[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7265-S7275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

  Mr. WARNER. In consultation with the majority leader, the 
distinguished Democratic leader, and the Democratic whip, Senator Levin 
and I have worked out a series of steps we are going to begin to take 
in seriatim at this time. The first step is that I yield the floor such 
that the Chair can recognize the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 3400

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for regular order with regard to amendment No. 
3400.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand there will be a second-
degree amendment offered to my amendment which is to bring a small 
measure of relief to military families by allowing the FMLA-eligible 
family members of deployed personnel to be able to use the FMLA 
benefits for issues directly related to or resulting from their loved 
one's deployment. This has been accepted by the body previously and put 
into other legislation. It was certainly my hope that we would be able 
to move forward with this. It is something our military families 
desperately need. However, it is my understanding that this second-
degree amendment would require protracted debate. It is in our interest 
to move this important Department of Defense authorization bill 
forward.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator would withhold.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator.


                Amendment No. 3475 to Amendment No. 3400

       (Purpose: To enable military family members to take time 
     off to attend to deployment-related business, tasks, and 
     other family issues.)

  Mr. WARNER. There is at the desk a second-degree amendment which I 
submit on behalf of Senator Gregg and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Gregg, for 
     himself and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment 3475 to 
     amendment 3400.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Feingold has offered an amendment 
intended to help military families who have a family member activated 
in support of a contingency operation. First of all, I make it clear 
that all of us want to assist families placed in the difficult position 
of operating with one family member called to duty.
  That is why the underlying bill contains provisions such as 
permanently increasing the Family Separation Allowance, FSA, payable to 
deployed servicemen and women with dependents up to $250 a month.
  But the proposal made by Senator Feingold to expand the Family 
Medical Leave Act is not the right approach. I rise to offer an 
alternative proposal as a second-degree amendment. The amendment I am 
offering today presents military families a much better method for 
obtaining the flexibility they may need to prepare for activation and 
to keep the family running while a family member is called to duty.
  The Feingold amendment would offer some employees unpaid leave. My 
amendment will offer paid leave. While the Feingold amendment applies 
only to those military family members that work for employers with 50 
or more employees, and offers no assistance at all to individuals who 
work for smaller employers, my amendment will apply to all military 
family employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  The Feingold amendment will also create uncertainty and animosity in 
the workplace by giving employees the vaguely defined right to take 
intermittent leave with minimal notice for any ``issue relating to 
``the family member's service''--a phrase which can be interpreted to 
cover just about any activity.
  My amendment, on the other hand offers a clear method for earning and 
using paid leave time.
  The Feingold amendment is a mandate in search of a problem--no need 
has been demonstrated for it and in

[[Page S7266]]

fact, in a recent survey of activated Armed Service members' spouses, 
80 percent stated that their employers were supportive of their need to 
complete pre-activation tasks.

  In light of this existing support by employers, my amendment creates 
a voluntary system of adding flextime to the work schedule. Therefore, 
employers who already have programs in place to accommodate military 
families will have the option of maintaining those programs or adopting 
a flextime initiative, they will not be forced to add another 
complicated layer onto the already confusing Family and Medical Leave 
law.
  I also point out that the Feingold amendment has never been the 
subject of a single House or Senate hearing. I am sure that many of my 
colleagues, like me, have heard from businesses concerned about the 
difficulties they will face in interpreting and implementing the 
Feingold amendment.
  Flextime proposals, however, have been vetted in no fewer than 8 
hearings in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. There is 
also concerns that the Feingold amendment may threaten the operation of 
military bases. According to the Department of Defense. ``If a major 
military unit were deployed from a single base, this policy could 
effectively shut down the installation depending upon the number of 
family member employees covered.''
  My amendment would not present such a threat to military 
installations because it does not apply to public employees.
  Finally, Mr. President, I recognize that all of us want to do what we 
can to ease the burden on families who have a family member--be it a 
spouse, parent or child--serving to protect our nation. The sacrifice 
they are willing to make is nothing short of remarkable. I believe the 
approach I am offering here today is the best way to help these 
families. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment builds on a time 
tested law, the Family Medical Leave Act, to allow family members 
flexibility to prepare to send their loved ones to Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and elsewhere abroad to fight on behalf of their Nation. The Family 
Medical Leave Act has helped more than 35 million Americans over the 
last 10 years. It will help even more under the Feingold amendment. The 
amendment will allow family members to take the time off they need to 
meet child care needs, care for elderly parents, and otherwise balance 
their family responsibilities as their loved ones prepare for active 
duty.
  The reason this laudable Feingold amendment is being withdrawn is 
because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to give our 
military families a pay cut.
  Corporate profits are growing, while worker wages are not. Yet 
Republicans keep trying to implement more policies that are bad for 
workers. First, Republicans took away overtime protections from 
millions of Americans. Now, they want to give employers additional 
power to decide how workers are to be compensated for their overtime 
work.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, currently requires employers to 
pay workers time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. 
When workers put in overtime hours now, they have a right to time and 
half pay, and they have total control over how or when to use that pay.
  The Gregg amendment would allow employers to pay workers nothing for 
overtime work at the time the work is performed, in exchange for a 
promise of a new schedule. Under current law, employers are free to 
offer more flexible schedules. The only difference is that they have to 
pay workers for their overtime hours.
  For those who work overtime, overtime pay constitutes 25 percent of 
their pay. Middle class families, already squeezed in today's economy, 
rely on these added earnings for their children's college tuition, 
their own retirement, or even to meet their monthly bills. In fact, 
millions of workers depend on cash overtime to make ends meet and pay 
their housing, food and healthcare bills.
  The Gregg proposal has insufficient enforcement provisions to ensure 
that employees will not be forced to change their schedules instead of 
getting overtime pay. This will mean a pay cut for millions of 
Americans. Workers deserve a pay raise, not a pay cut.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the amendment offered by Senator Feingold.
  Senator Feingold's amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would 
allow the work of the Inspector General of the Coalition Provisional 
Authority, CPA-IG, to continue its work uninterrupted after the June 30 
handover.
  This is critical. Congress provided more than $18 billion to rebuild 
Iraq, roughly the same amount that we spend on the rest of the world 
combined. Congress jammed through the Iraq supplemental appropriations 
bill in an extremely short time, without a sufficient number of 
hearings, into a very chaotic environment without the usual financial 
controls.
  Recognizing this reality, Congress created a strong, independent 
inspector general to help police these funds.
  In the months that followed passage of the Iraq supplemental, we 
heard numerous reports of waste, fraud, and abuse. If anything, this 
should have sent a clear signal to the administration and Congress that 
we need more--not less--oversight of these funds.
  It defies logic then that the State Department is now proposing to 
weaken the one entity that Congress specifically tasked with keeping 
track of these tax dollars.
  The State Department's plan could undermine the independence of this 
inspector general and disrupt this important work, reducing Congress's 
ability to account for these funds. It is unlocking the vault to those 
who want to cheat us.
  The State Department also has told the Appropriations Committee that 
it will have to create 25 new positions to handle the work in Iraq.
  Let me get this straight. We want to close down an IG that has about 
60 people in place, which are actively conducting audits and rooting 
out waste, fraud, and abuse.
  After the administration is finished closing down that office, they 
will turn around and hire 25 new people to do the same work--only 
through at a lower level office at the State Department.
  Why on Earth would we want to do this? At a time when we are hearing 
weekly reports of abuse by Halliburton and others, why would we want to 
reinvent the wheel? Why would we downgrade the status of the CPA-IG and 
undermine its independence? It just does not make any sense.
  This is why the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin is so 
important.
  This is why I support his amendment.
  Last year Senator Feingold and I offered an amendment to the 
supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that established an 
inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority so that there 
would be one auditing body completely focused on ensuring taxpayer 
dollars are spent wisely and efficiently, and that this effort is free 
of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Today the CPA, as we all know, is phasing out, but the reconstruction 
effort has only just begun. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, as of May 18, only $4.2 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress 
appropriated for reconstruction in November had even been obligated. 
This amendment would ensure that the inspector general's office can 
continue its important work even after June 30 rather than being 
compelled to start wrapping up and shutting down while so much 
important work remains to be done.
  It renames the Office of the CPA IG, changing it to Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction. The amendment establishes that this 
inspector general shall continue operating until the lion's share of 
the money Congress has appropriated to date for the Iraq relief and 
reconstruction fund has been obligated.
  American taxpayers have been asked to shoulder a tremendous burden 
when it comes to the reconstruction of Iraq. Over 20 billion taxpayer 
dollars have been appropriated for the Iraq relief and reconstruction 
fund. That is more than the entire fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations 
annual appropriation. It is more than the entire fiscal year 2004 
Foreign Operations annual appropriation. This is a tremendous sum to 
devote to one country.
  We all agreed last year that it required an entity on the ground, 
exclusively focused on this effort, to ensure

[[Page S7267]]

adequate funding and oversight. We agreed that we need a qualified, 
independent watchdog with all the powers and the authorities that 
accrue to inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978. 
We agreed that business as usual whereby individual agency IG's attempt 
to oversee this mammoth effort in addition to everything else the 
agency does it simply not appropriate in this case.
  There is nothing ordinary about the nature of the U.S. taxpayer 
investment in Iraq. Ordinary measures will not suffice.
  This amendment modifies the legislation creating this IG to ensure 
that it does not disappear along with the CPA, but instead continues to 
operate until the amount of reconstruction spending in Iraq more 
closely resembles other large bilateral foreign assistance programs, 
which are overseen by existing agency inspectors general. Specifically, 
to phases out the special IG after 80 percent of the Iraq Relief and 
Reconstruction Fund appropriated to date is obligated. If that fund 
grows substantially in the next calendar, then Congress can consider 
the wisdom of adjusting this mandate accordingly.
  Let there be no confusion, this inspector general is only tasked with 
overseeing how U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent. It does not have a 
mandate to oversee Iraqi resources. That is not what this is about. So 
there is nothing at all in continuing this operation that is 
inconsistent with the transfer of sovereignty on June 30.
  Because the Department of Defense has responsibility for what is 
happening to some reconstruction dollars and the Department of State 
will have responsibility going forward, it makes good sense to have a 
focused IG on the ground who is able to see the entire picture at 
once--not being completely required to just focus on the State 
Department position or just focus on the Department of Defense portion. 
This amendment is in no way hostile to the reconstruction effort. This 
amendment is about trying to get it right.
  Suggesting that a special inspector general's office continues to be 
in order in Iraq is hardly revolutionary. As I have mentioned, the 
reconstruction budget for Iraq is bigger than the entire fiscal year 
2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Yet five different 
inspectors general--at USAID, at the State Department, at the Defense 
Department, at the Treasury, and at the Export-Import Bank--are charged 
with overseeing portions of that account. In fact, currently some 41 
Federal establishments and designated Federal entities with annual 
budgets less than $21 billion have their own, independent, statutorily 
mandated inspector general, from the Railroad Retirement Board to the 
Smithsonian Institution. We ask for focused accountability when 
taxpayer dollars are a stake in these situations. We must demand the 
same in Iraq.
  Obviously, when you are talking about $20 billion just for this Iraq 
situation, we have to do the same thing. We must demand the same in 
Iraq.
  To date, the Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional 
Authority has made important progress, and has some 30 active 
investigations and 19 audits underway. A whistleblower hotline 
established by the inspector general has received hundreds of calls. 
This is clearly not the time to pull the plug on his important effort.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This is the critical 
point: To oppose this amendment is to vote for less oversight of the 
reconstruction effort in Iraq than we have today. It is a step backward 
if we don't. We cannot abdicate our oversight responsibility. The 
stakes are far too high for that.


                      Amendment No. 3400 Withdrawn

  Mr. FEINGOLD. In light of the offering of the second-degree 
amendment, I am about to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment, but I first indicate how important it is we provide this 
FMLA benefit to these families. Obviously, this issue will return, but 
in the spirit of trying to resolve this issue and move the bill 
forward, I now ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment No. 3400.
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                      Amendment No. 3475 Withdrawn

  Mr. WARNER. And the second-degree amendment likewise is withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Before the Senator from Wisconsin leaves the Senate, I want 
the record to indicate he has worked hard on issues relating to 
veterans. This is no exception.
  I know the Senator, when he travels home to Wisconsin, will meet with 
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and other such assembled 
groups. By looking at this record, they should understand what the 
Senator from Wisconsin has tried to do for the veterans of this 
country. I applaud and commend the Senator from Wisconsin for his 
tenacity. And he will be back, knowing the Senator from Wisconsin, to 
fight another day.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 3288

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I now ask for the regular order with 
regard to amendment No. 3288.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, for this amendment, which I offered 
earlier and had the yeas and nays ordered on, I now ask unanimous 
consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee 
for his cooperation and for his support on this important amendment, 
which I understand will be accepted. This amendment allows the 
important work of the Inspector General of the CPA in Iraq to continue 
after the June 30 transition.
  We are talking here about $20 billion of American taxpayers' dollars. 
Only about $4.5 billion has already been contracted for. So the 
remainder is still going to be expended. There are a great deal of 
audits and other efforts being made on the ground. That should 
continue. This has to do with protecting the American taxpayers.
  I am delighted both the chairman and ranking member have expressed 
support for this amendment. I am confident, with their assurances, that 
this amendment will make it all the way through the process and become 
the law of the land so this fine work of this inspector general can 
continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the matter has been discussed between 
myself, Senator Levin, Senator Harry Reid, and the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin. The concept of the inspector general is a 
proven concept. It is a valuable concept in the administration of our 
expenditures to have accountability.
  We shall work on it to see that from that conference evolves, 
hopefully, an amendment that is a part of the statute to be 
incorporated eventually from the conference report that reflects the 
goals the Senator has set out. That is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as to the amendment as we have crafted 
it, which was carefully and specifically crafted, I take the chairman's 
comment to indicate the approach we have taken in the Senate is the 
approach he will be advocating in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank and congratulate the Senator from 
Wisconsin for this amendment. He has been an absolute bulldog when it 
comes to protecting taxpayers' dollars, just as he has been a fighter 
for veterans, as in his previous discussion.
  I want to tell him I know we will be fighting with all of our energy 
in conference to retain this provision. It is vitally important there 
be this kind of an inspector general review and an inspector general 
who has the kind of independent power the Senator from Wisconsin has 
always fought for. We intend to do exactly that, to carry out, to wage 
his battle in conference to retain this provision.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in thanking the Senator for his 
cooperation.
  I draw the attention of the ranking member to suggest at this point 
in time we clear a package of managers' amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. We need to pass this amendment first.

[[Page S7268]]

  Mr. WARNER. Yes, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Feingold amendment is still the pending 
question.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I urge that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3288) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very simple 
amendment that everyone should support. This amendment requires the 
Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD-IG), in 
consultation with the Inspectors General of the State Department and 
the CIA, to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the programs and 
activities of the Iraqi National Congress.
  Over the last 10 years, we have seen funds from the U.S. Government 
spent in highly questionable, if not fraudulent ways, including money 
spent on oil paintings and health club memberships.
  But this is only the tip of the iceberg. A number of serious 
questions remain unanswered concerning the INC. Here are a couple of 
examples:
  First, the INC spent millions in setting up offices around the world, 
including London, Prague, Damacus, and Tehran. The State Department's 
internal documents indicated that they really had no idea of what was 
happening in some of these offices--especially Tehran. In light of the 
recent press reports about INC intelligence sharing with Iran, I think 
the DOD-IG should take a look at this issue and see what was happening 
in the Tehran office. We need to get to the bottom of this.
  Second, the INC spent millions to set up radio and television 
broadcasting inside Iraq. The radio program seemed redundant as the 
U.S. Government was, at the time, funding Radio Free Iraq. A New York 
Times article questioned the effectiveness of the TV broadcasting 
program. Kurdish officials indicated that, despite repeated attempts, 
they could never pickup the INC's TV broadcast inside Iraq. This, 
again, raises questions about how this money is being spent. The IG 
should examine this issue. We need to get to the bottom of this.
  Third the INC's Informaiton Collection Program--funded initially by 
the State Department and later by the Defense Department--continues to 
be a source of controversy and mystery. I have a memo here, written by 
the INC to Appropriations Committee staff, detailing the INC's 
Information Collection Program. In this memo, the INC claims to have 
written numerous reports to senior Administration officials, who are 
listed in this memo, on topics including WMD proliferation. The 
Administration disputes this claim. Again, we need to get to the botton 
of this.
  I could go on and on. However, in the interests of time, I will 
simply say that there are many, serious unanswered questions about the 
INC's activities.
  What was the INC doing with U.S. taxpayer dollars? What was going on 
in the Tehran office? Did the Information Collection Program contribute 
to intelligence failures in Iraq? Were the broadcasting programs at all 
effective in gathering support for U.S. efforts in Iraq?
  To be sure, there have been a few investigations into INC. However, 
these have been incomplete, offering only a glimpse of what occurred.
  A few years ago, the State Department Inspector General issued two 
reports on the INC. But these reports only covered $4.3 million and 
examined only the Washington and London Offices. The State Department 
IG informed my office yesterday that these are the only two audits they 
conducted and have no plans to conduct audits on this issue.
  A GAO report, published earlier this year, summarized the different 
grant agreements that the State Department entered into with the INC, 
but this report did not attempt to answer the myriad questions that 
remain about the INC.
  Another GAO report is underway, but this looks only at the narrow 
question of whether the INC violated U.S. laws concerning the use of 
taxpayer funds to pay for public propaganda.
  Finally, according to press reports, the Intelligence Committee is 
looking to a few issues related to the INC.
  My amendment is consistent with these investigations. The DOD-IG does 
not have to reinvent the wheel. It can build off this existing body of 
work to answer questions that will remain long after these 
investigation have been completed.
  Mr. President, my amendment is about transparency. My amendment is 
about accountability. My amendment is about getting to the bottom of 
one of the most mismanaged programs in recent history.
  Most importantly, my amendment is about learning from our mistakes so 
we do not repeat them in the future. I urge my colleague to support my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                    Amendment No. 3315, As Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is an amendment pending by Senator 
Landrieu; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. The number of that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3315.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 
modification to the amendment offered by Senators Landrieu, Snowe, 
Ensign, and Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no objection. The matter has been 
carefully worked through the course of the evening, and it is ready for 
action by the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 3315), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 130, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 642. FULL SBP SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES 
                   OVER AGE 62.

       (a) Phased Increase in Basic Annuity.--
       (1) Increase to 55 percent.--Subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) of 
     section 1451 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``35 percent of the base amount.'' and inserting 
     ``the product of the base amount and the percent applicable 
     for the month. The percent applicable for a month is 35 
     percent for months beginning before October 2005, 40 percent 
     for months beginning after September 2005 and before October 
     2008, 45 percent for months beginning after September 2008, 
     and 55 percent for months beginning after September 2014.''.
       (2) Reserve-component annuity.--Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)(I) 
     of such section is amended by striking ``35 percent'' and 
     inserting ``the percent specified under paragraph (1)(B)(i) 
     as being applicable for the month''.
       (3) Special-eligibility annuity.--Subsection (c)(1)(B)(i) 
     of such section is amended--
       (A) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the 
     applicable percent''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The percent 
     applicable for a month under the preceding sentence is the 
     percent specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being 
     applicable for the month.''.
       (4) Conforming amendment.--The heading for subsection 
     (d)(2)(A) of such section is amended to read as follows: 
     ``Computation   of   Annuity.--''.
       (b) Phased Elimination of Supplemental Annuity.--
       (1) Decreasing percentages.--Section 1457(b) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``5, 10, 15, or 20 percent'' and inserting 
     ``the applicable percent''; and
       (B) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The percent used for the computation shall be an even 
     multiple of 5 percent and, whatever the percent specified in 
     the election, may not exceed 20 percent for months beginning 
     before October 2005, 15 percent for months beginning after 
     September 2005 and before October 2008, and 10 percent for 
     months beginning after September 2008.''.
       (2) Repeal of program in 2014.--Effective on October 1, 
     2014, chapter 73 of such title is amended--
       (A) by striking subchapter III; and
       (B) by striking the item relating to subchapter III in the 
     table of subchapters at the beginning of that chapter.
       (c) Recomputation of Annuities.--
       (1) Requirement for recomputation.--Effective on the first 
     day of each month referred to in paragraph (2)--
       (A) each annuity under section 1450 of title 10, United 
     States Code, that commenced before that month, is computed 
     under a provision of section 1451 of that title amended by 
     subsection (a), and is payable for that month shall be 
     recomputed so as to be equal to the amount that would be in 
     effect if the percent applicable for that month under that 
     provision, as so amended, had been used for the initial 
     computation of the annuity; and

[[Page S7269]]

       (B) each supplemental survivor annuity under section 1457 
     of such title that commenced before that month and is payable 
     for that month shall be recomputed so as to be equal to the 
     amount that would be in effect if the percent applicable for 
     that month under that section, as amended by this section, 
     had been used for the initial computation of the supplemental 
     survivor annuity.
       (2) Times for recomputation.--The requirements for 
     recomputation of annuities under paragraph (1) apply with 
     respect to the following months:
       (A) October 2005.
       (B) October 2008.
       (C) October 2014.
       (d) Recomputation of Retired Pay Reductions for 
     Supplemental Survivor Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall take such actions as are necessitated by the amendments 
     made by subsection (b) and the requirements of subsection 
     (c)(1)(B) to ensure that the reductions in retired pay under 
     section 1460 of title 10, United States Code, are adjusted to 
     achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b) of that 
     section.

     SEC. 643. OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIOD FOR SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN 
                   COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2005.

       (a) Persons Not Currently Participating in Survivor Benefit 
     Plan.--
       (1) Election of sbp coverage.--An eligible retired or 
     former member may elect to participate in the Survivor 
     Benefit Plan under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, 
     United States Code, during the open enrollment period 
     specified in subsection (f).
       (2) Election of supplemental annuity coverage.--An eligible 
     retired or former member who elects under paragraph (1) to 
     participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan at the maximum level 
     may also elect during the open enrollment period to 
     participate in the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan 
     established under subchapter III of chapter 73 of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       (3) Eligible retired or former member.--For purposes of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), an eligible retired or former member 
     is a member or former member of the uniformed services who on 
     the day before the first day of the open enrollment period is 
     not a participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan and--
       (A) is entitled to retired pay; or
       (B) would be entitled to retired pay under chapter 1223 of 
     title 10, United States Code, but for the fact that such 
     member or former member is under 60 years of age.
       (4) Status under sbp of persons making elections.--
       (A) Standard annuity.--A person making an election under 
     paragraph (1) by reason of eligibility under paragraph (3)(A) 
     shall be treated for all purposes as providing a standard 
     annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
       (B) Reserve-component annuity.--A person making an election 
     under paragraph (1) by reason of eligibility under paragraph 
     (3)(B) shall be treated for all purposes as providing a 
     reserve-component annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
       (b) Election To Increase Coverage Under SBP.--A person who 
     on the day before the first day of the open enrollment period 
     is a participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan but is not 
     participating at the maximum base amount or is providing 
     coverage under the Plan for a dependent child and not for the 
     person's spouse or former spouse may, during the open 
     enrollment period, elect to--
       (1) participate in the Plan at a higher base amount (not in 
     excess of the participant's retired pay); or
       (2) provide annuity coverage under the Plan for the 
     person's spouse or former spouse at a base amount not less 
     than the base amount provided for the dependent child.
       (c) Election for Current SBP Participants To Participate in 
     Supplemental SBP.--
       (1) Election.--A person who is eligible to make an election 
     under this paragraph may elect during the open enrollment 
     period to participate in the Supplemental Survivor Benefit 
     Plan established under subchapter III of chapter 73 of title 
     10, United States Code.
       (2) Persons eligible.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), 
     a person is eligible to make an election under paragraph (1) 
     if on the day before the first day of the open enrollment 
     period the person is a participant in the Survivor Benefit 
     Plan at the maximum level, or during the open enrollment 
     period the person increases the level of such participation 
     to the maximum level under subsection (b) of this section, 
     and under that Plan is providing annuity coverage for the 
     person's spouse or a former spouse.
       (3) Limitation on eligibility for certain sbp participants 
     not affected by two-tier annuity computation.--A person is 
     not eligible to make an election under paragraph (1) if (as 
     determined by the Secretary concerned) the annuity of a 
     spouse or former spouse beneficiary of that person under the 
     Survivor Benefit Plan is to be computed under section 1451(e) 
     of title 10, United States Code. However, such a person may 
     during the open enrollment period waive the right to have 
     that annuity computed under such section 1451(e). Any such 
     election is irrevocable. A person making such a waiver may 
     make an election under paragraph (1) as in the case of any 
     other participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan.
       (d) Manner of Making Elections.--An election under this 
     section shall be made in writing, signed by the person making 
     the election, and received by the Secretary concerned before 
     the end of the open enrollment period. Any such election 
     shall be made subject to the same conditions, and with the 
     same opportunities for designation of beneficiaries and 
     specification of base amount, that apply under the Survivor 
     Benefit Plan or the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan, as 
     the case may be. A person making an election under subsection 
     (a) to provide a reserve-component annuity shall make a 
     designation described in section 1448(e) of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (e) Effective Date for Elections.--Any such election shall 
     be effective as of the first day of the first calendar month 
     following the month in which the election is received by the 
     Secretary concerned.
       (f) Open Enrollment Period.--The open enrollment period 
     under this section shall be the one-year period beginning on 
     October 1, 2005.
       (g) Effect of Death of Person Making Election Within Two 
     Years of Making Election.--If a person making an election 
     under this section dies before the end of the two-year period 
     beginning on the effective date of the election, the election 
     is void and the amount of any reduction in retired pay of the 
     person that is attributable to the election shall be paid in 
     a lump sum to the person who would have been the deceased 
     person's beneficiary under the voided election if the 
     deceased person had died after the end of such two-year 
     period.
       (h) Applicability of Certain Provisions of Law.--The 
     provisions of sections 1449, 1453, and 1454 of title 10, 
     United States Code, are applicable to a person making an 
     election, and to an election, under this section in the same 
     manner as if the election were made under the Survivor 
     Benefit Plan or the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan, as 
     the case may be.
       (i) Additional Premium.--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.


                           Amendment No. 3467

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment, No. 3467, offered by the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3467) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 3315, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the first-degree amendment, 
as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3315) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have worked with the Senator from 
Louisiana for many hours today on this amendment. There was an article 
written, and I joke with the Senator from Louisiana. She was the 
feature of a veterans publication. They had a picture of her with her 
sleeves rolled up, muscles showing: ``Military Mary.''
  Mary Landrieu is someone who looks out for the military. And I call 
her, joke with her, and ask her: How is ``Military Mary'' doing? She is 
very proud of this name she has picked up. Tonight is an indication of 
why she deserves that name. She has been outstanding in her advocacy 
for American

[[Page S7270]]

veterans. This agreement we have here tonight indicates she is not only 
a good advocate for the military but a very fine Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, just one word, now that we have adopted the 
Landrieu amendment. Chairman Warner and I used to have the privilege of 
having Senator Landrieu on the Armed Services Committee. We saw 
firsthand what a tigress she is and was relative to military matters. 
She is no longer on our committee, and we do miss her, indeed. But she 
brings and displays that fervor here on the floor frequently. We thank 
her for her tenacity. Talk about tenacity, she has a full supply of it. 
We commend and congratulate her.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reference was made to the hard work 
Senator Landrieu performed on this amendment. Indeed, I was witness to 
that. But it did bring back a fond memory to me. In the period during 
the war in Vietnam, there was a very colorful and strong chairman in 
the House Armed Services Committee named Eddie Hebert from New Orleans, 
LA, and a gentleman who worked very closely with him, named Moon 
Landrieu. They were quite a team. They did a great deal working 
together for the men and women of the U.S. military.
  When reference was made to Senator Landrieu's accomplishments, I am 
sure she would agree with me that the teachings of her distinguished 
father and the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee 
have vested in her a lot of wisdom about military matters.
  I also recognize the work done by Senators Ensign and Snowe. I have 
been working with both of them over a period of time. Senator Ensign 
and Senator Snowe each have put in previous pieces of legislation which 
basically covered this same subject. In the course of the past 48 
hours, those two Senators have been working in collaboration with 
Senator Landrieu in an effort to get the Senate to take the action that 
we just took on that amendment. So I thank the Senator from Maine and 
the Senator from Nevada for their work.
  As veterans look to the action taken by the Senate, they can decide 
for themselves on the work done by these Senators, and all Senators, 
because there was a unanimous vote on this amendment. I think we 
fulfilled our obligation to that very important class of individuals, 
the veterans; and particularly in this case, this provides benefits for 
the widows primarily--there are a few remaining spouses--but basically 
the widows who are at a critical time in their life and there is need 
for special consideration as it relates to personal finances. So I 
thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Landrieu-
Snowe amendment because it corrects an injustice being visited upon the 
survivors of our servicemembers killed in action and military retirees 
under the current military Survivor Benefit Plan, or SBP.
  As the program currently operates, the widows or widowers of those 
who have ``borne the battle'' receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of 
the servicemember's retirement pay. That is, until they turn 62. At 
that time, under current law, a surviving spouse's SBP benefits must be 
reduced either by a Social Security offset, or a reduction in payments 
to 35 percent of retired pay--a drop of almost 40 percent--simply 
because they have reached the age of 62.
  For example, let's take the widow of a Navy chief petty officer or E-
7 who had served 20 years before retiring. Before she reaches 62, this 
widow will receive $786 per month, but on her 62nd birthday, that 
benefit drops to only $500 per month--a loss of $2,432 per year.
  For a retired O-5, say a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, the widow's 
benefit would drop by $6,960 a year as soon as she turns 62. That is 
quite a birthday gift.
  But the inequities don't stop there. For example, the military 
Survivor Benefit Plan does not measure up to the federal Survivor 
Benefit Plan in terms of benefits paid to survivors. Survivors of 
federal civilian retirees under the original Civil Service Retirement 
System receive 55 percent of their spouse's retired pay for life--with 
no drop in benefits at age 62. Under the newer Federal Employee 
Retirement System, survivors still receive 50 percent of retired pay 
for life, again with no drop at age 62.
  Mr. President, yet another reason that we should adopt this 
legislation is that members of the military pay more than their share 
of Survivor Benefit Plan program costs, as compared to their federal 
civilian counterparts.
  Originally, the Congress intended the government to subsidize 40 
percent of the cost of military Survivor Benefit Plan premiums--similar 
to the government's contribution to the federal civilian plan. Over the 
last several decades, however, there has been a significant decline in 
the government's cost share, and Department of Defense actuaries advise 
that the government subsidy is now down to less than 20 percent. This 
means that military retirees are now paying more than 80 percent of 
program costs from their retired pay versus the intended 60 percent.
  Contrast this to the federal civilian SBP, which has a 52 percent 
cost share for those under the Civil Service Retirement System and a 67 
percent cost share for those employees, including many of our own 
staff, under the Federal Employees Retirement System. While it is true 
that there are differences between the civilian and military premium 
costs, with federal civilians paying more, it is also true that 
military retirees generally retire earlier than their federal civilian 
counterparts, and as a result, pay premiums for many more years.
  This amendment will raise, over a 3\1/2\-year period, the percentage 
of the retirement annuity received by the survivor from 35 percent to 
55 percent after age 62. During the first year, fiscal year 2005, an 
open enrollment period will be held to allow new enrollees to sign up 
for the program in order to reduce retired pay outlays by increasing 
deductions of SBP premiums from retired pay, thus offsetting part of 
the cost of the survivor benefit increase.
  Beginning on Oct. 1, 2005, the age-62 SBP annuity would increase to 
40 percent of retired pay, followed by additional increases to 45 
percent on April 1, 2006, 50 percent on April 1, 2007 and 55 percent on 
April 1, 2008 after which all survivors would receive the 55 percent of 
the annuity.
  Once again, I ask my colleagues to support our Nation's military 
widows and widowers. In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, 
we included a Sense of the Congress on increasing the military SBP 
annuity. This year, we have a chance to carry out this intent by 
enacting this important measure, and I ask my colleagues to join with 
me in support of this legislation.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we are ready to do a package of 
amendments, if I could get the attention of the ranking member.


    Amendments Nos. 3414, As Modified; 3280, As Modified; 3355, As 
    Modified; 3220; 3373, As Modified; 3459, As Modified; 3311, As 
Modified; 3476; 3477; 3478; 3479; 3480; 3481; 3342, As Modified; 3482; 
                             3483; and 3484

  Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk which have 
been cleared by myself and the ranking member. Therefore, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, 
the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any statements 
relating to any of these individual amendments be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    amendment no. 3414, as modified

       At the end of title XI, insert the following:

     SEC. 1107. REPORT ON HOW TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN INDIVIDUALS 
                   WITH FOREIGN LANGUAGE SKILLS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Federal Government has a requirement to ensure that 
     the employees of its departments and agencies with national 
     security responsibilities are prepared to meet the challenges 
     of this evolving international environment.
       (2) According to a 2002 General Accounting Office report, 
     Federal agencies have shortages in translators and 
     interpreters and an overall shortfall in the language 
     proficiency levels needed to carry out their missions

[[Page S7271]]

     which has adversely affected agency operations and hindered 
     United States military, law enforcement, intelligence, 
     counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.
       (3) Foreign language skills and area expertise are integral 
     to, or directly support, every foreign intelligence 
     discipline and are essential factors in national security 
     readiness, information superiority, and coalition 
     peacekeeping or warfighting missions.
       (4) Communicating in languages other than English and 
     understanding and accepting cultural and societal differences 
     are vital to the success of peacetime and wartime military 
     and intelligence activities.
       (5) Proficiency levels required for foreign language 
     support to national security functions have been raised, and 
     what was once considered proficiency is no longer the case. 
     The ability to comprehend and articulate technical and 
     complex information in foreign languages has become critical.
       (6) According to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry 
     into the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks, the Intelligence Community 
     had insufficient linguists prior to September 11, 2001, to 
     handle the challenge it faced in translating the volumes of 
     foreign language counterterrorism intelligence it collected. 
     Agencies within the Intelligence Community experienced 
     backlogs in material awaiting translation, a shortage of 
     language specialists and language-qualified field officers, 
     and a readiness level of only 30 percent in the most critical 
     terrorism-related languages that are used by terrorists.
       (7) Because of this shortage, the Federal Government has 
     had to enter into private contracts to procure linguist and 
     translator services, including in some positions that would 
     be more appropriately filled by permanent Federal employees 
     or members of the United States Armed Forces.
       (b) Report.--In its fiscal year 2006 budget request, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and 
     the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives, a plan for expanding and improving the 
     national security foreign language workforce of the 
     Department of Defense as appropriate to improve recruitment 
     and retention to meet the requirements of the Department for 
     its foreign language workforce on a short-term basis and on a 
     long-term basis.


                           amendment no. 3280

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 801(c) of the NationalEnergy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287(c)) is amended by 
     striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.
       (b) Payment of Costs.--Section 802 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287a) is amended by 
     inserting ``, water, or wastewater treatment'' after 
     ``payment of energy''.
       (c) Energy Savings.--Section 804(2) of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(2)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) The term `energy savings' means a reduction in the 
     cost of energy, water, or wastewater treatment, from a base 
     cost established through a methodology set forth in the 
     contract, used in an existing federally owned building or 
     buildings or other federally owned facilities as a result 
     of--
       ``(A) the lease or purchase of operating equipment, 
     improvements, altered operation and maintenance, or technical 
     services;
       ``(B) the increased efficient use of existing energy 
     sources by cogeneration or heat recovery, excluding any 
     cogeneration process for other than a federally owned 
     building or buildings or other federally owned facilities; or
       ``(C) the increased efficient use of existing water sources 
     in either interior or exterior applications.''.
       (d) Energy Savings Contract.--Section 804(3) of the 
     National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(3)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The terms `energy savings contract' and `energy 
     savings performance contract' mean a contract that provides 
     for the performance of services for the design, acquisition, 
     installation, testing, and, where appropriate, operation, 
     maintenance, and repair, of an identified energy or water 
     conservation measure or series of measures at 1 or more 
     locations. Such contracts shall, with respect to an agency 
     facility that is a public building (as such term is defined 
     in section 3301 of title 40, United States Code), be in 
     compliance with the prospectus requirements and procedures of 
     section 3307 of title 40, United States Code.''.
       (e) Energy or Water Conservation Measure.--Section 804(4) 
     of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
     8287c(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) The term `energy or water conservation measure' 
     means--
       ``(A) an energy conservation measure, as defined in section 
     551; or
       ``(B) a water conservation measure that improves the 
     efficiency of water use, is life-cycle cost-effective, and 
     involves water conservation, water recycling or reuse, more 
     efficient treatment of wastewater or stormwater, improvements 
     in operation or maintenance efficiencies, retrofit 
     activities, or other related activities, not at a Federal 
     hydroelectric facility.''.
       (f) Review.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall complete 
     a review of the Energy Savings Performance Contract program 
     to identify statutory, regulatory, and administrative 
     obstacles that prevent Federal agencies from fully utilizing 
     the program. In addition, this review shall identify all 
     areas for increasing program flexibility and effectiveness, 
     including audit and measurement verification requirements, 
     accounting for energy use in determining savings, contracting 
     requirements, including the identification of additional 
     qualified contractors, and energy efficiency services 
     covered. The Secretary shall report these findings to 
     Congress and shall implement identified administrative and 
     regulatory changes to increase program flexibility and 
     effectiveness to the extent that such changes are consistent 
     with statutory authority.
       (g) Extension of Authority.--Any energy savings performance 
     contract entered into under section 801 of the National 
     Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287) after October 
     1, 2003, and before the date of enactment of this Act, shall 
     be deemed to have been entered into pursuant to such section 
     801 as amended by subsection (a) of this section.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3355, AS MODIFIED

       On page 280, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 1068. CLARIFICATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 FUNDING LEVEL 
                   FOR A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 
                   TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNT.

       For the purposes of applying sections 204 and 605 of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 (division B of 
     Public Law 108-199) to matters in title II of such Act under 
     the heading ``National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology'' (118 Stat.69), in the account under the heading 
     ``industrial technology services'', the Secretary of Commerce 
     shall make all determinations based on the Industrial 
     Technology Services funding level of $218,782,000 for 
     reprogramming and transferring of funds for the Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership program and shall submit such a 
     reprogramming or transfer, as the case may be, to the 
     appropriate committees within 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3220

   (Purpose: To repeal the authority of the Secretary of Defense to 
 recommend that installations be placed in inactive status as part of 
 the recommendations of the Secretary during the 2005 round of defense 
                     base closure and realignment)

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

     SEC. 2814. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO 
                   RECOMMEND THAT INSTALLATIONS BE PLACED IN 
                   INACTIVE STATUS DURING 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE 
                   BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

       Section 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
     Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 
     U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by striking subsection (c).


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3373, AS MODIFIED

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

     SEC. 326. REPORT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT ISSUES AFFECTING UTAH 
                   TEST AND TRAINING RANGE, UTAH.

       (a) Report Required.--(1) The Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall prepare a report that outlines current and anticipated 
     encroachments on the use and utility of the special use 
     airspace of the Utah Test and Training Range in the State of 
     Utah, including encroachments brought about through actions 
     of other Federal agencies. The Secretary shall include such 
     recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate 
     regarding any legislative initiatives necessary to address 
     encroachment problems identified by the Secretary in the 
     report.
       (2) It is the sense of the Senate that such recommendations 
     should be carefully considered for future legislative action.
       (b) Submission of Report.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit the report to the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services 
     of the Senate.
       (c) Prohibition on Ground Military Operations.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to permit a military 
     operation to be conducted on the ground in a covered 
     wilderness study area in the Utah Test and Training Range.
       (e) Communications and Tracking Systems.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prevent any required 
     maintenance of existing communications, instrumentation, or 
     electronic tracking systems (or the infrastructure supporting 
     such systems) necessary for effective testing and training to 
     meet military requirements in the Utah Test and Training 
     Range.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3459, AS MODIFIED

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

     SEC. 1022. REPORTS ON MATTERS RELATING TO DETAINMENT OF 
                   PRISONERS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Reports Required.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the population of persons 
     held by the Department of

[[Page S7272]]

     Defense for more than 45 days and on the facilities in which 
     such persons are held.
       (b) Report Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) General information on the foreign national detainees 
     in the custody of the Department on the date of such report, 
     including the following:
       (A) The best estimate of the Department of the total number 
     of detainees in the custody of the Department as of the date 
     of such report.
       (B) The countries in which such detainees were detained, 
     and the number of detainees detained in each such country.
       (C) The best estimate of the Department of the total number 
     of detainees released from the custody of the Department 
     during the one-year period ending on the date of such report.
       (2) For each foreign national detained and registered with 
     the National Detainee Reporting Center by the Department on 
     the date of such report the following:
       (A) The Internment Serial Number or other appropriate 
     identification number.
       (B) The nationality, if available.
       (C) The place at which taken into custody, if available.
       (D) The circumstances of being taken into custody, if 
     available
       (E) The place of detention.
       (F) The current length of detention.
       (G) A categorization as a civilian detainee, enemy prisoner 
     of war/prisoner of war, or enemy combatant.
       (H) Information as to transfer to the jurisdiction of 
     another country, including the identity of such country.
       (3) Information on the detention facilities and practices 
     of the Department for the one-year period ending on the date 
     of such report, including for each facility of the Department 
     at which detainees were detained by the Department during 
     such period the following:
       (A) The name of such facility.
       (B) The location of such facility.
       (C) The number of detainees detained at such facility as of 
     the end of such period.
       (D) The capacity of such facility.
       (E) The number of military personnel assigned to such 
     facility as of the end of such period.
       (F) The number of other employees of the United States 
     Government assigned to such facility as of the end of such 
     period.
       (G) The number of contractor personnel assigned to such 
     facility as of the end of such period.
       (c) Form of Report.--Each report under subsection (a) shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a 
     classified annex.
       (d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3311, AS MODIFIED

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

     SEC. __. REPORT ON OFFSET REQUIREMENTS UNDER CERTAIN 
                   CONTRACTS.

       Section 8138(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-87; 117 Stat. 1106; 10 U.S.C. 2532 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) The extent to which any foreign country imposes, 
     whether by law or practice, offsets in excess of 100 percent 
     on United States suppliers of goods or services, and the 
     impact of such offsets with respect to employment in the 
     United States, sales revenue relative to the value of such 
     offsets, technology transfer of goods that are critical to 
     the national security of the United States, and global market 
     share of United States companies.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3476

(Purpose: To provide for appropriate coordination in the preparation of 
         the management plan for contractor security personnel)

       On page 188, beginning on line 17, strike ``Congress'' and 
     all that follows through line 20, and insert ``the 
     congressional defense committees, the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a 
     plan for the management and oversight of contractor security 
     personnel by Federal Government personnel in areas where the 
     Armed Forces are engaged in military operations. In the 
     preparation of such plan, the Secretary shall coordinate, as 
     appropriate, with the heads of other departments and agencies 
     of the Federal Government that would be affected by the 
     implementation of the plan.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3477

(Purpose: To provide for appropriate coordination in the preparation of 
  the report on contractor performance of security, intelligence, law 
     enforcement, and criminal justice functions, and to add other 
           congressional committee recipients for the report)

       On page 192, after line 22, insert the following:
       (c) Coordination.--In the preparation of the report under 
     this section, the Secretary of Defense shall coordinate, as 
     appropriate, with the heads of any departments and agencies 
     of the Federal Government that are involved in the 
     procurement of services for the performance of functions 
     described in subsection (a).
       (d) Additional Congressional Recipients.--In addition to 
     submitting the report under this section to the congressional 
     defense committees, the Secretary of Defense shall also 
     submit the report to the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     of the House of Representatives.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3478

(Purpose: To provide for appropriate coordination in the preparation of 
      the report on contractor security in Iraq, and to add other 
           congressional committee recipients for the report)

       On page 246, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       (d) Coordination.--In the preparation of the report under 
     this section, the Secretary of Defense shall coordinate with 
     the heads of any other departments and agencies of the 
     Federal Government that are affected by the performance of 
     Federal Government contracts by contractor personnel in Iraq.
       (e) Additional Congressional Recipients.--In addition to 
     submitting the report on contractor security under this 
     section to the congressional defense committees, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall also submit the report to any 
     other committees of Congress that the Secretary determines 
     appropriate to receive such report taking into consideration 
     the requirements of the Federal Government that contractor 
     personnel in Iraq are engaged in satisfying.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3479

    (Purpose: To provide for the space posture review to be a joint 
  undertaking of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central 
                             Intelligence)

       On page 249, line 16, strike ``(d)'' and insert the 
     following:
       (4) The reports under this subsection shall also be 
     submitted to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (d) Joint Undertaking With the Director of Central 
     Intelligence.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct the 
     review under this section, and submit the reports under 
     subsection (c), jointly with the Director of Central 
     Intelligence.
       (e) * * *


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3480

(Purpose: To add the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Permanent 
  Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives as 
 recipients of the report of the panel on the future of military space 
                                launch)

       On page 252, beginning on line 10, strike ``and the 
     congressional defense committees'' and insert ``, the 
     congressional defense committees, the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3481

 (Purpose: To add the Director of Central Intelligence as an approving 
 official for Department of Defense assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan 
             military and security forces in certain cases)

       On page 269, line 16, before the period at the end insert 
     ``and, in any case in which section 104(e) of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-4(e)) applies, the 
     Director of Central Intelligence''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3342, AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To require a plan on the implementation and utilization of 
  flexible personnel management authorities in Department of Defense 
                             laboratories)

       At the end of title XI add the following:

     SEC. 1107. PLAN ON IMPLEMENTATION AND UTILIZATION OF FLEXIBLE 
                   PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES IN DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES.

       (a) Plan Required.--The Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall 
     jointly develop a plan for the effective utilization of the 
     personnel management authorities referred to in subsection 
     (b) in order to increase the mission responsiveness, 
     efficiency, and effectiveness of Department of Defense 
     laboratories.
       (b) Covered Authorities.--The personnel management 
     authorities referred to in this subsection are the personnel 
     management authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense by 
     the provisions of law as follows:
       (1) Section 342(b) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 
     2721), as amended by section 1114 of the Floyd D. Spence 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as 
     enacted into law by Public Law 106-398 (114 Stat. 1654A-
     315)).
       (2) Section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 5 
     U.S.C. 3104 note).
       (3) Such other provisions of law as the Under Secretaries 
     jointly consider appropriate for purposes of this section.
       (c) Plan Elements.--The plan under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include such elements as the Under Secretaries jointly 
     consider appropriate to provide for the effective utilization 
     of the personnel management authorities referred to in 
     subsection (b) as described in subsection (a), including the 
     recommendations of the

[[Page S7273]]

     Under Secretaries for such additional authorities, including 
     authorities for demonstration programs or projects, as are 
     necessary to achieve the effective utilization of such 
     personnel management authorities; and
       (2) include procedures, including a schedule for review and 
     decisions, on proposals to modify current demonstration 
     programs or projects, or to initiate new demonstration 
     programs or projects, on flexible personnel management at 
     Department laboratories
       (d) Submittal to Congress.--The Under Secretaries shall 
     jointly submit to Congress the plan under subsection (a) not 
     later than February 1, 2006.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3482

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the return of 
members of the Armed Forces to active service upon rehabilitation from 
                       service-related injuries)

       On page 112, between the matter following line 5 and line 
     6, insert the following:

     SEC. 574. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING RETURN OF MEMBERS TO 
                   ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE UPON REHABILITATION FROM 
                   SERVICE-RELATED INJURIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The generation of young men and women currently serving 
     on active duty in the Armed Forces, which history will record 
     as being among the greatest, has shown in remarkable numbers 
     an individual resolve to recover from injuries incurred in 
     such service and to return to active service in the Armed 
     Forces.
       (2) Since September 11, 2001, numerous brave soldiers, 
     sailors, airmen, and Marines have incurred serious combat 
     injuries, including (as of June 2004) approximately 100 
     members of the Armed Forces who have been fitted with 
     artificial limbs as a result of devastating injuries 
     sustained in combat overseas.
       (3) In cases involving combat-related injuries and other 
     service-related injuries it is possible, as a result of 
     advances in technology and extensive rehabilitative services, 
     to restore to members of the Armed Forces sustaining such 
     injuries the capability to resume the performance of active 
     military service, including, in a few cases, the capability 
     to participate directly in the performance of combat 
     missions.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) members of the Armed Forces who on their own initiative 
     are highly motivated to return to active duty service 
     following rehabilitation from injuries incurred in their 
     service in the Armed Forces, after appropriate medical review 
     should be given the opportunity to present their cases for 
     continuing to serve on active duty in varied military 
     capacities;
       (2) other than appropriate medical review, there should be 
     no barrier in policy or law to such a member having the 
     option to return to military service on active duty; and
       (3) the Secretary of Defense should develop specific 
     protocols that expand options for such members to return to 
     active duty service and to be retrained to perform military 
     missions for which they are fully capable.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3483

(Purpose: To authorize, and authorize the appropriation of, $18,140,000 
 for military construction at Navy Weapons Station, Charleston, South 
Carolina, for the construction of a consolidated electronic integration 
     and support facility to house the command and control systems 
  engineering and design work of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems 
 Center, Charleston, and to provide offsets, including the elimination 
  of the authorization of appropriations of $10,358,000 for military 
 construction at Charleston, South Carolina, for the construction of a 
             readiness center for the Army National Guard)

       On page 305, in the table preceding line 1, insert after 
     the item relating to Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island, the 
     following new item:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina.....................  Naval Weapons           $18,140,000
                                      Station, Charleston.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       On page 305, in the table preceding line 1, strike the 
     amount identified as the total in the amount column and 
     insert ``$833,718,000''.
       On page 307, line 8, strike ``$1,825,576,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,843,716,000''.
       On page 307, line 11, strike ``$676,198,000'' and insert 
     ``$694,338,000''.
       On page 314, line 7, strike ``$2,493,324,000'', as 
     previously amended, and insert ``$2,485,542,000''.
       On page 315, line 3, strike ``$863,896,000'' and insert 
     ``$856,114,000''.
       On page 322, line 15, strike ``$371,430,000'' and insert 
     ``$361,072,000''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3484

 (Purpose: To add an amount for a bed-down initiative to enable the C-
   130 aircraft of the Idaho Air National Guard to be the permanent 
carrier of the SENIOR SCOUT mission shelters of the 169th Intelligence 
                Squadron of the Utah Air National Guard)

       On page 24, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 133. SENIOR SCOUT MISSION BED-DOWN INITIATIVE.

       (a) Amount for Program.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 103(1) is hereby increased by 
     $2,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available 
     for a bed-down initiative to enable the C-130 aircraft of the 
     Idaho Air National Guard to be the permanent carrier of the 
     SENIOR SCOUT mission shelters of the 169th Intelligence 
     Squadron of the Utah Air National Guard.
       (b) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 421 is hereby reduced by $2,000,000, with the amount 
     of the reduction to be derived from excess amounts provided 
     for military personnel of the Air Force.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 3280

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment, 
which I have cosponsored with the Senator from Oklahoma, to extend the 
Energy Savings Performance Contract program through the end of fiscal 
year 2005.
  Our amendment is urgently needed to stem the damage being done to a 
very successful program that brings private sector expertise, and 
private sector financing, to efficiency projects that reduce the 
Federal Government's energy use, and energy costs.
  Since the 1970's Federal Government agencies have been setting an 
example for the Nation on how to reduce energy waste and save money by 
improving their energy efficiency--spending $2.3 billion less for 
energy in FY2000 than in FY1985. One of the reasons for this success is 
the availability of Energy Savings Performance contracts, ESPCs. These 
contracts offer a way to make energy savings improvements at Federal 
facilities at no cost to the Government, by leveraging private capital. 
The Department of Defense has been a leader in the use of Energy 
Savings Performance contracts.
  Under the ESPC authority enacted in 1992, private sector companies 
enter into contracts with Federal agencies to install energy savings 
equipment and make operational and maintenance changes to improve 
building efficiency. The company pays all of the up-front costs for 
making the energy efficiency improvements and guarantees the agency 
savings through the term of contract. The energy service company then 
recovers its investment, over time, by receiving a portion of the 
agency's energy cost savings.
  Since 1992, this program has brought nearly $1.1 billion in private 
sector investments to Federal agencies, resulting in hundreds of 
millions of dollars in permanent savings to the taxpayers. The ESPC 
program has the support of a broad and diverse coalition of businesses, 
environmental groups and labor--including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
U.S. PIRG, and the Teamsters.
  Unfortunately, the statutory authority for the ESPC program expired 
at the end of FY2003. As a result of the program lapse, over $300 
million in energy efficiency projects have been halted nationwide. 
Pending contacts are in limbo along with over 3,000 new jobs associated 
with these projects. Although I and others have made several efforts to 
extend the program, these efforts have been unsuccessful, primarily 
because the Congressional Budget Office assigns a cost to the program, 
unlike the Office of Management and Budget which considers the program 
to be budget neutral.

  While the debate over proper scoring of the program goes on, the loss 
of new business and experienced personnel has put this program into 
crisis. With each passing week, the benefits and potential of ESPCs are 
bleeding away. At a time of high energy costs, high deficits, and high 
unemployment, Congress should act as soon as possible to extend ESPC 
authority.
  I thank the managers of the bill for accepting this short-term 
extension amendment. I also pledge to continue working with Senator 
Inhofe and other supporters of the ESPC program to enact a permanent 
extension of this valuable efficiency program.

[[Page S7274]]

  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary Abraham 
expressing administration support for the ESPC Program be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 2004.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Administration strongly supports 
     enactment, as soon as possible, of legislation to extend the 
     authority for Federal agencies to enter into Energy Savings 
     Performance Contracts (ESPCs).
       Congress established the ESPC program in 1992 as an 
     innovative way to improve the Government's energy efficiency 
     by harnessing private-sector resources to fund necessary 
     energy-efficient improvements. However, authority to enter 
     into new ESPC contracts expired on October 1, 2003. A short-
     term, one-year reauthorization would allow Federal agencies 
     to continue making investments in energy efficiency that save 
     energy and money and help agencies meet Federal energy 
     conservation goals.
       The Administration continues to support long-term 
     reauthorization of the ESPC program as part of the 
     comprehensive energy legislation currently under 
     consideration in Congress. The legislation itself extending 
     ESPC authority is considered budget neutral and does not 
     require additional resources, as the Office of Management and 
     Budget classifies all budget authority and outlays for ESPCs 
     as absorbing discretionary resources. However, ESPCs actually 
     save the government money, because the upfront costs of ESPC 
     efficiency improvements are recovered through the energy 
     savings that result. Moreover, payments to the contractors 
     are contingent upon realizing a guaranteed stream of future 
     cost savings.
       Improved energy efficiency and conservation of Federal 
     facilities is an important component of this Administration's 
     commitment to the cost-effective use of public dollars and 
     protection of the environment. The Administration urges 
     Congress to act quickly to extend the authorization of this 
     important program.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Spencer Abraham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a unanimous 
consent agreement with the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be 
withdrawn, with the exception of the following: Daschle, No. 3409, as 
amended; Leahy, No. 3387, which will have a second degree by Senator 
Leahy or designee; and a series of amendments which have been cleared 
by both managers; I further ask consent that at 9:30 tonight the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment No. 3409, with 
no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided 
further that following the disposition of the Daschle amendment, the 
Senate vote in relation to the Leahy amendment No. 3387. I further ask 
consent that following the disposition of the Leahy amendment, and the 
disposition of the cleared amendments, the bill be read a third time 
and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  Before the Chair rules, I ask unanimous consent that the votes occur 
in reverse order than listed above.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, first of all, 
it will be the Daschle amendment No. 3409, as amended.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. If I failed to read it, it is as 
amended.
  Mr. REID. And that the Leahy amendment No. 3387--we all know Senator 
Leahy is going to offer a second-degree amendment to the underlying 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. It is in the script.
  Mr. REID. And also, I say to the Senator, I want to make sure we 
would have the Daschle vote second and the Leahy vote first.
  Mr. WARNER. If that is the preference, so granted.
  Mr. REID. That would be for the convenience of the Democratic leader. 
I would also think it would be appropriate to have 2 minutes evenly 
divided prior to each vote. I would ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished chairman of the committee allow the modification of his 
unanimous consent request as I have outlined it.
  Mr. WARNER. I concur in the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, not to speak on my 
amendment but to call it up and offer the second degree now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Daschle second degree 
No. 3468 is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3468) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3485 To Amendment No. 3387

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 3387 be called up, 
and I send to the desk a second-degree amendment on behalf of myself 
and Mr. Corzine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr. 
     Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 3485 to amendment No. 
     3387.

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

(Purpose: To direct the Attorney General to submit to the Committee on 
  the Judiciary of the Senate all documents in the possession of the 
 Department of Justice relating to the treatment and interrogation of 
         individuals held in the custody of the United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS.

       The Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate all documents and records produced 
     from January 20, 2001, to the present, and in the possession 
     of the Department of Justice, describing, referring or 
     relating to the treatment or interrogation of prisoners of 
     war, enemy combatants, and individuals held in the custody or 
     under the physical control of the United States Government or 
     an agent of the United States Government in connection with 
     investigations or interrogations by the military, the Central 
     Intelligence Agency, intelligence, antiterrorist or 
     counterterrorist offices in other agencies, or cooperating 
     governments, and the agents or contractors of such agencies 
     or governments.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished manager and yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as the debate on the Defense 
authorization bill began, I announced my intention to offer an 
amendment to that bill with respect to the nuclear penetrator, or, as 
it is known around here, the RNEP. I have been dissuaded from offering 
that amendment by the arguments of some of my friends who insist it is 
unnecessary because it would be simply a statement of existing law. I 
wanted to be sure that was the case, and therefore I sought assurances 
from both the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. I 
have handed the letters from those two Departments to my friend from 
Michigan. I ask if I could reclaim those letters so I might quote from 
them.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is a fair request.
  Mr. BENNETT. Linton F. Brooks, who is the Administrator of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration, wrote me on June 15, and he 
says the following things:

     . . . let me state unequivocally this Administration has no 
     current plans or requirements to conduct an underground 
     nuclear test.

  That is important to understand, that the administration has no plans 
to conduct an underground nuclear test of any kind.
  With respect to RNEP, he says:

     . . . I know you are concerned that the ongoing RNEP study 
     could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear testing. 
     The RNEP study will not require an underground nuclear test.

  That is a very firm, unequivocal statement.
  He goes on to talk about possibilities, and he says:

       Should the President support, and the Congress approve, 
     full-scale engineering development of RNEP, the 
     Administration does not intend to conduct a nuclear test. 
     From the beginning, we have operated under the assumption 
     that resuming testing to certify RNEP is not an option. . . .


[[Page S7275]]


  Those are firm assurances from the Department of Energy. But I wanted 
to be sure this was not just Ambassador Linton Brooks' attitude, so I 
had a conversation with Paul Wolfowitz at the Department of Defense. 
Dated June 23, he sent me a letter reaffirming what Administrator 
Brooks had said and makes it clear that the Department of Defense 
agrees there will be no nuclear test with respect to RNEP under the 
current administration.
  So I am heartened by these assurances I have received from the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy that there is no 
plan or requirement to conduct an underground nuclear explosive test of 
any kind, and I accept these assurances. But here in the Congress I 
have those to whom I look for guidance on these matters. I want to be 
sure that should some future administration decide to change the policy 
that has been outlined by the Bush administration, that the present law 
would hinder future administrations from conducting these same tests 
without there being a vote of Congress; particularly with respect to 
RNEP, that there would be no underground nuclear test without a 
congressional vote.
  I have asked the Senator from Arizona, who is an expert on these 
matters, if he would agree. I also discussed it with the Senator from 
Michigan, who is the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee.
  If I may, Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, if 
he agrees that under current law, a vote from Congress would have to 
occur before a test could be conducted on RNEP?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I answer the Senator from Utah, yes, I agree 
Congress would have to vote before a test could be conducted.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. President.
  I would now like to address the same question to the Senator from 
Michigan, with his great background in the area of law concerning this.
  Does the Senator from Michigan agree that under current law, a vote 
from Congress would have to occur before a test could be conducted for 
RNEP?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes. I, too, agree that Congress would have to vote before 
a test could be conducted.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I thank the Senator 
from Arizona.
  On the basis of their assurances, along with the written assurances I 
have received from this administration--two Departments speaking--I 
will not offer my amendment.
  Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent those two letters be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 
           Administration,
                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 2004.
     Hon. Robert Bennett,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bennett: Thank you for taking the time to meet 
     with me on June 3, 2004, to discuss your concerns regarding 
     the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) study and 
     underground nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). I 
     appreciate your concerns and I hope to address them in this 
     letter.
       First, let me state unequivocally this Administration has 
     no current plans or requirements to conduct an underground 
     nuclear test. The Stockpile Stewardship Program is working 
     today to ensure that America's nuclear deterrent is safe, 
     secure and reliable. Currently there are no issues of 
     sufficient concern to warrant a nuclear test. I certainly 
     understand the concerns you and your constituents in Utah 
     have with nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. However, I 
     believe it is critical to maintain a readiness capability at 
     the NTS to conduct such a test in the future if called for by 
     the President of the United States, in order to ensure the 
     safety and/or reliability of a weapon system. Therefore, I 
     believe it is important for us to work together to ensure 
     that the NNSA test readiness program continues to make safety 
     a top priority.
       Furthermore, I know you are concerned that the ongoing RNEP 
     study could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear 
     testing. The RNEP study will not require an underground 
     nuclear test. Should the President support, and Congress 
     approve, full-scale engineering development of RNEP, the 
     Administration does not intend to conduct a nuclear test. 
     From the beginning, we have operated under the assumption 
     that resuming testing to certify RNEP is not an option and 
     for that reason, more than any other, the RNEP study is only 
     looking at two existing weapon systems, the B-61 and the B-
     83. Both are well-proven systems with an extensive test 
     pedigree from the 1970s and 80s. I would be happy to work 
     with you and the Senate Armed Services Committee to address 
     your concerns on this sensitive matter.
       If you have any further questions or concerns, please do 
     not hesitate to contact me or C. Anson Franklin, Director, 
     Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental and Public Affairs 
     at (202) 586-8343.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Linton F. Brooks,
     Administrator.
                                  ____

                                      Deputy Secretary of Defense,
                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 2004.
     Hon. Robert Bennett,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bennett: I understand that you have concerns 
     about the Department's plans to study options for a Robust 
     Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) that would give the United 
     States the capability to threaten hardened, deeply buried 
     targets in hostile nations. Specifically, you have raised 
     concerns that the development of such a system could require 
     the resumption of underground nuclear testing.
       I want to assure you that the Administration has no plans 
     to conduct an underground nuclear test associated with the 
     development of RNEP. As National Nuclear Security 
     Administration Administrator Linton Brooks recently wrote to 
     you, ``the RNEP study is only looking at two existing weapon 
     systems, the B-61 and B-83. Both are well-proven systems with 
     an extensive test pedigree from the 1970s and 80s.''
       If RNEP were to move from its current study phase to 
     development, such plans would be part of the Administration's 
     annual budget request to Congress. The Administration's 
     intentions concerning underground nuclear testing during RNEP 
     development, if different from our current intentions, would 
     be explicit in that request. Congress would have the 
     opportunity at that time to debate and pass judgment on those 
     plans.
       Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns 
     about the Department's development of RNEP. If I can be of 
     further assistance, I hope you will let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Paul Wolfowitz.


     

                          ____________________