It is not just inadequate, we do not 
have funding for that $450 million amount.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment is expired.


                    Amendment No. 3457, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Burns 
second-degree amendment be modified with the technical changes at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3457), as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add the 
     following:
       (c) Additional Factors in Indecency Penalties; Exception.--
     Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 503(b)(2)), is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(F) In the case of a violation in which the violator is 
     determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to have 
     uttered obscene, indecent, or profane material, the 
     Commission shall take into account, in addition to the 
     matters described in subparagraph (E), the following factors 
     with respect to the degree of culpability of the violator:
       ``(i) Whether the material uttered by the violator was live 
     or recorded, scripted or unscripted.
       ``(ii) Whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to 
     review recorded or scripted programming or had a reasonable 
     basis to believe live or unscripted programming would contain 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material.
       ``(iii) If the violator originated live or unscripted 
     programming, whether a time delay blocking mechanism was 
     implemented for the programming.
       ``(iv) The size of the viewing or listening audience of the 
     programming.
       ``(v) Whether the obscene incident or profane language was 
     within live programming not produced by the station licensee 
     or permitee.
       ``(vi) The size of the market.
       ``(vii) Whether the violation occurred during a children's 
     television program (as such term is used in the Children's 
     Television Programming Policy referenced in section 
     73.4050(c) of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 
     73.4050(c)) or during a television program rated TVY, TVY7, 
     TVY7FV, or TVG under the TV Parental Guidelines as such 
     ratings were approved by the Commission in implementation of 
     section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video 
     Programming Ratings, Report and Order, CS Docket No. 97-55, 
     13 F.C.C. Rcd. 8232 (1998)), and, with

[[Page S7128]]

     respect to a radio broadcast station licensee, permittee, or 
     applicant, whether the target audience was primarily 
     comprised of, or should reasonably have been expected to be 
     primarily comprised of, children.''
       ``(G) The Commission may double the amount of any 
     forfeiture penalty (not to exceed $550,000 for the first 
     violation, $750,000 for the second violation, and $1,000,000 
     for the third or any subsequent violation not to exceed up to 
     $3,000,000 for all violations in a 24-hour time period 
     notwithstanding section 503(b)(2)(C)) if the Commission 
     determines additional factors are present which are 
     aggravating in nature, including--
       ``(i) whether the material uttered by the violator was 
     recorded or scripted;
       ``(ii) whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to 
     review recorded or scripted programming or had a reasonable 
     basis to believe live or unscripted programming would contain 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material;
       `(iii) whether the violator failed to block live or 
     unscripted programming;
       ``(iv) whether the size of the viewing or listening 
     audience of the programming was substantially larger than 
     usual, such as a national or international championship 
     sporting event or awards program; and
       ``(v) whether the violation occured during a children's 
     television program (as defined in subparagraph (F)(vii)).''.


                           Amendment No. 3338

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am sure my colleague would want to ask 
for the yeas and nays on his amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to the vote going forward, it is my 
understanding the majority has been consulted, and the distinguished 
Democratic leader, following these votes, wishes to offer his amendment 
dealing with veterans health benefits.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly want to accommodate the 
leadership. But I spoke earlier this morning outlining what I 
understood was going to be the sequence of events in the morning. We 
certainly want to accommodate the distinguished Democratic leader, but 
one of our Members, for very special reasons, has to be absent this 
afternoon. He is a member of the commission on WMD, and he wished to 
rebut Senator Dayton's amendment, which would be a very short period of 
time this morning.
  Mr. REID. How long does the Senator from Arizona wish to speak?
  Mr. WARNER. I would say 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. The votes will probably be completed shortly after 11 
o'clock. We at least hope that is the case.
  Mr. WARNER. The two votes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I meant to say 12 o'clock, which does not 
leave much time for the Democratic leader.
  Mr. WARNER. Could the Democratic leader then be recognized 
immediately after the luncheons?
  Mr. REID. We would ask, then, that the Democratic leader be allowed 
to lay down his amendment, and that he would complete the debate at 
some subsequent time. And then if Senator McCain----
  Mr. WARNER. In other words, if I understand the request now, it is 
simply to come in and be recognized for the purpose of laying down the 
amendment so it is in the queue, and then we will proceed with the 
Dayton amendment and those matters we originally scheduled?
  Mr. REID. That is right. I do not know about the Dayton matter 
originally scheduled.
  Mr. WARNER. Apparently my leader would like to address this issue. We 
want to be cooperative and supportive of the procedural aspects of it. 
Could we proceed at least through the first vote and then, in that 
interim period, be able to provide an answer?
  Mr. REID. That is fine. I will be happy to do that. But I see no 
prejudice to anyone if he is allowed to lay down his amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I share that, but any manager has to be cognizant of the 
needs of his respective leader. So we will proceed to the first vote, 
with an understanding there will be a modest period in between to 
hopefully resolve this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3338. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     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
  The amendment (No. 3338) was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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 Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that the vote that is about to be 
taken be deferred in recognition of a need by the distinguished 
Democratic whip.


                           Amendment No. 3409

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
order be set aside and if there is a pending amendment that it be set 
aside, and I be allowed to offer for Senator Daschle amendment No. 
3409.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we return to regular order.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, does that amendment need to be reported?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Daschle, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3409.

  Mr. REID. 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 assure that funding is provided for veterans health care 
    each fiscal year to cover increases in population and inflation)

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

     SEC. 1068. FUNDING FOR VETERANS HEALTH CARE TO ADDRESS 
                   CHANGES IN POPULATION AND INFLATION.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 320. Funding for veterans health care to address 
       changes in population and inflation

       ``(a) For each fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall make available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the 
     amount determined under subsection (b) with respect to that 
     fiscal year. Each such amount is available, without fiscal 
     year limitation, for the programs, functions, and activities 
     of the Veterans Health Administration, as specified in 
     subsection (c).
       ``(b)(1) The amount applicable to fiscal year 2005 under 
     this subsection is the amount equal to--
       ``(A) 130 percent of the amount obligated by the Department 
     during fiscal year 2003 for the purposes specified in 
     subsection (c), minus
       ``(B) the amount appropriated for those purposes for fiscal 
     year 2004.
       ``(2) The amount applicable to any fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 2005 under this subsection is the amount equal to the 
     product of the following, minus the amount appropriated for 
     the purposes specified for subsection (c) for fiscal year 
     2004:
       ``(A) The sum of--
       ``(i) the number of veterans enrolled in the Department 
     health care system under section 1705 of this title as of 
     July 1 preceding the beginning of such fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) the number of persons eligible for health care under 
     chapter 17 of this title who

[[Page S7129]]

     are not covered by clause (i) and who were provided hospital 
     care or medical services under such chapter at any time 
     during the fiscal year preceding such fiscal year.
       ``(B) The per capita baseline amount, as increased from 
     time to time pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(3)(A) For purposes of paragraph (2)(B), the term `per 
     capita baseline amount' means the amount equal to--
       ``(i) the amount obligated by the Department during fiscal 
     year 2004 for the purposes specified in subsection (c), 
     divided by
       ``(ii) the number of veterans enrolled in the Department 
     health care system under section 1705 of this title as of 
     September 30, 2003.
       ``(B) With respect to any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     provide a percentage increase (rounded to the nearest dollar) 
     in the per capita baseline amount equal to the percentage by 
     which--
       ``(i) the Consumer Price Index (all Urban Consumers, United 
     States City Average, Hospital and related services, 
     Seasonally Adjusted), published by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics of the Department of Labor for the 12-month period 
     ending on the June 30 preceding the beginning of the fiscal 
     year for which the increase is made, exceeds
       ``(ii) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period 
     preceding the 12-month period described in clause (i).
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the purposes 
     for which amounts made available pursuant to subsection (a) 
     shall be all programs, functions, and activities of the 
     Veterans Health Administration.
       ``(2) Amounts made available pursuant to subsection (a) are 
     not available for--
       ``(A) construction, acquisition, or alteration of medical 
     facilities as provided in subchapter I of chapter 81 of this 
     title (other than for such repairs as were provided for 
     before the date of the enactment of this section through the 
     Medical Care appropriation for the Department); or
       ``(B) grants under subchapter III of chapter 81 of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``320. Funding for veterans health care to address changes in 
              population and inflation.''.

  Mr. WARNER. Regular order.


                     Amendments Nos. 3235 and 3457

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of 
amendment No. 3235.
  Under the previous order, the Burns second-degree amendment No. 3457 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3457) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Byrd be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3235.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3464 to Amendment No. 3235

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3464, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3464.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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 increase the penalties for violations by television and 
radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
                    indecent, and profane language)

       Strike page 1 line 2 through page 3 line 3 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC.__. BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004''.
       (b) Increase in Penalties for Obscene, Indecent, and 
     Profane Broadcasts.--Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the violator 
     is--
       ``(i)(I) a broadcast station licensee or permittee; or
       ``(II) an applicant for any broadcast license, permit, 
     certificate, or other instrument or authorization issued by 
     the Commission; and
       ``(ii) determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to 
     have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language, the 
     amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $275,000 for each violation or 
     each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount 
     assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a 
     total of $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.''; 
     and
       (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1), 
     by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 2 days 
     after the date of enactment of this section.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment. This is the decency amendment that has been widely 
discussed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3464. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     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
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     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

                                NAYS--1

       
     Breaux
       
  The amendment (No. 3464) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                amendment no. 3465 to amendment no. 3235

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Dorgan is 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. REID. I send the amendment to the desk on his behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Dorgan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3465 to amendment No. 3235.
  The amendment is as follows:

        In the amendment, strike all beginning on page 1, line 2, 
     through page 3, line three, and insert the following:

      SEC.   . BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004.

        (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004''.
        (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to increase 
     the FCC's authority to fine for indecent broadcasts and 
     prevent further relaxation of the media ownership rules in 
     order to stem the rise of indecent programming.
       (c) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Since 1996 there has been significant consolidation in 
     the media industry, including:
        (A) Radio.--Clear Channel Communications went from owning 
     43 radio stations prior to 1996 to over 1,200 as of January 
     2003; Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. was established in 1997 and 
     owned 266 stations as of December 2003, making it the second-
     largest radio ownership company in the country; and Infinity 
     Broadcasting Corporation went from owning 43 radio stations 
     prior to 1996 to over 185 stations as of June 2004;
        (B) Television.--Viacom/CBS's national ownership of 
     television stations increased from 31.53 percent of U.S. 
     television households prior to 1996 to 38.9 percent in 2004; 
     GE/NBC's national ownership of television stations increased 
     from 24.65 percent prior to 1996 to 33.56 percent in 2004; 
     NewsCorp/FOX's national ownership of television stations 
     increased from 22.05 percent prior to 1996 to 37.7 percent in 
     2004;
       (C) Media Mergers.--In 2000, Viacom merged with CBS and 
     UPN; in 2002, GE/NBC merged with Telemundo Communications, 
     Inc., and in 2004 with Vivendi Universal Entertainment; in 
     2003 News Corp./Fox acquired

[[Page S7130]]

     a controlling interest in DirecTV; in 2000, Time Warner, 
     Inc., merged with America Online.
        (2) Over the same period that there has been significant 
     consolidation in the media industry the number of indecency 
     complaints also has increased dramatically. The largest 
     owners of television and radio broadcast holdings have 
     received the greatest number of indecency complaints and the 
     largest fines, including
       (A) Over 80 percent of the fines proposed by the Federal 
     Communications Commission for indecent broadcasts were 
     against stations owned by two of the top three radio 
     companies. The top radio company alone accounts for over two-
     thirds of the fines proposed by the FCC;
       (B) Two of the largest fines proposed by the FCC were 
     against two of the top three radio companies;
       (C) In 2004, the FCC received over 500,000 indecency 
     complaints in response to the Superbowl Halftime show aired 
     on CBS and produced by MTV, both of which are owned by 
     Viacom. This is the largest number of complaints ever 
     received by the FCC for a single broadcast;
       (D) The number of indecency complaints increased from 111 
     in 2000 to 240,350 in 2003;
       (3) Media conglomerates do not consider or reflect local 
     community standards.
       (A) The FCC has no record of a television station owned by 
     one of the big four networks (Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, News 
     Corp./Fox or GE/NBC) pre-empting national programming for 
     failing to meet community standards;
       (B) FCC records show that non-network owned stations have 
     often rejected national network programming found to be 
     indecent and offensive to local community standards;
       (C) A letter from an owned and operated station manager to 
     a viewer stated that programming decisions are made by 
     network headquarters and not the local owned and operated 
     television station management;
       (D) The Parents Television Council has found that the 
     ``losers'' of network ownership ``are the local communities 
     whose standards of decency are being ignored;''
       (4) The Senate Commerce Committee has found that the 
     current fines do not deter indecent broadcast because they 
     are merely the cost of doing business for large media 
     companies. Therefore, in order to prevent the continued rise 
     of indecency violations, the FCC's authority for indecency 
     fines should be increased and further media consolidation 
     should be prevented.
       (d) Increase in Penalties for Obscene, Indecent, and 
     Profane Broadcasts.--Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
        ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the violator 
     is--
        ``(i)(I) a broadcast station licensee or permittee; or
        ``(II) an applicant for any broadcast license, permit, 
     certificate, or other instrument or authorization issued by 
     the Commission; and
        ``(ii) determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to 
     have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language, the 
     amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $275,000 for each violation or 
     each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount 
     assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a 
     total of $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.''; 
     and
        (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1), 
     by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.
        (e) New Broadcast Media Ownership Rules Suspended.--
       (1) Suspension.--Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 
     (d)(2), the broadcast media ownership rules adopted by the 
     Federal Communications Commission on June 2, 2003, pursuant 
     to its proceeding on broadcast media ownership rules, Report 
     and Order FCC03-127, published at 68 FR 46286, August 5, 
     2003, shall be invalid and without legal effect.
       (2) Clarification.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall 
     not supersede the amendments made by section 629 of the 
     Miscellaneous Appropriations and Offsets Act, 2004 (Public 
     Law 108-199).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3465) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3466 To Amendment No. 3235

       (Purpose: To protect children from violent programming)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Hollings is 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Hollings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Hollings, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3466 to amendment No. 3235.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3466) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3235

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Brownback 
amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3235) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. The Burns amendment, likewise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3457

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased that amendment No. 3457 was 
accepted by unanimous consent in the Senate today. While I fully 
support the underlying Brownback legislation, I have offered a second-
degree amendment to protect the interests of small broadcasters who 
should not be punished for events outside of their control. The 
amendment agreed upon simply calls on the FCC to consider the size of 
the stations in question as well as whether they had anything to do 
with producing the offensive content in question.
  I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, for 
his leadership on the issue of broadcast decency, and I am fully 
supportive of his legislation. This legislation gives the Federal 
Communications Commission the tools they need to go after those 
responsible for exposing our children to indecent material.
  With the recent trend of indecent events in the media, it is time to 
raise the current fine levels in order to prompt stations to more 
carefully screen their programming. These higher fines are appropriate 
for most stations. However, if the fines are too high for a local 
Montana broadcaster, it could well force them to close up shop.
  In Montana, we have numerous stations that are so marginally 
profitable that the only reason they remain on the air is because the 
good citizens of their communities refuse to let them go dark.
  For example, in Scobey, MT, townspeople regularly buy ``stock'' in 
KCGM because the community is so small that, in the words of manager 
Dixie Halvorsen, ``there is no reason for anyone to buy advertising in 
this station. We have but one local market, one drug store, and one 
feed store. They buy time with us because they want their local news 
and their local high school sports and the local legion baseball and 
the local weather . . . ''
  Plentywood is much the same. KATQ has a local advisory board that 
oversees the operation of the station. It is made up of members of the 
business and non-profit community to ensure that their local stations 
remain on the air.
  Nearly two-thirds of the radio stations in Montana are small market 
``mom and pops.'' In Libby, MT, Duane and Peggy Williams operate KLCB-
AM and KTNY-FM with the help of several part-time stringers and some 
high school students. Libby has a depressed economy and is a Superfund 
site. When the EPA held meetings and hearings with all of us in the 
Congressional delegation, along with the Governor and other State and 
Federal officials, Duane and Peggy interrupted their entire programming 
for the day to cover the issue.
  It is not at all inconceivable that during these hours of live 
broadcasts, an upset citizen might utter a word or phrase that could be 
considered indecent under this provision of the law. An excessive fine 
would mean the end of Duane and Peggy's stations and dreams and the end 
of local radio in Libby.
  And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people like Duane and 
Peggy who do not deserve such treatment for simply trying to do what is 
best by their communities.
  Examples such as this are why I introduced the amendment that was 
agreed to today. This amendment outlines mitigating factors that the 
Commission shall consider when determining the degree of a fine that 
will help shield smaller stations from an unnecessarily strong 
financial blow.

[[Page S7131]]

  I thank Mr. Brownback for taking the lead on this important piece of 
legislation, and I am pleased that my colleagues have recognized the 
importance of the small-market station amendment.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, today I rise to make a few remarks about 
my vote today for Senator Brownback's amendment regarding broadcast 
indecency. I supported this amendment as modified by the Burns second-
degree amendment because it includes protections for small market 
stations. Combined, the Burns and Brownback amendments would curb the 
broadcast of indecent material without unjustly penalizing local 
broadcasters who unknowingly transmit it.
  I have spoken with Missouri broadcasters who worry that the stand-
alone Brownback legislation would subject them to large fines for 
merely transmitting a program containing indecent material, like that 
contained in the Superbowl halftime show, without their knowledge of 
the indecency. Combined, the Burns-Brownback amendments would not place 
broadcasters in this situation since it requires the Federal 
Communications Commission to consider several factors including 
knowledge in determining whether to levy a fine, and how much that fine 
should be.
  Under current law, local broadcasters are essentially liable for 
everything that comes across their airwaves, even a Janet Jackson-type 
incident that they are downstream from and have had no opportunity to 
review. This quasi-strick liability standard is simply not fair, and 
that is one reason why I believe the law should be changed.
  The Burns amendment in particular corrects this unfairness by 
requiring the FCC to consider factors in assessing fines including 
whether the material was scripted or recorded and whether the violator 
had a reasonable opportunity to review the script or recording, thereby 
demonstrating that the violator had knowledge that the indecent, 
obscene or profane material would be aired or, otherwise, had a 
reasonable basis to believe that live or unscripted programming would 
contain indecent material. In determining culpability, the FCC would be 
required to consider mitigating factors including whether the licensee 
had a reasonable opportunity to review the programming or had reason to 
believe it may contain obscene, indecent, or profane material. I 
believe these provisions address local broadcasters' concerns and 
protect them from arbitrary FCC enforcement.
  I support the Burns-Brownback amendments because of these provisions, 
but I am still concerned about the phenomenon of congressional 
overreaction to current events. Like many other parents, I feel that 
this year's Superbowl halftime show contained indecent material and 
that those responsible should be held accountable. After the Superbowl, 
hundreds of Missourians contacted my to share similar views. There 
seems to be a tendency among elected officials to respond to such a 
strong outpouring of support by not only trying to fix the problem, but 
by trying to fix it in a way that swings the legislative pendulum too 
far in other directions, to over-regulate. I do not believe that these 
amendments as combined go too far, but if they do I want to hear from 
Missouri broadcasters and work with them to address their concerns.
  I thank Senators Burns and Brownback for their hard work on this 
legislation, and for addressing my concerns.
  Mr. WARNER. We are moving along quite well. All are in agreement with 
great cooperation on both sides. We are about to proceed to the 
amendment, the ``Buy America'' from our colleague on the committee. The 
Senator from Arizona on this side is ready.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Senator Dayton indicated he wishes to speak for a short 
period of time. The Senator from Arizona does not usually speak very 
long. Does the Senator have any idea how long he will talk?
  Mr. McCAIN. No longer than 10 or 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. We can complete all debate on this amendment. Senator 
Dayton said he would not speak for more than 5 or 10 minutes following 
the Senator from Arizona, and that would complete debate on the 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Except the Senator from Virginia would like about 3 
minutes to wrap up at the conclusion.
  Mr. REID. Totally appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed 15 
minutes for my substitute, the Senator from Minnesota be given 10 
minutes in response, and the Senator from Virginia, 3 minutes, followed 
by a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 3461

  Mr. McCAIN. Yesterday, Senator Warner called up a substitute 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment be called 
up for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. McCAIN. My reasons for offering this substitute amendment are 
simple. It will be very harmful if we allow the Dayton amendment to be 
adopted in its original form. It is harmful to the Department of 
Defense, our soldiers in uniform, our domestic defense industry, and, 
not least, the American taxpayer.
  The amendment I am offering in the form of a substitute would grant 
waiver authority for the application of a domestic source or content 
requirement with a country that has signed a declaration of principles 
with the United States. This substitute amendment aims to assure that 
the Department of Defense, charged with protecting our national 
security, is not limited in its ability to carry out the functions the 
American public is depending on it to do.
  The Dayton amendment would give preferential treatment to U.S. 
suppliers and does not accomplish the more important objective, which 
is to provide our troops with the best product for the best price. It 
may not sound like much on first consideration, but it would have far-
reaching consequences on national security efforts and violate many of 
our trade agreements with respect to defense procurement.
  Despite the good intentions of the proponents of the ``Buy America'' 
amendment, if it passed in its current form, it could have consequences 
to our Nation, impacting jobs and our economic prosperity. Further, it 
would harm our relationships with our allies and coalition partners and 
our collective prosecution of the war on terror.

  As for the international considerations of the Dayton amendment, it 
is isolationist and go-it-alone. Currently, the United States enjoys a 
trade balance in defense exports of 6 to 1 in favor with respect to 
Europe, and 12 to 1 with respect to the rest of the world. I don't 
think there is any doubt if we restricted what we would buy from other 
nations, they would then, in return, respond. If we pass the Dayton 
amendment without modifications, our allies will retaliate, and the 
ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to greater interoperability 
with NATO and non-NATO allies would be seriously undercut. Critical 
international programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter Program and the 
Missile Defense Program would likely be terminated as our allies 
reassess our defense cooperation.
  There are many examples of a trade imbalance that I can point to. I 
mention one government: The Dutch Government, over a 4-year period, 
purchased $2.5 billion in defense equipment from U.S. manufacturers, 
including air refueling planes, Chinook helicopters, Apache 
helicopters, F-16 fighter equipment, missiles, combat radios, and 
various equipment. During that same period, the United States purchased 
only $40 million of defense equipment from the Dutch. So there is a 
$2.5 billion procurement by the Dutch Government for American equipment 
and $40 million of equipment of the United States bought by the Dutch. 
Recently, the Defense Ministers of the United Kingdom and Sweden 
pointed to similar situations in their country.
  In every meeting regarding this subject I am told how difficult it is 
to buy American defense products because of our protectionist policies 
and the strong ``Buy European'' sentiment overseas. The Ambassadors of 
the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Denmark, allies that provided 
forces in

[[Page S7132]]

Iraq, recently sent letters to the Armed Services Committee expressing 
their strong support for the underlying title 8 in the Defense 
Authorization Act.
  The letters support the Commission on the Future of the National 
Technology and Industrial Base, the conforming standard for waiver of 
domestic source or content requirements, and consistency with U.S. 
trade obligations under trade agreements.
  Over the last few years we have sold 18 variants of aircraft, 19 
types of missiles, as well as ground and naval equipment, through the 
Foreign Military Sales Program. These defense systems were manufactured 
in 39 States across America. Companies such as Raytheon, Lockheed 
Martin, Bell, Northrop Grumman, Missile Research Corporation, Sikorsky, 
Pratt & Whitney, General Dynamics, American General, and American Truck 
Corporation are contributing to the trade surplus we have in the 
defense technology market.
  I want to point out also that in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 there was 
$482 million worth of military equipment purchased in the State of 
Minnesota; $482 million, Lockheed Martin; and Raytheon, 20 Stinger 
missiles. Lockheed Martin, by the way, sold those weapons systems to 
Japan, and Raytheon, the Stinger, to Turkey.
  I will read from a couple letters we have received from various 
countries and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others on this issue.
  There is no one under more assault than the British Prime Minister 
for his continued unwavering support of our effort in Iraq. The British 
Ambassador wrote:

       If approved, the measures proposed under Title VII would be 
     an important step forward towards improving interoperability 
     across the full range of our mutual defence cooperation.

  The Netherlands Ambassador says:

       Although not directly related to the above referenced 
     proposals, allow me to share with you the idea that in our 
     perception, part of the discussion which is seen by some as 
     the danger posed by foreign dependency can be satisfied by 
     bilateral Security of Supply agreements which can be 
     negotiated as more detailed arrangements under a Declaration 
     of Principles. . . .

  As you know, Mr. President, we have Canadian troops fighting 
alongside Americans in Afghanistan.

       The amendment offered by Senator Dayton sends the wrong 
     message to U.S. allies by deleting language in the 
     Committee's bill that would encourage and support 
     international defense cooperation and ultimately benefit U.S. 
     taxpayers and American troops.

  Every nation that is working with us and fighting alongside the 
United States is deeply concerned about this issue. It is hard for me 
to understand why we would want to propose legislation which would put 
this impediment to our relationship with our allies right now, when we 
are desperately seeking more cooperation and more effort on behalf of 
freedom.
  The Danish Ambassador says:

       . . . it would be very difficult to understand and explain 
     if Denmark were to face new restrictions in the industrial 
     cooperation with the U.S. Especially in light of our 
     participation in Iraq since the beginning of the military 
     operations and the continued presence of 500 Danish troops--
     one of the largest contingents in both absolute numbers and 
     certainly in proportion of population.

  We are in tough times right now. The last thing we need to do is 
throw sand in the face of our allies, particularly our European allies 
who are fighting alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, 
and other parts of the world. I would hope that the substitute would be 
agreed to, and I would point out again the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as 
well as the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace 
Industries Association, the Secretary of Defense, and others have 
spoken strongly on this issue.
  Let me quote from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter:

       On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's 
     largest federation, representing more than 3 million 
     businesses, I am writing to express serious concerns for two 
     Buy American-related amendments for consideration during 
     Senate debate on the National Defense Authorization Act. 
     These sections represent important steps in Department of 
     Defense transformation plans as it is filed.

  So I would hope we would also understand the Senate needs to go into 
these negotiations with a strong position, given the position of the 
House Armed Services Committee authorization. So I hope we will adopt 
the amendment. I ask for its enactment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                    Amendment No. 3197, As Modified

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside, and I call up my amendment 3197 and ask unanimous consent 
that my amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
modifications are at the desk. We have examined them, and there is no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 3197), as modified, is as follows:

       Beginning on page 172, strike line 11 and all that follows 
     through page 176, line 12.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his concurrence.
  Mr. President, I want to say at the outset, as I said yesterday, but 
in the absence of my colleague from Arizona, I have the utmost respect 
for him and also for those who take a different position on this issue. 
But I am a little perplexed at the dire consequences that are being 
asserted if my amendment were to be adopted, because my amendment 
simply strikes language that is in the bill before the Senate which is 
itself modifying current law.
  My amendment simply takes us back to current law. My amendment simply 
takes us back to the principles and the policies and the standards and 
the law in the Buy American Act, which has been in effect in this 
country for 70 years. So I am astonished that these dire consequences 
are being asserted on something that has been in existing law for 70 
years, that has benefited companies represented by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and the National Defense Industrial Association, that may have 
certain members that have exported jobs and instead set up bases of 
operation in other countries, including those affected by this 
amendment.
  So there may be those who have that particular financial interest for 
their own companies involved, but, overall, as the Senator from Arizona 
pointed out, national defense and military equipment are areas of our 
trade where we enjoy a surplus. So it seems evident that the policies 
and the laws of this country affecting both ``Buy American''--which 
provides exemptions for the Secretary of Defense in just the 
circumstances that the Senator from Arizona cited: if there are not 
products available that are of the right quality, if there is a delay 
in obtaining them, if the prices are not competitive, if there are any 
factors at all that would harm our ability to provide for our national 
defense or to supply our fighting men and women who serve us so 
heroically around the globe--if there were anything at all that were an 
impediment to them getting the best equipment, getting the most 
advanced equipment, in a timely basis, at a competitive price, then the 
Secretary of Defense, under the current law, is entitled and has the 
authority to make a waiver and grant an exception.
  But this ``Buy American'' law has said--for 70 years, under six 
Democratic administrations and five Republican administrations, until 
this administration started to object to it--try to buy American 
because if you buy American, you strengthen America by supporting 
American companies producing products in the United States of America, 
employing American citizens, providing jobs in this country.
  It is this administration which seemingly has very little concern 
about that job base. Given that we have lost, since President Bush took 
office, in the last 3\1/2\ years, over 2\1/2\ million manufacturing 
jobs in this country--that is, 2\1/2\ million Americans who were 
holding those jobs when President Bush took office, who are now without 
those jobs. Maybe some have found lesser paying service sector jobs, 
but many of them are unemployed and have been for a long time. Under 
those circumstances, you would think this administration would be 
unwilling to adopt any violations of the Buy American Act that would 
have the consequence of costing more American manufacturing jobs or not 
recovering some that would otherwise be possible

[[Page S7133]]

to be recovered for the benefit of American citizens, for the benefit 
of American companies. But evidently that is not a concern.

  I appreciate that Senator McCain has, by his proposed substitute 
amendment--and I would support that if my own were not successful--
reduced the number of countries that are going to be given this special 
treatment, this special advantage under the existing armed services 
language--section 842 that I propose to strike--and has stated that the 
countries that will be given this special exemption are those that have 
signed statements of principle with the United States rather than 
memoranda of understanding regarding U.S. purchases from those 
countries.
  I am a little perplexed that the Senator from Arizona cited letters 
in support of his position from the countries of Canada and the 
Netherlands because, according to the information I have been provided, 
those two countries do not have statements of principle signed with the 
United States, so they would not be included. In fact, they would now 
be excluded by Senator McCain's proposed substitute amendment. As I 
understand it, the countries that have signed these statements of 
principle include Australia, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, 
Sweden, Spain, and Italy. I am pleased that the number of countries 
then that would be exempted from ``Buy America'' are only 7, as opposed 
to 21 before, but those are still 7 countries, frankly, that enjoy, on 
an overall basis, a sizable trade surplus with the United States.
  In other words, this country, if you take all goods and services, 
imports far more products from those countries, buys more products made 
in those countries than we export to those countries. One of the few 
exceptions to that is the sale of military equipment. That is to our 
advantage. That means we are exporting more than we are importing. That 
means we have more jobs generated in the United States to produce those 
goods and products than we are importing in return. But on an overall 
basis, taking all products--commercial, industrial, agricultural, and 
services--we are paying more money to import goods and services from 
those countries than we are exporting.
  So why are we willing to sacrifice one of the very few sectors in 
which we enjoy a trade surplus and give that up by agreeing to buy the 
same amount of product from them as we sell to them in this one sector 
and then leaving all others aside? If we want to take that approach, if 
we believe, as those countries do, that these kind of reciprocal 
agreements are valuable to them, as they are, because they provide jobs 
in those countries, why don't we make that requirement for everything 
we import from those countries? Or better yet, why don't we make that 
agreement for everything we import all over the world? Because as the 
latest figures show, we are running a world trade deficit that now 
exceeds on an annual basis $550 billion a year. That is $550 billion 
that leaves the United States to buy foreign products. Here we are, in 
one of the few sectors where we enjoy an export surplus, prepared to 
give that up on the basis of getting contracts or selling products to 
those countries.
  I can understand why those countries who wrote those letters of 
support would do so because that kind of agreement benefits them. But 
we are not making laws--or we should not be--and we are not making 
trade policies--or we should not be--that benefit Canada, the 
Netherlands, Denmark--with all due respect, important friends and 
allies as they are--any more than they pass laws or make trade policies 
that benefit the United States to their own disadvantage. So if they 
are not prepared to do so, and they should not, why would we do so when 
we should not?
  My goal is not to change current law; my goal is to stay with current 
law. It is to strike the language in this bill that would create these 
additional exceptions, that would allow other companies in other 
countries to gain contracts that are for goods and services that are 
now produced in the United States by American companies, employing 
American workers, paying taxes in American communities that benefit our 
schools, our local governments, our State and Federal Government, but, 
most importantly, that provide jobs for American citizens, the same as 
current law. I am not asking for any more protectionism. I am not 
asking for any more of anything affecting trade policy or trade 
agreements than exists under current law. I am simply asking my 
colleagues not to go further.
  I ask my colleagues--at a time when we have lost over 2.5 million 
manufacturing jobs under President Bush and his administration--not to 
go further, not to cost us more manufacturing jobs, but to take a stand 
on behalf of those who are working in American industries today, those 
who want to return jobs to American industries tomorrow. Let's stick 
with current law. That is what my amendment does.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 3 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to go directly to the comments the Senator 
just made, as he and I were in our colloquy the other day, I pointed 
out that at the present time the United States, in the last fiscal 
year, sold $63 billion in defense sales and only purchased $5 billion. 
My point is, the Senator is going after the wrong target, the wrong 
segment of the industry by this amendment, because it will create 
greater loss of jobs if we go after that trade surplus that is in 
defense right now. That is why we plead with our colleagues to leave 
this sector of trade untouched. I believe it is very important we do 
that.
  The second thing that concerns me, and it is somewhat technical, in 
drawing up this bill, I gave specific instructions to the staff to 
preserve the sanctity of that part of ``Buy America'' which I and I 
think everybody in this Chamber supports, the Small Business Act, where 
23 percent of the dollars for small businesses have to go, the 
shipbuilding, the blind and the handicapped, and the Berry amendment. 
Yet when the Senator modified his amendment, this section up here was 
taken out. That is caught up, and takes it out also.
  It seems to me it is important for the Senate to reaffirm the 
sanctity of those four categories of trade as being purely ``Buy 
America'' and let them stay. But the Senator has taken out the work of 
the committee when we put it in there. That is what troubles me.
  Lastly, we have here another communication from the Secretary of 
Defense of Great Britain, who is so explicit, he says:

     . . . efforts by Administration officials to introduce 
     unnecessarily restrictive language into US/UK cooperative 
     armament and research MOUs are a potentially serious blow to 
     US-UK relations in the defence equipment co-operation field. 
     They would put us under pressure domestically--
       That is, before the parliament, their parliament would now 
     begin to examine this tremendous trade surplus that we have 
     with relationship to Great Britain
       --to review our own policies and to consider whether we are 
     prepared to continue to place significant defence contracts 
     with US suppliers in the face of what could only be seen as a 
     demonstrably uneven playing field. The mutual operational, 
     technological, and industrial benefits we have enjoyed over 
     years of equipment cooperation could quickly evaporate with 
     both of us being losers, and with obvious political 
     ramifications.

  I say to my good friend, I recognize his intention to try and help 
America save jobs, but his amendment addresses the wrong sector of 
trade. He could do serious damage to a surplus we are generating with 
additional jobs in the United States as it currently exists.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3461

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
  The result was announced --- yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[[Page S7134]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3461) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3197

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Senate precedent, the accompanying 
Dayton amendment to strike is moot.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3467 to Amendment No. 3315

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to a 
Landrieu amendment numbered 3315 and offer a second-degree amendment 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3467 to amendment No. 3315.

  Mr. ENSIGN. 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 provide a fiscally responsible open enrollment authority)

       On page 9, strike lines 12 through 22, and insert the 
     following:
       (8)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in 
     regulations premiums which a person electing under this 
     section shall be required to pay for participating in the 
     Survivor Benefit Plan pursuant to the election. The total 
     amount of the premiums to be paid by a person under the 
     regulations shall be equal to the sum of--
       (i) the total amount by which the retired pay of the person 
     would have been reduced before the effective date of the 
     election if the person had elected to participate in the 
     Survivor Benefit Plan (for the same base amount specified in 
     the election) at the first opportunity that was afforded the 
     member to participate under chapter 73 of title 10, United 
     States Code;
       (ii) interest on the amounts by which the retired pay of 
     the person would have been so reduced, computed from the 
     dates on which the retired pay would have been so reduced at 
     such rate or rates and according to such methodology as the 
     Secretary of Defense determines reasonable; and
       (iii) any additional amount that the Secretary determines 
     necessary to protect the actuarial soundness of the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund against any 
     increased risk for the fund that is associated with the 
     election.
       (B) Premiums paid under the regulations shall be credited 
     to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund.
       (C) In this paragraph, the term ``Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund'' means the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund established under section 1461(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might, on the resumption of the 
Senate consideration of this bill, that will be following the taking of 
the annual picture. At this time, the understanding is Senator Daschle 
will be recognized for the purpose of bringing up his pending 
amendment. I inform the Senate of that situation.

                          ____________________