[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10423-10452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3308

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe the pending business is the 
Boxer amendment, with 4 minutes equally divided
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes equally divided.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the chairman for his graciousness. I urge my 
colleagues to vote affirmatively on this. I hope we can get a very 
overwhelming vote.
  My amendment simply protects children at the Department of Defense 
housing or playgrounds, day-care facilities, schools, from poisonous 
and toxic materials. It is consistent with the DOD guidelines. Frankly, 
it seems to me we should all support it. Basically, the guidelines say 
they will stay

[[Page 10424]]

away from these poisons when they do routine spraying.
  We ought to codify this because there is a little bit of ambiguity. I 
am very proud of the Department of Defense in so many areas that deal 
with children. For example, child care centers at the Department of 
Defense are the best in the world, truly, and certainly are a model for 
so many other child care centers in our country. However, it did take 
some horrible mistakes before that was straightened out. We don't want 
to have a horrible mistake, a mistaken spraying. We want to make sure 
it is done right.
  I am very pleased that the EPA is supporting this amendment. They 
helped with it. We spoke a number of times with Colonel Driggers who 
said he believed this was, in fact, consistent with the DOD written 
guidelines. It could be that they would rather not have us do this. I 
think it would be good for this Senate to go on record stating that for 
routine spraying against pests in these areas, let's use the less toxic 
materials. If there is an emergency, an outbreak of something horrible 
such as encephalitis, we make room for that. We certainly have a clear 
exception in emergency situations. We are talking about routine 
situations.
  We have seen Administrator Browner, with bipartisan support, ban some 
of the very harsh pesticides. I think we can work very well together in 
a bipartisan way to stop the routine spraying of these dangerous 
toxins.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last evening I did offer to accept this 
amendment. It does have some problems, and in conference we will try to 
work out those problems.
  I do believe that the use of pesticides approved by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency should be assured so that military 
children and those on military bases can have the same protections, 
protecting the food supplies of the commissaries and populated 
facilities on a military base. I think the preparation of homes, for 
instance, before they are occupied certainly requires the type of 
spraying approved by the EPA.
  We will make certain there is full protection for those in the 
military. As I understand it, this is an amendment that is designed to 
prevent the use of the pesticides that would not be subject to approval 
by the EPA. I intend to support the amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) is necessary absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

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

                                NAYS--14

     Allard
     Bond
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Hagel
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Rockefeller
     Specter
       
  The amendment (No. 3308) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are awaiting the offering of other 
amendments on the Defense appropriations bill. There is no order, as I 
understand it, agreed upon between the leaders for another amendment to 
be offered at this time. So for any Senator who has an amendment to 
this bill, this is a good time to come and offer the amendment. We can 
have a debate on it.
  The leadership has announced--at least the Republican leader has 
announced he wants to complete action on this bill tonight. To do that, 
we are going to have to make progress with the amendments. There are 
several pending amendments on both sides. So we urge Senators to come 
and cooperate with the managers of the bill so we can dispose of this 
legislation by the end of this session tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, we have done a pretty good job on our 
side of the aisle. We literally only have a handful of amendments left. 
I think you should spend more time urging Members on your side of the 
aisle. We only have one amendment that is going to take any amount of 
time. The Senator offering that amendment has been tied up in hearings 
all day and has been unavailable.
  Senator Boxer has offered three amendments. She has said she will be 
back in an hour to offer her last one. As I say, we have just a few 
amendments. So I think if you can get rid of a lot on your side, we 
might be able to make some more progress. We are literally down to 
maybe seven or eight amendments on our side.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his explanation 
and his cooperation with the managers in the handling of the bill. We 
are equal opportunity expediters here. We want to expedite action on 
both sides of the aisle. I am sure the Senator understands that.
  So we are working hard to try to get Senators to come to the floor 
now to continue the presentation of amendments, if they have them, on 
the bill.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3366, As Modified

   (Purpose: To reduce the total amount provided for procurement by 
$1,000,000,000 in order to provide $922,000,000 for grants under part A 
   of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a modified amendment to the 
desk, and I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to modify amendment 
3366.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3366, as modified.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. The total amount appropriated by title III for 
     procurement is hereby reduce by $1,000,000,000.
       (b) There is hereby appropriated for the Department of 
     Education for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2001, 
     $922,000,000 to enable the Secretary of Education to award 
     grants under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this Defense appropriations bill before

[[Page 10425]]

us is a $3 billion increase over the administration's request. It is 
almost $20 billion more than we appropriated last year. Although for 
the past 2 years we have been focused on the readiness crisis--I think 
an important focus--the largest increase this year is not for personnel 
or operations or maintenance but for the procurement of weapons. This 
bill increases the amount of money for procurement of weapons almost 11 
percent over last year. Let me just remind my colleagues that at the 
end of the cold war, a somewhat different era, this appropriations 
altogether is 2.5 times the military budgets of Russia and China and 
the six countries deemed to be the greatest threats to our Nation.
  At a time when others recognize that the potential military threats 
to national security have declined dramatically, we have not. At a time 
when others want to put more emphasis on not just military readiness, 
which we must have, but other diplomatic solutions, multilateral 
efforts, we have not.
  What I am doing in this amendment altogether is calling for a 
transfer across the board from this additional money for procurement, 
the 11-percent increase--a budget, again, that is $3 billion above what 
the President himself requested. I am saying we ought to take about 
$922 million, not quite $1 billion --I am trying to keep this amendment 
consistent with budgetary rules--and transfer that to education for 
kids. It is not a lot of money, but it would make a huge difference. 
Part of what I am talking about is basically a transfer of a little 
less than $1 billion from the Pentagon to the Department of Education, 
specifically focused on the title I program.
  By transferring to title I this $1 billion, which ends up to be about 
$922 million after taking into account the costs of this reduction, 
this amendment is one step toward restoring some Federal funding for 
education that I think is very consistent with the definition of 
national security.
  I define national security as, for sure, military readiness. But I 
also define national security as the security of our local communities. 
That includes making sure we do the very best by our children. That 
includes making sure that we as a nation do everything we can to live 
up to our national vow of equal opportunity for every child.
  This amendment is all about our priorities. I look at the budget and 
I see a mismatch between some of our national ideals and goals in the 
speeches we give of what we say we care about and our actual spending 
priorities. The Senate committee reported out an education bill that 
would increase overall appropriations for education by $4.65 billion 
from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001. At the same time, the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill increased spending by $20 
billion-- Education, $4.65 billion; Department of Defense, $20 billion.
  We lead the world in our spending on defense, which is fine, but at 
the same time, we rank tenth in the world when it comes to education 
spending. Over the past 20 years, the Department of Education share of 
the Federal budget has shrunk from 2.5 to 2 percent. During the same 
time, the Federal share of education dollars has shrunk from 12 cents 
to 7 cents on the dollar. This is not the direction in which we need to 
be moving.
  People we represent in our States are focused on education. They 
think we ought to be doing better. I understand full well, I say to my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, much of K-12 is State government 
spending. But we can be and should be a real player in certain decisive 
areas. We should be putting much more into early childhood development 
so children come to kindergarten ready to learn. We should be doing 
much better by way of funding the IDEA program. There is probably not a 
school board or school district in the country that does not believe 
this is an unfunded mandate, where they are called upon to meet 
children's special needs or called upon to support children with 
special needs but they do not get the Federal funding to which they are 
entitled.
  The other critical program is the title I program. Actually, there is 
not a more important program than title I. We had an amendment to 
double the authorization for title I, part A, to $15 billion. Senator 
Harkin was one of the leaders on that. It passed the HELP committee 
with the support of every Democrat and every Republican Senator, but I 
think we were only able to raise the appropriation by several million 
dollars, as I remember it, I say to my colleague Senator Harkin.
  I want to transfer $1 billion to the title I program, and I want to 
talk about why. But first of all, when it comes to our priorities, when 
it comes to our commitment to education as opposed to just a commitment 
on the Pentagon budget, let me remind my colleagues, in a recent 
bipartisan poll: 60 percent of the American people say we spend too 
little on education; 40 percent of the people in our country say 
education should be the top funding priority in this year's budget; 75 
percent of the American people say they would be willing to pay higher 
taxes to improve education; and 83 percent of Americans say we should 
equalize funding across districts, even if it means we should transfer 
funds from wealthy to poor districts.
  It is absolutely amazing, the support that is out there. The title I 
program is a key investment, and we ought to be doing much better. 
Title I provides assistance to students who face the greatest 
educational barriers. They are the students whose parents have not had 
the educational opportunities or the luck in their life that many of us 
have had. Many of their parents are illiterate. Many of the parents of 
the students are poor. These are the students struggling to meet 
academic challenges. These are the children, the most vulnerable 
children, who need and deserve the support. Title I is used to fund the 
types of programs for these kids, for just such youth. We know they 
work.
  As an example, 100 percent of major city schools use title I funds to 
provide professional development and new technology for students. We 
have been saying on the floor of the Senate and back in our States that 
the most important thing we can do to improve education is to have good 
teachers. That also includes good teachers for these children who are 
in the title I program.
  We have been talking about the digital divide. We have been saying it 
is not right that in this country, those school districts, those 
wealthy communities, can be wired; they have access to the best 
technology. Those students will be equipped and they will be ready to 
do well. Students who come from poor districts and come from lower-
income families, in those lower-income districts with less property 
wealth, they do not have access to this kind of technology. Title I 
money is used for that. Mr. President, 97 percent of the major city 
schools use title I money to support afterschool activities.
  We have been through this debate. You can go to any neighborhood. I 
do not think, I say to Senator Harkin, it is just in the cities. I 
think it also applies to the smaller towns and rural communities. You 
can talk to the religious community; You can talk to the law 
enforcement community; You can talk to parents; You can talk to 
teachers; You can talk to support staff; You can talk to youth workers; 
They will all say: We need to have some positive programs and activity 
and support for kids after school, especially when many of them go home 
and both parents are working. We need to do that. Ninety percent of 
these schools use title I funds to support family, literacy and summer 
school programs, and 68 percent use title I funds to support preschool 
programs. Title I has shown some strong success, despite its 
underfunding.
  I point out to my colleagues that this amendment is a matter of 
priorities.
  Again, there is an 11-percent increase in procurement, $3 billion 
more in this budget than the administration even asked. I am not 
talking about readiness programs. I am talking about a different world 
in which we live. When are we going to reorder some of our priorities 
and put just a little bit more of this investment in our children? When 
are we going to do better by children in our country?

[[Page 10426]]

  Right now this title I program--which can be so important for 
educational development, can be so important in making sure these kids 
get the help they need, can be so important in making sure their 
parents become literate so they can help them read at home, can be so 
important for afterschool programs, can be so important in trying to 
make sure that when these kids come to kindergarten they are ready to 
learn--right now we fund the title I program at a 30-percent level. 
That is to say, over 70 percent of the kids who could benefit do not 
benefit because there is no money. In my State of Minnesota, in our 
cities, after you get to schools that do not have 65 percent of the 
kids who are low income but only have 60 percent of the kids who are 
low income, they do not get title I money whatsoever because we have 
run out of funds.
  Yet consider this: The largest gains in test scores over the past 30 
years have been made by poor and minority students. One-third to one-
half the gap between affluent whites and their poor minority 
counterparts has closed during this time--again because of the special 
help from the title I program.
  A study by the Rand Corporation linked these gains to title I and 
other investments in these programs that give these kids more 
assistance. The final report of the ``National Assessment of Title I'' 
by the U.S. Department of Education showed that the NEAP, National 
Assessment of Educational Progress, scores for 9-year-olds in the 
Nation's highest poverty schools have increased over the past 10 years 
by 9 points in reading and 8 points in math. The Council of Greater 
City Schools shows that 24 of the Nation's largest schools were able to 
decrease the number of fourth grade title I students achieving in the 
lowest quartile by 14 percent in reading and 10 percent in math in part 
due to the support of title I dollars.
  In my State of Minnesota, for example, the Brainerd Public School 
District has a 70- to 80-percent success rate in accelerating students 
in the bottom 20 percent of their class to the average of their class 
following 1 year of title I-supported reading programs.
  This is a successful program that directs resources to the poorest 
school districts in America. Forty-six percent of title I funds go to 
the poorest 15 percent of all schools in our country, according to a 
GAO report. Seventy-five percent of title I funds go to schools where 
the majority of children are poor, according to the U.S. Department of 
Education report.
  The General Accounting Office estimates that title I has increased 
funding to schools serving poor children by 77 percent, and yet we fund 
this at about one-third of the level that is needed and it is 
unconscionable.
  Yesterday I was in New York City. I went to a school, P.S. 30, in the 
Mott Haven community in the south Bronx, one of the poorest communities 
in the United States of America. I went there because I have such great 
respect for the work of Jon Kozol. Jon Kozol wrote a book called 
``Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a 
Nation.'' Now he has written another book, ``Ordinary Resurrections.'' 
It is a book full of hope. It is about three children and it is about 
this special school. The principal's name is Miss Rosa, Aida Rosa, who 
came from Puerto Rico 3 years ago. Her friends keep telling her to 
retire, but this woman will not give up on these children.
  When one visits such a school, part of the trip is inspiring and part 
of it is indignation swelling inside, which is why I am here.
  It is inspiring that Miss Rosa will not give up on these kids. I say 
to my colleagues, not one child in the classes I visited was white. Not 
one child I met comes from a family with an income over $10,000 a year. 
There are families in America--maybe some of our families--who spend 
that much on one vacation. These children come from families with 
incomes of less than $10,000 a year. They are Latino Latina. They are 
African American. They are poor. About 30 percent of these children 
suffer from asthma. One can see the pumps they carry because they have 
these asthma attacks. Thirty to 35 percent of these children suffer 
from asthma. It is no wonder. There is an incinerator a block away. The 
air is so polluted. This happens in a lot of poor communities.
  Miss Rosa does not give up on these children, the teachers do not 
give up on these children, and Jonathan Kozol does not give up on these 
children. My point is it is inspiring, but these children could do much 
better if we would get the resources to the schools.
  In my state of Minnesota, it is the same thing with Jackson 
Elementary School in St. Paul. I can think of elementary schools, 
junior high schools, and high schools I have visited. I visit a school 
every 2 weeks in my State. Over and over what these teachers say and 
what these principals say is: We are doing our best. Do not give up on 
any of these children. We know what works. We make sure when these 
children come to school they know they are loved. We hold them to high 
standards and expect them to do well. Never give up on them. Make sure 
that teachers are free to teach, and make sure we have an environment 
that emphasizes education and does not sell one child short.
  We sell these children short. I do not understand our priorities. I 
do not understand why our commitment to education is such a small 
percentage of our Federal budget.
  I do not understand how we can take a program such as the title I 
program--which is so important for low-income children and could make 
such a positive difference in their lives, would get more resources to 
some of these schools and some of these men and women who are teachers 
and principals and should be famous for the work they do--and fund it 
at a 30-percent or 35-percent level. I do not think it does any harm to 
who we are or what we are about as a nation to take less than $1 
billion out of the procurement budget across the board and put it into 
the title I program.
  We ourselves, as I said, in the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee, voted to double the amount of money for title I. 
Yet we barely added any additional dollars to this critically important 
program.
  The Nation's poorest schools are dramatically underfunded, they are 
dramatically understaffed, and they are dramatically under resourced. 
Title I helps get some of those resources to these communities. If 
title I was fully funded, Minnesota would receive about $160 million 
more to educate needy students and almost 240,000 more students could 
be served. I am on the floor of the Senate to fight for these children 
in my State. Whatever the final vote is, if I can speak for a program 
that could make a difference in the lives of 240,000 more students in 
the State of Minnesota who are low-income kids, then I am going to do 
so, whether there is 1 vote for this amendment or whether there are 100 
votes for this amendment.
  I do not understand our priorities. Whatever happened to our national 
vow of equal opportunity for every child? How can we be talking today 
about how we are going to have tests and we are going to hold everybody 
accountable, but we do not make sure these children have the same 
opportunity to do well on these tests?
  Why are we not investing in the achievement and the future of all the 
children in our country? It is heartbreaking to visit these schools. It 
is inspiring but, at the same time, I come back to the Senate and say 
to myself: What can I do? When I visit these schools and meet these 
kids in any given class--yesterday I said to a lot of the teachers, to 
Miss Rosa, and others in the Mott Haven community in south Bronx, New 
York City: In the State of Minnesota--they did not believe it--in the 
cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, we have many of the same 
populations.
  The majority of our students are not white, Caucasian. In any given 
class, kids come from homes where different languages are spoken. Four 
or five different languages are spoken in the homes from which these 
kids come. There are some 90 different languages and dialects that are 
spoken in children's homes in Minneapolis and 70 in St. Paul. These 
children are also disproportionately low income, and they need the 
additional support if they are

[[Page 10427]]

going to make it. It would seem to me we ought to make sure of that.
  I am heavily influenced by the work of Jonathan Kozol. I love 
Jonathan's work over the years. He said something in his book that I am 
going to say on the floor of the Senate in my own words because I do 
this all the time. I will come to the floor of the Senate, and I will 
say: Come on, less than $1 billion to the title I program, which is so 
underfunded in all of our States and, I say to my colleague from 
Montana, the rural communities.
  I made a big mistake of not talking about greater Minnesota or rural 
America. We do not have the funding. Every teacher and every 
educational assistant and every principal and every parent who cares 
about education in these communities will tell you they do not have the 
funding and that we should do better.
  But here is my point today. I could come out here on the floor and 
say: With this additional money for title I, if we make the investment 
in these children, who are, by definition, low-income children, then we 
will save money later on because fewer of them will drop out of 
school--and that is true--and we will save money because fewer of them 
will turn to alcohol and drugs--and that is true--and we will save 
money because they will be more economically successful and more 
productive--and that is true--and we will save money by investing a 
little more money in the title I program because fewer of these 
children will wind up dropping out of school and ending up in prison--
and that is true. But you want to know something. We ought to spend 
this additional money, $1 billion, or a little less than $1 billion, in 
title I for another reason: Many of these children are little children; 
They are under 4 feet tall, and we should be nice to them. We should 
care about them. We should get some resources into these schools, even 
if it is not in our self-interest. We should do it because it is the 
right thing to do. That is why we should do this.
  Forget all the arguments about investment and how it will help our 
economy. I came out here earlier and said: We should consider this in a 
national security framework. No. I scratch everything I said, though 
keeping it in the Congressional Record. We should transfer this small 
amount of money from this Pentagon budget to the title I program 
because we should care about these children. We should care about them. 
We should be nice to them. We should want them to do well.
  Many of them come from neighborhoods with some pretty difficult 
circumstances in their lives. I say to my colleagues, you might have 
wanted to spend a little time in the Mott Haven community yesterday. It 
is incredible, some of the difficult conditions in which children not 
only survive but flourish. Why don't we just give them a little more 
assistance?
  I really believe this is an important amendment. I want to again 
summarize for my colleagues a little bit of what I am trying to say. 
Again, please remember that it is one thing to talk about a readiness 
crisis. The big increase was in procurement. Less than a $1 billion cut 
in procurement is hardly anything when it comes to the Pentagon budget. 
This appropriations bill is $3 billion more than the administration's 
budget request.
  This year, the education bill has an overall appropriation for 
education of $4.65 billion--an increase. At the same time, the Pentagon 
budget goes up $20 billion.
  I say to all of my colleagues, I think this is an important 
amendment. All of us know of the title I program. All of us know the 
difference it can make in children's lives. All of us say we care about 
these children. This is an opportunity to basically match our vote with 
our rhetoric. This is, I will admit, a reordering-of-priorities 
amendment on a small scale because, after all, this is $3 billion the 
administration didn't want. This bill is close to $300 billion. Can't 
we take $1 billion of this and do a little bit better by way of title 
I?
  I will not end my remarks because I want to wait to hear what my 
colleagues say. But I will kind of finish up this part of my statement 
with a point that I do not like to make but I believe strongly about. 
So I am going to do it. I will say, some of my colleagues that I see on 
the floor--Senator Inouye and Senator Burns--and Senator Inouye I 
especially believe I know well and know what he cares about--I do not 
think this applies to either one of my colleagues, regardless of how 
they vote; it can't because I know what Senator Inouye, in particular, 
is about. But, in general--so let me say this is not exactly just in 
relation to this amendment--I find that people in politics, in both 
parties, will relish having a chance to have a photo taken of them 
reading with a child. We are all for the children, and we say they are 
100 percent of our future, but we are a dollar short when it comes to 
making the investment in their lives.
  In particular, the unfinished agenda is poor children in America. It 
is incredible, but we have some 14 million poor children in our country 
today with its booming economy. Many of them, disproportionately, are 
of color. Many of them are in our inner cities. Some are in our inner 
suburbs, and some are in our rural areas. Many of the parents of these 
children didn't have the money to put them into the best developmental 
child care. They didn't have the great prekindergarten teachers. Some 
children did. And their parents--a single parent or both parents--are 
both working long hours. They don't have the money.
  They can't spend $10,000, $12,000, $14,000 a year for great child 
care. They come to kindergarten behind. They have not had some of the 
benefits that come from a family where your parents have more of an 
education and a much higher income. But you want to know something. I 
saw it yesterday in P.S. 30. I saw it yesterday in the Mott Haven 
community. I see it in Minnesota. Those children have the most 
beautiful eyes. They have the greatest determination. They are full of 
excitement and they are full of hope. They believe in the American 
dream, even though they never say it that way. By the time they are in 
high school, most of it is gone. I think we ought to be doing better. I 
think these children ought to figure into our priorities.
  We all know the title I program is vastly underfunded. It is an 
embarrassment. Can't we at least put another $922 million in this next 
year? Can't we do a little bit better by these children?
  Mr. President, for now, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Boxer and Harkin be added as cosponsors of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. If 
Senator Stevens wishes to make a motion to table, that would still be 
in order; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending

[[Page 10428]]

amendment be set aside temporarily so I may offer my amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear the 
request.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside so I might offer another amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I object. I would like to work with 
the Senator, but I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa maintains the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, is the pending amendment the Wellstone 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be set 
aside and I call up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3355

 (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for purchase and modification of 
  Army High Mobility Trailers, and for modification of High Mobility 
 Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) to tow the trailers, until the 
                       trailers are fully tested)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3355.

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

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be obligated or expended for the purchase or modification 
     of high mobility trailers for the Army before the Secretary 
     of the Army has determined that the trailers have been 
     thoroughly tested as a system with the High Mobility 
     Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles that tow the trailers, satisfy 
     the applicable specifications, are safe and usable, do not 
     damage the vehicles that tow the trailers, and perform the 
     intended functions satisfactorily.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended for the modification of Army High 
     Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles to tow trailers before 
     the Secretary of the Army has determined that, with respect 
     to the towing of trailers, the vehicles have been thoroughly 
     tested as a system, satisfy the applicable specifications, 
     are safe and usable, are not damaged by the towing of the 
     trailers, and perform the intended functions satisfactorily.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proposing a very simple amendment. 
All it says is the Department of Defense thoroughly test its trailers 
and the trucks that pull them before they spend more money to modify 
them or to buy new ones.
  I understand there is a rule XVI point of order against the 
amendment. So I will ask that it be withdrawn. But I wanted to take the 
time to at least let Senators know about and become aware of a very 
interesting problem in the Department of Defense which I think is 
indicative of some larger problems that we have in terms of testing and 
making sure that our weapons systems actually work before we spend our 
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to buy them.
  For the next several minutes, I would like to tell the story of the 
Army trailers and why this amendment basically just says we ought to 
test them to make sure they work before we buy them.
  You would think this would be common sense. But 6,550 trailers that 
the Army has purchased for more than $50 million are sitting in storage 
right now. That is right, 6,550 trailers are now in storage because the 
Army never bothered to make sure they worked. The fact is that this 
amendment, which I think is necessary, says a lot about how waste and 
abuse continues to thrive at the Pentagon. I get nervous about some of 
these skyrocketing procurement budgets when I think about how some of 
the money gets thrown away. Let's go through the story of the trailers.
  Most of what I am about to relate is in a GAO report, which I 
requested last year and which was published last year.
  In the 1980s, the Pentagon decided it needed some trailers. I am 
talking about trailers that you load up with equipment, goods and 
stuff, and you pull them behind a truck. In 1980, the Pentagon decided 
that it needed some trailers for its high mobility multipurpose wheeled 
vehicles, otherwise known to all of us as humvees. That is all these 
are--trailers to be pulled behind some all-terrain trucks. I wouldn't 
think that would be too difficult. The Army found that the older M101 
trailers they had were unstable with the humvees. So they set out to 
buy some new trailers. In 1993, they signed a contract for $50.6 
million to buy 7,563 new trailers.
  In 1995, after a couple of years, they tested the trailers and found 
a serious problem. The trucks, as it turns out, were never designed to 
pull trailers. When they tested the trailers, the rear crossmembers of 
the trucks tended to crack. They refer to this as ``catastrophic 
failure.'' Despite this problem of the trucks' rear crossmembers 
cracking, the Army decided that the trailers had successfully completed 
testing.
  You may wonder: How could that possibly be? Well, it was because they 
met the contract performance requirements. Mind you, they didn't work. 
They destroyed the trucks that pulled them. But they met the contract 
performance requirements. So the Army agreed to pay the contractor for 
the trailers and to pay for the modifications that would be needed. You 
would think in the contract specifications they would have said that 
the trailers should not damage the trucks pulling them. But evidently 
they didn't.
  Then in late 1996, the Army faced a dilemma. The contractor was more 
than a year behind schedule in delivering them, and the Department 
decided not to buy more trailers in fiscal year 1997--not because they 
didn't work, which they didn't, but because they said they were now a 
lower priority.
  In the contract that the Army negotiated, there was an escape clause 
which provided that during the fourth and fifth years, if the Army 
didn't want any more trailers, all they had to do was pay $1 million in 
liquidated damages and they would be out of the contract. Did the Army 
pay the $1 million and get out of the old contract? No. They 
renegotiated the contract and extended it another year. Not only that 
but the Army also agreed to pay the increased costs of the contractor 
and agreed also to increase the profit margin of the contractor in 
spite of the poor performance of these trailers. The net result was a 
57-percent increase in the cost of the trailers. Instead of getting the 
7,563 trailers for $50.6 million, which was agreed upon in the 
contract, the Army ended up getting 6,700 trailers for $57 million--$6 
million more for 900 fewer trailers.
  That is not the end of it. From there, the story continues downhill.
  In 1997, the Army modified the truck crossmembers--the one that was 
cracking all the time, and the bumpers--so the trucks could pull the 
trailers. But as they were modifying the truck, the trailer drawbar 
broke. They discovered that the drawbar design had no margin of safety; 
it bent every time the humvee went over a bump. Nonetheless, since the 
Army had already accepted the design, the Army figured it was their own 
problem and they let the contractor off the hook.
  The Army continued to accept more of these trailers that they 
couldn't use. They couldn't use them. So the contractor kept making 
them and the Army kept accepting them; and they just put them in 
storage.
  In 1998, they tested the trailers a third time with a new steel 
drawbar. But now they found that the new, stiffer drawbar damaged the 
brakes on the trailers and again damaged the trucks.
  In 1999, they made more modifications and tested the trailers a 
fourth time. Again, the trailers didn't work. Meanwhile, the units 
still don't have the trailers they have needed for more than a decade.

[[Page 10429]]

  Now, the Army thinks they finally have the solution. They will use 
the steel drawbar on the trailers. They will install a more durable 
brake actuator on the trailers, and they will modify the trucks with 
reinforcement for this towing pintle. But they haven't even tested 
these modifications yet. So they don't even know if they will work.
  Furthermore, their ``conservative cost estimate'' for the 
modification is $22 million.
  Let's add it up. We were going to pay $50 million. We have already 
paid $57 million. Now we are going to pay $22 million on top of that. 
That would pay to modify only 6,700 trucks, one for each of the 
trailers.
  I can only assume that the Army does not want to dedicate a truck for 
each trailer. That means the Army will have to modify all 19,564 trucks 
that are in the units to get the trailers. The 22 million they want is 
only for 6,700 trucks. But they are going to need another 13,000 trucks 
modified.
  So are we looking at another $44 million, maybe another $50 million 
on top of it? I don't think they will dedicate one truck to each 
trailer. That would be foolish. I don't think we are through with the 
price increases yet. Somewhere down the line, the Army says, they will 
need another 18,412 high mobility trailers on top of the 6,700 they 
already have.
  This is a story of mismanagement, a story of misprocurement, a story 
of whacky contracts, a story of piling one mistake upon another, a 
story of letting contractors off the hook, all at the expense of 
taxpayers and the expense of readiness and mobility for our troops in 
the field.
  My amendment simply requires that before we dump more money down this 
rathole, before we modify the trailers and trucks or buy more trailers, 
we test them. We test the final product to see if it will meet the 
requirements for the all-terrain vehicles that are pulling them. We 
should make sure that they work, that they are safe, that they don't 
damage the truck, and that they can perform their intended mission.
  I don't know when the end is in sight. We have already spent $57 
million. They want another $22 million. That is $79 million. If they 
are going to modify all the trucks, we are probably looking at another 
$44 million on top of that, and they say they want 18,000 more of them. 
I don't know if there is an end in sight. Whether $57 million or $79 
million or $100 million, that may not in a $300 billion budget for 
defense seem to be a lot but it is a lot of money to me. It is a lot of 
money to the taxpayers in my home State of Iowa.
  I am afraid it is a symptom of a larger problem. If we cannot design 
a simple trailer that works, and test it adequately, how can we expect 
to build an advanced fighter plane that works or a missile defense that 
will hit a bullet with a bullet?
  We never seem to learn our lesson. Today we are buying 10 F-22 
fighter planes, the most advanced and most expensive in the world, even 
though they haven't been fully tested and have shown problems in the 
tests that have been done. We are talking about spending $1 billion a 
year for national missile defense, even though it has had only two 
flight tests--one lucky strike and a near miss--and has never been 
tested against countermeasures that it would surely face.
  If we are going to spend all this money, the public should at least 
demand weapons that work. My amendment would set that demand in writing 
for the trailers. I am not getting into the fighter planes and missile 
defense. I am only talking about simple trailers, so that never again 
will we pay three times for trailers--once to buy them, again to store 
them, and a third time to try to make them work right.
  I wanted to take this time to talk about the trailer problem. I have 
been involved in this for some time. I think it is indicative of a 
larger problem. We should make sure we test all of our systems, make 
sure they work and are safe and meet the requirements we need before we 
shell out our taxpayers' dollars to buy them.


                      Amendment No. 3355 Withdrawn

  Mr. HARKIN. Having said that, I understand there is a rule XVI point 
of order against my amendment, so I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3355) was withdrawn.


                    Amendment No. 3366, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we now back to the 
Wellstone amendment numbered 3366?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Wellstone 
amendment.
  I think it would be the height of irresponsibility to reduce this 
defense budget by $1 billion, for any purpose. Obviously, for the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has not yet been 
reauthorized, there will be billions spent--correctly so--for the 
improvement of the education of our children. To withdraw the funds 
from the Department of Defense and put money into a bill that has not 
yet been reauthorized, I think would be shirking our responsibility to 
support our troops in the field and make sure they have the equipment 
they need to do the job we are asking them to do.
  Whether it be the missile defense system, the F-22, the F-16, the 
ships that we need so badly, or whether it is a quality-of-life issue, 
we are trying to increase the pay levels and the quality of housing for 
our military. We are trying to provide the health care that is deserved 
for the people in the service and for their families.
  Where would we take the $1 billion? Which part of our military budget 
that is already underfunded would we withdraw? I think it is very 
important we continue to finish this bill, that we allocate the 
resources we need to stop the flight from our military that we see 
occurring as we speak. We are having a very hard time retaining the 
good people who are serving in the military. They are leaving the 
military. They are leaving the military for a variety of reasons, some 
of which we can do something about: pay, types of housing, health care, 
and making sure they have the training and the equipment they need to 
do the job we are asking them to do. We need to make sure we do retain 
our best people.
  Second, I think it is very important we let potential recruits know 
we are going to take very seriously these quality-of-life issues. That 
is exactly what this bill, the underlying appropriations bill for the 
Department of Defense, is designed to do.
  I object to any reduction of the Department of Defense bill to 
reallocate resources to other areas that have already had their budgets 
approved by this Congress. We have set the levels of spending in 
Congress. We have allocated money for the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. We have allocated money for all of the other agencies to 
be able to do their jobs. We need to set up a firewall in defense. We 
need to say we are going to put the money into defense to keep our 
security in this country.
  If we start adopting amendments such as the Wellstone amendment that 
would start taking $1 billion out and allocating it to some other 
cause, I think we would be walking away from our responsibility to 
strengthen our national defense. When we are 6,000 below the 
congressionally mandated troop strength level, as we are today, I think 
it is most certainly the responsibility of Congress to say, why do we 
have 6,000 fewer troops than we have allocated to do the job of keeping 
the security of the United States? I think once we determine the cause, 
we need to address that cause and we need to correct the problem. The 
way we do it is to make sure we are fully funding the equipment, the 
training, and the quality-of-life issues for our military personnel. We 
are asking them to do a pretty tough job. We need to give them the 
tools to do it.
  I am very fortunate to be able to visit so many of our troops around 
the world. I am very privileged to be on the Appropriations Defense 
Subcommittee and, before that, on the Armed Services Committee. I have 
visited our troops in Saudi Arabia, Italy, Bosnia, Kosovo, Germany, as 
well as, of course, throughout the United States of America. It lifts 
your heart to go to a base

[[Page 10430]]

or to an outpost and talk to our military personnel. They are 
dedicated. They believe in our country. They believe in what they are 
doing. They are out there and they are going to do the job given to 
them to do.
  In the 7 years that I have been in the Senate and have made it a 
point to visit our troops wherever they may have been, I have never yet 
met one who did not inspire me, who did not make me believe that the 
security of our country was being handled by these young people and 
these generals and these admirals. They are dedicated and they are 
doing a terrific job. But it is the responsibility of Congress, it is 
the responsibility of the Senate, it is the responsibility of this body 
to make sure every one of those young men and women out in the field, 
who are patrolling as we speak, who are walking along the lines between 
Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia, who are in Bosnia trying to keep 
Bosnia in a peaceful condition, who are in the deserts of Saudi Arabia 
right now, or in Kuwait, trying to keep some stability in the Middle 
East, get the support and the equipment and the training they need to 
do the job.
  If we start voting for amendments that take $1 billion out of an 
already short defense budget and start allocating that to other 
programs--worthy programs, but we have already set the spending 
limiting for those programs--we would be shirking our responsibility to 
support those who are supporting us. That is why I oppose the Wellstone 
amendment and why I hope this Senate will take the responsible action 
and reject any effort to take $1 billion out of the funds for the 
defense budget. It has emergency money in it to replenish the coffers 
where we have taken from the basic defense budget to fund the 
peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo. It is essential we get on 
with our responsibility and reject the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from California 
has an amendment. Senator Harkin is joining her. I would like to see if 
we can get a time agreement on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
the time be limited to not more than 45 minutes on each side. Is that 
agreeable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am wondering if the manager of the bill 
would be kind enough to notify the Senate when there will be some 
votes. We have about an hour and a half now on this amendment, if all 
time is used, and there then would be two votes; is that correct? I 
think that is what the leaders are talking about.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. I do not 
anticipate using the full amount of time on our side. I understand 
there has been one amendment put aside. I hope to have the votes occur 
somewhere around 6 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. Then after that, it is my understanding the bill is in the 
process of being able to be wound up?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we still have the procedure to follow to 
apply rule XVI to the amendments that have not been withdrawn. We are 
compiling that list now. As soon as this amendment is finished, we will 
do that. The Senator would understand, I am sure, that some Senators 
may wish to appeal that or deal with it in some way. I hope not. We 
hope to conclude the rule XVI procedure and then vote at 6 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 3311

(Purpose: To strike Section 8114 regarding Operational Support Aircraft 
                           Leasing Authority)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3311.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3311.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 8114.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers. I have had a few 
amendments. I think this one is not one they support. They have been 
very supportive of my others. I am very proud that the Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has once again teamed up with me. We have been the 
team on this particular subject for awhile.
  When I was in the House of Representatives, I served on the Armed 
Services Committee. It was a great honor to do so. There is nothing 
more important than our national security. What I found was that we 
were wasting many dollars. I thought we had cured some of those 
problems. For awhile I really didn't bring these issues before the body 
because I was convinced we were moving in the right direction. 
Suddenly, I am afraid, we see a reversal.
  For example, in this bill, the military asked us for $3 billion less 
than the committee actually voted out. This particular bill that is 
before us is $3 billion more than the Defense Department requested. Why 
would we do that? Why would we not go along with what they say they 
need, and why would we pad this particular area, our national defense? 
And why do I say that? Because if we look through the bill, we will 
find instances of waste.
  We understand why this bill is padded when we particularly look at 
one area that Senator Harkin and I joined forces on last year. That is 
the area of operational support aircraft. These are aircraft used for 
travel by the upper echelons of the military. What we do with our 
amendment is strike the section that allows nine of these operational 
support aircraft to be leased. In this bill, they are not specified as 
what they are, how much they each cost. We know nothing except that the 
Army can have three, the Navy can have three, and the Marine Corps can 
have three.
  What do I suspect they are going to do with this? I think we have to 
learn from history and look back to last year's Defense appropriations 
bill. I offered an amendment with Senator Harkin then that would have 
struck this same exact language that was used by the Air Force to lease 
six operational support aircraft. Senator Harkin and I lost that fight. 
I thought we made a valiant effort, but we are back for this reason: A 
lot has happened since Senator Harkin and I brought this matter before 
the body.
  First, we know the Air Force plans to lease the most luxurious jets 
there are, despite the fact we had people here telling us they weren't 
going to lease these big, beautiful jets; they were going to go 
smaller.
  Let's take a look at the Gulfstream. It is pretty slick. We are told 
if one were to buy this, it costs $50 million a copy--luxurious travel. 
The Air Force has leased six. The Air Force took the same language they 
had in the appropriations bill last year and leased six of these.
  Let's take a look at the interior of this plane. Senator Harkin has a 
little different view. It is beautiful. This plane is used by 
billionaires. This plane is used by the top echelon of wealthy people 
in this country. We wonder why this bill has been padded with $3 
billion. I think it is to do things such as this that, with all due 
respect, were not spelled out in this bill.
  If I were to read--I don't have time because I have agreed to a tight 
time limit--the language, all one would know about it is, it is the 
same as was put in for the Air Force. But they couldn't find anywhere 
listed a Gulfstream. Yet last year we were told, at this very same time 
in the debate, that the Air Force was not going to go for these 
Gulfstreams: ``There is nothing in this language that says that.'' Yet 
that is, in fact, what they did.
  We were right last year, and it is costing taxpayers a fortune to 
lease these jets. Let me say, it is cheaper to buy them than to lease 
them.

[[Page 10431]]

  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a New York Times 
article that discusses the fact that it is actually cheaper to lease 
these jets than to buy them.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, May 11, 1999]

       NATO Spending Bill Includes Executive Jets for 9 Generals

                            (By Tim Weiner)

       An urgent request from the Air Force is buried in the 
     multibillion-dollar emergency bills that will finance NATO's 
     air war in Yugoslavia.
       Smart bombs? F-16 fighters?
       Not exactly. The Air Force wants to lease Gulfstream 
     executive business jets to ferry four-star generals around 
     the world. The cost could run to half a billion dollars over 
     a decade.
       The Air Force is asking for top-of-the-line Gulfstream V's 
     to replace the Boeing 707's, some as much as 30 years old, 
     that transport nine of the nation's top military commanders.
       The Gulfstreams can fly eight passengers nonstop for 7,500 
     miles, wrapping them in sweet silence and comfort, the 
     company says.
       The Air Force already has two Gulfstream V's for the very 
     highest Government officials. Moguls from the movies and 
     Microsoft fly them. Why not the military's most powerful 
     commanders, men like Gen. Wesley Clark, who is running NATO's 
     air war?
       So the Pentagon and the Senate Appropriations Committee 
     chairman, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, worked 
     out a deal that would let the Air Force lease six Gulfstreams 
     for the military's nine unified and regional commanders-in-
     chief, Congressional staff members said.
       Those in the Air Force and in Congress who support the 
     request--none of whom would be quoted by name--say leasing 
     could be cheaper than maintaining the 707's. And the 
     Gulfstreams cost less than the planes some of the commanders 
     originally sought: a fleet of Boeing 767's, which run upwards 
     of $100 million each.
       The new fleet would give the commanders ``the capability to 
     travel within the full length of their theaters or to 
     Washington, D.C., without an en route stopover,'' the Air 
     Force said in a ``fact sheet'' submitted to Congress two 
     weeks ago to underscore the commanders' needs.
       Only one of the nine commanders-in-chief, or Cincs, General 
     Clark, is based overseas. The others work in Virginia, 
     Illnois, Colorado, Nebraska, Hawaii and Florida, where three 
     of them have headquarters. But with the United States playing 
     the role of the world's sole superpower, their 
     responsibilities are global, the Pentagon says.
       The Air Force noted that the Gulfstream V is ``the single 
     aircraft most capable of performing the Cinc support role, at 
     significantly reduced costs.''
       One new Gulfstream was included in this year's Pentagon 
     budget. But the Gulfstream V can carry only a small 
     contingent. So the Air Force said it might also consider two 
     Gulfstreams and four specially equipped 737-700's, which 
     carry at least 126 passengers in their commercial 
     configuration.
       The Senate's emergency spending bill includes a measure 
     aiding Central American hurricane victims, which is where the 
     leasing arrangement originated. The measure goes to 
     conference on Tuesday with the $13 billion measure passed by 
     the House last week.
       The Gulfstream measure includes only the legal authority to 
     sign a lease--no money. It does not mention the money at all.
       But the leasing deal, if carried out, could cost $476 
     million or more over 10 years, according to Air Force 
     documents and Congressional staff members.
       It would actually cost less to buy each of the nine 
     commanders his own Gulfstream V--$333 million. But that might 
     be a harder sell, said a Congressional staff member working 
     on the Senate's still evolving emergency bill.
       ``You don't want to look like you're buying the Cincs 
     executive jets,'' he said.

  Mrs. BOXER. First of all, we are not buying them. We are leasing 
them, and that costs money. If we were to buy these nine, it would cost 
a half a billion dollars. I am embarrassed to say it. That amount of 
money could put 5,000 police on the streets. That amount of money could 
double the number of children we have in afterschool. That amount of 
money could take care of a lot of veterans' health care.
  The other plane that is in the same category is called Bombardier. It 
is made in Quebec. I don't have a photo of it. It is just as luxurious, 
just as expensive. It goes for about the same. I say to my friends who 
want to make sure our generals have what they need: Why do we have to 
go to the top of the line?
  If the answer comes back that we are not necessarily doing that and 
we are not spelling it out, then why not preclude them from going to 
the top of the line? Two things have happened that are important since 
this debate last year.
  No. 1, those who said the Air Force would never buy the top of the 
line were proven wrong. We said they would do it, and they will leased 
these top of the line jets.
  No. 2, Senator Harkin, Congressman DeFazio, and I wrote to the 
General Accounting Office. Because we respect our friends who said 
these operational support aircraft were necessary, we said to the GAO, 
which is our investigative arm, Will you do a study? They did. Guess 
what they titled this study. The title of this study comes back: 
``Operational Support Airlift Requirements are not Sufficiently 
Justified.''
  Let me reiterate sort of the partridge and the pear tree about why we 
should strike this language. Last year, we were told they needed the 
aircraft. Here is the GAO report, the investigative arm of Congress, 
coming back saying we do not need any more right now because we don't 
know what we have. I will share the quotes from that study.
  Second, the Air Force proved they were going to go to the top of the 
line. This is the same exact language. After all, I guess if the Air 
Force has it, the Army needs it, the Marines, and the Navy, then we are 
going to allow them to have the same latitude.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
California has 45 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Presiding Officer let me know when I have used 
20 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  I want to share with my colleagues the results of this GAO study.
  GAO report: ``Operational Support Airlift Requirements are not 
Sufficiently Justified.''

       The processes that DOD uses to identify its requirements 
     for operational support airlift have a number of weaknesses 
     that make it difficult to assess whether the current 
     inventory meets the wartime needs.

  That is one statement. We will go through the statements with you.
  The next statement:

       Although DOD directive 4500.43 states that operational 
     support airlift requirements should be based solely on 
     wartime needs, the methodology that DOD used in 1995 and 1998 
     does not draw a clear link to the scenario for two major 
     regional conflicts specified by the National Military 
     Strategy.

  In other words, the operational support aircraft have to be linked to 
what military needs in case of war--not that it is comfortable for 
generals in time of peace.
  I understand that it is comfortable to go on a plane such as this, 
but that is not what taxpayers should be paying for. We should be 
paying for what we need in time of war. That is what the DOD is 
supposed to do.
  What else do they tell us in this report?

       The lack of clear linkage to wartime requirements raises 
     questions about whether the support aircraft fleet is 
     appropriately sized to meet short-notice mobility needs in 
     wartime.

  My friends, this is serious. We are going ahead with this 
appropriations--this green light--to lease all of these airplanes when 
the GAO is saying to us that the ``lack of clear linkage to wartime 
requirements raises questions about'' the fleet and whether it is 
appropriately sized. It may be terribly overly sized.
  Let's see what else we have.
  This is the one I think says it all.

       The joint staff . . . has not maintained records 
     documenting its previous requirements reviews, so it is not 
     possible to determine whether some options for reducing 
     requirements were examined.

  I have to say to my colleagues who I hope are watching this from 
their offices that there is a need here to defend the United States of 
America, and we should do everything we can to do that. If we are going 
under the scenario of being prepared to fight two major conflicts--some 
people think that is outmoded, but if that is what we are doing--then 
everything we do in this budget should reflect that need. And we are 
being told that the Joint Chiefs

[[Page 10432]]

do not maintain records documenting their requirements for these 
aircraft.
  How on Earth can we possibly justify this kind of open-ended language 
in this bill?
  The GAO sums up:

       For all these reasons, we believe a more rigorous process 
     is needed to better ensure that support aircraft requirements 
     accurately reflect wartime needs.

  I think if you really believe that supporting our military is one of 
the most important things we can do in making sure we have dollar for 
dollar the best military in the world, then you should vote for the 
Boxer-Harkin amendment.
  There is no reason given in any of the documentation in the 
Department of Defense as to why they need this aircraft. There is no 
rationale. The GAO has studied this. They are nonpartisan. They are the 
investigative arm of Congress. They have come back and told us they 
can't even find their records. Yet we are going blindly ahead, it seems 
to me, and providing this open-ended language, which will result, I 
predict to you, in nine more of these aircraft, and they could be the 
most luxurious in the world.
  We already know that the Defense Department has 144 jets in its fleet 
of operational support aircraft. This includes 71 Learjets, 13 
Gulfstreams, the one Gulfstream V, and 17 Cessna Citations.
  We know the GAO has studied all of this, and they are saying to us: 
Time out. What is the rush?
  When I take a look at these luxury jets, I can only say this: We know 
there are cheaper luxury jets that would have to make just one stop--I 
have a photo of that--just one stop. This plane is about $18 million 
compared to $50 million, which would have to make one stop to refuel.
  I have to say to my friends that it is a beautiful plane. It is a 
comfortable plane. For a general to stop and stretch his or her legs, 
as the case may be, and fill up the tank once on the way to a meeting 
in peacetime----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield right there?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator put that photograph back up.
  Mrs. BOXER. Certainly. I will finish my sentence, and then I will 
yield. Then I am happy to yield. I have to finish my thought.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator yielded to me.
  Mrs. BOXER. This is a smaller aircraft. We were hoping that the Air 
Force was going to look at this. But they came back with the 
Gulfstreams.
  I yield for a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. If I am correct, that is a UC-35 that the Senator put up 
there, and that is what we are going to lease. That is exactly what 
this provision covers, the UC-35s.
  Mrs. BOXER. This is not a UC-35. This is not.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is it?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is a Citation X.
  The point I am making is there is nothing in the language, I say to 
my dear friend, that suggests exactly what plane they are going to use. 
There is nothing in this language. Last year, under the same language, 
the Air Force leased the Gulfstream. That is the point we are making. 
We are not limiting them to this.
  I have to say that I know we are in a surplus situation. But we have 
a lot of needs for our military personnel. I know my friends fought for 
that. We are looking at military personnel who are not living in 
adequate housing. We know that Senator McCain has taken the lead in 
trying to get our people off food stamps. We have an unfunded priority 
of veterans' health.
  I think what Senator Harkin and I are simply saying is this: It is 
unnecessary to have this many planes when we now have a quite unbiased 
report that says, ``Operational Support Airlift requirements are not 
sufficiently justified.''
  Why would we run off and buy more when we don't know what we have? We 
have seen with vague language we could wind up with top-of-the-line 
jets.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield 20 
minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for yielding me this 
time.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of her amendment. We have worked hard on 
this over the last couple of years to try to bring sense and 
rationality to this procurement of luxury jets for the military.
  I was going to ask my friend from California if we might engage in a 
little colloquy to let our fellow Senators know where we are coming 
from. It is not the intention of the Senator from California, nor mine, 
to say that there should be no smaller corporate-type jets within the 
Department of Defense. We are not trying to say ``none.'' We are not 
trying to cut them out. There are 364 support aircraft in the inventory 
right now.
  I ask the Senator, is it, the intention of the Senator to do away 
with all these types of jets?
  Mrs. BOXER. Not at all.
  As my friend knows, we don't even really know how the jets they have 
now are meeting our needs in a situation such as during wartime, which 
is the directive that they have to go by. The DOD has to rationalize 
and tell us, under their own directive, how their support meets the 
needs in wartime.
  Clearly in this report it is stated there is no rationale for what 
they have now, let alone what they have to have.
  Furthermore, we are saying that if they got these nine additional 
planes, which we don't even know if they need, under this language they 
would be able to buy the fanciest jets in the world, despite the fact 
that Senator Stevens doesn't think they will.
  The Senator of Alaska wasn't positive that the Air Force was going to 
lease the six Gulfstreams last year, yet they did. It is the same 
language.
  Mr. HARKIN. What happened to the six airplanes last year that we 
fought against? Have they started leasing those airplanes yet?
  Mrs. BOXER. They put out an RFP. The only two companies that 
qualified for the RFP happened to be the two companies that made a $50 
million luxury jet.
  The Air Force is moving forward and doing exactly what we said they 
were going to do.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator is correct, the request for proposal that 
delineated the requirements, the GAO said there is no real basis for 
those requirements. They just plucked them out of thin air. They 
devised, if I am not mistaken, an RFP to get the jets they wanted. But 
there is no basis for the RFP requirement.
  That is what I read in the GAO report. For example, I say to the 
Senator from California, in the GAO study on page 7, ``One military 
officer involved in the 1995 study said that using an assumption of 
four flights a day yielded a requirement deemed to be too high and that 
using an assumption of two flights a day yielded a requirement deemed 
to be too low.'' So it came out at three.
  Listen to this: ``Operational support airlift requirements are 
significantly affected by this single assumption of how many flights a 
day you have. For example, our review of support aircraft found that 55 
fewer aircraft were required when assumptions of two flights a day were 
used rather than three for overseas theaters.''
  Again, the GAO is saying there is no real rational basis for this. 
They say four is deemed too much, two is deemed too little. So, voila, 
they decided on three. But again, there is no rational basis for why 
they needed three flights a day.
  We didn't have this study last year. This study just came out in 
April of 2000. Last year, we offered the amendment that dealt with six 
aircraft, and our worst fears were realized. They put out an RFP, 
limited to the most luxurious jets. So we requested the study. In light 
of the fact that we have the GAO study that basically says we have no 
basis on which to procure these aircraft, now we will lease nine 
aircraft.
  Let's get this straight. Last year, we did not have the GAO study. 
Our amendment was defeated. The bill said they could lease up to six 
aircraft. This year, we have the GAO study that says there is no basis 
for the requests, but now nine are requested this year.
  Please, someone tell me what kind of sense this makes.

[[Page 10433]]

  Again, I have been a pilot all my life. I enjoy flying. I know 
airplanes pretty darned well. We are not trying to say that commanders 
in the field, theater commanders, don't need long-range airplanes. They 
do. What I am saying is we are playing a game here. It is sort of a 
game of, I am a general and guess what. I have got a nice big fancy jet 
to ferry me around. Well, Admiral Smith over here looks at General 
Jones and says, hey, he's got a big old jet that flies him around. How 
come I don't have one? And then the general over in the Marine Corps 
says, well, I have to have one, too. I am as high ranking as that other 
general or admiral. And the Air Force general says, I have to have one, 
too.
  Come on. There is a lot of this game involved here. I don't mind some 
perks for our military officers. They don't get paid a lot of money. 
They do a great job of defending our country. We call upon them in 
wartime and they lay down their lives. If you are just honest about it, 
this is a perk, a perquisite.
  But how much of a perk? Do they really need a Gulfstream V that can 
carry up to 19 passengers so they can put four or five people on board 
and travel in luxury? No, they don't need that. CINCPAC operates out of 
Hawaii and needs a longer range plane to go from Hawaii to Guam, 
Okinawa, Japan, or Korea. I understand that. But commanders in the 
United States don't need those. They can land at any airport in the 
United States and get refueled. They don't need those longer range 
planes. You may need one for Europe. Already in the inventory we have 
13 Gulfstream III's that have a 3,500-mile nautical range. Now the 
Gulfstream V has a 5,500-mile nautical range.
  We already have one of those in inventory. I don't know where it is. 
I don't know who operates it. But we already have one. We have 13 
Gulfstream III's with a 3,500-mile nautical range. That is not too 
shabby. And a Gulfstream III is a very luxurious plane, I can assure 
you. The GAO says it can carry up to 26 passengers, but that is maximum 
loading. Actually, a Gulfstream III would probably carry about 10 or 12 
people at most on any flight. They already have 13 of them. Is that 
enough? We don't even know. The GAO says we don't even know if that is 
enough.
  I am not saying we do not need some of these planes. But I think we 
need a really thorough study of these inventories, to justify the 
requirements.
  The GAO said:

       The Department of Defense has not clearly explained the 
     basis for the key assumptions it is using to justify the 
     requirements or identified the assumptions that should be 
     updated in each succeeding review.

  What does it mean? The Pentagon has no clue about how many planes 
they need; no clue.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Let me just finish this.
  The GAO found there is no justification for how many times a day 
airports are connected. There is no criterion for why some airports are 
key airports and others are not. There is no consideration of how large 
different planes need to be. Nobody could even tell the GAO whether the 
requirement for 85 aircraft in the continental United States had been 
considered in the 1998 review or who was supposed to look at it in the 
current review. So how do they come up with their assumptions? Here is 
what GAO said. I will repeat it:

       One military officer said using an assumption of four 
     flights a day yielded a requirement deemed to be too high, 
     using an assumption of two yielded a requirement deemed to be 
     too low by the commanders in chief.

  What does that mean? They cooked the books. That is all they are 
doing, they are cooking the books. They are saying I would like to have 
this Gulfstream V, so write it up so that I need it. That is all that 
is happening.
  I am glad to yield to my colleague.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to make sure my friend was aware we have a copy 
of the RFP done by the Air Force. I ask unanimous consent this document 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Aircraft Capabilities and
             Characteristics                              Thresholds                           Objective
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.1.1.* Range.........................  Aircraft shall be able to fly no-wind       Aircraft shall be able to
                                           range of 5000 NM carrying a full            fly no-wind range of 6000
                                           passenger and crew compliment, plus their   NM carrying a full
                                           baggage using AFI 11-202, Vol. III,         passenger and crew
                                           Chapter 2 procedures. Fuel reserves         compliment, plus their
                                           consist of fuel required to descend to      baggage
                                           10,000 feet MSL at destination airfield,
                                           climb to optimum altitude for diversion
                                           to an alternate airfield 250 NM away,
                                           descend to 10,000 feet, hold for 45
                                           minutes, and then make a penetration/
                                           approach and landing.
4.1.1.2. Flight Characteristics.........  Cruise speed 0.80 Mach, cruise ceiling      A minimum of 10 minutes at
                                           after gross weight takeoff equals 31,000    takeoff power.
                                           ft minimum after 30-minute direct climb.
                                           Be able to operate out of a 5,000-foot
                                           runway. FAR landing distance shall not be
                                           greater than 5,000 ft at maximum landing
                                           weight.
4.1.1.3.* Payload Capabilities..........  Small aircraft shall carry 5 crew, 12       ..........................
                                           passengers. Medium aircraft shall carry
                                           11 crew, 26 passengers. Maximum payload
                                           requirements to determine range
                                           calculations shall consist of all items
                                           (food, water, toiletries and non-
                                           consumables such as blankets and pillows)
                                           in sufficient quantities to support crew
                                           and passengers for four days. Assume 1.5
                                           (1 light, 1 full) first class type meals
                                           per person, per sortie. (Assume 2 lbs.
                                           per full meal) The weight and volume of
                                           passenger support items are separate from
                                           the personal baggage allowance. Assume a
                                           weight allowance of 275 lbs. per person
                                           for individual body and baggage (175 lbs.
                                           Per person plus 100 lbs. baggage).
4.1.1.4. Mission Planning...............  Standard commercial system, provisions for  Integrated with aircraft
                                           generating the information found on a DD    systems. Incorporation of
                                           Form 365-4, Weight and Balance Clearance    a unique planning
                                           Form F--Transport. Automated capability     component on the Joint
                                           to do aircraft performance analysis         Mission Planning System
                                           (takeoff and landing data) and flight       (JMPS) architecture.
                                           planning. Shall include performance data
                                           for all climatic conditions. Computer
                                           flight plan able to be uploaded into the
                                           flight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes Key Performance Parameter.

  Mrs. BOXER. What it shows is exactly what my friend is saying, 
aircraft should be able to fly no-wind range of 5,000 nautical miles. 
Only two aircraft, this one called the Global Express--that is made in 
Canada, and then the Gulfstream V, which, as my friend pointed out, the 
Air Force has put out this proposal, it is in the 5,000 nautical mile 
range. So this is the characteristic. If you look at this and other 
characteristics, it can only be these luxury jets.
  But I wanted to ask my friend if he saw the letter from the 
Department of Defense to the General Accounting Office on page 27 of 
this report. I ask him to take a look at it because it seems to me, any 
thinking person would read this and say the Department of Defense 
agrees with Harkin and Boxer. If you look at this letter in the second 
paragraph, it says:

       The department agrees with many of the findings in the GAO 
     report. Accordingly, it will take the GAO's findings into 
     consideration in future determinations of operational support 
     airlift.

  That is very nice. When will they take it into consideration? After 
they have sprung for half a billion dollars of the taxpayers' money? 
What we are saying is we have this report, folks. Yet in this 
particular bill before us, I wonder if my friend is aware, in order to 
take effect these leases must be done before 2004. So they are 
essentially rushing to run out and lease these aircraft so, as my 
friend says, they can have the same aircraft as the Air Force.
  Mr. HARKIN. Frankly, I say to the Senator from California, if we have 
to swallow this, they ought to at least buy the airplanes, not lease 
them. The taxpayers are going to get stung, big time, for leasing these 
aircraft, but it looks as if it is less in the beginning. Over the 
years, we are going to pay probably, what would the Senator say, three 
to four times as much for these aircraft?
  Mrs. BOXER. Hundreds of millions of dollars more, according to the 
New York Times.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is if we lease them rather than buying. So we are 
compounding it, adding insult to injury. The taxpayers are getting 
socked for airplanes the military doesn't really need, and then they 
are leasing them, which means we are paying even more money for 
airplanes we do not even need. Again, you would think

[[Page 10434]]

with this GAO study we would say: Wait, we don't need these nine. Let's 
wait until we see what the requirements really are.
  The requirements are always couched in terms of wartime necessity. We 
are not at war. It doesn't look as if there is anything bubbling up on 
the horizon that is going to be a major war for the United States in 
the next couple of years. So we have time to do an assessment to find 
out what our requirements really are. Does Admiral or General so-and-so 
really need a Gulfstream V? We don't know that. Maybe they could get by 
with a C-21.
  I want to be perfectly honest. I have used these aircraft. As 
Senators, sometimes we travel to remote areas of the world. Because of 
time requirements and when we have to go, we have to utilize these 
aircraft. Last year, Senator Reid and I utilized a C-21. We flew 
commercially to Jakarta, Indonesia, and then we flew a C-21 from 
Jakarta to East Timor. There were no commercial flights we could take 
over there at that time. Then we had to fly back. Then I went in that 
up to Okinawa, Okinawa to Shanghai, and over to Japan, all on routes 
that would have been very difficult commercially to do.
  This is a C-21. You are cramped. There is no bathroom. You can't 
stand up; you can't stretch out, and there was room for about five 
passengers on that and we were loaded. Flying those long distances, we 
would have to land and refuel, and get up and go, land and refuel.
  I am saying, if that is good enough for a Senator, why can't a 
general do that? I didn't say I have to have a Gulfstream V with all 
the luxury and the bathroom and a chef on board and a glass of 
champagne--no, we don't need all that stuff. I just need basic 
transportation to get me from point A to point B to C to D to E.
  Yet I come back to the United States and look around, and I see nice 
luxury jets being used by generals and admirals, people flying around 
the United States in these luxury aircraft. I wonder, do they really 
need to travel that way? Why don't they fly in a C-21? It is cheaper. 
We have a lot of them. Lord knows, we have a lot of C-21s. We have 
probably 71 of them. They are cheap. They are efficient. They are fast. 
They are not very comfortable, but they serve the purpose.
  So I just say what we have here is a game of one-upmanship. General 
so-and-so has a nice plane. Admiral so-and-so wants one, too. Another 
general wants one.
  Again, I say to my friend from Alaska, I am not saying we don't need 
a number of these aircraft. Some of them we do. Some of them have to be 
larger for longer flights, as in the Pacific, maybe the European 
theater. But we do not need them here in the continental United States, 
and that is what we are getting stung with.
  We ought to come to our senses. This is waste, pure and simple. I do 
not even mind, as I said earlier, a little perk of office for the 
generals, if they have to get in a plane and fly someplace. But they 
don't need this kind of perk. A C-21 is fine enough to fly around the 
continental United States for any general or admiral, for any member of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And a Gulfstream III is more than adequate 
for any Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or any admiral or 
general to fly from here to Europe.
  I would say to the Senator from Alaska, a Gulfstream III can fly from 
here, land in Gander, land in Iceland, it can refuel, or it can land 
over in Shannon, Ireland, and refuel and make any city in Europe with 
one-stop refueling--one stop. They do not need the Gulfstream V. 
Corporate executives fly all the time from the United States to Europe 
in Gulfstream IIIs. They don't need Gulfstream Vs.
  Of course, some of the bigger corporations, may have a Gulfstream V, 
but that is the private sector. If they want to do that, that is fine. 
We are talking about public servants here. Generals and admirals are no 
more or less public servants than the Senator from Hawaii, Iowa, 
Alaska, or California. They do not need to be mollycoddled. They do not 
need to be babied and pampered like some corporate executive.
  If a corporate executive wants to be babied and pampered, that is up 
to their board of directors and their stockholders. The American people 
are the stockholders of the Department of Defense. I do not believe our 
constituents want to spend their hard-earned tax dollars so some 
general or admiral can fly around in a Gulfstream V in luxurious 
comfort while we have troops on food stamps and while we are trying to 
raise the pay of those on the bottom.
  So I say let's take a little time here. Let's take a breather. They 
do not need to lease the nine aircraft right now.
  Let's take a look at the GAO report. Let's give the Department of 
Defense 1 year to come back, and let's see their justification.
  I ask the Senator from California again for that justification for 
the RFPs that just went out:

       Aircraft should be able to fly no-wind range of 5,000 
     nautical miles.

  Why?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Why?
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven and a half minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield my friend 4 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not take 4 minutes, but I 
appreciate the Senator from California yielding me time.
  Why? Why 5,000 miles? That is the threshold. The objective is the 
``Aircraft shall be able to fly no-wind range of 5,000 nautical miles 
carrying a full passenger and crew complement, plus their baggage.'' 
Why? We do not know why, but that is what they said.
  The GAO report says, as the Senator from California said, there is no 
justification for it. They plucked the numbers out of thin air. They 
cooked the books, and I do not like it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield on the remaining time he has? I 
thank my friend for joining me. This is someone who knows what it is to 
fly military aircraft. I could not have a better partner on this 
amendment than Tom Harkin.
  I want to close this particular portion, and then we will have a few 
minutes left to respond to the criticism that I am sure will now be 
leveled at us from some very astute people.
  Here is the point: Last year when we got in this fight, they told us: 
Oh, no, they were not going to go out and get these Gulfstreams. We 
said we thought they were; nothing in this language precludes it. They 
went out with an RFP. We were right: Luxury planes, $50 million a copy 
if you were to buy it.
  Secondly, we said OK to our friends, you don't believe us; we will 
have a GAO report, the nonpartisan arm of Congress, investigate. That 
is what they do, they investigate. Guess what they said. ``Operational 
support airlift requirements are not sufficiently justified.'' Guess 
what else. The Department of Defense says they agree. So why are we in 
this bill allowing for leases of nine jets which are not defined? They 
can well be these luxury jets. I thank my friend and ask for his final 
comments.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to anyone who is watching this debate, get on your 
computer, get on the Internet and dial up www.gulfstream.com. Dial up 
gulfstream.com and take a look at the Gulfstream V and Gulfstream III, 
I say to my constituents, or anyone who is watching--gulfstream.com. 
Dial it up and take a look at the Gulfstream V and ask yourself: Does a 
general or an admiral or anyone who is a public servant really need 
this kind of luxury? The answer, I think, will be obvious.
  I reserve any remaining time.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 4\1/2\ 
minutes, and the Senator from Alaska has 45 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to yield 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Kansas and 10 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii. I want 
to start off by saying we are talking about UC-35 support aircraft 
under a pilot lease program. I do not know what this business is about 
someone saying last year--I do not know the straw man.

[[Page 10435]]

Last year, I said we expected them to lease intercontinental aircraft 
of a large size, and they did. This time we are telling you we expect 
them to lease UC-35-type aircraft for operational and support utility 
purposes.
  There are nine planes authorized to be leased--three for the Army, 
three for the Navy, and three for the Marine Corps--to replace planes 
that are aging, many of them more than 30 years old, older than the 
pilots who are flying them.
  It is time we woke up to the fact that it costs so much to operate 
them, so much to maintain them that it is too expensive. We are trying 
to modernize without buying so many airplanes. We want to lease them.
  This is a pilot program, as was the one last year, to see what the 
cost will be as we have to replace this fleet. It is an aging fleet. As 
a matter of fact, we bought the first G-3 the first year I was the 
chairman of the subcommittee in 1981. Those planes are now over 20 
years old, the 21s are over 30 years old, and we have to replace them.
  We have two pilot projects: One is to lease the larger ones and one 
is to lease these smaller ones. We are going to see what it costs us, 
what the maintenance costs are.
  I am getting tired of these GAO reports written by people who do not 
know what they are talking about, and we are going to do something 
about that, too. That same person who has been writing these reports 
has condemned every airplane we have bought in the last 5 years. It is 
time we stopped listening to the people who do not know what they are 
talking about.
  These are pilot programs to lease aircraft, instead of replacing 
them, to determine what the maintenance costs will be, what will the 
cost to the Government be if we pursue a leasing program, which most 
major businesses do now, rather than buying aircraft. I think it will 
be cost effective. But above all, this is a program to determine the 
cost, whether there is a choice for us, instead of buying replacements, 
to lease these aircraft. Until we put the pilot programs in place, we 
will not know.
  I think this is the rational thing to do. I have seen a lot of straw 
people, but you get on the www.gulfstream. com all you want and look at 
the beautiful airplanes. They are not what we are talking about. We 
have not bought any of those either. We have not bought planes such as 
those they will see advertised for commercial purposes. We bought them 
for military purposes. They are stripped down, and they are functional 
aircraft. The ones we leased last year are functional now. I invite my 
colleagues to take a ride on one and look at them.
  As a practical matter, right now, I yield to my friend--
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. No, you wouldn't yield to me. I am not going to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yielded to my friend.
  Mr. STEVENS. You didn't yield to me.
  Mrs. BOXER. I did certainly yield to you.
  Mr. STEVENS. No, you didn't.
  Mrs. BOXER. I did; I did.
  Mr. STEVENS. On your time. If you want to spend your time, I am happy 
to use it. Mr. President, on her time I yield to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield on your time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Fine. I yielded to you on my time, but if that is how you 
want to do it, fine. I will say this: There is nothing in this language 
that says you are leasing a particular type of aircraft. This is the 
same language that was used which gave the Air Force the ability to get 
the Gulfstreams.
  If my friend wants to change the language, that is great, but the 
language is the same. The Air Force took that language and is buying 
luxury jets, and besides which the GAO says do not get any more because 
they do not even know what they have they are so disorganized over 
there when it comes to the operational airlift.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the language is exactly the same; the 
Senator is right. It is for leasing aircraft for operational support 
and utility airlift purposes, and it specifically says it is a 
multiyear pilot program. There is not an expanded program as has been 
represented. It is nine planes total to see what the costs will be of 
operations under this pilot-type program as compared to the cost of 
buying such an aircraft and flying it for military purposes.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding. The 
way I understand the amendment, as crafted by the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa and the distinguished Senator from California, it is that 
they would strike the appropriations process to lease UC-35 aircraft. 
We are not talking about--I took some notes--either Gulfstreams or 
Boeing 727s or Learjets and, as a matter of fact, I do not think, with 
all due respect to my colleagues, we are talking about pampering or 
mollycoddling or glasses of champagne in regard to this aircraft.
  We are talking about basically the operational support airlift 
aircraft, and the capability and the importance that these aircraft 
have in performing the missions as deemed appropriate by the Secretary 
of Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Secretary of Army, 
all three of which have put these particular aircraft--nine UC-35s--on 
their unfunded list.
  So if we are going to go to ``gulfstream.com''--I don't know if the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps has a dot com or the Secretary of the 
Navy or the Secretary of the Army, but they certainly had these 
aircraft on the unfunded list.
  Now, let me talk a minute about the GAO report. The Senator from 
California was exactly right when she stated the response from the 
Department of Defense to the GAO and all the criticism of the GAO. As a 
matter of fact, let me say something about the GAO. It is a lot like an 
economist. I hope someday to find an expert witness from the General 
Accounting Office with one arm so he can't say ``on the other hand.'' I 
don't know how many times, when I had the privilege of being the 
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the other body, we would 
have GAO reports that were highly critical of many of the programs that 
we had under our jurisdiction.
  I am finding out in the Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services 
Committee, and, yes, the Agriculture Committee--we ought to have it 
before the Ethics Committee--but, at any rate, in these three 
committees, we still have expertise in the GAO. Sometimes it is very 
helpful and other times I think a little myopic.
  But at any rate, this is what the Department of Defense says in 
regards to the GAO report. They agree.

       The Department agrees with many of the findings in the GAO 
     report. Accordingly, it will take the GAO's findings into 
     consideration in future determinations of operational support 
     airlift requirements.

  So they agree that this inventory should be based solely on joint 
wartime readiness requirements of the commands as opposed to any kind 
of personal use, as described in great detail by my two friends and 
colleagues.

       The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on 
     the GAO draft report.

  I do not think that is the issue. The issue is whether or not we will 
lease nine. And they would go three to the Army, three to the Navy, and 
certainly three to the U.S. Marine Corps. They are on the unfunded 
list.
  Now, if this amendment is successful, they will not be leased and 
they will not replace, as the distinguished chairman has pointed out, 
aging aircraft, C-12s. I think, over the long term, this will provide a 
greater test to see, under a cost-benefit standard, as to whether or 
not this is in the best interests of the taxpayer, as we provide this 
aircraft.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I don't have time. I will see at the end, if I can ask 
for more time, and I would be delighted to yield to my good friend.
  In war, this fleet--I am talking about operational support airlift 
aircraft--is maintained and ready to provide the commander quick 
transportation and to remote locations.

[[Page 10436]]

  The distinguished Senator from Iowa said--if I can find my notes--
that we are not at war. Well, we are not at war. Some people in Kosovo 
might challenge that. But we are involved in 141 nations. We have U.S. 
troops--men and women in uniform--in 141 nations. Fifty-five percent of 
all the nations in the world have U.S. troops stationed in those 
countries. The operational airlift capacity that is provided by these 
nine UC-35 aircraft is absolutely vital on those missions.
  What am I talking about? Joe Ralston is the new Supreme Allied 
Commander. He took the place of Wesley Clark. The first obligation, as 
he told me in a courtesy call, is to pay as many courtesy visits as he 
can to his counterparts in Russia. How is he going to get there?
  What happens if something breaks out in Kosovo? How does he get 
there? No, we are not at war, but in terms of our obligations and in 
terms of our military being stretched and stressed and hollow, it seems 
to me we ought to be very careful when we talk about operational 
support airlift aircraft.
  Let me give you another example.
  I have a congressional fellow in my office. He is an F-15 pilot. I 
know one case where his aircraft, in support of Operation Southern 
Watch--that is to prevent drugs from coming into this country--had to 
divert due to a massive fuel leak. Again, in regards to this 
operational support airlift aircraft, basically what happened, it was 
dispatched with maintenance crews and the very critical parts to fix 
the aircraft very quickly and return it to mission ready status.
  That is what these aircraft are used for. As a matter of fact, I have 
here a statement that only 5 percent of these aircraft, in terms of 
missions, were ever even used by generals.
  Here it is: In fiscal year 1999, less than 5 percent of the 
operational support missions were for generals or admirals. What does 
the 95 percent do? The operational support airlift mission does 
provide--as determined by the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of 
the Army, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps--efficient and 
effective transportation of commanders, key staff personnel, couriers, 
critical spare parts, and equipment in support of both peacetime and 
wartime operations.
  These missions, according to the people who fly them, are typically 
unpredictable, high priority, and require very short notice in regards 
to the airlift of the people, the cargo, and the mail. These lifts are 
normally in support of contingency deployments--goodness knows, we have 
those today in 141 nations --not compatible with commercial 
transportation or larger aircraft.
  The critical delays in the transportation of senior leaders, key 
staff personnel, urgently needed parts, supplies, and software could 
ultimately impact unit effectiveness and combat readiness.
  I want to say, in closing, that my distinguished friend from Iowa 
referred to a so-called--I know he was not being specific in regards to 
the Marine Corps--``General Smith'' in the Marine Corps who would look 
around to other generals who might have a Gulfstream or a 727 or a 
Learjet, or whatever, and say: Gee whiz, I would like to have that 
perk.
  I just want to set the record straight. I asked the Marine Corps, I 
asked the Commandant: What about this statement, Mr. Commandant? I am 
talking about ``General Jim Jones.'' And this is the statement that 
worried me because it is very similar to the statements that have been 
made on the floor by the proponents of this amendment. The response 
was:

       The Pentagon already has enough aircraft to taxi Generals 
     and Admirals around the world. In fact, they have more than 
     300 executive aircraft, including more than 100 jets suitable 
     to transport high-ranking officers.

  I asked the Commandant, I said: Will you please comment about this 
statement. And the response was:

       The 3 UC-35s are for Active Marine Corps forces, not the 
     Navy.
       The Marine Corps does not provide executive airlift.

  Let me repeat that: The United States Marine Corps, according to the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, does not provide executive airlift.

       [The Marine Corps has] a small fleet (24) of Operational 
     Support Airlift aircraft that are tied directly to a Joint 
     Staff validated wartime requirement. . ..
       These aircraft support Marine Forces deployed [around the 
     world].
       The need to replace----

  And this is what the chairman of the committee was trying to point 
out--

     aging/obsolete CT-39G aircraft has been accelerated by the 
     transfer of 2 of the Marine Corps 3 remaining CT-39s to the 
     Navy. . .

  We do not even have the obsolete aircraft. That is nothing new for 
the Marine Corps. We do not even have that.
  I continue with the answer in regards to that statement that has been 
stated by the Commandant:

       The increased performance and short field capability of the 
     UC-35 will ensure OSA support to forward deployed Marine 
     Corps forces remains viable well into the 21st century.

  Again, I am quoting from the Commandant:

       The Marine Corps has placed 3 UC-35s on the Commandant's 
     FY00 APN Unfunded Priority List in order to accelerate 
     delivery to the West Coast and Okinawa to support Marine 
     forces.
       [These] Missions are typically unpredictable, high 
     priority, and require short notice airlift of people, cargo, 
     and mail. These lifts are normally in support of contingency 
     deployments not compatible with commercial transportation, 
     common user airlift, or other organic airlift.

  That is a long way from being mollycoddled or thinking that you must 
have a perk aircraft because some other admiral or general might have a 
perk aircraft.
  I agree with the Senators from Iowa and California, we must make sure 
that the Department of Defense, as is indicated by their response, 
adheres to the GAO report, without question.
  Nobody wants to soak the taxpayer for any kind of generals' special 
fleet. That is not what this does. This amendment would strike nine 
unfunded priority requests by the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary 
of the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I will put that 
dot com at the end of my remarks and hope people will pay attention to 
the people who have that responsibility.
  I hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am not a pilot. However, I believe that 
in this body I spend more time on aircraft than other Members.
  My home is in Hawaii. Whenever I leave the city of Washington to 
return home, I must prepare myself for 11 hours and 15 minutes of 
flight time. In that sense, I believe I am an experienced person when 
it comes to flying. However, in my case, because of the uncertainty of 
the schedule in the Senate, we cannot make reservations 3 or 4 months 
ahead of time. I have had a reservation for this Friday, but I just 
canceled that because I think we are going to be handling 
appropriations measures. As a result, if something should come about 
making it possible for me to fly back to Hawaii this Friday, I may be 
able to get a flight, leaving at some strange hour, economy class, 
which I don't mind. But at the end of the trip, I usually can get home 
to my apartment and spend an evening of rest.
  The men who fly these planes have special responsibilities. When they 
get on a flight to go to Russia, they are not going to be escorted to a 
fancy hotel as soon as they land. They are expected to go to a meeting 
at that point. The least we can provide our commanders is some rest and 
some comfort before they get into some big business.
  Secondly, these are not just any old aircraft. They have to be 
specially equipped. In wartime and in peacetime, these planes are their 
headquarters. They make command decisions on these flights. They are 
expected to be in contact with the men and women under their command at 
all times. We are fortunate. In a sense, we are 8-to-8 employees. We 
get to work about 8 o'clock and we leave work about 8. A military 
commander is like a police officer. He is on duty 24 hours a day. These 
aircraft must be equipped to be able to provide support for his 24-
hour-a-day responsibility.

[[Page 10437]]

  Yes, we do have 71 Learjets in the inventory at this time. That is a 
large fleet, 71 Learjets. But they are getting pretty old and 
inadequate for the assignments. Within 5 years, about 45 are going to 
be retired. Within 10 years, we will find that all of these will be 
gone.
  We have 707s. I don't know how many of my colleagues have been flying 
on 707s recently, but they are considered pretty old, 35 years old. 
Whether we like it or not, we will have to retire these aircraft. Yes, 
we have C-22s, the 727. They are 25 years old. They can't last forever. 
They are going to be retired pretty soon.
  A third consideration: This provision in our bill does not specify 
the name of the aircraft. We do this deliberately because we don't want 
to favor one company over another. If we put in the G-5 that we are 
favoring one company, the Grumman, or if we put in something else, we 
are going to be favoring another company. That is not our wish. We want 
this to undergo a competitive system. I think we have fulfilled that 
requirement by this amendment.
  Overall, there is another consideration. We have been speaking of 
admirals and generals. Much of the time you will find that these 
aircraft are being used by our civilian leaders, Cabinet people. Just 2 
days ago, the Secretary of State went to Syria, to Damascus, to attend 
the funeral of President Assad. She did not go on Pan American or TWA. 
She went on a military aircraft. I would hope that we Americans would 
want our Secretary of State to travel in an aircraft worthy of her 
position. We can easily say United Airlines is good enough for me, why 
is it not good enough for general so-and-so? Well, if he is going home 
for vacation, he should take United Airlines or Delta, whatever 
airlines he wants to take. But these aircraft are not being used for 
personal purposes. They are being used for military purposes. I hope we 
will understand this. I hope when the vote is called, we will vote 
against this.
  I would support my colleagues from Iowa and California if I at any 
time thought these aircraft were perks. They are not perks. Any person 
who is willing to command troops and stand in harm's way in my behalf 
and in behalf of the people of the United States, I say a G-5 is good 
for them. If we get something better than that, so be it. Nothing is 
too good for them.
  I hope my colleagues will support the leadership and managers of this 
measure and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 23 minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from California has 4 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from 
California 2 minutes and apologize. She did recognize me for a four-
line comment.
  I yield myself what time I use to make this statement: The issue has 
been raised about large aircraft. That is a different issue. We have 
gone back and checked what this issue is. This is support aircraft. The 
Air Force told us today they will have to add $900 million to the 
budget to maintain and upgrade the existing support aircraft for the 
next 10 years. Leasing these smaller aircraft to replace them will cost 
$525 million over the next 10 years. If our pilot program works, these 
aircraft in what we call the CINC Support Pilot Program will save $275 
million. I think that is a good idea. It makes sense to try it for the 
UC-35s, and I hope the Senate will support that.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska for giving 
me a little bit of time. I began to doubt my own memory, but I am glad 
that he agreed that I did, in fact, yield to him. Of course, I have 
tremendous respect for him, but I don't agree with him on this 
particular issue.
  I want to address what one of my dearest friends in the Senate, 
Senator Inouye said. He said: I don't want to see our generals and 
people who put their lives on the line for their country flying around 
in a commercial jet.
  I totally understand that. I didn't disagree with him on that. I say 
to my friend from Hawaii that I personally don't want the generals 
traveling around via United or TWA.
  That is not what this is about. I want to make sure we have the 
appropriate number of operational support aircraft in the fleet. We 
know--because the GAO took a long time investigating--that in fact the 
joint staff has not maintained records documenting its previous 
requirement reviews, so it is not possible to determine whether some 
options for reducing requirements were examined.
  I say to my friend from Hawaii that the issue isn't that we shouldn't 
have operational support aircraft. Of course, we have to and we must. 
But why on Earth do we go ahead in this appropriations bill with 
language identical to that which we saw last year which resulted in the 
Air Force going out with a proposal for six of the most expensive 
luxury jets? We now have the same language for nine jets. There is no 
limit on language that the Navy or the Army can come back with. That is 
why we are structuring it. We are simply saying it would be fiscally 
responsible.
  I am one of the people who, years ago when I was in the House, 
found--I forget how much it was--I think it was an $11,000 coffeepot, 
something like that, and the expensive wrenches and spare parts the 
military was using. Every time I got up on the floor of the House I was 
truly lectured: You don't know what you are saying. There is no backup 
for this. Eventually they believed we were right. They weren't going 
out for competitive bids for these spare parts.
  I question no one in this Senate in terms of their wanting the best 
defense we can have. But I don't think we get the best defense when we 
waste dollars.
  I am suggesting that the language in this appropriations bill, 
believe it or not, doesn't have a cap. Am I right on that point? It has 
no cap. It has no dollar figure. It only caps the number of aircraft to 
nine. But if they do what the Air Force did--Senator Stevens says they 
won't, and perhaps they won't--but if they did do what the Air Force 
said, it would be almost one-half billion dollars.
  Our amendment says strike that language. Let's have more of a review. 
Let's not waste money.
  We weren't born yesterday. We know people love to travel in luxury. 
There is not one person listening to this debate who wouldn't enjoy 
kicking back on this type of luxury jet.
  Let's show a picture of it. That is not the question. But the issue 
is whether taxpayers have to spend that much money when we don't know 
what is in the requirements. We don't know what planes are in the Air 
Force, the Marines, or the Army. We do not have a study. It simply says 
operational support airlift requirements are not sufficiently 
justified. We don't know what is in the garage. Let's put it that way. 
That was the verb I was looking for. We don't know what is in the 
garage. Let's not go out and willy-nilly allow them to get an 
additional nine aircraft. These are beautiful aircraft. There is no 
question they are wonderful. But we were told: Oh, well. Maybe the 
Senator from Alaska believed that he said he fully expected them to get 
the Gulfstream. I remember the debate a little differently. The debate 
was that we were not sure what they were going to wind up getting. They 
were going to wind up getting these. Just because the Air Force has 
them doesn't mean we have to have them in the Army. It doesn't mean we 
have to have them in the Navy.
  I think Senator Harkin was right. He said he knows airplanes. He 
knows aircraft. This is about luxury. What the military should be about 
is mission. What is the mission? What do we need and what do we have? 
The GAO report clearly is telling us they do not know what they have.

[[Page 10438]]

  I think it is rather embarrassing; they do not know what they have. 
Yet we are going ahead as if everything was wonderful. No one on our 
side of the argument--we had over 30 people last time--has ever said 
that we don't have anything but the greatest respect for our generals 
and our admirals. But we have respect for the taxpayers. Senators can 
argue with one another. I don't know what we appropriate for the GAO 
every year, but they have some very smart investigators. They made an 
investigation and said: We don't know what they have.
  Why should we get any more until we really know for sure?
  Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the operational support airlift fleet has 
decreased from 520 in 1995 to 364 today. We are reducing the number of 
these aircraft. Now we are starting a pilot project of leasing them to 
see if we can save even more money. But we must go through the concept 
of replacing these aging aircraft.
  By the way, one last comment as a pilot: People say: Well, they can 
land and take off, and they can land and take off, and they can land 
and take off. I am also a pilot. Every time you let down and land and 
take off again, you use more fuel than if you fly straight through. 
These planes are designed to save us money by having ``the legs,'' as 
we call it, to go the distance and not have to stop and burn more fuel 
as they land and take off.
  Does the Senator wish any more time?
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I serve notice that 
I intend to move to table the amendment of the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I need to find out whether it is proper 
for us to go ahead and have this vote now. We had intended to complete 
the Wellstone amendment. Does it meet with the approval of both sides 
to proceed with this amendment now? I want to make a statement before 
we have the rollcall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been asked for.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, following this vote, I ask unanimous 
consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided on the Wellstone 
amendment so the Senator can explain his amendment and we can respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Following that, it is my intention to move to go to 
third reading and have final passage on this bill. I serve notice on 
all those involved that we will have a managers' package following the 
vote on this amendment before taking up the Wellstone amendment. If 
there is no further objection, after the Wellstone amendment, we will 
go to third reading and have final passage immediately after that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no further 
second-degree amendments to any amendment on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table 
amendment No. 3311. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--32

     Abraham
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Domenici
     Rockefeller
     Specter
  The amendment (No. 3311) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Burns be added to the Baucus amendment No. 3372 as an original 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendments Nos. 3177, As Modified, 3178, As Modified, 3282, As 
  Modified, 3285, As Modified, 3287, As Modified, 3290, As Modified, 
   3294, As Modified, 3295, As Modified, 3297, As Modified, 3313, As 
    Modified, 3333, As Modified, 3340, As Modified, 3345, 3347, As 
 Modified, 3359, As Modified, 3361, 3372, As Modified, 3376, and 3377, 
                                En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk the second managers' 
package with the amendments that have been agreed to on both sides, as 
modified. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3177, As Modified, 3178, As Modified, 3282, As 
Modified, 3285, As Modified, 3287, As Modified, 3290, As Modified, 
3294, As Modified, 3295, As Modified, 3297, As Modified, 3313, As 
Modified, 3333, As Modified, 3340, As Modified, 3345, 3347, As 
Modified, 3359, As Modified, 3361, 3372, As Modified, 3376, and 3377) 
were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                    amendment no. 3177, as modified

   (Purpose: To set aside $6,000,000 to support smart maps and other 
                   intelligent spatial technologies)

       At an appropriate place in the substituted original text, 
     insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $6,000,000 may be made available to 
     support spatio-temporal database research, visualization and 
     user interaction testing, enhanced image processing, 
     automated feature extraction research, and development of 
     field-sensing devices, all of which are critical technology 
     issues for smart maps and other intelligent spatial 
     technologies.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3178, as modified

(Purpose: To set aside $7,000,000 for the procurement of the integrated 
  bridge system for special warfare rigid inflatable boats under the 
       Special Operations Forces Combatant Craft Systems program)

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the funds appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', up to $7,000,000 may 
     be made

[[Page 10439]]

     available for the procurement of the integrated bridge system 
     for special warfare rigid inflatable boats under the Special 
     Operations Forces Combatant Craft Systems program.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3282, as modified

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding the payment by the 
Secretary of the Air Force of $92,974.86 to the New Jersey Forest Fire 
    Service as reimbursement for costs incurred in fighting a fire 
 resulting from a training exercise at Warren Grove Testing Range, New 
                                Jersey)

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the 
     Senate that the Secretary of the Air Force should, using 
     funds specified in subsection (b), pay the New Jersey Forest 
     Fire Service the sum of $92,974.86 to reimburse the New 
     Jersey Forest Fire Service for costs incurred in containing 
     and extinguishing a fire in the Bass River State Forest and 
     Wharton State Forest, New Jersey, in May 1999, which fire was 
     caused by an errant bomb from an Air National Guard unit 
     during a training exercise at Warren Grove Testing Range, New 
     Jersey.
       (b) Source of Funds.--Funds for the payment referred to in 
     subsection (a) should be derived from amounts appropriated by 
     title II of this Act under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air National Guard''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3285, as modified

      (Purpose: To set aside $18,900,000 to meet certain unfunded 
requirements for MH-60 aircraft of the United States Special Operations 
                                Command)

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the funds appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', up to $18,900,000 may 
     be made available for MH-60 aircraft for the United States 
     Special Operations Command as follows: up to $12,900,000 for 
     the procurement of probes for aerial refueling of 22 MH-60L 
     aircraft, and up to $6,000,000 for the procurement and 
     integration of internal auxiliary fuel tanks for 50 MH-60 
     aircraft.
                                  ____



                    Amendment No. 3287, as Modified

(Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of an Emergency One Cyclone II 
 Custom pumper truck to the Umatilla Indian Tribe, the current lessee)

       Under the heading Chemical Agents and Munitions 
     Destruction, Defense insert before the period the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That the amount available under 
     Operation and maintenance shall also be available for the 
     conveyance, without consideration, of the Emergency One 
     Cyclone II Custom Pumper truck subject to Army Loan DAAMO1-
     98-L-0001 to the Umatilla Indian Tribe, the current lessee''.
                                  ____



                    Amendment No. 3290, as Modified

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec.  . (a) Prohibition.--No funds made available under 
     this Act may be used to transfer a veterans memorial object 
     to a foreign country or entity controlled by a foreign 
     government, or otherwise transfer or convey such object to 
     any person or entity for purposes of the ultimate transfer or 
     conveyance of such object to a foreign country or entity 
     controlled by a foreign government, unless specifically 
     authorized by law.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Entity controlled by a foreign government.--The term 
     ``entity controlled by a foreign government'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 2536(c)(1) of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Veterans memorial object.--The term ``veterans memorial 
     object'' means any object, including a physical structure or 
     portion thereof, that--
       (A) is located in a cemetery of the national Cemetery 
     System, war memorial, or military installation in the United 
     States;
       (B) is dedicated to, or otherwise memorializes, the death 
     in combat or combat-related duties of members of the United 
     States Armed Forces; and
       (C) was brought to the United States from abroad as a 
     memorial of combat abroad.''
                                  ____



                    Amendment No. 3294, as Modified

(Purpose: To make available $5,000,000 for research, development, test, 
 and evaluation for the Air Force for Advanced Technology (PE603605F) 
              for the LaserSpark countermeasures program)

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Air Force'', up to $5,000,000 may be made available under 
     Advanced Technology for the LaserSpark countermeasures 
     program.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3295, as modified

(Purpose: To make available $3,000,000 for research, development, test, 
  and evaluation, Defense-Wide for Logistics Research and Development 
Technology Demonstration (PE603712S) for a Silicon-Based Nanostructures 
                                Program)

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'' for Logistics Research and Development 
     Technology Demonstration, up to $2,000,000 may be made 
     available for a Silicon-Based Nanostructures.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3297, as modified

(Purpose: To make available $50,000,000 for research, development, test 
and evaluation, Defense-Wide for directed energy technologies, weapons, 
                              and systems)

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide,'' up to $50,000,000 may be made available for 
     High Energy Laser research, development, test and evaluation 
     (PE 0602605F, PE 0603605F, PE 0601108D, PE 0602890D, and PE 
     0603921D). Release of funds is contingent on site selection 
     for the Joint Technology Office referenced in the Defense 
     Department's High Energy Laser Master Plan.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3313, as modified

 (Purpose: To modify the funds available to offset the effects of low 
             utilization of plant capacity at the Arsenals)

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' for 
     Industrial Mobilization Capacity, $56,500,000 plus in 
     addition $11,500,000 may be made available to address 
     unutilized plant capacity in order to offset the effects of 
     low utilization of plant capacity on overhead charges at the 
     Arsenals.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3333, as modified

(Purpose: To make available up to $3,000,000 for Other Procurement for 
  the Air Force for certain analyses of the restart of the production 
                       line for the U-2 aircraft)

       In the appropriate place in the Bill, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amounts appropriated in title III under 
     the heading ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $3,000,000 
     shall be made available for an analysis of the costs 
     associated with and the activities necessary in order to 
     reestablish the production line for the U-2 aircraft, at the 
     rate of 2 aircraft per year, as quickly as is feasible.

                              u-2 aircraft

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the managers for accepting my 
amendment making up to $3 million available to analyze the cost and 
feasibility of restarting the production line for the U-2 aircraft at a 
production rate of two aircraft per year.
  The U-2 has proven itself to be the workhorse of our airborne 
intelligence reconnaissance system. We saw the value of its 
capabilities graphically demonstrated during the Kosovo air operation, 
where it was an integral part of the air strike mission. Unfortunately, 
the Kosovo air operation also revealed how bare the cupboard is in 
terms of U-2 aircraft. The scarcity of U-2 aircraft in our inventory--
fewer than three dozen operational aircraft--was sharply accentuated by 
the Kosovo crisis. To move our U-2 assets into Kosovo, we were forced 
into the difficult position of drawing down our U-2 capabilities in 
other theatres.
  Would the Chairman agree that U.S. commanders-in-chief around the 
world, including the Southern Command, which is in charge of 
intelligence relating to the drug war in Colombia, rely extensively on 
the U-2 and yet lack the assets needed to completely fulfill their 
requirements, so that even in the absence of a regional crisis such as 
Kosovo, our U-2 resources are thinly stretched?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. We do, of course, have 
satellites that provide regular intelligence, but in terms of special 
missions and real-time needs on the ground, the reconnaissance 
capabilities provided by aircraft such as the U-2 and UAV are 
irreplaceable.
  Mr. BYRD. Given the current attrition rate of U-2 aircraft, 
approximately one a year, the situation will only worsen. Moreover, I 
understand that the research and development effort to develop unmanned 
aerial vehicles such as Global Hawk, while promising, is still 
immature. Yet we do not now have a U-2 production line in place to 
replace the aircraft that we lose through attrition. In the interests 
of ensuring that we have an adequate inventory of

[[Page 10440]]

reconnaissance aircraft to meet the needs of the commanders-in-chief, 
would the Chairman agree that it would be prudent for the Defense 
Department to keep its options open and, at a minimum, prepare an 
analysis of the cost and feasibility of restarting the U-2 production 
line?
  Mr. STEVENS. I concur with the Senator. This is a matter on which the 
Committee should seek more thorough analysis.
  Mr. BYRD. I am hopeful that my amendment will provide that analysis. 
It is my intent, and I hope the Chairman would agree, that the findings 
of this analysis should be provided to Congress in an unclassified 
report prior to next April, when the next budget will be considered, so 
that we will have the necessary information on which to base our 
decisions.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree that such a report would be useful and timely, 
and I look forward to receiving it.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the chairman for his attention and his support.


                    amendment no. 3340, as modified

  (Purpose: To provide for the operation of current Tethered Aerostat 
                       Radar System (TARS) sites)

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Failure to operate and standardize the current Tethered 
     Aerostat Radar System (TARS) sites along the Southwest border 
     of the United States and the Gulf of Mexico will result in a 
     degradation of the counterdrug capability of the United 
     States.
       (2) Most of the illicit drugs consumed in the United States 
     enter the United States through the Southwest border, the 
     Gulf of Mexico, and Florida.
       (3) The Tethered Aerostat Radar System is a critical 
     component of the counterdrug mission of the United States 
     relating to the detection and apprehension of drug 
     traffickers.
       (4) Preservation of the current Tethered Aerostat Radar 
     System network compels drug traffickers to transport illicit 
     narcotics into the United States by more risky and hazardous 
     routes.
       (b) Of the funds appropriated in title VI under the heading 
     ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', 
     up to $23,000,000 may be made available to Drug Enforcement 
     Policy Support (DEP&S) for purposes of maintaining operations 
     of the 11 current Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) sites 
     and completing the standardization of such sites located 
     along the Southwest border of the United States and in the 
     States bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3345

      (Purpose: To set aside funds for maintaining the industrial 
   mobilization capacity at the McAlester Army Ammunition Activity, 
                               Oklahoma)

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to $3,800,000 
     may be available for defraying the costs of maintaining the 
     industrial mobilization capacity at the McAlester Army 
     Ammunition Activity, Oklahoma.


                    amendment no. 3347, as modified

 (Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 to support a tropical remote sensing 
                                 radar)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated in title VI under the 
     heading ``Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', up to 
     $5,000,000 may be made available for a ground processing 
     station to support a tropical remote sensing radar.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3359, as modified

  (Purpose: To repeal the prohibition on use of Department of Defense 
 funds for the procurement of a nuclear-capable shipyard crane from a 
                            foreign source)

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Section 8093 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79; 113 Stat. 1253) 
     is amended by striking subsection (d), relating to a 
     prohibition on the use of Department of Defense funds to 
     procure a nuclear-capable shipyard crane from a foreign 
     source.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3361

  (Purpose: To establish a special subsistence allowance for certain 
  members of the uniformed services who are eligible to receive food 
                           stamp assistance)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.   . Of the funds provided within Title I of this Act, 
     such funds as may be necessary shall be available for a 
     special subsistence allowance for members eligible to receive 
     food stamp assistance, as authorized by law.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3372, as modified

      (Purpose: To set aside for preparation and training for the 
  digitization of FA-18 aircraft technical manuals, $5,200,000 of the 
  amounts appropriated for the Navy for RDT&E for the Navy technical 
                    information presentation system)

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Navy'' for the Navy technical information 
     presentation system, $5,200,000 may be available for the 
     digitization of FA-18 aircraft technical manuals.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3376

   (Purpose: To add funding to the Title II, Defense-wide, Research, 
 Development, Test, and Evaluation, for the Virtual Worlds Initiative)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds available in Title II under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation'' 
     (Defense-Wide) up to $2,000,000 may be made available to the 
     Special Reconnaissance Capabilities (SRC) Program for the 
     Virtual Worlds Initiative in PE 0304210BB.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3377

(Purpose: To add funding to the Procurement of Ammunition, Marine Corps 
            for procurement of ROCKETS, ALL TYPE, 83mm HEDP)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds available in Title III under the 
     heading ``Procurement of Ammunition, Navy/Marine Corps, up to 
     $5,000,000 may be made available for ROCKETS, ALL TYPE, 83mm 
     HEDP.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 3366, As Modified

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 
4 minutes equally divided on the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Can I go to third 
reading now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an order for 4 minutes of debate on 
the Wellstone amendment, followed by a vote on the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Following that, I will move to go to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the Wellstone amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a $290 billion budget 
altogether. This amendment takes $1 billion from procurement, not from 
readiness. This takes $1 billion. This overall budget is $3 billion 
more than the President requested. It puts the money into the title I 
program.
  This is a matter of priorities. This is a program that helps poor 
children in America, never mind that it helps them do better in school, 
never mind that it helps them graduate, never mind that it helps them 
contribute to our economy, never mind that it leads to less high school 
dropout, never mind it leads to less children winding up incarcerated 
and in prison.
  Vote for this because most of these children are under 4 feet tall 
and they are all beautiful and they deserve our support.
  The title I program is funded right now at a 35-percent level. This 
is a matter of priorities.
  People in the country believe we should do better by these children. 
We should do better by these children. It is $1 billion out of all the 
procurement--$57 billion--that goes to children in title I.
  I hope Senators will vote for this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a strange circumstance. The 
Senator's amendment, really, would be subject to a point of order if we 
had already raised the caps. We have not raised the caps, so this is 
not the time to make a point of order. But it is the time to point out 
that the Senator's amendment would move money from defense

[[Page 10441]]

into education, and it would violate the principle of the wall that we 
put up between defense and nondefense.
  I do hope that the Senate will support the committee in voting to 
table, and I do move to table this amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield back his 
time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to table Wellstone 
amendment No. 3366, as modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a 10-minute vote; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I remind the body, this is a 10-minute vote.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     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
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--15

     Boxer
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Rockefeller
     Specter
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                    Amendment No. 3176, As Modified

    (Purpose: To add $6,000,000 for research, development, test and 
 evaluation, Defense-wide, for the initial production of units of the 
   ALGL/STRIKER to facilitate early fielding of the ALGL/STRIKER to 
                       special operations forces)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senate. There is one 
amendment we left out of the managers' package. I would like to present 
it at this time. It is amendment No. 3176, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3176), as modified, was agreed to as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amounts appropriated in title IV under 
     the heading `'Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $6,000,000 may be made available for 
     the initial production of units of the ALGL/STRIKER to 
     facilitate early fielding of the ALGL/STRIKER to special 
     operations forces.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I was 
just asked why we didn't raise rule XVI to the amendments that were on 
the list. Although they were introduced, they were not called up. So 
the point of order has not been raised because they were not called up. 
I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I now ask for third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read a third time.


                    NAVAL ACADEMY BOARD OF VISITORS

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at the Naval Academy Board of Visitors 
meeting this week I learned that the Naval Academy is required to use 
funds generated by the Visitor's Center to repay a long-term government 
loan. I believe that these funds would be better utilized by the 
Midshipmen Welfare Fund that supports extra-curricular activities not 
covered by appropriated funds. Knowing of the strong leadership of the 
chairman and the Senator from Hawaii and support of our Service 
Academies, I inquire as to whether they would be willing to review this 
repayment program in conference, and if the facts merit, work to 
eliminate this requirement?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to assure the Senator that I will 
work with him and the other interested members to ensure that this 
matter is addressed in our conference in a manner that will provide a 
favorable resolution for the Academy.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I join with my chairman and will work to 
favorably resolve this item in conference.


                   C-5 Avionics Modernization Program

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the Chairman for 
taking the time to discuss an issue that is very important to my 
colleagues, myself, and national security--the modernization our 
strategic airlift fleet.
  In this year's Defense Appropriations report, there is a restriction 
on using procurement funds for avionics upgrades of the C-5As. The 
Report also appears to restrict the High Pressure Turbine Replacements. 
I do not believe that was the Committee's intent.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. The Committee does not believe this 
report language limits replacing C-5 High Pressure Turbines. Those 
replacements should occur to the entire C-5 fleet based on Defense 
Department requirements.
  Mr. BIDEN. I understand, however, that the Committee is concerned 
about the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) for the C-5 As. Just to 
clarify, there are two models of C-5s in the Air Force, 76 of the older 
A-model and 50 of the newer B-model. The C-5's mission is to take heavy 
loads over a long-distance. It is capable of carrying more cargo 
farther than any other plane in the United States' military.
  In particular, the C-5 regularly runs missions to and from Europe and 
the Pacific and the United States. For this reason, compliance with the 
International Civil Aviation Organization's rules in high-density 
flight areas is important for the entire fleet of C-5s. The AMP will 
bring C-5 aircraft into compliance with the new Global Air Traffic 
Management (GATM) standards established by the International Civil 
Aviation Organization. Compliance with GATM is important because it 
allows aircraft to use more operationally efficient airspace and lowers 
operational costs.
  This is one of the reasons that the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services specifically requested that the Secretary of the Air Force 
proceed to test AMP upgrades on both A and B models in its Fiscal Year 
2001 Defense Authorization Report and that both defense committees in 
the House of Representatives supported this program for the entire C-5 
fleet.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Committee is aware of the new standards, but is 
concerned that the Air Force is not investing in the proper mix of 
modernization and new aircraft to meet our strategic airlift needs.

[[Page 10442]]

  We are still waiting to receive the long overdue Mobility 
Requirements Study 2005 (MRS '05) that will clearly lay-out what our 
strategic airlift needs will be for the foreseeable future. In 
addition, once that requirement is clear, we will get the Air Force 
Analysis of Alternatives for Outsized/Oversized Airlift (AoA). This 
study will provide a clear understanding of what mix of aircraft will 
most efficiently and effectively meet the operational requirements of 
the military.
  When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, 
testified before our Committee, he expressed reservations about making 
further investments in the C-5A fleet.
  Mr. BIDEN. I share the Senator's concern that we have still not 
received MRS '05 and the AoA. However, my conversations with the Air 
Force lead me to believe that both A and B model planes are expected to 
be flown by the Air Force for 20 to 40 years to come, whether in 
Active-duty, Reserve, or Guard units.
  While I know that no one in the Senate cares more about the safety of 
our military personnel than my colleague from Alaska, I remain 
concerned that some increased risk will be incurred by aircrews flying 
planes that have not had AMP upgrades. AMP also includes the 
installation of important safety features like Traffic Alert and 
Collision Avoidance System and an enhanced all weather navigational 
system, the Terrain Awareness and Warning System. Some of these systems 
were mandated by Congress after the tragic death of Secretary Ron 
Brown.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct, I do not believe that the 
Committee's language endangers any of our aircrews. Instead, it is a 
delaying mechanism to prevent investing in these planes before we are 
sure that they will be flying for the next 20 years. If, in fact, these 
studies suggest that, then we will take another look at the needs of 
the A-models.
  Mr. BIDEN. I appreciate that commitment by my colleague. I would also 
like to clarify with the Senator from Alaska that he supports 
proceeding with AMP for the B-models.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. In that case, I think it important to consider the 
difficulty of proceeding with upgrading the C-5Bs without A models 
available to do regular missions to Europe where the compliance issues 
could become a problem.
  In addition, if I am correct about the continued use of the C-5As for 
decades to come, then not proceeding with the AMP for the A models will 
create a set of new problems.
  First, efficient use of aircrew members and crew interfly will be 
prevented because of the dissimilarities that would exist between A and 
B model avionics and navigation systems. This is particularly 
problematic when additional aircrew members are needed to meet Major 
Theater War requirements.
  Second, by attempting to maintain two separate avionics and 
navigation systems within the relatively small C-5 fleet (126 
airplanes), additional spares and support equipment will be necessary 
with increased unit costs.
  Already, the C-5 has been particularly hard-hit by the lack of 
necessary parts. This is likely to exacerbate that problem.
  Last, the language will also create changes in the existing contracts 
for these on-going programs. Until we know for sure what MRS '05 and 
the AoA will say, creating this new difficulty does not make sense.
  Mr. STEVENS. Again I say to the Senator that I think Chairman 
Shelton's testimony was very persuasive. He urged against using our 
scarce airlift resources on the A-model upgrades. However, my friend 
makes a good point that changing the program at this point, before we 
receive MRS '05 and the AoA may be premature. I am willing to re-
examine this issue when we go into the Conference with the House.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator for taking another look at this 
critical issue and again say that I agree with him on the need to get 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Air Force to submit their overdue 
studies.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to follow-up on what my 
colleague from Delaware has just mentioned.
  First and foremost, I would like to thank the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee for accepting my amendment No. 3352, which was 
co-sponsored by Senator Biden. This amendment restores full funding 
($92.5 million) for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds 
for C-5 modernization programs, including the C-5 Reliability 
Enhancement and Re-engining Program. This amendment, in addition to the 
Committee recommendation of $95.4 million requested by the Pentagon in 
procurement funds for C-5 modernization programs, will allow the 
current C-5 Galaxy modernization programs to continue for the upcoming 
Fiscal Year.
  I would like to point out the only question that we are discussing 
now is which C-5 Galaxies will be modernized. I would like to thank the 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for clarifying the committee's 
position on the C-5 High Pressure Turbine modernization. I also thank 
the Chairman for agreeing to consider allowing the expenditure of 
procurement funds for the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) on the 
C-5A models.
  Just yesterday, I was at Dover Air Force Base, home to 26 C-5Bs and 
10 C-5As. Each year, the community leaders, the base leadership, and 
the Delaware congressional delegation meet to discuss issues important 
to the Air Base. During a presentation by Colonel S. Taco Gilbert III, 
the commander of the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover, he mentioned the 
importance of this program for safely and efficiently operating the 
Galaxy.
  The AMP will allow the C-5 to operate safely, effectively and more 
reliably. Features like the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance 
System (TCAS) and the Terrain Awareness and Warning System are 
important safety measures for the crews flying our C-5s. Bringing the 
C-5 into compliance with the Global Air Traffic Management standards 
will allow the C-5 to use advantageous flight paths and reduce fuel 
consumption and other costs. Finally, the new equipment will increase 
the reliability rates for the C-5 Galaxy and allow off-the-shelf 
replacements for hard to replace parts.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, my three colleagues have discussed in 
great detail the issues surrounding C-5A modernization efforts. I 
understand the Chairman's concern with modernizing the C-5A and believe 
that we must take a serious look at how it fits into our nation's 
airlift requirements--an effort that is currently underway. At the same 
time, I believe it is important for us to keep our options open and 
slowing C-5A modernization efforts now might prove costly in the 
future, for the very reasons given by the Senator from Delaware.
  I am pleased that the Chairman is willing to re-examine this issue in 
conference. I am also thankful to the junior Senator from Delaware for 
his leadership on this issue. I thank the Chair.


                               casa c-212

  Ms. COLLINS. I would like to take a moment to discuss with the 
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations the 
potential needs of the Army National Guard and the Special Forces 
Groups, in particular the 10th and the 20th Special Forces Groups, for 
a short take-off and landing, fixed wing aircraft to meet their 
training and mission requirements. Special Forces units, in particular, 
require such aircraft to get in and out of ``hot spots'' and other 
situations and areas where no landing field exists.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Maine 
addressing the utility of a multi-function short take-off and landing 
fixed wing aircraft for the Army National Guard and the Special Forces 
Groups.
  Ms. COLLINS. I am concerned that the Special Forces Groups and the 
Army National Guard do not have sufficient aircraft available to meet 
their needs. In fact, I have been informed that, between October of 
1998 and September of 1999, the 10th and the 20th Special Forces Groups 
could not support 23 missions because of the lack of

[[Page 10443]]

aviation support available. As such, I would ask that the Army National 
Guard and the Special Forces Groups assess their needs for a short 
take-off and landing fixed wing aircraft and, in particular, the C-212 
STOL fixed wing aircraft. I ask further that the Army National Guard 
and the Special Forces Groups report to Congress on the results of 
their assessments within six months so that we can determine whether 
funds should be appropriated in fiscal year 2002 for the purchase of 
such aircraft. Mr. Chairman, do you support such an assessment and 
report to Congress?
  Mr. STEVENS. I do and will be interested in personally reviewing the 
reports in advance of the fiscal year 2002 appropriations cycle. I 
thank my colleague for her dedication and commitment to the armed 
forces.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his continued 
support for our nation's national defense.


              title III: shipbuilding and conversion, navy

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I seek recognition with the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the senior Senator from 
Alaska to discuss a very important matter to our national security. 
Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2001 national Defense 
authorization bill contain provisions that supported the President's 
budget request and authorized $1.51 billion for Navy procurement of two 
LPD-17 amphibious ships in FY2001.
  The LPD-17 program is a critical ship for the modernization of the 
Navy's amphibious force. It will carry more than 700 Marines and the 
equipment and means for them to get ashore and perform their mission--
whether that mission is combat related, peacekeeping or in response to 
crisis throughout the world. It is a Commandant of the Marine Corps, 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``there are no 
underutilized amphibious ships,'' and the testimony by Lieutenant 
General Rhodes before the Seapower Subcommittee where he stated that 
``the operational flexibility and forward presence our Amphibious Ready 
Groups represent will be significantly enhanced with the FY03 delivery 
of the first of 12 LPD-17 amphibious ships.'' He further stated, 
``these ships will overcome amphibious lift shortfalls.''
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleague, the 
senior Senator from Maine, in recognition of the importance of the LPD-
17 program and the importance of these ships to the overall 
modernization program of the Navy and Marine Corps. During 
consideration of the FY2001 Defense appropriations bill, concern 
regarding delays in the design and construction of the lead LPD ship at 
the lead shipyard led to a decision by the Committee to defer funding 
for the fifth and sixth ship of the class. The Committee did, however, 
recommend a total of $485 million for this program.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Alaska's 
support for the LPD-17 program, and would like to take a few minutes to 
discuss with the distinguished chairman the critical need for these 
ships.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have always been a supporter of the LPD-17 program and 
the Committee very much appreciates the need for the lift capacity of 
this ship. In fact, it is my understanding that the San Antonio and her 
11 sister ships will be the functional replacement for four classes of 
older amphibious ships. And in 2008, when the last LPD-17 class ship is 
scheduled to join the fleet, the amphibious force will consist of 36 
ships or 12 three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) consisting of one 
LHA or LHD, one LPD and one LSD.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making that point. As I 
discussed during the debate last week on the fiscal year 2001 Defense 
Authorization bill, the Armed Services Committee is working hard to 
come to terms with the force levels necessary to accomplish the many 
missions our Navy and Marine Corps are called on to accomplish.
  The increase to war fighting capability that LPD-17 brings is 
critical to our naval force's future success. The LPD-17's ability to 
accommodate new equipment, such as the Advanced Amphibious Assault 
Vehicle (AAAV), the Landing Craft Air Cushioned Vehicle (LCAC) and the 
vertical lift MV-22, and the remarkable communications, integrated 
computer technology and quality of life improvements are the qualities 
of the ship that the Marine Corps and Navy need to support the National 
Strategy and the Marine Corps' doctrine of Operational Maneuver From 
The Sea.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Maine for her work to establish 
and hold the necessary shipbuilding rate for the nation's defense. I 
also recognize that the sustained investment of $10 to $12 billion in 
the shipbuilding account is necessary to maintain a minimum 
shipbuilding rate of 8.7 ships per year.
  Specifically, in regard to the LPD-17 program, the committee 
recognizes that the Navy has never employed such a rigorous new 
approach for a new class of ships--wherein the goal is to have 95 
percent of the design work completed before construction begins, rather 
than much lower levels in previous designs. This is an important fact, 
because it means the design work will lead to efficient construction of 
these ships, and set the standard for the next generation ship designs.
  Ms. SNOWE. As always I am impressed by the chairman's knowledge and 
his grasp of the issues. We have worked closely over the past few weeks 
to determine how the Navy and industry stand in regard to their 
progress with this new ship class, and I appreciate that we are in 
agreement as to the value and need for this critical ship. I look 
forward to our continued work together in support of this program.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague for her dedication to this issue. 
During our trip to the shipyard in her state to examine new facilities 
and to meet with company officials first hand, I was impressed with the 
level of leadership, innovation, workmanship and coordination. I am 
also encouraged by information that has been forthcoming from the Navy 
and industry regarding their progress in resolving possible LPD-17 
program management issues. It is my intent that should additional 
funding become available, it will be applied to the uninterrupted 
construction of these necessary ships.
  Ms. SNOW. Again, I thank the chairman for his forthrightness, his 
knowledge and his desire to keep American strong. I would also like to 
commend him for his continued dedicated efforts to our men and women in 
uniform and the efforts he has undertaken in this most important 
appropriations bill to provide them with the compensation, tools and 
equipment they need to maintain America's pre-eminence in the world.


                    sustainable green manufacturing

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sustainable 
Green Manufacturing initiative. This is an important effort to help the 
Army reduce pollution in its key manufacturing processes by introducing 
clean technologies and techniques onto production lines. Partners in 
this initiative include the TACOM Armament Research and Development and 
Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, the National Defense Center 
for Environmental Excellence, The New Jersey Institute of Technology, 
and the Physical Science Laboratory of New Mexico State University.
  Mr. President the objectives of this initiative include the promotion 
of sound environmental principles in design, material selection and 
manufacturing of Army products; the reduction of Army costs throughout 
the product life-cycle by efficient use of resources; the development 
of sound and environmentally benign manufacturing practices by using 
the highest quality science and technology and applying these 
practices, methods and materials to the acquisition process. The House 
provide $7 million for this program in its Appropriation Bill and I 
urge the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member Senator Stevens and 
Senator Inouye to work during conference to provide this level of 
funding for this important program.

[[Page 10444]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Let me assure my colleague from New Jersey that I am 
aware of this important effort and I will do what I can in conference 
to ensure that the Sustainable Green program receives funding in 
FY2001.
  Mr. INOUYE. I too want to tell my friend from New Jersey that I will 
work with our chairman in conference to ensure funding for this 
important program.


              configuration management information system

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the Senate's 
attention to an important initiative called the Configuration 
Management Information system. CMIS was developed in an effort to 
provide the Department of Defense with a standard system that addresses 
the configuration structure and management requirements of complex 
military weapons systems, to include their hardware and software. 
Originally developed in 1990 to support Military Sealift Command's 
configuration management requirements, the CMIS architecture was 
identified as the best CM database structure across all DOD. CMIS has 
progressed through a series of incremental development cycles to 
include demonstrating compliance with Y2K requirements. Currently, 
responsibility for the CMIS database architecture is assigned to the 
Naval Air Systems Command for deployment into the operational 
environment.
  Xeta International Corporation has been tasked by the CMIS Program 
Management Office to identify platforms of weapons systems data for 
migration into CMIS. These platforms include the EA-6B, F-14, H-60, DD-
21, DDG-51, F-15, and F-16. Additionally, Xeta has been tasked with the 
responsibility to liaise and collect this data from various DOD Program 
Management Offices throughout the military. Xeta extracts the 
configuration management data from existing legacy databases, 
engineering drawings and other technical documentation in an effort to 
accurately populate data fields within the CMIS architecture. Once 
populated, this ``cradle-to-grave'' configuration management repository 
is utilized in many ways by a variety of DOD offices as well as 
contractors in order to accurately configure the product and to support 
life cycle maintenance of the weapons systems platforms. Additionally, 
Xeta has been tasked to develop a CMIS security capability (to include 
a multilevel secure computer environment) when operating in a Local or 
Wide Area Network (LAN/WAN).
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, no additional funds were included in 
the Senate bill for this project. I would like to ask my friend from 
Alaska, Senator Stevens, whether he is aware of these potential 
shortfalls?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate being made aware of the 
importance of the CMIS project, and that this program's goal will 
ultimately lead to great savings to the services by decreasing life 
cycle costs of a variety of weapon systems.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for 
those remarks. I concur that this is a project important for both 
Louisiana and the services. For that reason, I hope the Senator from 
Alaska would agree that the funding of this project should be a 
priority within the Navy's Operations and Maintenance accounts.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, CMIS needs support to be fully realized. 
The Department of the Navy should ensure that the funds within the 
President's budget are applied to this priority. I am hopeful that 
additional funds can be made available to fully implement CMIS.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, again, I thank the chairman, and I look 
forward to working with him on this project.


                         defense health program

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman, the senior 
Senator from Alaska, and the ranking minority, the senior Senator from 
Hawaii, for their long and effective leadership in evolving the Defense 
Health Program. The Senate bill added nearly $700 million to the 
President's request, funding the total Defense Health Program at $12.1 
billion for FY01. And, of great importance to me and many other members 
of this body, the Committee has once again committed the Department of 
Defense's medical science capabilities to the management of a major 
cancer research program, extending to breast, prostate, cervical, lung, 
and other cancers. There is over $330 million in this bill dedicated to 
cancer-related research.
  I would like to bring to the attention of the distinguished chairman 
and the ranking minority member an important area of cancer research--
the investigation of genealogical and genetic databases that can 
uncover medical precursors to cancer in humans. My state of Utah has a 
history of genealogical research that is known to the millions of 
Americans who routinely visit the family history websites that 
originate from Utah. But millions of Americans are also potentially 
benefiting from a lesser known program. This program is currently 
developing a genealogical database that will help identify and predict 
genetic structures associated with the development and, hopefully, 
prevention of, cancer.
  Mr. President, I wish to make you aware of the Utah Population 
Database which if a very promising development in the area of 
genealogical research related to cancer. This data base is housed at 
the University of Utah where scientists are learning to use this unique 
comprehensive genealogical set of data to help predict, detect, treat, 
and prevent cancer. I am therefore asking the distinguished chairman 
and ranking minority member to support the continued development and 
use of the Utah Population Database by increasing the University of 
Utah's program for genealogical cancer research in the coming fiscal 
year by an additional $12.5 million.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Utah for 
his kind remarks. The ranking member and I remain fully committed to 
continuing DOD participation in the national cancer research program. I 
want to assure the Senator that National Cancer Institute-designated 
comprehensive cancer centers, like the Huntsman Cancer Institute of 
Utah, are an important part of cancer research and a necessary element 
to the DOD effort. I find the Senator's request entirely reasonable and 
intend to assist this anticancer effort.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I, too, commend the Senator from Utah for 
his continuing support of this committee's effort to expand and improve 
cancer research. This is an important topic in my state of Hawaii, 
where the Cancer Research Institute at the University of Hawaii has 
been long committed to finding treatments for the many varieties of 
cancer common not only to Hawaii but to the rest of the nation. I 
strongly support the commitment of the chairman to the request made by 
the Senator from Utah.


                   navy information technology center

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to express my thanks for 
the manager's package that provides an additional fifteen million 
dollars in Navy O&M and RDT&E funding for the Navy Information 
Technology Center (ITC) in New Orleans.
  This additional funding represents an important portion of the 
request made by myself and the senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator 
Breaux. The Appropriations Committee's action ensures that the Navy and 
Defense-wide Human Resource Enterprise Strategy programs will continue 
at the Navy's Information Technology Center (ITC) in New Orleans.
  This funding provides for the further consolidation of Navy active 
duty and reserve personnel legacy information systems and enables the 
continuing transition of all Navy manpower and personnel systems into 
the enterprise-wide human resource strategy. However, I should stress 
that this is not simply a Navy program, but has taken on defense-wide 
significance under the leadership of the Program Executive Officer for 
Information Technology, Joe Scipriano, and his team located at the ITC 
in New Orleans.
  I want to express deep gratitude to Chairman Stevens and our ranking 
member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Daniel 
Inouye. Thanks also go to professional

[[Page 10445]]

staff Steven Cortese, Charles Houy, Tom Hawkins, Gary Reese, and Kraig 
Siracuse.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we are excited in Louisiana that the 
``enterprise strategy'' we are developing for human resources systems 
is recognized by the Appropriations Committee as a model for other 
service and DOD wide information systems. All of these legacy systems 
need to be modernized to become cost effective and interoperable. The 
committee's support for our efforts, and for other information 
technology additions to this bill, confirm the need to restructure and 
coordinate all of our service and DOD wide information systems. Only by 
doing so can we provide real-time information to our warfighters that 
improves both readiness and effectiveness of our troops.
  The ITC in New Orleans was just recently chartered as part of the 
Navy's year old Program Executive Office for Information Technology and 
Enterprise Management (PEO/IT). Specifically, the ITC is designated by 
the Navy's PEO/IT as the ``primary support command for enterprise 
software development.''
  The PEO/IT is the Navy's only PEO for Information Technology and has 
been delegated authority for the Navy Marine Corps Intranet, Enterprise 
Acquisition Management, the ITC, the Defense Integrated Military Human 
Resources System (DIMHRS), and other information technology programs. 
The PEO/IT's authority over these programs was chartered in November 
1999, well after the FY 2001 DOD budget process had commenced.
  Interim and additional funding for the ITC in New Orleans is critical 
in FY 2001. This funding will ensure that the ITC can continue to 
provide the Navy and DOD's unique enterprise strategy integration 
efforts. Only by pursuing this strategy can we guarantee that current 
human resources information systems and future systems are developed, 
integrated and managed in accordance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 
and other OMB initiatives based on the Government Performance Results 
Act. This enterprise strategy develops and integrates new and current 
legacy information systems so that they will all be interoperable and 
provide our service personnel and commanders in the field real-time, 
usable, human resource data about training, experience, and other human 
resource data from which our commanders can make deployment decisions, 
fulfill combat mission requirements, and improve readiness.
  Again Mr. President, I thank the chairman, and our ranking member, 
the senior Senator from Hawaii, for recognizing the importance of this 
effort. I look forward to working with them in future years to provide 
for its continued success.


   Nonlinear Acoustic Landmine Detection research and development at 
                    Stevens Institute of Technology

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with Senator 
Inouye and Senator Stevens an important Army research and development 
effort in nonlinear acoustic landmine detection being done at Stevens 
Institute of Technology in New Jersey.
  Mr. President, let me begin my thanking Chairman Stevens and Senator 
Inouye for their leadership last year in working with me to obtain $1 
million in funds to initiate this very promising effort, in which 
engineers at the Stevens Institute of Technology are applying expertise 
in non-linear acoustic phenomena to develop a new method for detection 
of mines and other buried man-made objects. The technology can 
differentiate between rocks, other solid objects, and actual land 
mines. This will improve landmine removal safety and speed, and 
contribute to our efforts to save lives and prevent injuries. With an 
additional $3 million the Stevens Institute can fully land this 
technology's development, which has so much promise for protecting our 
military personnel as well as civilian populations.
  Although the allocation's situation we faced in the Appropriations 
Committee in considering the DOD Appropriations measure made it very 
difficult to fund this effort, I look forward to working with Chairman 
Stevens and Senator Inouye in conference to continue this research 
effort. It is my understanding that the House has included $1.4 million 
related to this effort, half of which is intended specifically for the 
research and development at Stevens. But given the great life-saving 
promise of this technology, I hope to work with Chairman Stevens and 
Senator Inouye in achieving an increase of $3 million for the Stevens 
Institute of Technology effort. In this regard, I yield to Senator 
Stevens for his thoughts on this effort.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Launtenberg's point is well taken 
regarding research and development effort for nonlinear acoustic 
landmine detection research. I worked with Senator Lautenberg and 
Senator Inouye on getting this effort startled last year. Although this 
year's allocation prevented us from providing the necessary funding 
during the committee consideration, I am committed to working in 
conference towards the goal of an additional $3 million for the Stevens 
Institute effort for FY 2001. This could be an important breakthrough 
that can save lives, both among our service men and women and civilian 
populations. I yield to Senator Inouye for his thoughts on the 
initiative.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, last year I was pleased to work with 
Senator Lautenberg and Senator Stevens to provide the startup funds for 
research and development effort for nonlinear acoustic landmine 
Detection research, which is being done at Stevens Institute of 
Technology in New Jersey. This work promises to dramatically improve 
mine detection, and in so doing prevent serious injury and save lives. 
I am committed to working with Senator Lautenberg and Chairman Stevens 
towards the goal of a $3 million increase for the Stevens Institute 
effort during conference with the House.


                      closed disposal technologies

  Mr. REID. I thank my colleagues and good friends from Alaska and 
Hawaii for their hard work on this bill. This is an important bill, a 
good bill, and I commend their efforts.
  I rise to engage the senior Senator from Alaska in a colloquy on an 
important issue. Recent studies have suggested that civilians living 
near Army Depots which dispose of munitions through open burning and 
open detonation (OB/OD) suffer from cancer and other maladies at rates 
higher than would normally be expected. I have asked the Secretary of 
the Army to study whether open burning represents a health risk to 
civilian communities, and he has agreed to do so. This study will not 
be completed for some months.
  In the meantime, the Army should be studying possible alternative 
disposal methods to open burning that are environmentally sealed and 
are not open to the atmosphere, and evaluate whether open burning 
should eventually be phased out over time in favor of other, safer 
approaches. In the event that evidence shows open burning to be 
dangerous to civilians, these alternatives would give the Army and the 
Congress a range of alternatives that they will be able to quickly 
consider and rapidly implement in order to minimize the danger to the 
public.
  I would ask the Senator from Alaska if he would seek to include 
language in the conference report to accompany this bill directing the 
Army to conduct such a study?
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the senior Senator from Nevada. I believe that 
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the military conducts its 
operations in a manner that does not pose an undue health and safety 
risk on the population. I support your proposal, and will seek to 
include this language in the conference report to the FY01 Defense 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator, and look forward to working with him 
on this important matter.


                                 motby

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with Senator 
Stevens and Senator Inouye the situation at the Military Ocean Terminal 
Bayonne (MOTBY). As the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the Defense Subcommittee recall this military facility was closed as a 
result of the 1995 round of the BRAC Commission closings resulting in 
the loss of

[[Page 10446]]

3,000 jobs and economic hardship in Bayonne and Hudson County. The 
environmental and infrastructure problems existing at the base at the 
time of its closure were enormous and not completely disclosed or maybe 
not completely known by the Army.
  I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their help in 
providing $7 million for MOTBY last year for demolition and removal of 
facilities, buildings and structures. This funding was critical for 
MOTBY as it struggles to deal with the substantial environmental and 
infrastructure problems left by the Army when it left the base. But, 
Mr. President, there is so much left to be done. Among the problems 
remaining are significant amounts of friable asbestos in dozens of 
buildings, major leaks in the water and sewer systems, contamination of 
the land and ground water and piers that are structurally unsafe and in 
danger of collapsing into the water.
  Mr. President, $5 million is contained in the House appropriations 
bill for stabilization of the South Berths at MOTBY. I strongly urge 
the distinguished chairman and ranking member to uphold the House 
position of $5 million for the MOTBY South Berths in conference.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from New Jersey 
that I am aware of the environmental and infrastructure problems at 
MOTBY and I was pleased to join last year with the ranking member, 
Senator Inouye, and the Senator from New Jersey to be able to provide 
funding to address some of these problems last year. I understand that 
the other body has $5 million for stabilization of the South Berths at 
MOTBY. Let me assure my friend from New Jersey that I will do what I 
can in conference to provide significant additional funding for FY 
2001.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues from Alaska and New 
Jersey for support of additional funding for MOTBY and will join with 
Senator Stevens to ensure that we do what we can in conference to 
enable this to happen.


                                 lpd 17

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee the provision of 
the FY 2001 Defense appropriations bill that defers full funding for 
two LPD 17 class vessels. The Landing Platform Dock (LPD) 17, San 
Antonio class, is the latest class of amphibious force ship for the 
United States Navy. This ship shoulders the critical mission of 
transporting marines, helicopters, and air-cushioned landing craft to 
trouble spots around the world. Moreover, the LPD 17 is a model of 
acquisition reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the deferral of funds that 
would have been used to procure two LPD 17 class ships in fiscal year 
2001. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, what is 
the nature of your commitment to this program?
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me state at the outset, unequivocally, that I fully 
and strongly support the LPD 17 program, a program for which the 
distinguished junior Senator from Maine has been an effective advocate. 
As I stated in my opening remarks to this bill, I am committed to 
seeing the program progress and delivery to the Navy of no fewer than 
the required twelve ships. The recommendation the committee has made 
and the language in bill is intended to stabilize the design of the 
program fiscal year 2001. It does not reflect a lessening of our 
commitment to the program itself, in its entirety.
  I agree with my dear friend and colleague that the LPD 17 is a 
critical program for the Navy and Marine Corps service members and that 
it continues to provide our marines essential transport to troubled 
areas around the world.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, shipbuilders in my home State and others 
have stressed the criticality of the LPD 17 Program to their workforce 
over the next six to eight years as they strive to transition 
successfully between maturing programs and the construction of the next 
generation of ships. I am concerned that any delay in the LPD 17 
schedule may, in fact, affect the rates and costs of the various Navy 
shipbuilding programs and cause workers to lose their jobs. How have 
you addressed these concerns in this bill?
  Mr. STEVENS. My friend has raised excellent points. I have been 
briefed on these technical and programmatic concerns and have discussed 
them with both the Department of Defense (Navy) and the industry teams. 
They have both presented their projected impacts of the appropriations 
provision and mark on the program. However, the recommendation of the 
committee is to get the program back on a stable track with a stable 
design. This bill provides some $200 million in order to ensure that 
there will be no interruption in work at the affected shipyards.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee for his clarifications. Let me also express my deep 
admiration for the chairman's outstanding leadership and for his 
steadfast support for our nation's national defense.


                            HURRICANE FLOYD

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, during the past week, there has been a 
great deal of misinformation emanating from the ivory towers of liberal 
newspaper editors in North Carolina. They have made futile attempts to 
place blame for what they describe as the ``stalled'' aid to Eastern 
North Carolina victims of Hurricane Floyd. The tone and the substance 
of those editors are mystifying when we consider that North Carolina 
has been specified by the federal government to receive more than $2 
billion in federal aid.
  There are some politicians who are feeding the editors false and 
misleading information while they themselves know better. They complain 
about politics, even though their actions clearly suggest they 
themselves are practicing politics in its very worst form. I am 
dismayed that much of the false and unfair criticism has focused on 
some distinguished Senate colleagues, who have done far more for North 
Carolina's flood victims than the political finger-pointers.
  One in particular who has done much for North Carolina is the 
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. 
Stevens, who has been deeply and consistently concerned with the plight 
of the flood victims. Since the day Hurricane Floyd struck North 
Carolina, nobody has shown more concern or been more willing to help 
than Ted Stevens. He has stood with us every step of the way, and I 
shall never forget his friendship and his compassion.
  And if I may impose Senator Stevens one more time, may I engage him 
in a colloquy to set the record straight? First, is it not correct that 
the Senate, under the leadership of the Appropriations Committee, 
directed more than $800 million in federal aid to go to flood victims 
this past fall not long after the flood hit Eastern North Carolina?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. Is it not correct that this 1999's aid package of more 
than $800 million was in addition to nearly $1 billion of federal 
disaster aid directed to North Carolina through established federal 
disaster programs?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. Is it not correct that the Senate, with only one 
dissenting vote, approved, in October 1999, $81 million in payments to 
farmers, but the House refused to follow the Senate's action because 
North Carolina tobacco farmers would benefit?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. Is it not correct that the Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, along with the Majority Leader, Mr. Lott, have made clear 
their intent to include additional emergency natural disaster aid--
including the aforementioned $81 million for farmers--in the Military 
Construction Conference Report?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. That is our intention.
  Mr. HELMS. Is it not correct that the Military Construction bill is 
likely to be the first appropriations bill to reach the President's 
desk for signature?

[[Page 10447]]


  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. That appears to be a likely 
outcome.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chairman. He is always candid, always helpful, 
and an outstanding Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I 
am genuinely grateful for his concern for the flood victims of North 
Carolina.
  Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the comments of the senior Senator from 
North Carolina. He has been diligent in reminding us of the plight 
facing the flood victims of North Carolina, and I appreciate his strong 
interest in making sure that additional aid is forthcoming as quickly 
as possible.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I just wanted to briefly comment on this 
year's Defense bill, and my decision to support it. Last year I came to 
the floor and was forced to oppose the bill after the Budget Committee 
engaged in some accounting hijinks in order to squeeze an extra $7 
billion into the Defense budget. Even though the Congressional Budget 
Office estimated that the bill would exceed the Budget Resolution, the 
Budget Committee used an accounting gimmick to get around the rules. 
Budget gimmicks do more damage than just allowing the Congress to 
engage in irresponsible spending. Gimmicks delude the American people, 
and destroy their faith in the process.
  Last year we crowed loudly about the savings in the Budget 
Resolution, and then quietly added extra money back into the budget all 
year long. One of the biggest offenders was the Defense Appropriations 
bill.
  This year, however, things are different. While I did not support the 
Budget Resolution, at least this year the Defense bill is abiding by 
the level set out in the Resolution. At least this year we are being 
honest about how much will be spent on Defense. There are no gimmicks, 
no smoke and mirrors. I applaud Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for 
their efforts this year to stay within their budget allocation. It was 
not easy, it never is, but they were successful.
  The bill before us is still three billion dollars above the 
President's request, but I reluctantly support the bill. It is a more 
responsible bill than years past. Not only do we strengthen our 
commitment to our soldiers and their family through improvements in the 
housing allowance and a 3.7 percent pay increase, but we also face up 
to our overseas commitments. For the first time Congress and the 
Department of Defense have included funding, roughly $4.2 billion, for 
our operations in Iraq and Bosnia. Next year we will not be called on 
to furnish emergency funding for an operation that is not a surprise, 
not unplanned, and while dangerous, it is not an emergency. I am 
pleased that we are including these funds in the bill.
  Like all my colleagues, I am very concerned about how much we spend 
on our defense and where we spend it. I believe that the greatest 
assets funded in the Defense budget are our people, and that we need to 
do more to let them know how much their country values them. This bill 
moves in that direction, and it does that in an honest and aboveboard 
manner.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise once again to address the issue of 
wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case the bill 
funding the Department of Defense. A careful review of this bill 
reveals that the obvious deleterious implications of pork-barrel 
spending on our national defense continue to be ignored by Congress. I 
find it absolutely unconscionable that I have had to fight so hard to 
secure $6 million per year to eliminate the food stamp Army while the 
defense appropriations bill before us today includes over $4 billion in 
wasteful, unnecessary spending that was not included in the Pentagon's 
budget request and, in most instances, is not reflected in the ever-
expanding unfunded requirements lists.
  In point of fact, it would appear from this bill that there is no 
sense of propriety at all when it comes to spending the taxpayers 
money. With the armed forces stretched thin as a result of 15 years of 
declining budgets while deployments have expanded exponentially, how 
can we stand before the public with a collective straight face when we 
pass a budget funding those very same armed forces that includes 
language ``urging'' the Secretary of Defense ``to take steps to 
increase the Department's use of cranberry products in the diet of on-
base personnel and troops in the field.'' ``Such purchases,'' the 
language goes on to say, ``should prioritize cranberry products with 
high cranberry content such as fresh cranberries, cranberry sauces and 
jellies, and concentrate and juice with over 25 percent cranberry 
content.''
  Mr. President, what heretofore shall be referred to as ``the 
cranberry incident'' must be an attempt at humor on someone's part. 
When I read through a defense spending bill, I see hundreds of millions 
of dollars earmarked for such programs and activities as the 
development of a small aortic catheter, marijuana eradication inside 
the United States, and the recovery of Civil War vessels on the bottom 
of Lake Champlain. I see every single year money earmarked for the 
Brown Tree Snake. I see a list of unrequested programs added to the 
budget that includes such items as the Alaska Federal Health Care 
Network, the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network, the Pacific Islands 
Health Care Referral Program, the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Fort 
Wainwright utilidors, and Fort Greely runway repairs. Was the $300 
million in the budget for the Pearl Harbor shipyard so inadequate that 
an additional $24 million had to be added, four times the amount needed 
to remove military families from the rolls of those eligible for food 
stamps?
  Fifteen million dollars was added for the Maui Space Surveillance 
System--$15 million--to improve our ability to track asteroids. I do 
not intend to minimize the importance of such activities, but only the 
cast of Star Trek could conceivably have looked at a list of military 
funding shortfalls and concluded that a total of $19 million had to be 
in the fiscal year 2001 budget for this purpose. And whether $9.5 
million should be earmarked for the West Virginia National Guard is, of 
course, open to question.
  Mr. President, I voted against the defense authorization bill in 
committee because of my frustration at that measure's failure to 
include vital quality of life initiatives for our active duty 
military--initiatives that were thankfully accepted when the bill moved 
to the Floor. And that bill included less than the companion 
appropriations bill does in unneeded and wasteful spending. I dislike 
the annual earmarks for hyperspectral research in the authorization 
bill as much as the ones in the appropriations measure, and the 
authorizers similarly demonstrate an absence of fiscal restraint in 
throwing money at chem-bio detectors of questionable merit, and the $9 
million in the authorization bill for the Magdalena Ridge Observatory 
is every bit as deserving of skepticism as the money in the 
appropriations bill for the aforementioned Maui program, but, on the 
whole, the authorizers adhered more closely to the unfunded 
requirements lists than did the appropriators, who seem to have missed 
the idea.
  Mention should also be made of the growing corruption of the 
integrity of the process by which the budget request and the unfunded 
priority lists are assembled. To the extent that repeated efforts at 
shining a light on pervasive and damaging pork-barrel spending has 
borne fruit, it further cannot be denied that the problem, to a certain 
degree, has merely been pushed underground. Like the speakeasies and 
bathtub gin of an earlier era, the insatiable appetite in Congress for 
pork has been increasingly reflected in the amount of political 
pressure placed on the services to include unneeded projects in the 
budget request and on the unfunded priorities lists. The integrity of 
the budget process is under increasing assault, and the national 
defense cannot help but suffer for our weakness for pork.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the day when my appearances on the 
Senate floor for the purpose of deriding pork-barrel spending are no 
longer necessary. There have been successes along the way, but much 
more needs to be done. There is $4 billion in unrequested programs in 
the defense appropriations bill. Combine what that $4 billion could buy 
with the savings

[[Page 10448]]

that could be accrued through additional base closings and more cost-
effective business practices and the problems of our armed forces, be 
they in terms of force structure or modernization, could be more 
assuredly addressed. The public demands and expects better of us. It 
remains my hope that they will one day witness a more responsible 
budget process. For now, unfortunately, they are more likely to witness 
errant asteroids shooting through the skies like tax dollars through 
the appropriations process.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the bill 
before us today. I would like to sincerely thank Senators Stevens and 
Inouye for their strong leadership on the Defense Subcommittee. I also 
would like to recognize the diligence and professionalism of the staff 
on this Committee.
  Every year this Committee goes through the difficult exercise of 
trying to allocate sufficient funds to provide for our Nation's 
defense. These decisions require balancing carefully between present 
and future, people and technologies.
  This year, despite the fact that this appropriations bill provides 
over $3.1 billion more than was in the President's budget request and 
$20 billion more than the FY 2000 appropriation, the decisions to fund 
the wide array of critical Defense priorities were just as difficult as 
in the past. Despite these challenges the Committee has put together a 
comprehensive bill that meets many of the most pressing needs of the 
National Defense and remains within the constraints of the budget 
authority and outlay limits established in the 302(b) allocation.
  I would like to briefly mention some of the most important aspects of 
our defense addressed in this spending package.
  The bill provides $287.6 billion in new spending authority for the 
Department of Defense for FY 2001. In parallel with the Defense 
Authorization, the bill funds a 3.7 percent pay raise, new increases in 
recruiting and retention benefits, strengthens our missile defense 
program, boosts the Army Transformation Initiative, and provides a long 
awaited pharmacy benefit for our military retirees.
  The bill also provides approximately $4.1 billion in the Overseas 
Contingency Operations Transfer Fund, almost double the funding 
provided in last year's bill. It is our hope that the Department of 
Defense will now have ample resources to conduct unforseen 
contingencies and protect the resources we provide in this bill for 
training and combat readiness.
  There is good news for the Research and Development appropriation. 
The Committee approved $39.6 billion, an increase of $1.74 billion over 
the budget request. The Ballistic Missile Defense Program alone 
received an additional $4.35 billion. These resources will help prevent 
erosion of the scientific and technological foundation of our armed 
forces.
  The Committee also provided for items that will ensure that New 
Mexico based defense installations and programs remain robust. I would 
like to briefly highlight some of the items that received funding in 
the appropriations bill.
  Of the increase in Operation and Maintenance funding provided by the 
committee an additional $5.1 million is included to maintain and 
upgrade the Theater Air Command and Control Simulation Facility. This 
is the largest warfighter-in-the-loop air defense simulation system in 
operation and proudly operated by the 58th Special Operations Wing at 
Kirtland Air Force Base. Another $8 million will upgrade the MH-53J 
helicopter simulator to include Interactive Defensive Avionics System/
Multi-Mission Advanced Tactical Terminal capability. Both of these 
projects will strengthen and support our Air Force's readiness and 
capabilities.
  American dominance relies heavily on our technological superiority. 
The Committee recognizes this and, therefore, supported substantial 
increases to Research and Development funding above the President's 
request. Of this, an additional $24.4 million will go to the High 
Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range to 
support advanced weapons development and transformation initiatives for 
solid state laser technology. The Theater High Energy Laser anti-
missile program, successfully tested last week at White Sands also 
received an additional $15 million. Finally, the Airborne Laser 
program's budget was fully restored with an increase of $92 million. 
ABL is the Air Force's flagship program in directed energy weapons 
systems. Keeping this missile defense potential on track is vital to 
our demonstration of the role lasers can play in future defense 
capabilities.
  The Committee also recognized the active and reserve Army's need for 
lighter, more mobile command and control vehicles. Therefore, the bill 
funds a $63 million increase to the Warfighter Information Network 
program to produce these communications shelters; Laguna Industries 
manufactures these shelters.
  The bill includes many other New Mexico defense activities. An 
additional $16 million will be provided for the Information Operations 
Warfare and Vulnerability Assessment work of the Army Research 
Laboratory at White Sands. The Committee also provided $10 million for 
the Magdalena Ridge Observatory and $5.3 million to combat the threat 
of terrorism with radio frequency weapons.
  With the help of my colleagues new technology has a strong foothold 
in New Mexico and I thank them for supporting us in our endeavors. 
There are more hurdles ahead of us but each step takes us closer to our 
ultimate goal of being a major source of support to the military 
technological transformation in the 21st century.
  I believe this bill demonstrates the balance required to best fund 
our armed forces. Again, I am pleased by the hard work of my colleagues 
on this Committee and express, once again, my admiration for the hard 
work of Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye in achieving an appropriate 
spending package for our military men and women.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, shortly before Memorial Day, an excellent 
analytical piece was printed in the Washington Post under the headline 
For Pentagon, Asia Moving. I am afraid that not many of my colleagues 
had an opportunity to read that piece, because they were preparing to 
go home to visit their constituents over the Memorial Day recess. I 
would like to draw their attention to this thoughtful analysis of 
events and circumstances that will shape American Defense policies for 
the next several decades.
  In essence, the article suggests that, of necessity, the focus of 
American defense planning, our strategy and tactics--our deployments--
will shift from Europe to Asia. Current events in Korea, the rise of 
China as a modern military power, the spread of nuclear weapons to 
South-Asia, all of these dictate a re-examination of our defense 
policies. We must attend to how we train and where we may someday 
fight.
  To me, the article suggests the importance of Hawaii to our Nation's 
defense posture in the twenty-first century. The Washington Post 
article notes that, to many Americans, Hawaii appears to be well out in 
the Pacific, but it is another 5,000 miles from there to Shanghai. 
``All told, it is about twice as far from San Diego to China, as it is 
from New York to Europe.''
  We need to think about what this means. As U.S. economic interests in 
Asia come to dominate our economy, so too will U.S. security interests 
in Asia come to dominate our military policies. We must think about the 
distances involved and the need to be able to strike distant targets 
swiftly and with precision. The Air Force will need more long-range 
bombers and refueling aircraft. I have long advocated the acquisition 
of more B-2 bombers. The war in Kosovo showed that they could strike at 
long range and with precision. The Post article suggests to me that we 
may at some time need them in Asia and that we had better be prepared 
by making those investments soon.
  Similarly, the Navy will have to put more of its resources into the 
Pacific. Already the Navy has placed a larger percentage of its attack 
submarines in

[[Page 10449]]

the Pacific. Surely, this will be followed by decisions to forward 
position carriers and other elements of carrier task forces. I believe 
Pearl Harbor will become even more important to the Navy. I know the 
people of Hawaii are prepared to welcome additional ships.
  The Army, too, is faced with the need to be able to respond quickly 
to deter future threats in Asia. We need to look to more joint training 
exercises and even the possibility of keeping some of our forces in 
Korea after peace takes hold on the Peninsula.
  Mr. President, I commend this May 26, 2000 Washington Post article to 
my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that it be reprinted in full in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Reocrd, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 26, 2000]

                       For Pentagon, Asia Moving

                          (By Thomas E. Ricks)

       When Pentagon officials first sat down last year to update 
     the core planning document of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they 
     listed China as a potential future adversary, a momentous 
     change from the last decade of the Cold War.
       But when the final version of the document, titled ``Joint 
     Vision 2020,'' is released next week, it will be far more 
     discreet. Rather than explicitly pointing at China, it simply 
     will warn of the possible rise of an unidentified ``peer 
     competitor.''
       The Joint Chiefs' wrestling with how to think about China--
     and how open to be about that effort--captures in a nutshell 
     the U.S. military's quiet shift away from its traditional 
     focus on Europe. Cautiously but steadily, the Pentagon is 
     looking at Asia as the most likely arena for future military 
     conflict, or at least competition.
       This new orientation is reflected in many small but 
     significant changes: more attack submarines assigned to the 
     Pacific, more games and strategic studies centered on Asia, 
     more diplomacy aimed at reconfiguring the US. military 
     presence in the area.
       It is a trend that carries huge implications for the shape 
     of the armed services. It also carries huge stakes for U.S. 
     foreign policy. Some specialists warn that as the United 
     States thinks about a rising China, it ought to remember the 
     mistakes Britain made in dealing with Germany in the years 
     before World War I.
       The new U.S. military interest in Asia also reverses a Cold 
     War trend under which the Pentagon once planned by the year 
     2000 to have just ``a minimal military presence'' in Japan, 
     recalls retired Army Gen. Robert W. RisCassi, a former U.S. 
     commander in South Korea.
       Two possibilities are driving this new focus. The first is 
     a chance of peace in Korea; the second is the risk of a 
     hostile relationship with China.
       Although much of the current discussion in Washington is 
     about a possible military threat from North Korea, for 
     military planners the real question lies further ahead: Who 
     to do after a Korean rapprochement? In this view, South Korea 
     already has won its economic and ideological struggle with 
     North Korea, and all that really remains is to negotiate 
     terms for peace.
       According to one Defense Department official, William S. 
     Cohen's first question to policy officials when he became 
     Defense Secretary in 1997 was: How can we change the 
     assumption that U.S. troops will be withdrawn after peace 
     comes to the Korean peninsula? Next month's first-ever summit 
     between the leaders of North and South Korea puts a sharper 
     edge on this issue.
       In the longer run, many American policymakers expect China 
     to emerge sooner or later as a great power with significant 
     influence over the rest of Asia. That, along with a spate of 
     belligerent statements about Taiwan from Chinese officials 
     this spring, has helped focus the attention of top 
     policymakers on China's possible military ambitions. ``The 
     Chinese saber-rattling has gotten people's attention, there 
     is no question of that,'' said Abram Shulsky, a China expert 
     at the Rand Corp.


                         The Buzzword Is China

       Between tensions over Taiwan and this week's House vote to 
     normalize trade relations with China, ``China is the new 
     Beltway buzz-word,'' observed Dov S. Zakheim, a former 
     Pentagon official who is an adviser on defense policy to 
     Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.
       To be sure, large parts of the U.S. military remain 
     ``Eurocentric,'' especially much of the Army. The shift is 
     being felt most among policymakers and military planners--
     that is, officials charged with thinking about the future--
     and least among front-line units. Nor is it a change that the 
     Pentagon is proclaiming from the rooftops. Defense Department 
     officials see little value in being explicit about the shift 
     in U.S. attention, which could worry old allies in Europe and 
     antagonize China.
       Even so, military experts point to changes on a variety of 
     fronts. For example, over the last several years, there has 
     been an unannounced shift in the Navy's deployment of attack 
     submarines, which in the post-Cold War World have been used 
     as intelligence assets--to intercept communications, monitor 
     ship movements and clandestinely insert commandos--and also 
     as front-line platforms for launching Tomahawk cruise 
     missiles against Iraq, Serbia and other targets. Just a few 
     years ago, the Navy kept 60 percent of its attack boats in 
     the Atlantic. Now, says a senior Navy submariner, it has 
     shifted to a 50-50 split between the Atlantic and Pacific 
     fleets, and before long the Pacific may get the majority.
       But so far the focus on Asia is mostly conceptual, not 
     physical. It is now a common assumption among national 
     security thinkers that the area from Baghdad to Tokyo will be 
     the main location of U.S. military competition for the next 
     several decades. ``The focus of great power competition is 
     likely to shift from Europe to Asia,'' said Andrew 
     Krepinevich, director of the Center for Strategic and 
     Budgetary Assessments, a small but influential Washington 
     think tank. James Bodner, the principal deputy undersecretary 
     of defense for policy, added that, ``The center of gravity of 
     the world economy has shifted to Asia, and U.S. interests 
     flow with that.''
       When Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, one of the most thoughtful 
     senior officers in the military, met with the Army Science 
     Board earlier this spring, he commented off-handedly that 
     America's ``long-standing Europe-centric focus'' probably 
     would shift in coming decades as policymakers ``pay more 
     attention to the Pacific Rim, and especially to China.'' This 
     is partly because of trade and economics, he indicated, and 
     partly because of the changing ethnic makeup of the U.S. 
     population. (California is enormously important in U.S. 
     domestic politics, explains one Asia expert at the Pentagon, 
     and Asian Americans are increasingly influential in that 
     state's elections, which can make or break presidential 
     candidates.)
       Just 10 years ago, said Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr., 
     commandant of the the Army War College, roughly 90 percent of 
     U.S. military thinking about future warfare centered on head-
     on clashes of armies in Europe. ``Today,'' he said, ``it's 
     probably 50-50, or even more'' tilted toward warfare using 
     characteristic Asian tactics such as deception and 
     indirection.


                               War Gaming

       The U.S. military's favorite way of testing its assumptions 
     and ideas is to run a war game. Increasingly, the major games 
     played by the Pentagon--except for the Army--take place in 
     Asia, on an arc from Tehran to Tokyo. The games are used to 
     ask how the U.S. military might respond to some of the 
     biggest questions it faces: Will Iran go nuclear--or become 
     more aggressive with an array of hard-to-stop cruise 
     missiles? Will Pakistan and India engage in nuclear war--or, 
     perhaps even worse, will Pakistan break up, with its nuclear 
     weapons falling into the hands of Afghan mujaheddin? Will 
     Indonesia fall apart? Will North Korea collapse peacefully? 
     And what may be the biggest question of all: Will the United 
     States and China avoid military confrontation? All in all, 
     estimates one Pentagon official, about two-thirds of the 
     forward-looking games staged by the Pentagon over the last 
     eight years have taken place partly or wholly in Asia.
       Last year, the Air Force's biggest annual war game looked 
     at the Mideast and Korea. This summer's game, ``Global 
     Engagement 5,'' to be played over more than a week at Maxwell 
     Air Force Base in Alabama, will posit ``a rising large East 
     Asian nation'' that is attempting to wrest control of 
     Siberia, with all its oil and other natural resources, from a 
     weak Russia. At one point, the United States winds up basing 
     warplanes in Siberia to defend Russian interests.
       Because of the sensitivity of talking about fighting China, 
     ``What everybody's trying to do is come up with games that 
     are kind of China, but not China by name,'' said an Air Force 
     strategist.
       ``I think that, however reluctantly, we are beginning to 
     face up to the fact that we are likely over the next few 
     years to be engaged in an ongoing military competition with 
     China,'' noted Princeton political scientist Aaron L. 
     Friedberg. ``Indeed, in certain respects, we already are.''


                              Twin Efforts

       The new attention to Asia also is reflected in two long-
     running, military-diplomatic efforts.
       The first is a drive to renegotiate the U.S. military 
     presence in northeast Asia. This is aimed mainly at ensuring 
     that American forces still will be welcome in South Korea and 
     Japan if the North Korean threat disappears. To that end, the 
     U.S. military will be instructed to act less like post-World 
     War II occupation forces and more like guests or partners.
       Pentagon experts on Japan and Korea say they expect that 
     ``status of forces agreements'' gradually will be diluted, so 
     that local authorities will gain more jurisdiction over U.S. 
     military personnel in criminal cases. In addition, they 
     predict that U.S. bases in Japan and South Korea will be 
     jointly operated in the future by American and local forces, 
     perhaps even with a local officer in command.

[[Page 10450]]

       At Kadena Air Force Base on the southern Japanese island of 
     Okinawa, for example, the U.S. military has started a 
     program, called ``Base Without Fences,'' under which the 
     governor has been invited to speak on the post, local 
     residents are taken on bus tours of the base that include a 
     stop at a memorial to Japan's World War II military, and 
     local reporters have been given far more access to U.S. 
     military officials.
       ``We don't have to stay in our foxhole,'' said Air Force 
     Brig. Gen. James B. Smith, who devised the more open 
     approach. ``To guarantee a lasting presence, there needs to 
     be a private and public acknowledgment of the mutual benefit 
     of our presence.''
       Behind all this lies a quiet recognition that Japan may no 
     longer unquestioningly follow the U.S. lead in the region. A 
     recent classified national intelligence estimate concluded 
     that Japan has several strategic options available, among 
     them seeking a separate accommodation with China, Pentagon 
     officials disclosed. ``Japan isn't Richard Gere in `An 
     Officer and a Gentleman,' '' one official said. ``That is, 
     unlike him, it does have somewhere else to go.''
       In the long term, this official added, a key goal of U.S. 
     politico-military policy is to ensure that when Japan 
     reemerges as a great power, it behaves itself in Asia, unlike 
     the last time around, in the 1930s, when it launched a 
     campaign of vicious military conquest.


                          SOUTHEAST ASIA REDUX

       The second major diplomatic move is the negotiation of the 
     U.S. military's reentry in Southeast Asia, 25 years after the 
     end of the Vietnam War and almost 10 years after the United 
     States withdrew from its bases in the Philippines. After 
     settling on a Visiting Forces Agreement last year, the United 
     States and the Philippines recently staged their first joint 
     military exercise in years, ``Balikatan 2000.''
       The revamped U.S. military relationship with the 
     Philippines, argues one general, may be a model for the 
     region. Instead of building ``Little America'' bases with 
     bowling alleys and Burger Kings that are off-limits to the 
     locals, U.S. forces will conduct frequent joint exercises to 
     train Americans and Filipinos to operate together in 
     everything from disaster relief to full-scale combat. The 
     key, he said, isn't permanent bases but occasional access to 
     facilities and the ability to work with local troops.
       Likewise, the United States has broadened its military 
     contacts with Australia, putting 10,000 troops into the 
     Queensland region a year ago for joint exercises. And this 
     year, for the first time, Singapore's military is 
     participating in ``Cobra Gold,'' the annual U.S.-Thai 
     exercise. Singapore also is building a new pier specifically 
     to meet the docking requirements of a nuclear-powered U.S. 
     aircraft carrier. The U.S. military even has dipped a 
     cautious toe back into Vietnam, with Cohen this spring 
     becoming the first defense secretary since Melvin R. Laird to 
     visit that nation.
       The implications of this change already are stirring 
     concern in Europe. In the March issue of Proceedings, the 
     professional journal of the U.S. Navy, Cmdr. Michele 
     Consentino, an Italian navy officer, fretted about the 
     American focus on the Far East and about ``dangerous gaps'' 
     emerging in the U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean.


                         Where the Generals Are

       If the U.S. military firmly concludes that its major 
     missions are likely to take place in Asia, it may have to 
     overhaul the way it is organized, equipped and even led. 
     ``Most U.S. military assets are in Europe, where there are no 
     foreseeable conflicts threatening vital U.S. interests,'' 
     said ``Asia 2025,'' a Pentagon study conducted last summer. 
     ``The threats are in Asia,'' it warned.
       This study, recently read by Cohen, pointedly noted that 
     U.S. military planning remains ``heavily focused on Europe,'' 
     that there are four times as many generals and admirals 
     assigned to Europe as to Asia, and that about 85 percent of 
     military officers studying foreign languages are still 
     learning European tongues.
       ``Since I've been here, we've tried to put more emphasis on 
     our position in the Pacific,'' Cohen said in an interview as 
     he flew home from his most recent trip to Asia. This isn't, 
     he added, ``a zero-sum game, to ignore Europe, but 
     recognizing that the [economic] potential in Asia is 
     enormous''--especially, he said, if the United States is 
     willing to help maintain stability in the region.


                         `tyranny of distance'

       Talk to a U.S. military planner about the Pacific theater, 
     and invariably the phrase ``the tyranny of distance'' pops 
     up. Hawaii may seem to many Americans to be well out in the 
     Pacific, but it is another 5,000 miles from there to 
     Shanghai. All told, it is about twice as far from San Diego 
     to China as it is from New York to Europe.
       Cohen noted that the military's new focus on Asia means, 
     ``We're going to want more C-17s'' (military cargo planes) as 
     well as ``more strategic airlift'' and ``more strategic 
     sealift.''
       Other experts say that barely scratches the surface of the 
     revamping that Asian operations might require. The Air Force, 
     they say, would need more long-range bombers and refuelers--
     and probably fewer short-range fighters such as the hot new 
     F-22, designed during the Cold War for dogfights in the 
     relatively narrow confines of Central Europe. ``We are still 
     thinking about aircraft design as if it were for the border 
     of Germany,'' argues James G. Roche, head of Northrop Grumman 
     Corp.'s electronic sensors unit and a participant in last 
     year's Pentagon study of Asia's future. ``Asia is a much 
     bigger area than Europe, so planes need longer `legs.' ''.
       Similarly, the Navy would need more ships that could 
     operate at long distances. It might even need different types 
     of warships. For example, the Pentagon study noted today's 
     ships aren't ``stealthy''--built to evade radar--and may 
     become increasingly vulnerable as more nations acquire 
     precision-guided missiles.
       Also, the Navy may be called on to execute missions in 
     places where it has not operated for half a century. If the 
     multi-island nation of Indonesia falls apart, the Pentagon 
     study suggested, then the Navy may be called upon to keep 
     open the crucial Strait of Malacca, through which passes much 
     of the oil and gas from the Persian Gulf to Japan and the 
     rest of East Asia.
       The big loser among the armed forces likely would be the 
     Army, whose strategic relevancy already is being questioned 
     as it struggles to deploy its forces more quickly. ``At its 
     most basic level, the rise of Asia means a rise of emphasis 
     on naval, air and space power at the expense of ground 
     forces,'' said Eliot Cohen, a professor of strategic studies 
     at Johns Hopkins University.
       In a few years, Pentagon insiders predict, the chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be from the Navy or Air Force, 
     following 12 years in which Army officers--Generals Colin L. 
     Powell, John Shalikashvili and Henry H. Shelton--have been 
     the top officers in the military. Perhaps even more 
     significantly, they foresee the Air Force taking away from 
     the Navy at least temporarily the position of ``CINCPAC,'' 
     the commander in chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific. There 
     already is talk within the Air Force of basing parts of an 
     ``Air Expeditionary Force'' in Guam, where B-2 stealth 
     bombers have been sent in the past in response to tensions 
     with North Korea.


                           parallel with past

       If the implications for the U.S. military of a new focus on 
     Asia are huge, so too are the risks. Some academics and 
     Pentagon intellectuals see a parallel between the U.S. effort 
     to manage the rise of China as a great power and the British 
     failure to accommodate or divert the ambitions of a newly 
     unified Germany in the late 19th century. That effort ended 
     in World War I, which slaughtered a generation of British 
     youth and marked the beginning of British imperial decline.
       If Sino-American antagonism grows, some strategists warn, 
     national missile defense may play the role that Britian's 
     development of the battleship Dreadnought played a century 
     ago--a superweapon that upset the balance by making Germany's 
     arsenal strategically irrelevant. Chinese officials have said 
     they believe the U.S. plan for missile defense is aimed at 
     negating their relatively small force of about 20 
     intercontinental ballistic missiles.
       If the United States actually builds a workable antimissile 
     system, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski 
     predicts, ``the effect of that would be immediately felt by 
     the Chinese nuclear forces and [would] presumably precipitate 
     a buildup.'' That in turn could provoke India to beef up its 
     own nuclear forces, a move that would threaten Pakistan. A 
     Chinese buildup also could make Japan feel that it needed to 
     build up its own military.
       Indian officials already are quietly telling Pentagon 
     officials that the rise of China will make the United States 
     and India natural allies. India also is feeling its oats 
     militarily. The Hindustan Times recently reported that the 
     Indian navy plans to reach far eastward this year to hold 
     submarine and aircraft exercises in the South China Sea, a 
     move sure to tweak Beijing.
       Some analysts believe that the hidden agenda of the U.S. 
     military is to use the rise of Asia as a way to shore up the 
     Pentagon budget, which now consumes about 3 percent of the 
     gross domestic product, compared to 5.6 percent at the end of 
     the Cold War in 1989. ``If the military grabs onto this in 
     order to get more money, that's scary,'' said retired Air 
     Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who frequently conducts war games 
     for the military.
       Indeed, Cohen is already making the point that operating in 
     Asia is expensive. He said it is clear that America will have 
     to maintain ``forward'' forces in Asia. And that, he argued, 
     will require a bigger defense budget.
       ``There's a price to pay for what we're doing,'' Cohen 
     concluded. ``The question we're going to have to face in the 
     coming years is, are we willing to pay up?''


                              Section 8014

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I engage in a colloquy with my good 
friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii?
  As Senator Inouye  knows, the Manager's amendment currently before 
the Senate includes an amendment to section 8014. That section 
addresses the

[[Page 10451]]

procedures that must be followed by Department of Defense agencies 
which seek to outsource certain civilian functions to private 
contractors. Since 1990, this provision has been included in the 
Defense appropriations bills for each of the last ten years. Throughout 
that time, section 8014 has provided for certain exceptions to the 
procedures, including an exception when the private contractor is a 
Native American-owned entity. This exception has been included in 
furtherance of the Federal policy of Indian self-determination and the 
promotion of economic self-sufficiency for the native people of 
America.
  The exception for a private contractor that is a Native American-
owned entity is an exercise of the authority that has been vested in 
the Congress by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 
3, often referred to as the Indian Commerce Clause. As the senior 
Senator from Hawaii and vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs knows, this is by no means the only Federal legislation that 
recognizes the special status of Native Americans in commercial 
transactions with the Federal Government which is based upon the trust 
relationship the United States has with its indigenous, aboriginal 
people. There are, in fact, numerous examples of provisions of Federal 
law that seek to provide competitive assistance to businesses that are 
owned by Indian tribes or Alaska Native regional or village 
corporations. Congress has enacted such laws because they have been 
found to be the most effective and appropriate means of ensuring and 
encouraging economic self-sufficiency in furtherance of the Federal 
policy of self-determination and the United States' trust 
responsibility. There is considerable judicial precedent recognizing 
such laws as a valid exercise of Congress' constitutional authority, 
perhaps the most significant of which is the United State Supreme 
Court's 1974 ruling in Morton versus Mancari.
  It has come to my attention that a lawsuit has been filed challenging 
the Native American exception in section 8014 as a racially-based 
preference that is unconstitutional. That challenge is simply 
inconsistent with the well-established body of Federal Indian law and 
numerous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Native American 
exception contained in section 8014 is intended to advance the Federal 
Government's interest in promoting self-sufficiency and the economic 
development of Native American communities. It does so not on the basis 
of race, but rather, based upon the unique political and legal status 
that the aboriginal, indigenous, native people of the America have had 
under our Constitution since the founding of this nation. It is a valid 
exercise of Congress' authority under the Indian commerce clause. While 
I believe that the provision is clear, we propose adoption of the 
amendment before us today to further clarify that the exception for 
Native American-owned entities in section 8014 is based on a political 
classification, not a racial classification.
  Because my colleague was Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense 
Appropriations in 1990 and involved in the drafting of section 8014, I 
would like to know whether my understanding of the purpose and intent 
of section 8014 is consistent with the original purpose and intent, and 
whether the amendment before us today is consistent with the original 
intent of section 8014.
  Mr. INOUYE. My Chairman is correct in his understanding. The Congress 
has long been concerned with the ravaging extent of poverty, 
homelessness, and the high rates of unemployment in Native America. The 
Congress has consistently recognized that the economic devastation that 
has been wrought on Native communities can be directly attributed to 
Federal policies of the forced removal of Native people from their 
traditional homelands, their forced relocation, and later the 
termination of the reservations to which the government forcibly 
relocated them. In 1970, President Nixon established the Federal policy 
of self-determination, and that policy has been supported and 
strengthened by each succeeding administration.
  The Congress has sought to do its part in fostering strong Native 
economies through the enactment of a wide range of Federal laws, 
including a series of incentives that are designed to stimulate 
economic growth in Native communities and provide economic 
opportunities for Native American-owned businesses. Native American-
owned businesses include not only those that are owned by an Indian 
tribe or an Alaska Native corporation or a Native Hawaiian 
organization, but those businesses that are 51 percent or more owned by 
Native Americans.
  As the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear, time and again, the 
political and legal relationship that this nation has had with the 
indigenous, aboriginal, native people of America is the basis upon 
which the Congress can constitutionally enact legislation that is 
designed to address the special conditions of Native Americans. In 
exchange for the cession of over 500 million acres of land by the 
native people of America, the United States has entered into a trust 
relationship with Native Americans. Treaties, the highest law of our 
land, were originally the primary instrument for the expression of this 
relationship. Today, Federal laws like section 8014, are the means by 
which the United States carries out its trust responsibilities and the 
Federal policy of self-determination and economic self-sufficiency.
  I thank my Chairman for proposing this clarifying amendment which I 
believe is fully consistent with the original purpose and intent of 
section 8014.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     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
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Boxer
     Feingold
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Rockefeller
       
     Specter
  So the bill (H.R. 4576), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
insist on its position on this bill with the House and that the Chair 
be authorized to appoint conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback) appointed Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Byrd,

[[Page 10452]]

Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Durbin 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I believe that we completed action on 
this bill in almost record time.
  I want to personally thank Steven Cortese, majority staff director, 
and Charles Houy, minority staff director, for their very intense work, 
and their respective staffs. Since last Friday we have been working to 
try to eliminate some problems in this bill. Without question, they are 
responsible for the speed and dispatch with which we have been able to 
handle this bill.
  There are many amendments we are now taking to conference that may be 
subject to later modification. We will do our very best to defend the 
Senate position as represented by the vote that has just been taken in 
the Senate.
  I thank my distinguished friend and colleague from Hawaii for his 
usual cooperation. Without it, passage of this bill would have been 
impossible.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________