[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14183-14190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time has arrived 
to proceed to the next order of business.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes 
in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. The first vote will be 15 minutes and thereafter 10 
minutes. We agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2549) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2001 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Feingold pending amendment No. 3759, to terminate 
     production under the D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile 
     program.
       Durbin Amendment No. 3732, to provide for operationally 
     realistic testing of National Missile Defense systems against 
     countermeasures; and to establish an independent panel to 
     review the testing.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under the 
order we will now proceed to two votes. I recommend to the Senate that 
we proceed to the Feingold vote first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Second, to the vote on the amendment of the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois.
  At this time, I believe we have 2 minutes for those in opposition. 
But in deference to the proponents, we are willing to hear from the 
proponents first.
  They are not going to use it.
  Then I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment would undermine the 
U.S. sea-based deterrent force by killing the Trident D-5 missile 
program. Such a decision would cut the Navy's requirement short by 53 
missiles resulting in the deployment of three fewer submarines that DOD 
currently believes are required.
  I move to table the amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair kindly tap the gavel a little 
bit to clear the well?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will clear the well. The Senate will 
be in order. The clerk will not proceed until Senators clear the well.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--18

     Boxer
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3732

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, under the previous order, we will now 
proceed to the amendment by the Senator from Illinois. At such time as 
he concludes his portion of the 2 minutes, I yield my time to the 
senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Illinois. The 
time is 2 minutes, equally divided.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, can I have order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment which we offer is one that 
was debated last night on the floor of the Senate. It is very 
straightforward. If we are to go forward with a national missile 
defense system, we should have honest, realistic testing, including 
testing for countermeasures so we can say to the American people: Your 
money is being well spent; so we can say to them: If this is a source 
of security and defense for America, it is one that will work and 
function.

[[Page 14184]]

  Some have looked at my amendment and said it must be critical of the 
system because Durbin has questioned the system in the past. I 
presented, during the course of the debate last night, a letter from 
the Director of Testing and Evaluation in the Department of Defense, 
Mr. Philip Coyle, in which he writes to me and says:

       This letter is to support your effort to reinforce the need 
     for realistic testing of the National Missile Defense System.

  It is very clear to the Pentagon, as it is to those who listened to 
the debate last night, that this is not a friendly amendment nor an 
amendment that sets out to end the national missile defense system. 
This is an amendment which asks for the facts and asks for the reality. 
I hope Senators will support it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to voice 
my support for perhaps the most important amendment--on one of the most 
important bills--the Senate will consider this year.
  National missile defense is one of the most critical defense issue 
facing this nation.
  It is probably one of the more politically charged issues as well.
  Despite political sensitivity and, frankly, political risk, Senator 
Durbin has looked carefully at the facts, and at the arguments on all 
sides of this issue. His amendment reflects a balanced measured 
approach that I believe should be endorsed by both supporters and 
opponents of a missile defense system.
  The Senate should adopt the Durbin amendment for two reasons: What it 
doesn't say. And what it does say.
  What the amendment doesn't say is whether a missile defense system is 
a good idea, or a bad idea.
  Frankly, I believe we do not have enough information yet to make that 
call. The Durbin amendment actually presumes a NMD system will be 
deployed. But it does not address the issue of whether it should be 
deployed.
  What the Durbin amendment does say, it says well. Simply put, this 
amendment says that before we commit $60 billion--or more--to deploy a 
national missile defense system, we must be confident the system will 
work. Nothing more, nothing less. Americans have a right to know that 
their tax dollars aren't being wasted on a system that cannot work. And 
we have a responsibility to provide them with that assurance.
  The Durbin amendment says that before a national missile defense 
system can be declared operational, the system must be tested against 
measures our enemies can be expected to take to defeat it, and the 
Secretary of Defense must prepare a report for Congress on the ability 
of the NMD system to defeat these countermeasures.
  The amendment also reconvenes the Welch panel, an independent review 
panel chaired by General Welch, to assess countermeasure issues and 
deliver a report on findings to both the Defense Department and the 
Congress.
  Why are such assurances needed?
  Deployment of a national missile defense system would signal a 
dramatic change in the deterrent strategy this Nation has followed 
successfully for over 40 years. Moving to new strategy dependent on 
defenses is not without risks.
  Missle defense deployment requires enormous public commitment--not 
unlike our effort to put a man on the Moon.
  While success can never be guaranteed, American people have a right 
to know that success is possible--before we commit $60 billion, or 
more, to it.
  The President must have confidence the system will work. Also, 
critically important, our adversaries must know a national defense 
system will work.
  A deterrent is not effective if enemies can be confident it may not, 
or will not, work. If tests demonstrate for the world that the United 
States has a strong missile defense system, our adversaries are much 
less likely to want to test our defenses.
  Another reason assurances are needed: Increasing number of studies 
that raise questions about whether current missile defense testing 
program can provide future leaders with adequate level of confidence.
  Philip Coyle III, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Testing and 
Evaluation, issued a report to Congress earlier this year. The report 
concluded the pre-deployment tests will not be conducted ``in a 
realistic enough manner to support acquisition decisions.''
  A recent report by MIT found that relatively simple countermeasures 
could defeat the planned NMD system--and that current testing is not 
capable of evaluating the operational effectiveness of the system 
against likely countermeasures. This is a critical deficiency.
  Technical experts warn that any emerging ``missile state'' that is 
capable of deploying a long-range ballistic missile is also capable of 
building countermeasures that could defeat a NMD system.
  The intelligence community released a report last year on ``Foreign 
Missile Development and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United 
States through 2015.'' The report warned that emerging ``missile 
states'' could develop countermeasures such as decoy balloons by the 
time they flight test their first long-range missiles.
  They could also acquire countermeasure technologies from Russia and 
China--both of whom possess such technologies, and both of whom 
strongly oppose a U.S. NMD system.
  Reasons to oppose amendment? I can think of only one reason to oppose 
this amendment: Belief that we should deploy an NMD system at any cost. 
Regardless of whether the system can work. Regardless of the cost to 
American taxpayers. Regardless of the effects deployment could have on 
our relationships with our allies. Regardless of how it might escalate 
an international nuclear arms race. Regardless of everything.
  I understand that there are some who feel this way. Frankly, I cannot 
understand this sort of thinking. They wouldn't buy a car before test-
driving it. Why in the world would they buy a $60 billion defense 
system before knowing that it can work?
  A missile defense system that undermines our Nation politically, 
economically, and strategically--without strengthening our defense--is 
no defense at all.
  The American people have a right to know that--if we deploy a 
national missile defense system--it will work. The Durban amendment 
will take a big step toward providing them with that assurance. We 
should adopt it.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 50 Nobel laureates signed an open letter 
to President Clinton on July 6, 2000, urging him to reject a proposed 
$60 billion missile defense system. I ask that the letter may be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                     July 6, 2000.
     President William Jefferson Clinton,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We urge you not to make the decision to 
     deploy an anti-ballistic missile system during the remaining 
     months of your administration. The system would offer little 
     protection and would do grave harm to this nation's core 
     security interests.
       We and other independent scientists have long argued that 
     anti-ballistic missile systems, particularly those attempting 
     to intercept reentry vehicles in space, will inevitably lose 
     in an arms race of improvements to offensive missiles.
       North Korea has taken dramatic steps toward reconciliation 
     with South Korea. Other dangerous states will arise. But what 
     would such a state gain by attacking the United States except 
     its own destruction?
       While the benefits of the proposed anti-ballistic missile 
     system are dubious, the dangers created by a decision to 
     deploy are clear. It would be difficult to persuade Russia or 
     China that the United States is wasting tens of billions of 
     dollars on an ineffective missile system against small states 
     that are unlikely to launch a missile attack on the U.S. The 
     Russians and Chinese must therefore conclude that the 
     presently planned system is a stage in developing a bigger 
     system directed against them. They may respond by restarting 
     an arms race in ballistic missiles and having missiles in a 
     dangerous ``launch-on-warning'' mode.
       Even if the next planned test of the proposed anti-
     ballistic missile system works as planned, any movement 
     toward deployment would be premature, wasteful and dangerous.
       Respectfully,
       Sidney Altman, Yale University, 1989 Nobel Prize in 
     chemistry.
       Philip W. Anderson, Princeton University, 1977 Nobel Prize 
     in physics.

[[Page 14185]]

       Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University, 1972 Nobel Prize in 
     economics.
       Julia Axelrod, NIH, 1970 Nobel Prize in medicine.
       Baruj Benacerraf, Dana Farber Cancer Inst., 1980 Nobel 
     Prize in medicine.
       Hans A. Bethe, Cornell University, 1967 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       J. Michael Bishop, University of Calif., San Francisco, 
     1989 Nobel Prize in medicine.
       Nicolaas Bloembergen, Harvard University, 1981 Nobel Prize 
     in physics.
       Paul D. Boyer, UCLA, 1997 Nobel Prize in chemistry.
       Steven Chu, Stanford University, 1997 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Stanley Cohen, Vanderbilt University, 1986 Nobel Prize in 
     medicine.
       Leon N. Cooper, Brown University, 1972 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       E. J. Corey, Harvard University, 1990 Nobel Prize in 
     chemistry.
       James W. Cronin, University of Chicago, 1980 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Renato Dulbecco, The Salk Institute, 1975 Nobel Prize in 
     medicine.
       Edmond H. Fischer, Univ. of Washington, 1992 Nobel Prize in 
     medicine.
       Val L. Fitch, Princeton University, 1980 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Robert F. Furchgott, Suny Health Science Ctr., 1998 Nobel 
     Prize in medicine.
       Murray Gell-Mann, Santa Fe Institute, 1969 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Ivar Giaever, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1973 Nobel 
     Prize in physics.
       Walter Gilbert, Biological Laboratories, Cambridge, Mass., 
     1980 Nobel Prize in chemistry.
       Sheldon L. Glashow, Boston University 1999 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Roger C. L. Guillemin, The Salk Institute, 1977 Nobel Prize 
     in medicine.
       Herbert A. Hauptman, The Medical Foundation of Buffalo, 
     1985 Nobel Prize in chemistry.
       Dudley R. Herschbach, Harvard University, 1986 Nobel Prize 
     in chemistry.
       Roald Hoffman, Cornell University, 1981 Nobel Prize in 
     chemistry.
       David H. Hubel, Harvard University, 1981 Nobel Prize in 
     medicine.
       Jerome Karle, Naval Research Laboratory, 1985 Nobel Prize 
     in chemistry.
       Arthur Kornberg, Stanford University, 1959 Nobel Prize in 
     medicine.
       Edwin G. Krebs, University of Washington, 1992 Nobel Prize 
     in medicine.
       Leon M. Lederman, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1988 
     Nobel Prize in physics.
       Edward B. Lewis, Caltech, 1995 Nobel Prize in medicine.
       Rudolph A. Marcus, Caltech, 1992 Nobel Prize in chemistry.
       Franco Modigliani, MIT, Sloan School, 1985 Nobel Prize in 
     economics.
       Mario Molina, MIT, 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry.
       Marshall Nirenberg, NIH, 1968 Nobel Prize in medicine.
       Douglas D. Osheroff, Stanford University, 1996 Nobel Prize 
     in physics.
       Arno A. Penzias, Bell Labs, 1978 Nobel Prize in physics.
       Martin L. Perl, Stanford University, 1995 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Norman F. Ramsey, Harvard University, 1989 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Burton Richter, Stanford University, 1976 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Richard J. Roberts, New England Biolabs, 1993 Nobel Prize 
     in medicine.
       Herbert A. Simon, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 1978 Nobel Prize 
     in economics.
       Richard R. Smalley, Rice University, 1996 Nobel Prize in 
     chemistry.
       Jack Steinberger, CERN, 1988 Nobel Prize in physics.
       James Tobin, Yale University, 1981 Nobel Prize in 
     economics.
       Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton University, 1998 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Steven Weinberg, University of Texas, Austin, 1979 Nobel 
     Prize in physics.
       Robert W. Wilson, Harvard-Smithsonian, Ctr. for 
     Astrophysics, 1978 Nobel Prize in physics.
       Chen Ning Yang, Suny, Stony Brook, 1957 Nobel Prize in 
     physics.
       Owen Chamberlain*, University of California, Berkeley, 1959 
     Nobel Prize in physics.
       Johann Diesenhofer*, University of Texas Southwestern 
     Medical Center, 1988 Nobel Prize in chemistry.
       Willis E. Lamb, Jr.*, Stanford University, 1955 Nobel Prize 
     in physics.
       *These laureates signed the letter within hours after the 
     letter was delivered to the White House.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Durbin amendment is unnecessary. It 
purports to direct the manner and details of a missile testing program 
that the Secretary of Defense is committed to conduct already.
  This amendment is an unprecedented effort by the Senate to 
micromanage a weapons system testing program. In no other program has 
the Senate tried to legislate in this way to dictate to DOD how a 
classified national security testing program should be conducted.
  The directions to DOD in this amendment are vague. They would 
inevitably lead to confusion and unnecessary delays in the development 
of this complex, but very important, capability to defend our Nation 
against a serious threat. I urge the Senate to reject this amendment.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 2549 is now considered read a third time.
  The Senate will now proceed to H.R. 4205. The text of S. 2549 is 
substituted therefore, and the bill is considered read a third time.


                           Amendment No. 3753

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has 
taken an important step toward protecting the lives and property of all 
Americans with the passage of the Firefighter Investment and Response 
Enhancement Act. I am proud today to join with Senators Dodd and DeWine 
as a cosponsor of this legislation. I wish to thank Senator Dodd and 
Senator DeWine for the leadership and effort they have shown on behalf 
of the men and women serving as firefighters across the nation. I would 
also like to commend the many other Senators who already have signed on 
as cosponsors of this important legislation.
  The Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act seeks to 
address the enormous amount of fiscal need faced by our nation's fire 
departments, both paid and volunteer, and does so with an eye to the 
human costs incurred by both firefighters and the general public these 
brave men and women protect every day. Every year, more than 4,000 
people are killed and 24,000 are injured by fire in the United States. 
Sadly, about 660 of those killed each year are children. One hundred of 
the individuals who lose their lives to fire each year are 
firefighters, the very men and women who are fighting to protect 
others. Many of these deaths and injuries could be avoided by simply 
using the technology and equipment that while currently available, is 
often so expensive that fire departments are unable to purchase it. 
Similarly, many of the deaths and injuries could be avoided with 
increased efforts at fire prevention and training. Fire departments in 
many of our towns and cities spend the bulk of their entire budgets on 
administrative costs and compliance with existing safety regulations, 
and can simply not afford the available

[[Page 14186]]

safety equipment and training. As a consequence, far too many volunteer 
firefighters and EMTs are forced to pay for their own training because 
their departments simply do not have enough money to have them trained.
  West Virginia fire departments share in this enormous need for 
additional funding. There are about 16,000 firefighters in West 
Virginia serving in 437 fire departments. Virtually every one of those 
departments are underfunded. West Virginians were forced to cope with 
almost $73 million of property damage due to fires in 1999. More 
importantly, 45 civilians were killed and two firefighters were killed 
in the line of duty. Much of the loss of life and property, and many of 
these injuries could have been avoided if fire departments had the 
funds to deal with emergencies as effectively as possible and to 
establish prevention programs.
  Over the past few months, my state has grieved the tragic loss of two 
firefighters whose deaths may well have been prevented if their 
departments had access to grants available under S. 1941. Angelo 
``Wayne'' Shrader, a firefighter with the East River Volunteer Fire 
Department, in Princeton, WV, who also worked as a Communicator with 
the Mercer County ``911'' service, died as a result of injuries 
incurred fighting a fire as part of an understaffed local fire 
department. Similarly, Fire Lieutenant Robbie Brannon, of the City of 
Bluefield Fire Department, died as the result of injuries, including a 
heart attack, he suffered fighting a residential fire with a crew short 
two firefighters because of budget constraints. I humbly join with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle today in honor of the bravery and 
sacrifice of Wayne Shrader and Robbie Brannon, and the many 
firefighters in West Virginia and across the nation who continue to 
protect us each day.
  Like fire departments all across the country, West Virginia fire 
departments do receive support from State and local governments. 
Unfortunately, it is simply not enough. Indeed, fire departments in 
West Virginia are just like those in every other state, with equipment 
and personnel needs requiring substantial additional funding. Equipment 
such as thermal imaging cameras would be a tremendous aid to 
firefighters and could result in lives being saved, but such equipment 
is very expensive. Similarly, new and technologically advanced fire 
engines would be an enormous help to fire departments and the towns and 
cities they serve. Unfortunately, with current funding levels, most 
fire departments cannot upgrade their equipment and many must raise 
funds themselves just to fuel the antiquated vehicles many must still 
keep in service.
  However, the greatest need fire departments in West Virginia have is 
the need for increased training. Additional training would be an 
invaluable resource to fire departments across the state. There simply 
is not enough money available. Three years ago, the projected five-year 
need for the fire departments in Raleigh County, West Virginia, alone 
was $14 million. While the Firefighter Investment and Response 
Enhancement Act would not cover that entire need, it would be a 
tremendous aid to fire departments as they attempt to meet their 
various needs.
  For many years, fire departments and firefighters across the nation 
have simply dealt with funding shortfalls, and yet have managed to 
protect our communities despite the limited resources available to 
them. However, we cannot expect these miracles to be performed any 
longer. Bake sales and bingo can only pay for so much. It is vital that 
the federal government become involved. The men and women serving as 
firefighters play an important role in the quality of life in our 
communities, and it is high time Congress recognizes their 
contribution. It is our responsibility to provide adequate funding 
sources to keep firefighters from facing dangers that could be 
mitigated or eliminated though better training, the availability of 
state-of-the-art equipment, and the implementation of fire prevention 
programs.
  The Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act provides a 
portion of this much-needed relief. The legislation authorizes $1 
billion to be distributed by FEMA to fire departments across the nation 
on a competitive basis. No more than ten percent of this money is to be 
used for administrative costs. This assures that the money is really 
getting to the fire departments that so desperately need help. Further, 
at least ten percent of the funds are to be used to establish vital 
fire prevention programs to stop fires before they start. The remaining 
appropriations will be available on a competitive basis to address a 
wide variety of needs faced by fire departments across the nation. This 
allows money to be used for the most desperate needs of individual 
departments.
  It is past time that we provide some relief to our nation's brave 
firefighters who have managed to get by on far too little for far too 
long. Once again, I commend the Senate for taking this action on behalf 
of our nation's firefighters. I also wish to thank Senator Dodd and 
Senator DeWine for sponsoring this legislation to supply a portion of 
that much-needed aid. Little that we do may be as immediately important 
as the help we should act quickly to provide our fire departments. By 
helping our nation's fire departments, we are truly helping everyone.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise as an original co-sponsor of the 
Domenici Nuclear Cities amendment and to note that this important 
amendment was unanimously agreed to by the Senate.
  The Russian nuclear weapons complex is a vast collection of highly 
secret closed cities. This complex is far larger and has significantly 
more capability to produce nuclear weapons than the U.S. nuclear 
weapons complex. Just over two years ago, the Department of Energy was 
presented with a unique opportunity to help Russia significantly reduce 
this complex, including the opportunity to close 2 of the three Russian 
nuclear weapons assembly facilities.
  The DOE through its nuclear cities initiative has been working 
closely with its Russian counterpart, the Russian Ministry of Atomic 
Energy, known as MinAtom, to reduce the size of the Russian nuclear 
complex by 50 percent. DOE started this effort just over two years ago, 
and while it took a while to get off the ground, the Nuclear Cities 
Program has begun to demonstrate real progress.
  This amendment would direct the Secretary of Energy to expand and 
accelerate the activities under the Nuclear Cities Program and further 
assist Russia in downsizing its nuclear weapons complex. To help with 
this effort the amendment will provide an additional $12.5 million over 
the current $17 million authorized in the bill. Compared to the overall 
defense budget this is a small amount but an amount that can help 
reduce the Russian nuclear weapons complex.
  This amendment directs the U.S. DOE and MinAtom, to enter into an 
agreement to establish a plan, with milestones, to consolidate the 
Russian nuclear weapons complex. In addition, MinAtom must agree, in 
writing, to close some of its nuclear weapons facilities, before the 
additional $12.5 million can be spent.
  We have a unique opportunity to further U.S. national security 
interests by closing some of the Russian nuclear weapons facilities. 
While the full burden to downsize the Russian complex remains a Russian 
obligation we can and should help. It is important to improve and 
further our relationship with Russian at all levels. The Nuclear Cities 
program provides many benefits to the U.S. and to Russia. The U.S. 
should grab this opportunity. In the future, Mr. President, I would 
like to see the program expanded further; this amendment is a good 
first step.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2549, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001. Included in the bill 
that passed today are several amendments that will significantly 
improve the lives of active duty members, reservists, military 
retirees, veterans, and their families.
  These amendments greatly improved the version of the bill that came 
out of the Armed Services Committee. I had

[[Page 14187]]

voted against reporting the bill out of the Committee because it did 
not include important measures for military personnel and neglected the 
issue of defense reform.
  The critical amendments that were included in the legislation that 
passed today will: remove servicemembers from food stamps; increase pay 
for mid-grade Petty Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers; assist 
disabled veterans in claims processing; restore retirement pay for 
disabled military retirees; provide survivor benefit plan enhancements; 
authorize a low-cost life insurance plan for spouses and their 
children; enhance benefits and retirement pay for Reservists and 
National Guardsmen; authorize back-pay for certain WWII Navy and Marine 
Corps Prisoners of War; and provide for significant acquisition reform 
by eliminating domestic source restrictions on the procurement of 
shipyard cranes.
  One of the areas of greatest concern among military retirees and 
their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care, 
especially for those over-age 65. While the Committee had included some 
key health care provisions, it failed to meet the most important 
requirement, the restoration of this broken promise.
  With severe recruitment and retention problems still looming, we must 
better compensate our mid-grade enlisted servicemembers who are 
critical to leading the junior enlisted force. We have significantly 
underpaid enlisted servicemembers since the beginning of the All-
Volunteer Force. The value of the mid-grade NCO pay, compared to that 
of the most junior enlisted, has dropped 50 percent since the All-
Volunteer Force was enacted by Congress in 1973. This pay provision for 
the mid-grade enlisted ranks, up to $700 per year, plus the food stamp 
pay provision of an additional $180 per month for junior enlisted 
servicemembers, provides a significant increase in pay for enlisted 
servicemembers.
  The National Guard and Reserves have become a larger percentage of 
the Total Force and are essential partners in a wide range of military 
operations. Due to the higher deployment rates of the active duty 
forces, the Reserve Components are being called upon more frequently 
and for longer periods of time than ever before. We must stop treating 
them like a ``second-class'' force.
  I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting meaningful 
improvements for our servicemembers, their families and their 
survivors. They risk their lives to protect our freedom and preserve 
democracy. We should compensate them adequately, improve the benefits 
to their families and survivors, and enhance the quality of life for 
the Reserves and National Guard in a similar manner as the active 
forces.
  Each year the number of disabled veterans appealing their health care 
cases continues to increase. It is Congress' duty to ensure that the 
disability claims process is less complex, less burdensome, and more 
efficient. Likewise, we should restore retirement pay for disabled 
military retirees.
  I would also like to point out that this year's defense authorization 
bill contained over $1.9 Billion in pork-- unrequested add-ons to the 
defense budget that robs our military of vital funding on priority 
issues. While this year's total is less than previous years' it is 
still $1.9 Billion too much. We need to, and can do better. I ask that 
the detailed list of Pork on this bill be included in the Congressional 
Record following my remarks.
  In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting 
meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve members. They 
risked their lives to defend our shores and preserve democracy and we 
can not thank them enough for their service. But we can pay them more, 
improve the benefits for their families, and support the Reserve 
Components in a similar manner as the active forces.
  We must ensure that the critical amendments that I have outlined 
survive the Conference process and are enacted into law. Our 
servicemembers past, present, and future need these improvements, and 
the bill that we passed today is just one step on the road to reform.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


Defense Authorization Act (S. 2549) for FY 2001 add-ons, increases and 
                                earmarks


                                                  Dollars (in millions)
TITLE I, PROCUREMENT
Army Procurement (none)
Navy Procurement:
  Airborne Low Frequency Sonar (ALFS).................................6
  Allegany Ballistics Lab GOCO......................................7.7
  LHD-8 Advanced Procurement.........................................46
  Adv Procurement DDG 51.............................................79
  MSC Thermal Imaging Equipment.......................................4
  Integrated Condition Assessment System (ICAS).......................5
  Side-Scan Sonar.....................................................5
  Joint Engineering Data Management & Info Control (JEDMICS)..........4
  AN/SPQ-9B Gun Fire Control Radar....................................4
  NULKA Anti-Ship Missile Decoy.....................................4.3
Marine Corps Procurement:
  Improved Night/Day Fire Control Observation Device (INOD).........2.7
Air Force Procurement:
  C-17 Cockpit System Simulation...................................14.9
  C-17 A/C Maintenance System Trainer (AMST).......................11.5
  Combat Training Ranges.............................................20
TITLE II, R, D, T, AND E
Army R, D, T & E:
  Composite Materials.................................................6
  Advanced missile composite component................................5
  Ballistics Technology.............................................3.5
  Portable Hybrid Electric Power Research...........................1.5
  Thermoelectric Power Generation for Military Applications...........1
  Operational Support.................................................4
  Equipment Readiness.................................................8
  Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Units.....................................4
  Enabling Technologies for Future Combat Vehicle..................46.3
  Big Crow............................................................7
  Simulation Centers Upgrades.......................................4.5
  Family of Systems Simulators........................................3
  Army Space Control..................................................5
  Acoustic Technology.................................................4
  Radar Power Technology..............................................4
  Scramjet Acoustic Combustion Enhance................................2
  Aero-Acoustic Instrumentation.......................................4
  Supercluster Distributed Memory.....................................2
  SMDC Battlelab......................................................5
  Anti-malaria Research...............................................2
  SIRFC/ATIRCM.....................................................38.5
  Threat Virtual Mine Simulator.....................................2.5
  Threat Information Operations Attack Simulator....................2.1
  Cost Reduction Effort MLRS/HIMARS..................................16
  Design and Manufacturing Program....................................2
  Center for Communications and Networking............................5
Navy R, D, T & E:
  Free Election Laser.................................................5
  Biodegradable Polymers...........................................1.25
  Bioenvironmental Hazards Research...................................3
  Nontraditional Warfare Initiatives..................................2
  Hyperspectral Research..............................................3
  Cognitive Research..................................................3
  Nanoscale Sensor Research...........................................3
  Ceramic and Carbon Based Composites.................................2
  Littoral Area Acoustic Demo.........................................3
  Computational Engineering Design....................................2
  Supply Chain Best Practices.........................................2
  Virtual Tested for Reconfigurable Ship..............................2
  Modular Composite Hull..............................................4
  Composite Helo Hangar Door..........................................5
  Advanced Waterjet-21................................................4
  Laser Welding and Cutting.........................................2.8
  Ocean Modeling for Mine and Expeditionary Warfare...................3
  USMC ATT Initiative................................................15
  Minesweeper Integrated Combat Weapons Systems.......................5
  Electric Motor Brush Technology.....................................2
  Advanced Composite Sail Technology................................2.5
  Shipboard Simulation for Marine Corps Operations...................20
  Common Command and Decision Functions..............................10
  Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles.............................27.5
  High Mobility Artillery Rocket System............................17.3
  Extended Range Guided Munition.....................................10
  Nonlethal Research and Technology Development.......................8
  NAVCIITI............................................................4
  Parametric Airborne Dipping Sonar..................................10
  Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures............................8
  Power Node Control Center...........................................3
  Advanced Food Service Technology....................................2
  SPY-3 and Volume Search Radar.......................................8
  Multi-purpose Processor............................................15
  Antenna Technology Improvements.....................................5
  Submarine Common Architecture.......................................5
  Advanced Tactical Software Integration..............................4
  CVN-77, CVN(X), and Nimitz Class Smart Product Model...............10
  NULKA Dual Band Spatially Distributed Infrared Signature..........2.1
  Single Integrated Human Resources Strategy..........................3

[[Page 14188]]

  Marine Corps Research University....................................3
  Reentry System Application Program..................................2
  Joint Tactical Combat Training System...............................5
  SAR Reconnaissance System Demonstrator..............................9
  Interoperability Process Software Tools.............................2
  SPAWAR SATCOM Systems Integration Initiative........................2
  Distributed Engineering Plant.......................................5
Air Force R, D, T & E:
  Resin Systems for Engine Applications...............................2
  Laser Processing Tools..............................................4
  Thermal Protection Systems........................................1.5
  Aeronautical Research...............................................6
  Variable Displacement Vane Pump.....................................3
  PBO Membrane Fuel Cell..............................................5
  Aluminum Aerostructures.............................................3
  Space Survivability...............................................5.6
  HAARP...............................................................7
  Integrated Demonstration & Applications Laboratory (IDAL)...........6
  Fiber Optic Control Technology......................................2
  Miniature Satellite Threat Reporting System (MSTRS).................5
  Upper Stage Flight Experiment.......................................5
  Scorpius............................................................5
  Space Maneuver Vehicle.............................................15
  Solar Orbital Transfer Vehicle (SOTV)...............................5
  Micro-Satellite Technology (XSS-10)................................12
  Composite Payload Fairings and Shrouds..............................2
  SBL Integrated Flight Experiment (IFX).............................30
  Airborne Laser Program...........................................92.4
  RSLP GPS Range Safety............................................19.2
  SATCOM Connectivity.................................................5
  BOL Integration...................................................7.6
  Hyperspectral Technology............................................2
  Extended Range Cruise Missile....................................86.1
  Global Air Traffic Management.....................................7.2
  Lighthouse Cyber-Security...........................................5
  B-2 Connectivity....................................................3
  U-2 Syers...........................................................6
  Improved Radar for Global Hawk......................................6
  Global Hawk Air Surveillance Demonstration.........................12
Defense Wide R, D, T & E:
  Personnel Research Institute........................................4
  Infrasound Detection Basic Research...............................1.5
  Program Increase...................................................15
  Chemical Agent Detection-Optical Computing..........................2
  Thin Film Technology................................................3
  Wide Band Gap.......................................................2
  Bio-defense Research..............................................2.1
  Hybrid Sensor Suite.................................................8
  High Definition Systems.............................................7
  Three-Dimensional Structure Research................................3
  Chem-Bio Detectors..................................................5
  Blast Mitigation Testing............................................3
  Facial Recognition Access Control Technology........................2
  Magdalena Ridge Observatory.........................................9
  Wide Band Gap......................................................10
  Excalibur...........................................................3
  Atmospheric Interceptor Technology.................................15
  Chem-Bio Individual Sampler.......................................2.7
  Consequence Management Information System.........................6.4
  Chem-Bio Advanced Materials Research..............................3.5
  Small Unit Bio Detector...........................................8.5
  Complex System Design...............................................5
  Competitive Sustainment Initiative..................................8
  WMD Simulation Capability...........................................5
  HAARP...............................................................5
  Integrated Data Environment (IDE)...................................2
  Advanced Optical Data and Sensor Fusion.............................3
  Advanced Research Center..........................................6.5
  KE-ASAT............................................................20
  WMD Response System...............................................1.6
  Information Operations Technology Center Alliance...................5
  Trust Rubix.......................................................1.8
  Cyber Attack Sensing and Warning...................................20
  Virtual Worlds Initiative...........................................2
  Smart Maps..........................................................2
  NIMA Viewer.........................................................5
  JCOATS-IO...........................................................5
  Information Assurance Testbed.......................................5
  Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher.............................5.6
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense, R, D, T & E:
  Central T & E Investment Development (CTEIP) Program Increase......20
  Reality Fire-Fighting Training....................................1.5
TITLE III, OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Army O&M:
  Range Upgrade......................................................50
  Battlefield Mobility Enhancement System............................10
  Clara Barton Center for Domestic Preparedness.....................1.5
Navy O&M:
  Navy Call Center--Cutler, Maine.....................................3
  Operational Meteorology and Oceanography............................7
  Nulka Training....................................................4.3
  Range Upgrades.....................................................25
  MTAPP...............................................................2
  Information Technology Center--New Orleans, LA......................5
  Nansemond Ordnance Depot Site--Suffolk, VA........................0.9
USMC O&M (none)
USAF O&M (none)
O&M Defense Wide:
  JCS Mobility Enhancements..........................................50
  Defense Acquisition University......................................2
  DLA MOCAS Enhancements............................................1.2
  Joint Spectrum Center Data Base Upgrade............................25
  Legacy Project, Nautical Historical Project--Lake Champlain, NY...6.1
  Information Security Scholarship Program...........................20
  Command Information Superiority Architecture........................2
  Information Protection Research Institute..........................10
  Impact Aid.........................................................20
MISCELLANEOUS
Defense Health Program...............................................98
Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance.........................................25
Alkali Silica Reactivity Study........................................5
Sec. 373. Reimbursement by Civil Air Carriers for Johnston Atoll 
  Support
Sec. 1041. Inst. for Defense Computer Sec. & Info. Protection........10
Sec. 2831. Land Conveyance, Price Support Center, Granite City, IL
Sec. 2832. Land Conveyance, Hay Army Res. Center, Pittsburgh, PA
Sec. 2833. Land Conveyance, Steele Army Res. Center, Pittsburgh, PA
Sec. 2834. Land Conveyance, Fort Lawton, WA
Sec. 2835. Land Conveyance, Vancouver Barracks, WA
Sec. 2851. Land Conveyance, MCAS Miramar, CA
Sec. 2852. Land Conveyance, Defense Fuel Supply Point, Casco Bay, ME
Sec. 2853. Land Conveyance, Former NTC Bainbridge, Cecil County, MD
Sec. 2854. Land Conveyance, Naval Computer & Telecomm. Station, Cutler, 
  ME
Sec. 2871. Land Conveyance, Army & Air Force Exchange, Farmers Branch, 
  TX
AMENDMENTS
Amdt. 3219. To modify authority to carry out a fiscal year 1990 
  military construction project at Portsmouth Naval Hospital, VA....8.5
Amdt. 3235. To authorize a land conveyance, Ft. Riley, KS
Amdt. 3242. To modify authority for use of certain Navy property by the 
  Oxnard Harbor District, Port Hueneme, CA
Amdt. 3383. To provide with an offset, $5 million for R, D, T, & E 
  Defense-wide for strategic environment Research & Development Program 
  for technologies for detection & transport of pollutants from live-
  fire activities.....................................................5
Amdt. 3385. To set aside for weatherproofing facilities at Keesler Air 
  Force Base, MS, $2.8 million of amount authorized to be appropriated 
  for USAF operation & maintenance..................................2.8
Amdt. 3389. To treat as veterans individuals who served in the Alaska 
  Territorial Guard during W.W.II
Amdt. 3400. To authorize a land conveyance, former National Ground 
  Intelligence Center, Charlottesville, VA
Amdt. 3401. To authorize a land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, 
  Winona, MN
Amdt. 3404. To authorize acceptance and use of gifts from Air Force 
  Museum Foundation for the construction of a third building for the 
  Museum at Wright-Patterson USAF Base, OH
Amdt. 3407. To permit the lease of the Naval Computer Telecomm. Center, 
  Cutler, ME, pending its conveyance
Amdt. 3408. To modify the authorized conveyance of certain land at 
  Ellsworth Air Force Base, SD
Amdt. 3415. To provide for the development of a USMC Heritage Center at 
  Marine Corps Base, Quantico, VA
Amdt. 3423. To authorize SecNav to convey to the city of Jacksonville 
  N.C., certain land for the purpose of permitting the development of a 
  bike/green way trail
Amdt. 3424. To authorize, with an offset, $1.45 million for a 
  contribution by the Air National Guard, the construction of a new 
  airport tower at Cheyenne Airport, WY
Amdt. 3460. P-3/H-1/SH-60R Gun Modifications.........................30
Amdt. 3462. CIWS MODS................................................30
Amdt. 3465. Land Conveyance, Los Angeles AFB
Amdt. 3466. Procurement of AV-8B aircraft............................92
Amdt. 3467. Information Technology Center, LA.........................5

[[Page 14189]]

Amdt. 3468. USMC Trucks, tilting brackets and mobile electronic warfare 
  support system.....................................................10
Amdt. 3477. Joint Technology Information Center Initiative...........20
Amdt. 3481. Tethered Aerostat Radar System Sites.....................33
Amdt. 3482. Special Warfare Boat Integrated Bridge Systems............7
Amdt. 3483. R, D, T & E for Explosive Demilitarization Technology.....5
Amdt. 3488. Procurement of AGM-65 Maverick missiles.................2.1
Amdt. 3489. Procurement of Rapid Intravenous Infusion Pumps...........6
Amdt. 3490. Training Range Upgrades, Fort Knox, KY....................4
Amdt. 3490. (cont.) Overhaul of MK-45 5 inch guns....................12
Amdt. 3770. National Labs Partnership Improvements...................10
Amdt. 3801. National Energy Technology Lab, Fossil Energy R&D.........4
Amdt. 3802. Florida Restoration Grant.................................2
Amdt. 3812. Indian Health Care for Diabetes.......................7.372
Amdt. 3807. Salmon restoration and conservation in Maine..............5
Amdt. 3795. Forest System Land Review Committee.......................1
      Total:..............................................1,981,522,000

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer strong support of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. This 
legislation contains many positive things for the state of New Mexico 
and the United States--both in the programs funded and the changes made 
to enhance research and development efforts. Chairman Warner should 
take pride in his committee's efforts to appropriately allocate defense 
funding.
  For the second year in a row the committee was able to recommend a 
real increase in defense spending by adding $4.5 billion above the 
President's fiscal year 2001 request. The recommendation of $309.8 
billion is not only consistent with the budget resolution it also 
allows for a 4.4-percent increase in real growth for defense from last 
year's appropriated level of funding.
  The committee authorized $63.28 billion in procurement funding, a 
$3.0 billion increase over the President's budget. Operations and 
maintenance was funded at $109.2 billion with $1.5 billion added to the 
primary readiness accounts. Research, development, test and evaluation 
was budgeted at $39.31 billion, a $1.45 billion increase over the 
President's budget. These impressive funding levels mark the beginning 
of a challenging march toward a stronger, better, national defense.
  Quality of life receives needed attention. I applaud the 3.7-percent 
pay raise for military personnel, the comprehensive retail and national 
mail order pharmacy benefit, the extension of the TRICARE Prime benefit 
to families of service members assigned to remote locations and the 
elimination of copayment for services received under TRICARE Prime.
  Military construction is increased by $430 million. I am delighted 
that projects critical to the productivity and well being of the 
service members and their families residing in New Mexico have been 
included in this bill. These are not glamorous projects, they are 
projects that will replace critical crumbling infrastructure, such as 
the replacement of the Bonito pipeline between La Luz and Holloman Air 
Force Base.
  Five additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams were 
included at a cost of $25 million. This will provide us with a total of 
32 Civil Support Teams by the end of fiscal year 2001. These teams are 
comprised of full-time National Guard personnel trained and equipped to 
deploy and assess suspected nuclear, biological, chemical, or 
radiological events in support of local first responders. One such team 
is currently being trained and fielded in New Mexico, ensuring that my 
constituents have better protection against such attacks.
  Over $1.0 billion, an increase of $363 million over fiscal year 2000 
funding, is authorized for Defense and Energy nonproliferation and 
threat reduction programs. These programs continue to make great 
strides in the critical process of securing weapons of mass destruction 
and retaining scientific expertise in the former Soviet Union. To 
further ensure that these threat reduction programs achieve their 
goals, the committee has also included several initiatives to obtain 
greater commitment and necessary access from Russia. I also will offer 
an amendment to increase funding and expedite our efforts in 
restructuring the Russian nuclear weapons complex.
  Finally, $446.3 million is provided for the defense science and 
technology program--a 9 percent increase over the President's budget. 
This funding will focus on the revolutionary technologies to meet 
challenging emerging threats.
  Several projects critical to New Mexico's contributions to our 
national defense are supported by this legislation. The Armed Services 
Committee approved an authorization of $60 million for the Warfighter 
Information Network program. Laguna Industries plays a key role in 
manufacturing and assembling these mobile command and control units 
needed by active and Guard units across the nation.
  The committee also authorized $94.2 million to fully restore the 
Airborne Laser, ABL, program funding. The Air Force's ABL program is 
the only missile defense system currently contemplated that would 
strike and kill missiles in their boost phase.
  The Tactical Higher Energy Laser, THEL, was authorized at $15 million 
for FY 2001. THEL represents one of the first weapons systems being 
tested that utilizes high energy lasers for the purposes of missile 
defense. The THEL program has been funded through a cost-share 
arrangement between Israel and the United States, with TRW having also 
made substantial investments in the program.
  I strongly believe that lasers will transform both our offensive and 
defensive military means in the years to come. We should fully support 
these programs and address shortfalls in the science and technology 
funding in these technologies to ensure more rapid development and 
fielding of high energy laser weapons.
  The committee also authorized $49 million in additional funding for 
activities of the Air Force Research Laboratories at Kirtland Air Force 
Base, including $5 million for the Scorpius Low-Cost Launch program, 
$15 million for Military Space Plane, and $5 million for the Solar 
Orbit Transfer Vehicle Space Experiment.
  The Big Crow Program Office was authorized at $7 million by the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. Big Crow represents a unique 
electronic warfare test and evaluation capability used by all of the 
services to ensure their weapons can perform as needed in realistic 
warfighting scenarios.
  An authorization of an additional $3 million will ensure continuation 
of the important blast mitigation research at New Mexico's Institute of 
Mining and Technology. New Mexico Tech houses our Nation's experts in 
terrorist explosives and is developing innovative ways to protect 
against this threat.
  While I appreciate the committee's attention to these and other 
important programs, I believe that more must be done to ensure the 
directed energy science and technology is better coordinated and 
sufficiently funded. These technologies can assist in our defense 
efforts against some of the most prevalent threats confronting us. I 
will also be offering an amendment to this legislation that I believe 
will go a long way in achieving these goals.
  In 1998 I spoke before this body and stated the need to start the new 
millennium by stopping the ebbing tide and ending the lengthy decline 
in defense spending. This year I am grateful to see the chairman and 
his committee have made the crucial step of maintaining, and improving 
on, the FY 2000 increase in defense spending. We must not flag in our 
efforts to support a strong national defense. The committee has 
recognized, as do most of us concerned about our national defense, that 
combat readiness of our Armed Forces must not be at risk. Our soldiers, 
and our country, deserve a national defense budget that is in keeping 
with international uncertainty and growing threats. Our soldiers and 
U.S. citizens are counting on us.

[[Page 14190]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of H.R. 4205, 
as amended.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan be able to proceed for not 
to exceed 5 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears, no objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, since 1961, the Senate has passed an 
authorization bill for our military. We are about to pass another. I 
first thank the leadership of the Senate, and my distinguished ranking 
member, Mr. Levin, for hanging in as we had to move this bill under 
some difficult circumstances in the last 30 days.
  I wish to pay a special respect to all members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. We conduct our affairs as best we can in the spirit 
of what is in the best interest of our Nation. The bill reflects those 
decisions.
  I wish to thank our respective staffs, both majority and minority.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague who has been with me some 22 
years in the Senate on this committee. We have worked together as a 
team in the best interests of our country.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank our chairman for his 
extraordinary leadership. Since Congress, in 1959, said that we were 
required to pass an annual authorization bill for the Defense 
Department, we have never failed. We have succeeded again this year, 
despite some real odds. We passed a record number of amendments. We did 
it because of the work of all the members of the Armed Services 
Committee, our staffs, and our leadership on both sides.
  If I can just single out one person, I want to single out, in the 
leadership, if I may, Senator Reid, for just sort of being here 
constantly to help us move the process forward.
  Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, all the leadership, our subcommittee 
chairmen, ranking members, our staffs really deserve credit for this. 
It is an extraordinary accomplishment, and it is a real feather in our 
chairman's cap.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman and ranking 
member for the fine job they have done.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the 
remarks on Mr. Reid. He was very helpful to get some time agreements 
and other matters resolved.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill, as amended, pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Boxer
     Feingold
     Wellstone
  The bill (H.R. 4205), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 2549 is returned to the calendar.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their work on 
this bill and for their overwhelming support. It sends the strongest of 
signals, first and foremost, to the men and women in the Armed Forces. 
This bill provides increased benefits, which they have so richly 
deserved and long been denied. This bill also initially starts the 
first balanced program to provide for more health care for the retirees 
who gave so much, together with their families, over the years. This 
bill sends a strong message throughout the world that America is 
committed to remain strong and lead in the cause of freedom and human 
rights.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to talk about Senator Carl Levin, the 
ranking member for the Democrats on the very important defense 
committee of this Congress.
  The Democrats could not be more proud of any Senator than we are of 
Carl Levin. We are so comfortable with him at the helm of this 
important aspect of what takes place in this country; that is, the 
preparedness of our military. He has a great working relationship with 
Senator Warner. This bill was an extremely difficult bill. It simply 
could not have been completed without the expertise, the concern, and 
the respect Senator Levin has with his colleagues. I want to make sure 
the Record reflects that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Bunning) 
appointed Mr. Warner, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. McCain, Mr. Smith of New 
Hampshire, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
Allard, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Bingaman, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Cleland, Ms. Landrieu, 
and Mr. Reed conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 2550, S. 2551, and S. 2552 are now 
considered en bloc. Division A of S. 2549 is substituted for S. 2550; 
division B for S. 2551, and division C for S. 2552. The bills are 
considered read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider 
is laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd 
and I might address the Senate for not to exceed 5 minutes each to 
discuss the status of appropriations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________