[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 89 (Thursday, June 24, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7384-S7390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CHANGE OF VOTE

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I beg the indulgence of the Chair. If 
I may, on rollcall No. 148, I voted ``aye''. It was my intention to 
vote ``nay''. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Burns be removed as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3490.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a list of the members of the 
subcommittee staff for the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee who have 
worked so hard on this bill. So often, Senator Inouye and I as the 
cochairmen of the committee get credit for what is done, but I think we 
have the hardest working staff in the Congress. They have done an 
admirable job, and we have a fair and balanced bipartisan bill. I ask 
unanimous consent that the list of their names be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Defense Subcommittee Staff

       Charlie Houy, Betsy Schmid, Nicole Diresta, Kraig Siracuse, 
     Tom Hawkins, Alycia Farrell, Lesley Kalan, Jennifer 
     Chartrand, Brian Wilson, Brian Potts, Kate Kaufer, Mazie 
     Mattson, Janelle Treon, Steve Wacakaski, Bob Henke, and Sid 
     Ashworth.


                   funding embassy-baghdad operations

  Mr. HAGEL. I understand the State Department expects to fund the 
Embassy-Baghdad operations using emergency spending in Fiscal Year 
2005. It is also my understanding that Senate Appropriations Committee 
agrees with the State Department on this issue.
  The House version of the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Appropriations bill 
includes $665 million in emergency spending for the Department of State 
to fund Embassy-Baghdad operations, IT costs, logistical support, and 
security requirements. Chairman Stevens and Senator Gregg, and I 
understand that the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee will accept 
the House position on funding Embassy-Baghdad operations, IT costs, 
logistical support, and security requirements during the upcoming 
conference. I appreciate the support from Chairman Stevens and Senator 
Gregg on this matter.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the Senator from Nebraska. The State 
Department has traditionally administered the funds necessary for 
embassy operations. Although the Senate bill does not allocate the 
funds to the State Department, we will do our most to support the House 
language in conference on this matter to ensure the State Department 
retains the authority to obligate the subject funds.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree with Chairman Stevens. We will do our most to 
support the House language. We are both aware of the significant 
funding needs the State Department is facing in the construction of a 
U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. I hope the Secretary of State will act 
expeditiously to address this funding need.


                         RAPID equipping force

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and the committee 
staff for their outstanding work in bringing this legislation to the 
Senate for consideration.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his kind comments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I note that the committee included funding in the 
Defense Appropriations bill to address the threat of Improvised 
Explosive Devices, IEDs, in the Iraq theater. Specifically, I am 
referring to the inclusion in Title IX of the bill which appropriates 
$25,000,000 for a force protection initiative using the Rapid Equipping 
Force concept.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is my understanding that the money is to be used to 
help our deployed soldiers fight the current IED threat that we hear so 
much about in the war in Iraq.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is the purpose of the appropriation.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Would this money also be used to address the force 
protection issues of counter-fire and detection techniques that exist 
in the technology base, such as sensor technologies that have 
demonstrated real-time detection, classification and location of enemy 
fire?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator's understanding is correct. These funds are 
also envisioned to be used for these types of force protection 
initiatives.

[[Page S7385]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for his clarification of this issue.


                      m1a2 sep tank modernization

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank Chairman Stevens for his leadership in ensuring the rapid 
modernization of our land combat forces both in the FY 2005 Defense 
Appropriations bill as well as the Contingent Emergency Reserve Fund. I 
would also like to take a moment to address the urgent need to fund 
continued modernization of the M1 Abrams main battle tank fleet.
  It is encouraging that this Committee has taken a leadership role in 
resourcing the modernization of the Army's armored forces with the M1A2 
SEP tank, the most modern battle tank in the world. As proven in its 
deployment to Iraq, the M1A2 SEP is designed for decisive combat and 
net-centric warfare; indeed, it represents a revolution in armored 
warfare. Is the Chairman aware of the capabilities afforded by the M1A2 
SEP tank?
  Mr. STEVENS. I am aware of the M1A2 SEP and its capabilities.
  Mr. SPECTER. We have encouraged the Army to pure fleet its first-to-
fight armored units with M1A2 SEP tanks primarily to ensure 
overwhelming lethality and survivability but also to reduce the 
logistics burden on our soldiers. However, it has come to my attention 
that the Army does not intend to pure fleet its armored forces with 
M1A2 SEP tanks. In fact, under the Army's current plan, the 3rd 
Infantry Division--which spearheaded Operation Iraqi Freedom--will 
continue to cope with M1A1 tanks that were produced 20 years ago. Is 
the Chairman aware of this fact?
  Mr. STEVENS. I am.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator. I would also point out that 3rd 
Infantry Division is the first division to transform to a new force 
structure the Army calls modularity and also is likely to be called 
upon to return to Iraq within the next year. It strikes me as ironic 
that the Army's premier armored unit lacks the combat punch and network 
capability of the rest of the Army's major armored forces. Finally, 
there is the issue of the tank industrial base. In the next few months, 
the last Abrams Upgrade tank will roll off the production line, 
representing the end of significant tank work in this country. In late 
2006, the last M1A2 SEP Retrofit tank--a less complex upgrade--will be 
produced for the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Absent funding in FY 
2005 for continued tank production, the U.S. tank industrial base will 
cease to exist. We ignore the implications of this action at our own 
peril.
  Mr. President, I urge the Chairman to consider the modernization of 
the 3rd Infantry Division with M1A2 SEP tanks.


                      future tactical truck system

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today we have before us S. 2559, the Fiscal 
Year 2005 Defense Appropriation bill. Included in this bill is 
important funding for a variety of tactical wheeled vehicle programs 
including the Future Tactical Truck System, FTTS. FTTS is an important 
program supported by the Army's National Automotive Center that will 
develop technologies that can increase the range, durability and 
survivability of our military tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. These 
advances will ensure that as the Army transforms itself it will have a 
technologically advanced tactical wheeled vehicle fleet that can best 
meet our Nation's security needs. I would ask my good friend, the 
Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, if he is aware of this 
important program?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my good friend from Michigan in 
his support for this program and the National Automotive Center. I 
understand the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have 
confirmed that the FTTS program is on track and possesses a transition 
pathway that will enable the insertion of new technologies into the 
Army's tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. These technologies will enable 
the Army to field a lighter, more mobile and more effective fighting 
force.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Alaska, and agree with his 
characterization. I believe that this program is making important 
technical advances that will greatly benefit the Army. I am 
particularly appreciative of the committee's recommendation to increase 
the investment in the Army's Heavy Tactical Vehicles program, in order 
to support the transition of these types of technologies into Army 
systems, consistent with the Army's Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy. 
However, I am concerned that the bill we are considering this program 
by $5 million. Such a cut would undermine this program and hinder 
efforts to further develop revoluntary technologies while defining the 
future scope of this program.
  Mr. STEVENS. I concur with the Senator from Michigan. This is an 
important program, and I support investing in the FTTS science and 
technology efforts at the National Automotive Center at the level 
requested by the President. I assure him that I will work in conference 
to fund this program at the President's Budget request.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished Chairman for this support.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Department of Defense appropriations 
bill for FY 2005, S. 2259, as reported by the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, provides $384.012 billion in budget authority and 
$401.785 billion in outlays in FY 2005 for the Department of Defense. 
Of these totals, $239 million is for mandatory programs in FY 2005.
  Additionally, the bill provides $7.158 billion in budget authority 
and $7.054 billion in outlays in FY 2005, which are designated as 
emergency requirements.
  The bill further provides $25 billion in budget authority in FY 2004, 
which is also designated as an emergency requirement. This budget 
authority generated $18.798 billion in outlays in FY 2005.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in FY 2005, 
including emergencies, of $390.931 billion. This amount is $1.684 
billion less than the President's request and equal to the 302(b) 
allocation adopted by the House of Representatives.
  I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous 
consent that a table displaying the Budget committee scoring of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                S. 2559, 2005 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                                         [Fiscal year 2005, $ millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      General
                                                                      purpose        Mandatory         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill: \1\
    Budget authority............................................         383,773             239         384,012
    Outlays.....................................................         401,546             239         401,785
House 302(b) allocation: \2\
    Budget authority............................................         390,931             239         391,170
    Outlays.....................................................         415,987             239         416,226
2004 enacted:
    Budget authority............................................         431,218             226         431,444
    Outlays.....................................................         423,935             226         424,161
President's request:
    Budget authority............................................         392,615             239         392,854
    Outlays.....................................................         418,639             239         418,878
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Senate-Reported bill compared to:
House 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority............................................          -7,158               0          -7,158
    Outlays.....................................................         -14,441               0         -14,441
2004 enacted:
    Budget authority............................................         -47,445              13         -47,432

[[Page S7386]]

 
    Outlays.....................................................         -22,389              13         -22,376
President's request:
    Budget authority............................................          -8,842               0          -8,842
    Outlays.....................................................         -17,093               0         -17,093
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping
  conventions.
\1\ In addition to the amounts shown above, the bill includes $18.798 billion in emergency outlays in 2005
  flowing from the $25 billion supplemental for 2004 (Title IX). The bill contains other emergencies for 2005
  totaling $7.158 billion in budget authority and $7.054 billion in outlays. Including all emergencies, the bill
  totals $416.170 billion in budget authority and $427.657 billion in outlays in 2004 and 2005.
\2\ This table compares Senate action to the House 302(b) allocation for information purposes only, not for
  budget enforcement purposes. The House has deemed 302(b) allocations for 2005 based on the 302(a)
  appropriations allocation set out in the conference agreement on S. Con. Res. 95, the 2005 budget resolution,
  which the House has passed.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, breast cancer is the second leading cause 
of cancer death in the United States today, and about 40,000 women will 
die from the disease this year. It is important that we maintain 
funding in 2005 for the Department of Defense's Breast Cancer Peer 
Reviewed Research Program.
  The program has funded groundbreaking research, including the 
discovery of the drug Herceptin, which prolongs the lives of women with 
a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer. This drug 
could not have been developed without research that was funded in part 
by the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program. This is a program, I should 
add, in which 90 percent of the funds go directly to research.
  An overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the Senate supports this 
program every year. This year 66 Senators signed a letter to 
appropriators urging the continuation of the DOD Breast Cancer Peer 
Reviewed Research Program earmark at a funding level of $150 million 
for FY '05.
  Mr. President, as we proceed to conference on the Department of 
Defense Appropriations bill, I urge my colleagues to maintain this 
level of funding for breast cancer research.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to an 
important program that could be facing fiscal shortfalls if we do not 
make necessary corrections. I am referring to my support for the 
Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. 
This program is a proven success and I support a $150 million earmark 
for the DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program for fiscal 
year 2005.
  The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2004 there will be 
668,470 women diagnosed with cancer. Of this overall estimate of cases, 
32 percent will be breast cancer. The 2004 estimated deaths from breast 
cancer will be 15 percent. These statistics only reemphasize the 
importance of cancer research, and our continued need to fund efforts 
that will ultimately eliminate the number of deaths from breast cancer.
  Department of Defense Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program is 
a one-of-a-kind research program that uses an innovative grants 
structure which brings scientists and consumers together to make key 
policy decisions about breast cancer research. Since its inception 12 
years ago, this far-reaching, influential program has literally changed 
the way breast cancer research is done. The program has funded 
groundbreaking research, including the discovery of the drug Herceptin, 
which prolongs the lives of women with a particularly aggressive type 
of advanced breast cancer. This drug could not have been developed 
without research that was funded in part by the DOD Peer Reviewed 
Breast Cancer Research Program. New approaches and innovations in 
research, such as these, are the keys to finding a cure.
  Not only is this program on the cutting edge of breast cancer 
research, but also is extremely streamlined. Every penny spent by this 
program and the researchers who receive funding are accounted for at a 
public meeting every 2 years. Ninety percent of the funds go directly 
to research and only 10 percent are used for administrative costs. I 
applaud this type of fiscal efficiency and hope that more research 
programs will be able to learn from the structure of this program.
  An overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the Senate supports this 
program every year. This year, 66 Senators, including myself, signed a 
letter addressed to the Senate Appropriations Committee urging the 
continuation of the DOD Breast Cancer Peer Review Research Program 
earmark with level funding of $150 million for FY '05.
  Unfortunately, the language in the Senate Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 threatens the funding and 
unique structure of the Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed Research Program. 
The Senate bill combines all of the congressionally directed cancer 
research programs into one account and reduces the total funding 
available to all.
  As written, the Senate bill seriously threatens the integrity of the 
DOD breast cancer research program and will dismantle its one-of-a-kind 
peer review process involving patients and consumers that makes the 
program so successful and unique. The proposal will force cancer groups 
to compete with one another for reduced funding. And, a particularly 
dangerous component of the proposal is that it transfers funding to 
other cancer projects that are not recommended by a scientific peer 
reviewed process.
  Mr. President, we cannot afford to cut any cancer research programs, 
especially when the President's budget is planning to only increase the 
National Institutes of Health by $728 million, and increase the 
National Cancer Institute budget by only $100 million, which both fall 
short of previous years' requests. In addition the President's budget 
cuts funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by $408 
million. This proves troublesome for CDC programs, such as the National 
Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program which assists in 
funding State programs that help uninsured women undergo screenings for 
breast and cervical cancer. These inadequate funding requests fall 
drastically short of what the Institutes and CDC need in order to carry 
out their cancer research and assistance. This only reiterates why we 
must preserve critical programs such as the Department of Defense Peer-
Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. I therefore call upon 
conferees to support the language passed in the House version of the 
Fiscal Year 2005 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Department 
of Defense, DOD, Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. Almost 
12 years ago, when I looked into the issue of breast cancer research, I 
discovered that barely $90 million in Federal funds was spent on breast 
cancer research. So I joined with Senator Alfonse D'Amato, R-NY, on 
legislation to dedicate specific money from the DOD budget for breast 
cancer research. The legislation passed and overnight it doubled 
Federal funding for breast cancer research. Since then, funding for 
breast cancer research has been included in the Defense Department 
budget every year.
  Unfortunately, the language in the Senate Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 threatens both the existing 
funding and the current structure of the Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed 
Research Program. The Senate bill combines all of the congressionally 
directed cancer research programs into one account and then reduces the 
total funding available. This will inevitably lead to a major cut in 
funding for this important program.
  The DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program has been an 
unqualified success in providing innovative approaches to breast cancer 
prevention, detection and treatment. Over the past several years, we 
have made a great deal of progress against breast cancer, but there is 
still a long way to go.

[[Page S7387]]

  More than 258,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with breast 
cancer and another 40,000 deaths are likely to result from this deadly 
cancer. Now is not the time to jeopardize a successful program that is 
critical to winning the battle against breast cancer.
  As the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 
goes to conference, I plan to work to preserve the current structure 
and funding for this critical breast cancer research program. I urge my 
colleagues to support the language passed in the House and support a 
$150 million earmark for the DOD Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research 
Program for fiscal year 2005.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I support the Department of Defense, DoD, 
Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. This program is a proven 
success and I support a $150 million earmark for the DoD Peer Reviewed 
Breast Cancer Research Program for fiscal year 2005.
  This one-of-a-kind research program uses an innovative grants 
structure that brings scientists and consumers together to make key 
policy decisions about breast cancer research. Since its inception 12 
years ago, this far-reaching, influential program has literally changed 
the way breast cancer research is done. It has become a model that 
other research programs have sought to replicate.
  The program has funded groundbreaking research, including the 
discovery of the drug Herceptin, which prolongs the lives of women with 
a particularly aggressive type of advanced breast cancer. This drug 
could not have been developed without research that was funded in part 
by the DoD Breast Cancer Research Program.
  Not only is this program on the cutting edge of breast cancer 
research, but also is extremely streamlined. Every penny spent by this 
program and the researchers who receive funding are accounted for at a 
public meeting every 2 years. Ninety percent of the funds go directly 
to research and only 10 percent are used for administrative costs. This 
kind of efficiency and prudence in spending is unheard of in other 
federally funding research programs.
  An overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the Senate supports this 
program every year. This year, 66 Senators signed the letter addressed 
to appropriators urging the continuation of the DoD Breast Cancer Peer 
Review Research Program earmark with level funding of $150 million for 
fiscal year 2005.
  Unfortunately, the language in the Senate Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 threatens the funding and 
unique structure of the Breast Cancer Peer Reviewed Research Program. 
The Senate bill combines all of the congressionally Directed Cancer 
Research Programs into one account and reduces the total funding 
available to all.
  Because the Senate version lumps all the cancer programs into one 
pot, rather than maintaining separate earmarks, the proposal will have 
multiple, negative outcomes. As written, the Senate bill seriously 
threatens the integrity of the DoD breast cancer research program and 
will dismantle its one-of-a-kind peer review process involving patients 
and consumers that makes the program so successful and unique. The 
proposal will force cancer groups to compete with one another for 
reduced funding. And, a particularly dangerous component of the 
proposal is that it transfers funding to other cancer projects that are 
not recommended by a scientific peer reviewed process.
  We should ensure that all of the DoD's cancer research programs are 
fully funded. These programs play a critical role in the development of 
treatments and potential cures for cancer.
  As the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 
goes to conference, I urge my colleagues to support the language passed 
in the House and preserve this critical program for breast cancer 
research.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the tradition 
of line-item funding for cancer research programs in the Department of 
Defense, DOD, appropriations bill. This practice has been abandoned in 
the fiscal year 2005 legislation before us now, and I fear that this 
could do great damage to the advances in cancer treatment that our 
scientists are working so hard to achieve every day.
  The DOD Peer-Reviewed Research Programs provide funding for critical, 
life-saving research on breast cancer, prostate cancer, and ovarian 
cancer. Each of these is a devastating illness that challenges hundreds 
of thousands of new patients and their families every year. The Peer-
Reviewed Research Programs are essential to bringing these families 
hope and new opportunities in cancer treatments.
  The prostate cancer research program uses an innovative grants 
structure that brings scientists and consumers together to make key 
policy decisions about prostate cancer research. Since its inception 8 
years ago, this far-reaching, influential program has literally changed 
the way prostate cancer research is done. It has become a model that 
other research programs have sought to replicate.
  In recent years, the DOD breast cancer program funded groundbreaking 
research, such as the discovery of the drug Herceptin, which prolongs 
the lives of women with a particularly aggressive type of advanced 
breast cancer. This drug could not have been developed without research 
that was funded in part by the DOD breast cancer research program.
  Like its counterparts for prostate cancer and breast cancer, the 
Ovarian Cancer Research Project fosters collaborative efforts and long-
term institutional commitments to ovarian cancer research focusing on 
prevention and early detection, which are key to the development of a 
sustained commitment to ovarian cancer research.
  Not only am I deeply disturbed by the cuts to these programs in the 
Senate bill, but it is my belief that given the Department of Defense's 
proven track record in conducting effective, efficient research to 
combat cancers and find new cures, the Department's efforts should 
instead be expanded to include desperately-needed research on other 
forms of the disease, including kidney cancer.
  For a disease that has received very little research funding to date, 
kidney cancer affects a surprisingly large number of people. In 2003, 
36,000 new cases were diagnosed, an increase of 12 percent over the 
previous year, while more than 12,000 individuals died of the disease. 
Supplementing current kidney cancer research funding with additional 
money from the Department of Defense would be a significant step toward 
providing meaningful treatments for kidney cancer patients.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have shown broad support for 
these programs in the past, urging the Senate to continue its support 
of each individual program. Many of us signed letters requesting that 
each program continue to receive at least the same amount of funding it 
received last year, which would have been consistent with the bill 
passed earlier this week by the House of Representatives.
  The House language is not ideal. It funds each of the three Peer-
Reviewed Research Programs at last year's levels, ignoring inflation 
and the increased cost of research. However, the House provision is far 
superior to a Senate version that forces cancer research programs to 
compete for a decreased amount of funding.
  As the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
goes to conference, I urge my colleagues to support the language passed 
in the House and preserve the integrity of each of these critical Peer-
Reviewed Research Programs.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as ranking democrat on the Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I want to discuss two 
amendments that were included in the Defense Department Fiscal Year 
2005 authorization bill, which passed yesterday. These amendments will 
ensure that small businesses are included in the analysis of policies 
that affect the procurement strategies or affect the technology and 
industrial base of this Nation. Before I discuss these amendments, 
however, I would like to thank the committee's chair, Senator Olympia 
Snowe, for her leadership, and for working hand-in-hand with me on 
these amendments that are vital to ensuring that small businesses 
continue to have a voice in the Federal procurement arena.
  The Department of Defense is the largest purchaser of goods and 
services

[[Page S7388]]

in the Federal Government. As a result, they are the driving force 
behind Federal agencies' ability to meet the Government-wide small 
business contracting goal of 23 percent. The Defense Authorization Act 
of 2004 included a provision requiring the administrator of the Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy, OFPP, to establish an advisory panel to 
review the laws and regulations regarding the use of commercial 
practices, performance-based contracting, the performance of 
acquisition functions across agency lines, and the use of Government-
wide acquisition contracts, also known as GWACS.
  Many small businesses have contacted my office regarding the negative 
impact these GWACS have been having on their ability to compete for 
Federal contracts. They are concerned that GWACS are being 
disproportionately awarded to larger firms, denying small business 
their fair share of contracts. The amendment, offered by Senators 
Snowe, Coleman and myself, expands the authority of the advisory panel 
to include a report on the impact these tools have on small business 
concerns. It also allows the panel to offer recommendations regarding 
laws, regulations and policies they believe would afford small 
businesses increased opportunities to participate in the Federal 
procurement arena.
  With respect to the second amendment, I want to commend Senator Byrd 
for taking the initiative to develop an amendment to ensure that small 
businesses have a voice with respect to Federal Government work on the 
future of the national technology and industrial base.
  The DoD Authorization bill includes a provision establishing a 
Commission on the Future of the National Technology and Industrial 
Base. The duties of this 12-member, Presidentially-appointed commission 
include studying the issues associated with the future of the national 
technology and industrial base in the global economy. This study is 
particularly important with respect to the effect of our national 
technology and industrial base on United States national security and 
for assessing the future ability of meeting the objectives outlined in 
the bill. This amendment adds a provision to the study that will 
require that the role of small business concerns in strengthening 
the national technology and industrial base is incorporated in the 
report, due no later than March 1, 2007.

  Small businesses have proved time and time again that they can 
provide the goods and services needed by the Federal Government, often 
more efficiently and more cost effectively than their large 
competitors. Unfortunately, they are consistently treated as an 
afterthought or completely ignored when the Federal Government 
considers procurement policies outside of the Small Business 
Administration. While the SBA is essential for providing access to 
capital, training and counseling, and for assistance in gaining access 
to the Federal marketplace, the vast majority of contracts for goods 
and services come from other agencies, such as the Department of 
Defense.
  Small businesses should be provided the greatest opportunity to 
compete. When our national defense is in the process of regeneration 
and transitioning into a military of the future, as it is now, small 
businesses should be tapped to maximize the innovation, cost savings 
and efficiency they can contribute to the effort. Small businesses are 
critical to maintaining and strengthening the overall economy of the 
Nation and are the cornerstone of the Government's policy of ensuring a 
diverse supplier base. They should be included when the Government is 
developing industrial policy and considered in the analysis of policies 
that affect the procurement strategies or affect the technology and 
industrial base of this Nation. These amendments do just that. Again, I 
thank Senators Snowe and Byrd for their leadership and my colleagues 
for their support for this Nation's small businesses. I would also like 
to thank Chairman Warner and my colleague on the Senate Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Levin, the Ranking Member 
of the Senate Committee on Armed Services for working closely with us 
and for making these amendments a part of this legislation.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is well recognized that mail sent from 
families and loved ones to U.S. forces based overseas has a tangible 
effect on troop morale. Concomitantly, mail that is delayed 
unnecessarily undermines morale and furthermore endangers the ability 
of absentee military voters to have their votes counted. Additionally, 
voting assistance programs that are ineffective undermine the ability 
of the absentee military voter to cast a vote. In an effort to improve 
these respective programs I have encouraged the Department of Defense 
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Military Postal Service Agency and 
the Voting Assistance Program to determine if these programs are 
sufficient in scope to resolve the problems that have been identified 
repeatedly in past reports and audits.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, late last night, after several weeks of 
floor debate, the Senate completed action on the Defense Authorization 
Act. Both that legislation and the pending measure, S. 2559, the 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, will enable us to make 
great strides towards providing our men and women in uniform with the 
equipment, benefits, and programs they need to carry out their critical 
missions. I would like to applaud the efforts of both committees to 
ensure that these brave men and women are provided for.
  Even though it passed just last night, the Appropriations Committee 
worked to provide funding levels that are generally commensurate with 
the authorization bill. This is very important, and it will enable us 
to continue to meet our obligations to support service members in the 
fight against terror. The bill includes many critical funding 
provisions to which I lend strong support, such as the funding to 
increase Army end strength by 20,000 soldiers.
  Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, the bill also includes a large 
number of unauthorized and unrequested provisions. I hope that the 
sponsors will carefully reconsider these damaging provisions as the 
bill works its way through the legislative process. While I appreciate 
the hard work and the laudable intentions of the members of the 
Committee, we must all be alarmed at these appropriations earmarks. 
They limit the ability of our Defense Department to expend needed 
resources according to its funding priorities.
  With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, and with 
looming budget deficits at home, the Senate faces some tough choices. 
We must find a way to maintain our fiscal responsibility while fully 
providing for our military needs. The costs that go along with the 
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand now, more than ever, a new 
fiscal sanity in approaching our appropriations bills. A half-a-
trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business 
as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending 
that consumes an ever growing proportion of our Federal budget. While 
the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of 
lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these 
earmarks significantly burden American taxpayers.
  Not surprisingly, along with the growth in deficit spending over the 
past few years, there also has been a significant growth in earmarks 
and pork barrel spending. In fact, according to information compiled by 
the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has 
grown from 4,126 in Fiscal Year 1994 to 14,040 in FY 2004. That's an 
increase of 240 percent in 10 years. In dollar terms, the earmarking 
has risen from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period.
  Mr. President, based on the calculations of my office, the Fiscal 
Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act contained $3.7 billion in pork. 
The conference report to the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Appropriations 
Act contained $8.1 billion in pork, while the Senate version included 
$5.2 billion. The Fiscal Year 2004 Senate-passed Defense Appropriations 
Act contained well over $4 billion of pork. This year $6.9 billion was 
added in the bill and the report, a number which is much greater than 
last year's Senate version of the legislation. This is real money. 
Every year, countless important military and domestic programs go 
unfunded or underfunded. I find it hard to understand why we find the 
money to pay for member add ons, but then have to battle to fund 
important programs such as AmeriCorps.

[[Page S7389]]

  Projects that appear on the Defense Appropriations Member Add-ons 
List are items that are requested by Senators but were not included in 
the President's budget request. They did not appear on the Joint 
Chiefs' Unfunded Priority List, and they were not authorized in the 
Defense Authorization bill. These criteria have been useful in 
ferreting out programs of questionable merit, and in determining the 
relative priority of projects requested by members for strictly 
parochial reasons, often at the expense of the readiness of our armed 
forces. But, the fact remains that throughout the years in which I have 
been identifying these add-ons, no offsets have been provided for any 
project. In a time when some of our soldiers and sailors still receive 
food stamps, or live in inadequate housing, we somehow found a way to 
provide over $4 billion in unnecessary spending to the Defense 
Appropriations bill. For example, the Joint Chiefs provided a list of 
critical requirements above what was provided for in the President's 
Budget Request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 
2005. We should provide additional funding for defense for items and 
programs which the Joint Chiefs need, not for programs that are 
important because of the state that they come from or because of the 
seniority of the Member of Congress.
  Mr. President, this is an election year and, once again, the members 
of the Appropriations Committee are touting their earmarks on their 
websites and in their press releases. One committee member listed 
$102.6 million in earmarks spread over 16 different projects, while 
another member lauds funding for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. What 
is missing from these releases is the story about the authorized 
programs that will not receive full funding because there is not enough 
money to go around. Wouldn't it be more responsible to spend this money 
on pay raises or other important morale boosters instead of on 
parochial interests?
  Earlier this week, I spoke at length on the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease 
Program so I will not take up much more of the Senate's time again now, 
except to say, that the amendment that was passed by the Senate in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 is critical 
because Congressional guidance is needed. The Air Force's conduct on 
its Tanker Lease Program has, to date, been unacceptable. With regards 
to the Boeing 767 Tanker Lease Program, the Department of Defense and 
the Air Force leadership have obfuscated, delayed, and withheld 
information from Congress and the taxpayers.
  Equally as unacceptable, the Appropriations Committee added $110 
million in this report in--a table, under the heading ``Tanker 
Replacement, Advance Procurement.'' There was no money for the tanker 
program in the President's defense budget submitted to Congress in 
February. The Senate Armed Services Committee did not authorize any 
funding for tanker recapitalization for fiscal year 2005. The Chief 
Staff of the Air Force, General John P. Jumper, USAF, did not request 
advance procurement for tanker replacement in his ``Fiscal Year 2005 
Unfunded Priority List,'' which he submitted to Congress in March 2005. 
The reason is simple--tanker replacement money is not needed NOW.
  This latest procurement earmark is disturbingly similar to the $30 
billion line item included in the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense 
Appropriations Act which gave rise to this entire controversy to begin 
with. The Air Force's proposal to acquire 100 Boeing KC-767A tankers 
was flawed from the beginning. Everything, including a complete 
investigation of possible Air Force misconduct, should be done to 
assure that this doesn't happen again.
  Aspects of that deal, ranging from how the original proposal passed 
through Congress to the improper conduct of senior executives at the 
Boeing Company, have been exhaustively reviewed and fundamentally 
criticized by the Senate Committee on Armed Services; the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; the Department of 
Justice; the Defense Department's Office of the Inspector General; the 
Defense Science Board; the Congressional Budget Office; the General 
Accounting Office; the Congressional Research Service; the Office of 
Management and Budget; the Defense Department's Office of Programs, 
Analysis and Evaluation; the Institute for Defense Analyses; the 
Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University and 
others. Notably, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and former 
Defense Department Comptroller General Dov Zakheim have also weighed in 
with serious concerns about various aspects of the tanker program.
  Critically, the Defense Science Board task force found ``there is no 
compelling material or financial reason to initiate a replacement 
program prior to the completion of the Analysis of Alternatives, AoA, 
and the Mobility Capabilities Study, MCS.'' Moreover, the task force 
observed that the Air Force overstated both the amount of corrosion 
throughout the KC-135 fleet and the KC-135's operation and support cost 
growth. It also found that the KC-135E can fly to 2040. In other words, 
the `dominating rationale' cited by the Air Force to Congress for 
having taxpayers pay billions of dollars more for leasing Boeing's KC-
767A tankers than they would for buying them outright, has been 
conclusively shown to be without merit. The Air Force's representations 
on this issue remains a matter of continuing investigative concern. The 
likelihood that the analysis of alternatives, AOA, and mobility 
capabilities study, MCS, if done properly, will recommend an 
acquisition method for these tankers now known to be wholly unsuitable 
here, is probably minimal. So, the Secretary's decision appears fatal 
to at least the lease component of the proposal.
  Now what matters is that the AOA and MCS are conducted properly and 
objectively, and a new validated capabilities document, ORD, is 
completed that reflects, for the first time, the requirements of the 
warfighter. The Air Force's conduct to date in this matter has been 
egregious. The participation of the Air Force's FFRDC in the AOA is 
problematic. RAND has recently been receiving as much as $50 million 
per year from the Air Force and apparently prejudged the AOA in a 
recent report. Therefore, both should be disqualified from the process. 
The process going forward will remain an issue of continuing interest 
to me.
  The bottom line here is this. The amendment adopted in the Fiscal 
Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act will do much to inject 
needed sunlight on a program whose development has been largely 
insulated from public scrutiny. The tanker amendment attempts to make 
sure that any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers 
is done responsibly. We should expect no less from the Air Force.
  Some of the egregious examples of Defense pork for FY 2005, either in 
the bill or in the accompanying report, include:
  Section 8063 of the General Provisions. The text states that, ``each 
contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal 
year for construction or service performed in whole or in part in a 
State which is not contiguous with another State and has an 
unemployment rate in excess of the national average rate of 
unemployment as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall include a 
provision requiring the contractor to employ, for the purpose of 
performing that portion of the contract in such State that is not 
contiguous with another State, individuals who are residents of such 
State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or would be 
able to acquire promptly the necessary skills.'' I am not making this 
text up. Let's call a spade a spade. This provision directly protects 
the jobs of only Hawaiians and Alaskans.
  As previously mentioned, $1.8 million, for the Lewis and Clark 
Bicentennial celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills 
of Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher deficits.
  $120 million for the Advanced Procurement of F-15s. The Air Force has 
decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15. Yet this earmark keeps 
the F-15 production line open, so I question the necessity of the F-22 
procurement in the numbers of aircraft and at the funding levels 
requested by the Air Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both.
  $1 million for the Center for Political Logic Devices. I am the first 
one who would pay for logic if we could insert some into our political 
process, but this earmark won't do it.

[[Page S7390]]

  $11 million for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless System. 
Chameleons change colors, but one thing does not change is the 
unrequested provisions in this bill.
  $2 million for the Air Battle Captain program at the University of 
North Dakota. This provision sends students from West Point to North 
Dakota for their flight lessons. Instead of letting flight schools 
compete for the ability to train these cadets, we have earmarked their 
training to North Dakota. We are putting parochial interests over the 
necessity to provide the best training possible for the best price to 
our Army cadets.
  $6 million for the LISA inspector. Who is this Lisa, and why does it 
cost $6 million to inspect her?
  $4 million dollars for Project Albert. Hey Hey Hey. Seems like Albert 
could get pretty fat off all the pork in this bill.
  $4 million for Hibernation Genomics. Looking around the Senate, I see 
a few tired people, so maybe we a little hibernation is in order. But 
I'd prefer not to pay $4 million for it.
  $5.5 million for the C-135 Improved Waste Removal System. We need to 
improve the way we remove waste from this bill.
  $700,000 for the United States Army Reserve Citizen Soldier Memorial 
Park.
  Mr. President, I use humor in describing these earmarks, but the 
damage they do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate 
funding priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of 
the same earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I 
come to the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the 
appropriators' perennial favorite projects include:

  $5 million for the Smart Truck. This provision, which directly lines 
the pockets of the auto industry in Detroit, is not exactly smart.
  $10 million for the 21st Century Truck. This program has been around 
for years and not once has the Department of Defense requested funding 
for it. While I'm sure we all would love to jump into a truck that 
could be in a James Bond movie, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the 
Department of Defense to pay for it.
  $8.0 million for the New England Manufacturing Supply Chain. This is 
above and beyond the $14 million earmarked for them over the last two 
years.
  $9 million for the Medical Free Electron Laser. The electrons might 
be free, but the laser sure isn't. This project was developed by the 
scientists at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. The budget 
justification used by the DoD in previous years spelled out the plan to 
have this program funded through NIH by FY2003. Why hasn't this 
happened yet?
  $44 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Arizona is home 
to the Lowell Observatory. Why should we provide $44 million to Maui, 
when there are many observatories in the United States, such as Lowell, 
that offer many of the same benefits as the Maui site?
  $1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the brown tree 
snake has slithered its way into our defense appropriation bill. I'm 
sure the snakes are annoying--maybe even frightening to children and 
adults alike, but this funding does not belong in the Defense 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. President, there are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy 
programs, such as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling 
national defense reason for these items to be on this piece of 
legislation. This type of critical research should be funded through 
the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be 
provided with the best equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce 
defense dollars should be used for these defense purposes, not others. 
Some examples of these inappropriate earmarks include:
  $200 million for Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program.
  $50 million Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program.
  $25 million for Hawaii Federal Health Care Network.
  $2.5 million for the Alaska Federal Health Care Network.
  $5 million for Pacific Island Health Care Referral.
  I could go on and on--and on and on and on--listing all of the 
examples of pork in this legislation. We simply need to reassess our 
priorities.
  This year's bill also includes a number of ``Buy America'' 
provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of welded 
shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and under. 
Another provision ensures that all carbon, alloy or steel plates are 
produced in the United States. Whew. I know we'll sleep better at night 
knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured in the U.S. Yet 
another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing 
supercomputers from a foreign source.
  Mr. President, I continue to be very concerned about the potential 
impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. 
Every year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and 
the American taxpayers $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of 
view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an 
economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an 
important element in improving relations among nations and essential to 
economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' 
restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in 
international markets and also could result in the loss of existing 
business from long-standing trade partners.
  Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the 
effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain 
product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to 
``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DoD, 
and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. In 
order to maintain our troop strength and force readiness, the DoD must 
be able to be equipped with the best technologies available, regardless 
of country of origin. This would ensure both price and product 
competition.
  Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces--
increasingly necessary as we operate in coalition warfare and 
peacekeeping missions. These exports also increase our influence over 
recipient country actions, and, in a worse case scenario, allow the 
U.S. to terminate them. Exports lower the unit costs of systems to the 
U.S. military, and provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as 
all other exports--well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and 
increased tax revenue. These are really issues of acquisition policy, 
not appropriations matters. We had a floor debate on this a few days 
ago during consideration of the Defense Authorization Act. There is no 
justification for including these provisions in the Appropriations Act.
  Finally, one of the more egregious ``Buy America'' provisions in this 
legislation is a section in which we dictate that we must buy only 
American seafood. While this provision has been included in a previous 
year's funding, I must ask: What is the compelling Department of 
Defense need to protect the American seafood industry? Why is an entire 
industry singled out for protection?
  Mr. President, this bill spends money on Lewis and Clark and funnels 
cash to a center on ``political logic devices.'' It protects the 
mooring chain industry and ensures that we only buy American seafood. 
If there is any food that should be mentioned in this bill, Mr. 
President, it is that Other White Meat. There is enough pork in this 
bill to feed an army--if only that we used our defense appropriations 
to do that. I suppose it is more important to pay Project Albert.
  I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate floor with 
every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested 
spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical 
for American taxpayers to understand where the money in their pockets 
is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our 
appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce 
dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the trough.

                          ____________________