[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 103 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8617-S8622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S8617]]

Senate

  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT--
                               Continued

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
allocated to the Senator from Arizona be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Approximately 1 hour 10 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire if the Senator from West Virginia wishes 
to use any further time at this time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, I 
will respond. I do intend to. I would hope that the cloakroom would 
find out if any Senators on my side want any time on this bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is the reason I have reserved our time and Senator 
Inouye reserved his time also. I have been notified of no Senator on my 
side who wishes to use part of my time. I don't know about the Senator 
from Hawaii. He indicates he has had no requests.
  It appears Senator Byrd would be the last person to make a statement.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I speak, in part, on another matter, but basically 
with reference to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I would 
hope to title my remarks at this point ``Homeland Insecurity.''
  In a mere matter of days, we will officially kick off the 2004 
Presidential election season, with the convening of the Democratic 
convention in Boston. The political activities and festivities in 
Boston will also mark the beginning of a tense interlude between the 
conventions and the November elections, during which the Nation has 
been told to brace for the possibility of a large-scale terrorist 
attack on the United States.
  Earlier this month, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI 
Director Robert Mueller went on national television to warn the 
American people that credible evidence pointed to plans by al-Qaida to 
launch a large-scale attack on the United States before the November 
elections in an effort to disrupt our democratic process. Yet in the 
weeks since our Nation's top Homeland Security officials issued that 
blunt and alarming warning, the administration appears to have buried 
its head in the sand, carrying on with business as usual, seemingly 
oblivious to the gathering danger predicted by its own experts.
  This morning the Washington Times newspaper published on its front 
page a chilling account of shadowy groups of Middle Eastern men 
carrying out surveillance at airports, probing security measures, 
conducting what appear to be dry runs on our aircraft. The reports are 
anecdotal, but regardless of whether the article turns out to be 
accurate or merely an example of scare-mongering, it raises serious 
questions and underscores serious flaws in the administration's 
preparedness to respond to another terrorist attack on the United 
States.

  Following the tragic events of September 11, protecting the Nation's 
commercial aircraft became the top antiterrorism priority of the 
Federal Government in this country. The administration established a 
firm goal for the number of Federal air marshals so that a high 
percentage of critical flights could be protected. The exact number of 
air marshals is classified. However, it is no secret that the Federal 
Air Marshals Program has never reached the staffing level deemed 
necessary to protect the American people in the wake of the September 
11 attacks.
  Worse, as commercial air travel rebounds to its highest level since 
the September 11 attacks, the number of Federal air marshals is 
actually declining, falling 9 percent below the meager staffing level 
that the program was initially able to achieve and far further below 
the administration's stated goal.
  As air marshals leave the program, budget constraints prohibit the 
hiring of replacements. The number of air marshals continues to 
dwindle, and the number of critical flights they are able to cover 
remains on a steady downward spiral. That is enough to make your hair 
stand on end.
  At a time when Americans have been told, in the starkest terms 
possible, that al-Qaida is moving forward with plans to attack our 
homeland, the administration continues to twiddle its thumbs and allow 
our homeland defenses, including protection of commercial aircraft, to 
erode.
  While the Bush administration claims progress in the war on terror 
and asserts that it is making the Nation safer, the facts belie the 
rhetoric. The assertions are hollow. The administration has 
consistently put homeland security on the back burner. At the prodding 
of Congress, the administration grudgingly created the Cabinet-level 
Department of Homeland Security. Senator Stevens and I wrote language 
into appropriation bills providing that the head of Homeland Security 
would require confirmation. No, the administration didn't want to send 
Mr. Ridge up before the Appropriations Committee until Senator Stevens 
and I joined in writing that language. Since the creation of this 
Department, the administration has failed to provide the Department 
with the resources needed to make Americans safer.

[[Page S8618]]

  The Senate, I am sorry to say, is somewhat complicit in the 
administration's negligence. The Senate has danced right along to the 
White House tune. As Brutus said, in scolding Cicero for attempting to 
toady up to Antony:

       Our ancestors would have scorned even a gentle master.

  Although the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Homeland 
Security bill more than a month ago, it has been languishing--now get 
this. Let me say that again. Hear me. Although the Senate 
Appropriations Committee passed the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill more than a month ago, that bill has been languishing on the shelf 
since then and has yet to see the light of day on the Senate floor.
  That is the bill making appropriations for homeland security. That is 
the bill for your protection, may I say to the people who are watching 
this Senate through those electronic lenses. It is your protection, 
your security, your children's protection, your property, your 
community. And yet that bill has been languishing, where? On the shelf 
since then and has yet to see the light of day on this Senate floor.
  For some reason which I cannot divine, this do-nothing Senate--hear 
me--for some reason which I cannot divine, this do-nothing Senate, 
under the Senate Republican leadership, has bottled up the Homeland 
Security bill, refusing to allow the Senate to debate it and pass it 
and send it to the President of the United States.
  Here we are, the Senate is about to go out for 45 days, and what 
about your safety out there? What about the safety of the American 
people? What about the safety of the communities of this country? What 
about the safety of the children who attend the schools of this 
country? What about them? Are they going to have to wait 45 days before 
this bill making appropriations for homeland defense is to even be 
called up and debated in this Senate? Yes. We are going to go home. We 
are going to go home and leave those people unprotected insofar as new 
moneys are concerned for the Department of Homeland Security.
  Fie on the administration that would treat the American people so 
cavalierly. Here is a bill that has been waiting. This is not Senator 
Stevens' fault. His Appropriations Committee, of which I am the ranking 
member, has reported out this bill days and days ago. We should have 
taken that bill up and passed it. Where is it now? It is bottled up, 
and there are no chances--none--of calling this appropriations bill up 
before we go home for a 45-day recess. Go home. Go home. And yet amidst 
all of this, this administration has been issuing dire warnings about 
al-Qaida and what may happen in this country in the meantime, and 
particularly during a time when the American people are going through 
the democratic processes of nominating a President and Vice President 
of the United States.
  Now, if that isn't enough to make the hair curl, I would like to know 
what we need to make it curl.
  Unlike the billions upon billions of dollars in funding that the 
President has demanded from Congress to fight his war in Iraq, he has 
been strangely silent on the need to appropriate homeland security 
funding to better protect you, Senators, you, the American people at 
home.
  In the wake of the most recent terrorist alert, one would think--
wouldn't one think--that the President of the United States would have 
called on Congress to provide supplemental funding for new measures to 
thwart the threat from al-Qaida? Wouldn't one think that?
  There are so many weak links in our homeland security network for 
which added resources could be a true lifesaver. The country needs 
additional funds to secure our mass transit systems, to increase the 
inspection of air and ship cargo containers, and, yes, to increase the 
number of Federal air marshals.

  Yet the White House is doing nothing in this regard--nothing, 
nothing--to press Congress to move on this Homeland Security 
appropriations bill before we close the doors and go home.
  If the reports of pilots and flight attendants and air marshals cited 
in the Washington Times article are accurate, our Nation's aircraft may 
be under a renewed threat of attack. If the ``credible evidence'' cited 
by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI is 
accurate, then the United States is entering an extremely--extremely--
dangerous period. And if the chairman of the so-called 9/11 Commission 
was correct in the assessments he made today--I believe he was--then 
the United States must face up to the mistakes it made in the past and 
to the probability of another terrorist attack of even greater 
magnitude than that which shook the Nation on September 11, 2001.
  Yet the White House is doing nothing in this regard. By pretending 
that funding for homeland security can wait, and by refusing to 
acknowledge that additional resources are needed to protect the Nation, 
the administration is callously playing fast and loose with the safety 
of the American people.
  I hope and I pray that America remains safe over the coming months. I 
hope and pray that the reporting is wrong. I hope and pray that the 
evidence collected by our homeland security experts is off the mark. I 
hope and pray that the political conventions will be the scenes of 
nothing more sinister than elbowing for a better view of the platform. 
Above all, I hope and pray that the administration will come to its 
senses, drop its pretension that all is well with homeland security, 
and provide the financial resources required to truly protect the 
American people at home.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, the 9/11 Commission released its 
report and the Commission Chairman, Thomas H. Kearn, said that an 
attack ``of even greater magnitude is possible--even probable.'' In 
fact, intelligence assessments have long warned that al-Qaida is 
seeking weapons of mass destruction to use against Americans in the 
United States.
  The 9/11 Commission specifically recommended today: ``Support the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program'' and went on to state that it 
``is now in need of expansion, improvement, and resources.'' Yet the 
conference report before us today includes a rescission insisted upon 
by the other body of $50 million in fiscal year 2003 funding for 
cooperative threat reduction programs. In other words, although this 
bill appropriates $409 million for these programs in fiscal year 2005, 
12 percent of that amount from prior appropriations is being taken 
away. I think that is a huge mistake.
  These programs, known as ``Nunn-Lugar'' programs after former Senator 
Sam Nunn and the current distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, assist countries of the former 
Soviet Union in the safe and secure transportation, storage and 
dismantlement of nuclear weapons and nuclear and chemical materials, as 
well as preventing the diversion of nuclear materials or equipment. So, 
we have just cut funding for programs that will help keep nuclear 
weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
  There has been some confusion about the impact of this cut. The 
official at the Defense Department charges with administering these 
programs believes that she will be able to move funds around 
sufficiently to prevent the cancellation of any programs, this time. I 
hope she is right.
  The cooperative threat reduction programs are notorious for how 
slowly the money is obligated. That is not because the programs are 
unneeded, or because federal employees are not doing their jobs. 
Rather, pay-outs are slow because cooperation from the countries 
concerned and various statutory certifications are required before the 
funds can be used.
  This fact makes the program a tempting target for those looking for a 
pot of money to raid. But such critical programs must not be looked at 
as ``bill payers'' for other defense needs.
  Neither should we view cooperative threat reduction programs as 
``foreign aid.'' That red herring must be put to rest. As former 
Defense Secretary Bill Perry used to say, CTR is ``defense by other 
means.'' There is no more pressing national security need than to 
secure the sources of weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of 
the hands of terrorists.
  I want to put the House on notice today that I will vigorously oppose 
further cuts in these programs. And should any deobligation of funds be

[[Page S8619]]

necessary because of this cut, I will urge the President and the 
Secretary of Defense to reprogram funds to prevent the cancellation of 
programs and contracts.
  We have no greater responsibility than to protect our Nation from an 
attack with weapons of mass destruction and I, for one, will not stand 
for this critical program to be chipped away until it becomes 
ineffective.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to discuss the Defense 
Appropriations conference report. I want to say upfront this 
legislation is extremely important. At a time when our soldiers are 
still in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, this 
legislation provides resources they need.
  This bill is all the more important because costs of war in Iraq are 
spiraling upward. The GAO has just reported that there is a shortfall 
of over $12 billion in funding for war costs for fiscal year 2004. This 
is on top of the $87 billion supplemental that we passed last year. 
This year's Defense Appropriations bill makes $25 billion in emergency 
reserve funding for war costs available immediately, helping to cover 
this shortfall and ensure that our troops have what they need in Iraq.
  It is important to note that much more is likely to be needed in 
2005. CBO recently estimated that military operations in 2005 could 
cost $55-$60 billion. These estimates demonstrate that the Bush 
administration has failed to budget properly for the war in Iraq and 
continues to understate the likely cost of these operations.
  While this Defense conference report is extremely important, I want 
to make clear that I am deeply disappointed with the budget provisions 
that were added to this conference report behind closed doors by the 
majority, without any debate in the House or Senate. In what I believe 
is an unprecedented move, the majority has inserted deeming language 
into this defense conference report--setting the overall fiscal year 
2005 discretionary spending level at $821 billion. This deeming 
language should have been debated in the Senate. It is entirely 
inappropriate to add this language outside the scope of conference 
without any debate by the Senate or by the Budget Committee. Clearly it 
was added because the majority knows that members of the Senate will 
not want to oppose a defense bill while our troops are in harm's way.
  This is no way to govern. It sets a terrible precedent. Since a 
conference report is not amendable, the majority is effectively 
stifling the ability of the Senate to fully debate and amend the 
deeming language. But that seems to be the point here. The majority 
does not want to give the Senate the opportunity to fully debate and 
amend this language.
  We wouldn't be in this position if the majority had passed a budget 
resolution this year. That is where the overall spending and revenue 
amounts are supposed to be determined. Yet, because the majority's 
leadership has refused to restore a strong paygo rule that applies to 
both tax cuts and spending, the Senate has been unable to get an 
agreement on a budget. Despite the record deficits we now face, the 
majority and the Bush administration are still fixated on passing more 
and more unpaid-for tax cuts. The Bush administration's fiscally 
irresponsible leadership is driving our nation's finances right off the 
cliff--and at the worst possible time, on the brink of the retirement 
of the baby boom generation.
  I mentioned that there was no debate on this deeming language. 
Governing this way is bound to lead to mistakes. In drafting this 
deeming language, the majority has left out the firewall provisions 
that guarantee that the gas tax contributions of our Nation's motorists 
will be used to finance the Nation's highway and mass transit. We have 
had highway and mass transit firewalls in place for the last 6 years to 
ensure that funding for those programs is not diverted to other areas. 
But now, under this deeming language, the firewalls will be eliminated 
and those highway and mass transit funds could be pilfered to cover 
shortfalls in other areas of the budget. I think this is a significant 
mistake--a horrible precedent to set in advance of a highway 
reauthorization bill.
  As I said earlier, the funding for our troops contained in this bill 
is very important. But I want to be clear how disappointed I am in the 
way the majority is operating here and in the way they, along with the 
Bush administration, are dangerously undermining our Nation's fiscal 
and economic security.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference 
report for the fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations act. While I 
recognize the importance of passing this legislation prior to the 
upcoming recess, I am once again disappointed that we are acting on the 
appropriations measure prior to enactment of the Defense Authorization 
Act.
  The responsibilities of authorizers and appropriators are expected to 
be distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for 
the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its 
programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate 
funding based on policies provided by authorizations bills. In reality, 
the appropriators' function, however, has expanded dramatically, and 
the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision 
making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the 
authorizing committees. I remain hopeful that we will complete action 
on the Defense authorization act when we return in September in order 
to provide further clarification of congressional intent to the 
Department of Defense.
  In the meantime, enactment of the Defense appropriations legislation 
is very important, and it will enable us to continue to meet our 
obligations to support service members in the fight against terror. The 
conference report 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, although not surprisingly, the 
conference report also includes a large number of unauthorized and 
unrequested provisions.
  While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the 
members of the Appropriations Committee, the number of earmarks 
contained in this conference report is alarming. This conference report 
and accompanying statement of the managers contains close to 2,000 
earmarks totaling $8.9 billion in Member adds.
  With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, and with 
looming budget deficits at home, the Congress faces some tough choices. 
We must find a way to uphold 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 has also been a significant growth in earmarks 
and pork barrel spending. In fact, according to information compiled by 
the Congressional Research Service, CRS, the total number of earmarks 
has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. 
That is 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.

  Based on the calculations of my office, the fiscal year 2002 Defense 
appropriations act contained $3.7 billion in pork. The conference 
report on the fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations act contained 
$8.1 billion in pork. The fiscal year 2004 Senate-passed Defense 
appropriations act contained well over $4 billion in pork. This year 
$8.9 billion was added in the conference report and the statement of 
the managers, which is more than twice the number in last year's 
Senate-passed 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 can find the money to 
pay for member add-ons, but then have to battle to fund concurrent 
receipt or the survivor benefit plan.
  The Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical requirements above what 
was

[[Page S8620]]

provided for in the President's budget request. That list totaled 
nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2005. I believe that if we have the 
resources, we should do all we can to provide additional defense 
funding for items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need. But 
instead, we routinely fund programs just because they are important to 
a particular state or district represented by a powerful Member of 
Congress. I find this practice to be a disservice to our military men 
and women, as well as to all American taxpayers.
  Once again, the appropriators' addiction to tanker recapitalization 
is too great for any amount of medication. The whole tanker love affair 
reads like a bad novel. It is very suspect that the Appropriations 
Committee added $100 million in this conference report under the 
heading ``Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund.'' Fortunately, the Senate 
provision prevailed and Chairman Stevens, as he publicly stated he 
would do, did not allow the House earmark for Boeing 767 tankers to 
carry through conference. On that point, the Tanker Replacement Fund is 
muted. Only the report language makes reference to the ``current tanker 
replacement program of record''--that program, undisput
edly, is the KC-X program which is in the Air Force's Future Years 
Defense Program.
  Over the past 3 years, I have spoken at length on the Senate floor on 
the Boeing 767 tanker lease--it is difficult to understand why we are 
still debating a tanker program when no money has been included in the 
President's defense budget submitted to Congress. Further, the Senate 
Armed Services Committee did not authorize any funding for tanker 
recapitalization for fiscal year 2005. The Chief of 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,'' totaling nearly $4 billion, which he submitted to 
Congress in March 2005. The reason is simple--tanker replacement money 
is not needed now. However, the appetite for this scandal-riddled 
program is too great, despite the unethical acts of serious misconduct 
by Air Force officials and the firing of several senior Boeing 
officers, including the very top of the corporation. It is hard to 
comprehend why the appropriators continue to put tanker 
recapitalization ahead of greater priorities for our servicemen and 
women.
  Having said this, I congratulate the appropriators for considering 
the recent Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Aerial 
Refueling Requirements. 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 greatly 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.

  I look forward to seeing the language in the fiscal year 2005 Defense 
appropriations act reconciled with the fiscal year 2005 National 
Defense Authorization Act, which remains in conference. The language in 
the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill is valuable in 
that for the first time, it will inject much needed sunlight on a 
program whose development has been largely insulated from public 
scrutiny. The tanker provision in the authorization bill ensures that 
any effort by the Air Force to replace its fleet of tankers is done 
responsibly, as is the case with most defense programs, however, that 
has not been the case so far. We should expect no less from the Air 
Force.
  Let me briefly highlight just some of the egregious examples of pork 
contained either in the conference report or the statement of managers 
for FY 2005:

       $3.5 million sleep deprivation research. Last night, my 
     staff was here late into the night, conducting tests in sleep 
     deprivation, as they compiled the seventy-plus pages of pork 
     found in the joint explanatory statement. The results: they 
     are tired.
       $3.4 million for USMC Hitchhiker. Back in my day, you could 
     give a Marine a ride for free.
       $1 million for the Deep Digger.
       $1 million for repair to the Biathlon Trail at Fort 
     Richardson, Alaska.
       $ million to restore the Woody Island and its historic 
     structures.
       $110 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.
       $1.9 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.
       $1 million for the Center for Optical 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.
       $7.7 million for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless 
     System. Chameleons change colors; but one thing does not 
     change is the unrequested provisions in appropriations bills.
       $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.
       $4.2 million for the LISA inspector. This sounds very 
     interesting.
       $3.4 million dollars for Project Albert. Hey Hey Hey! Seems 
     like Albert could get pretty fat off all the pork in this 
     bill.
       $2.8 million for the C-135 Improved Waste Removal System. 
     We need to improve the way we remove waste from this bill. 
     Maybe combined with the Deep Digger, we can find a way.

  I use humor in describing some of 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:

       $4.3 million for the Smart Truck. This provision, which 
     directly lines the pockets of the auto industry in Detroit, 
     is not exactly smart.
       $7.5 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.
       $5.6 million for the New England Manufacturing Supply 
     Chain. This is above and beyond the $14 million for this 
     project already earmarked over the last two years.
       $33.9 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System. Why 
     should we provide $44 million for this system, when there are 
     many observatories in the United States, such as the Lowell 
     Observatory in Arizona, that already offers 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 a serious 
     problem, but a defense appropriations act is not the 
     appropriate vehicle to address this issue.

  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.
  Once again, the appropriations earmarks in this defense conference 
report are funneled primarily in to the home States of those Members 
who sit on the Appropriations Committee. If you look at the plus-ups in 
the Counter-Drug Activities the earmarking becomes clear. Plus-ups are 
included for the following States: Florida, Indiana, Tennessee, Alaska, 
Hawaii, West Virginia,

[[Page S8621]]

Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico. All of these states, I repeat, all of 
these States have Members on the Appropriations Committee in either the 
House or Senate. I find it hard to believe that only States represented 
by appropriators have drug problems.
  I could go on and on listing examples of pork in this legislation. We 
would fulfill our objectives better if we reassessed our spending 
priorities.
  This year's conference report 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 will 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.
  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 over $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. Not to mention that procurement policy 
determined in the Defense authorization bill, not in the appropriations 
bill.
  I also want to comment briefly about a provision contained in this 
Defense appropriations conference report that is entirely unrelated to 
funding our national defense needs.
  A so-called ``technical amendment'' was added to the Senate measure 
at the surprise of a number of us who have been on record for opposing 
such a provision when efforts were made to add it to other legislative 
measures. Despite the fact that a member of my staff was on the floor 
during the debate on the Defense appropriations bill and we had been 
assured the opportunity to review all amendments prior to their 
adoption, one amendment was suddenly accepted without the review or 
concurrence of myself or my staff. That amendment rewrites the Fiscal 
Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow for 23--States plus the 
District of Columbia, to receive over $300 million in additional 
funding for highway project earmarks. Of course, this project funding 
is on top of the funding they already receive under what many of us 
consider to be an unfair formula whereby the gas taxes of donor states 
are transferred to pay for the roads in donee states.
  With the adoption of this new provision that has been retained in the 
pending conference report, 23 States plus the District of Columbia, the 
majority of which are already donee States and receiving more funding 
than they contribute, will now receive even more money to pay for 
earmarked projects included in the Omnibus. Again, this funding is in 
addition to the funding distributed by formula. While the appropriators 
are taking action to ensure their earmarks are funded outside the 
formula, 27 States, the majority of which are donor States and already 
subsidizing other States' highways, will get no benefit, thereby 
exasperating highway funding inequity.
  While it doesn't surprise me that the appropriators found a vehicle 
for their provision; it does surprise me that they would act in such an 
orchestrated manner when they knew fully their efforts faced opposition 
if done so in what most of us consider to be regular order, 
whereby objectionable amendments are not added just because they are 
supported by the bill managers. One of the many Senatorial courtesies 
we all hold dear is that we usually can take Members at their word and 
that their rights will not be ignored simply for political expediency. 
Sadly, that was not the case with the adoption of this provision.

  The ongoing conference on the highway reauthorization bill is on 
life-support. If the House, Senate, and administration can reach an 
agreement on an overall funding level, I will certainly do all that I 
can as a conferee to ensure that earmarks are counted towards each 
State's formula distribution. It is only fair that we ensure that once 
a formula is determined; a formula that I am confident will still 
include donors and donees, that earmarks are not permitted to further 
shortchange donor States' highway funding.
  I also want to point out that buried at the end of the bill text is a 
legislative rider that changes our immigration laws. This provision 
carves out workers in the fish roe processing industry from numerical 
limitations under the H-2B visa program. While I will be the first to 
testify to the need to reform our immigration system, and have done so 
repeatedly, we should not begin to do it on the Defense Appropriations 
bill by giving a benefit to one small segment of the fishing industry.
  This is not the way to legislate. There are severe problems with our 
H-2B visas. We reached the numerical cap on visas early this year and 
dependent industries are now struggling to hire the labor they need to 
operate. The H-2B is just one example of our flawed immigration system; 
yet carving out a fix for parochial interests; without addressing the 
overall problem is shortsighted. While owners of fish roe processing 
facilities benefit from the help powerful members of the Appropriations 
Committee, every other industry- facing a labor shortage because of 
this cap will continue to suffer.
  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 from 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 rough. We can do 
better.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
4613, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2005, provides $391.170 billion in budget authority and $416.011 
billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005 for the Department of Defense. 
Of these totals, $239 million is for mandatory programs in fiscal year 
2005.
  The bill further provides $28.2 billion in budget authority in fiscal 
year 2004 designated as emergency requirements. Of this total $26.8 
billion is for defense purposes and $1.3 billion is for non-defense 
purposes.
  The fiscal year 2004 emergency funds for defense include $25 billion 
in supplemental appropriations for on-going operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. While the President requested these funds for fiscal year 
2005, the conference report makes these funds available on enactment. 
The conference report also includes a repeal of a $1.8 billion defense 
rescission enacted in the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill, P.L. 108-
199--in effect appropriating a new $1.8 billion for defense. In total, 
the $26.8 billion in fiscal year 2004 emergency defense budget 
authority generates $19.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005.
  The bill provides $500 million for wildland fire suppression for 
2004. These funds are consistent with amounts assumed in the 2005 
budget resolution. The conference report also includes the following 
non-defense funds: $685 million for the Iraq embassy and diplomatic 
security expenses; $50 million for convention security in New York City 
and Boston; and $95 million for Sudan humanitarian assistance.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 
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) 
allocations adopted by the House of Representatives. This amount is 
$68.4 billion less than fiscal year 2004 enacted levels when 
supplemental appropriations are included. When supplemental 
appropriations are not included the conference report provides $20.8 
billion more than last year's enacted level.
  The conference report also provides a 2005 302(a) allocation to the 
Senate Appropriations Committee. This will ensure that adequate 
enforcement tools are available as the Senate considers

[[Page S8622]]

the remaining appropriation bills. The allocation in the conference 
report is consistent with the levels envisioned in S. Con. Res. 95, the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005.
  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 inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     H.R. 4613, 2005 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS.--SPENDING COMPARISONS--
                            CONFERENCE REPORT
                     [Fiscal Year 2005, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     Purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report: \1\
    Budget authority.............      390,931          239      391,170
    Outlays......................      415,772          239      416,011
House 302(b) allocation: \2\
    Budget authority.............      390,931          239      391,170
    Outlays......................      415,987          239      416,226
2004 Enacted:
    Budget authority.............      459,374          226      459,600
    Outlays......................      424,429          226      424,655
President's request:
    Budget authority.............      392,615          239      392,854
    Outlays......................      418,639          239      418,878
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............      390,931          239      391,170
    Outlays......................      415,594          239      415,833
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............      383,773          239      384,012
    Outlays......................      401,566          239      401,805
 
  CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............            0            0            0
    Outlays......................         -215            0         -215
2004 Enacted:
    Budget authority.............      -68,443           13      -68,430
    Outlays......................       -8,657           13       -8,644
President's request:
    Budget authority.............       -1,684            0       -1,684
    Outlays......................       -2,867            0       -2,867
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............            0            0            0
    Outlays......................          178            0          178
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............        7,158            0        7,158
    Outlays......................       14,206            0       14,206
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the amounts shown above, the bill includes $19.902
  billion in emergency outlays in 2005 flowing from the $27.656 billion
  emergency supplemental included in Titles IX and X of H.R. 4613 for
  2004. The bill also contains $500 million BA and $340 million outlays
  in 2004 for wildland fire suppression.
\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.
 
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I address a question to my colleague 
from West Virginia?
  There are no more requests for time. We are prepared to yield back 
the remainder of our time and go to a vote. Is the Senator from West 
Virginia prepared to yield back the remainder of his time?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, not having had any other requests for 
time, I ask that all time remaining be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw that request.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will allow us the opportunity, we have some 
people who are not expecting the vote to occur right now.
  Mr. President, if the distinguished chairman of the committee will 
allow a 5-minute quorum call, we think we will have this matter worked 
out very quickly.
  Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw my request and concur and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I direct this question to the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, who has worked so 
hard on this bill. Would he and Senator Byrd allow the vote to begin at 
7:15?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am very willing to enter into such an 
agreement. Have the yeas and nays been requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
  Mr. STEVENS. I request the yeas and nays on final passage, when that 
occurs. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall commence at 7:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley--we 
have about 4 minutes until the vote occurs. Would he like to speak for 
that period of time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be 
recognized until 7:15, when the vote occurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized until 7:15.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2762 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 7:15 has arrived. The question is 
on agreeing to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4613. The yeas 
and nays have been requested.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Kerry
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I inserted in the Record the name of 
staff members who worked on this bill. I compliment them. I need a 
round of applause for the staff. This is record time for this bill. It 
is a very good bill. It is essential. Emergency funds will be available 
as soon as the President signs it.
  I thank all Senators for their cooperation today to get this bill 
passed before we go home for recess.

                          ____________________