[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18220-18230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, before we recessed subject to the call of 
the Chair, I called up amendment No. 1735. I want to read it again 
because, as I stated before, to even consider that our energy 
dependence upon foreign sources is not a defense issue I think is 
ludicrous.
  Instead of offering the long amendment, I have merely offered a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment that says:

       Sense of Senate on Availability of Energy-Related Supplies 
     for the Armed Forces.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Senate should, before the adjournment of the first session of 
     the 107th Congress, take action on comprehensive national 
     energy security legislation, including energy production and 
     energy conservation measures, to ensure that there is an 
     adequate supply of energy for the Armed Forces.

  I think the strongest point we can make about our dependency upon the 
Middle East is the fact that the most rapidly growing contributor to 
our energy supply in the Middle East, Iraq, is a country with which we 
are at war. It is absurd not to at least make this commitment as a 
sense of the Senate to get this done.
  I ask this amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a motion that the Chair rule this 
amendment is dilatory.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator withhold that motion for just a moment 
so I can ask a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to.
  Mr. INHOFE. I assure you, if you make the motion and the Chair rules 
it is not in order--I think if the Chair read it very carefully, it 
would be in order, but if it rules that it is not in order, I will not 
challenge the ruling of the Chair for obvious reasons. I do want as 
much as anyone in the Senate an authorization to pass, and pass 
quickly. I know if we had that motion and overruled the ruling of the 
Chair, that would open it up and it would be disaster and we would not 
get a bill. So I would not do that. I am not going to.
  I ask you not make that motion, but if you do make the motion, I 
encourage the Chair to realize and read--this is not the amendment I 
had before. This is merely directly relating to defense.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been advised by my friend from 
Delaware he wishes to speak, and of course postcloture he has a right 
to speak for up to an hour. I would not stand in his way of doing that, 
so I withdraw my previous point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I wanted to speak on a matter of strategic 
airlift capability, but I do not want to get in the way of the sense-
of-the-Senate amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I would like to 
say this, if I could. Obviously, we are not going to vote on the energy 
package that the House passed as an amendment to this bill. The Senator 
from Oklahoma and I have spoken. I don't think that is appropriate. 
Having said that, if we have not learned any other lesson from the 
events of 3 weeks ago, I hope we have learned that this country needs 
an energy policy.
  I finished my active-duty tour of the Navy in 1973 and went to the 
University of Delaware on the GI bill. My first recollection of being 
in Newark, DE, was sitting in a line trying to buy gas for my car. That 
was 28 years ago. We did not have an energy policy then; we don't have 
an energy policy today; and we need one today a lot more than we did 
then.
  Mr. President, 28 years ago about a third of the oil we consumed in 
this Nation was coming from places outside of our Nation's border. 
Today it is almost 60 percent, and we still have no energy policy. My 
hope is that by the time we adjourn from this first session later this 
year, we will have taken up the legislation we are working on in the 
Energy Committee on which I serve and be in a position to go to 
conference with the House on a very important matter.
  Mr. INHOFE. I say to my friend from Delaware, that is exactly what 
this amendment does. It is a sense of the Senate to do exactly what he 
has suggested. I certainly think it would be appropriate at this time 
to include this sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I retain my time. Whether this is germane 
or not I don't know, but I know the issue is relevant and it is an 
important issue for our country and for this body. It is my hope, 
speaking to my friend and

[[Page 18221]]

our leader from Nevada, that before we leave here we will have taken up 
and passed a comprehensive energy policy for our country, which we 
desperately need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the majority leader many 
times in the last week about this issue of energy policy. The majority 
leader, myself, and Senator Levin--if he were here--recognize the 
importance of developing an energy policy. I agree with my friend from 
Delaware.
  I was Lieutenant Governor of the State of Nevada during that time. I 
came back and had meetings with Vice President Ford as a representative 
of the National Lieutenant Governors Conference. The purpose of that 
meeting was to talk about energy.
  The first energy czar was a man named Bill Simon, who later came to 
the Department of Energy.
  There is no question we need to do something about energy policy in 
this country. There is no question about it. Senator Daschle, the 
majority leader, realizes that. He wants to move to an energy bill just 
as quickly as is possible. But we have lots of problems in this country 
as a result of what happened on September 11 in New York.
  It only exacerbates the problem as it relates to energy. We 
understand that. I have spoken to Senator Bingaman several times in the 
past week. He is doing his very best to report out a bill. I have 
spoken to the minority leader. The place that Republicans and Democrats 
want to go is basically the same. Probably 75 to 80 percent of the 
things that both parties want energywise we can all agree on. Some of 
the other things we can't agree on. One example, of course, is ANWR, 
which is a real problem.
  We understand the intentions of the Senator from Oklahoma. I have 
spoken to him many times on this issue.
  The majority leader is going to get to the energy bill--hopefully 
this year--as quickly as he can. We know we have to do something with 
an airline safety bill. We have a stimulus package. We have workers who 
have been displaced. We have to do something about that. We have to 
finish this very important Defense bill. It is important. We are so 
happy that the Senate invoked cloture. We have 13 appropriations bills 
we have to complete. We have a lot of work to do. The majority leader 
recognizes that more than anybody else.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment filed by my 
friend from Oklahoma is dilatory.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken. The 
amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't know what the order is right now. 
The Senator from Delaware may have the floor. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The floor is open.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I understand what the Senator from Nevada, 
the distinguished assistant majority leader, said. The problem is that 
we have been talking about this now--I personally, since the eighties 
when then-Secretary of the Interior Don Hodel and I would tour the 
Nation to explain to the Nation that our dependency on foreign sources 
of oil for our ability to fight a war was not an energy issue; it was a 
national security issue. At that time, we were 37-percent dependent on 
foreign sources of oil for our ability to fight a war. Now it is much 
more serious. We have gone through the 1990 Persian Gulf war. I think 
everyone realizes that.
  The problem I have is the statement of the Senator from Nevada that 
nothing is going to happen, that this is merely a sense of the Senate. 
I know the Chair has ruled it is not germane. I will not challenge that 
and put in jeopardy the Defense authorization bill. I don't want to do 
that.
  I only say this: Talk is cheap. We have been sitting around talking 
about it. The statement made by the Senator from Nevada is the same 
statement they made back in the 1980s and all during the 1990s. Every 
time we try to bring up an energy bill, they say: Yes, we all want it. 
Yet do they really want it?
  We will continue in our efforts. I will continue in such a way as to 
not jeopardize in any way the Defense authorization bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I say from this side of the aisle that we 
welcome the decision not to challenge the bill so that we can go 
forward. The points the Senator made are well taken. Our Nation's trade 
deficit this year will exceed $300 billion. We consume oil from other 
places around the world. As sure as we are meeting here today, some of 
those billions of dollars we are paying for oil from other sources--
including from places where people do not like us very much--are surely 
going to fuel the kind of terrorism which happened 3 weeks ago this 
morning for a whole host of reasons.
  I pledge to work with my friend from Oklahoma and others on the 
Energy Committee to get this legislation moving and out of committee. 
There is a lot on which we can agree. There are some points--the Artic 
Wildlife Refuge may be one--where we will disagree. But there is a lot 
where we can agree. We need to do that and move on.
  I really want to say this morning a word or two with respect to the 
Defense authorization bill as it pertains to our strategic defense 
capability.
  The tragedy of 3 weeks ago this morning left many dead. There are a 
number of uncertainties that grow out of those attacks: Who planned 
them? Who executed them? Who funded them? Who supported them? Who 
harbors the terrorists today? How will we respond?
  Amid those uncertainties, there are a number of things we know for 
sure. They include the fact that this war is going to be unlike any war 
we have fought in my lifetime and before--unlike World War II, in which 
many of our fathers served, unlike Korea, unlike Vietnam, where my 
generation served, and unlike the Persian Gulf war barely a decade ago.
  This we know: Our success in this war against terrorism will depend 
on many factors:
  The readiness of our forces we are deploying;
  Our ability in gathering the support of the other civilized nations 
of the world to join us in this war;
  The quality of the intelligence, the reliability of the intelligence 
that we gather and that we receive from others with whom we work;
  Our ability to understand our intelligence and to act effectively in 
a timely manner in response to that intelligence;
  Our ability to deploy covert operations and do so successfully.
  And our success in the world also depends in no small part on our 
ability to move quickly at a moment's notice large numbers of men and 
women and materiel from the United States to other parts of the world.
  There are many military bases around the world, out of which I used 
to operate as a naval flight officer, that are closed today. While we 
work with nations that are sympathetic to our cause against terrorists 
in order to try to secure air space and to try to secure airfields to 
use, the fact of the matter is we simply don't have the bases to deploy 
troops that we used to at airfields and ports. We depend more than ever 
on an air bridge that is going to be comprised of C-17s and on an air 
bridge that will be comprised of C-5s.
  When I was a member of the active-duty forces, even though I was in 
the Navy, I flew a fair amount on C-141s, a transport aircraft that the 
Air Force uses. They are the workhorse for the Air Force. C-5s were 
introduced, and we had a combination of the C-141 and the C-5 to 
provide an air bridge in earlier wars.
  The C-141 is old today. It is being retired. Its place is being taken 
by the C-17, a terrific aircraft. The C-17 carries about half the load 
of a C-5. While it has pretty good legs and can travel a pretty long 
distance, it doesn't have the legs or the ability to travel far 
distances that the C-5 enjoys. The C-5 has been with us more than two 
decades--C-5As and now C-5Bs. The aircraft is about half the age of the 
B-52.

[[Page 18222]]

  I was struck when we started to ratchet up to see B-52s being called 
on again to serve our Nation. It has been around 50 years and is still 
ready to work for us. The C-5, having half the years and age of the B-
52, is certainly able to work a bit longer alongside the C-17.
  Someone gave me a sheet of paper today with a picture of the C-5. 
This picture shows some idea of the life remaining in the C-5 with 
respect to its ability to play a major role in our strategic airlift 
capability. The fuselage is good for another 30-plus years; 
stabilizers, another 40-plus years; wing service, over 50 years; the 
fuselage, another 50-plus years; forward fuselage, there is plenty of 
durability left in the C-5 aircraft.
  There are two things the C-5 needs in order for us to be able to 
maximize its effectiveness in this war and in any other war that may 
come our way over the next 40 years. One is an avionics package. When 
you sit in the cockpit of the C-5 and look at the instrumentation, you 
think you are looking at a plane that is 25 years old; and you are. The 
aircraft needs a new avionics package. The bill before us today 
provides a very substantial step to enable us to put that avionics 
package in place in the C-5 to enhance its capability.
  Another major component of this bill deals with the engines that are 
mounted on the wings of the C-5. Most of the new airliners that are 
flying in our skies and around the world today have engines that can 
generally fly for 10,000 hours before they need to be changed. The 
engines on the C-5s, which I said earlier are over 20 years old, those 
engines need to be changed about every 2,500 hours. We need to 
reengine, if you will, the C-5s. If we do that, with modern engine 
technology, we will be able to get 10,000 hours between engine changes, 
as they do in the commercial fleets.
  The combination of those two steps--to introduce into and incorporate 
into our C-5 aircraft, the C-5As and C-5Bs, a modern avionics package, 
and to also reengine the aircraft in years going forth--will enable us 
to fully benefit from the 30 or 40 years that are still left in those 
planes. There are a lot of air miles to be traveled, a lot of troops to 
be carried, a lot of tanks and helicopters and trucks to be moved. The 
C-5 and the C-17 can do it.
  With the adoption of this legislation, our air bridge from this 
country to other troubled points around the world will be reinforced 
and made stronger for this generation and for generations to come.
  I yield back my time, Mr. President.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the attempt to add energy legislation to the Defense 
authorization bill.
  This debate comes at a moment of historic challenge. We are a nation 
poised for battle against a shadowy enemy that has as its aim the 
destruction of America and all that we stand for. Our President has 
prepared us for a sustained military campaign, and at this time there 
can be no higher priority than to pass this critical legislation to 
support our armed services and the men and women who we will send into 
this war to, literally, defend our freedom. In that context, the 
amendment is an unnecessary and divisive distraction from that high 
purpose, which ultimately will do little to strengthen our national 
security.
  My friend from Oklahoma is right to be concerned about our national 
energy policy. In fact, I believe we must take a fresh look at our 
policies in light of the terrible events of September 11. In 
particular, we must look at the vulnerability of our energy 
infrastructure to terrorist attack, and refocus our energy policy to 
ensure that we address our weaknesses.
  On that point, let me quote from a recent letter from a former 
Director of the CIA, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
and the former National Security Adviser to President Reagan:

       Our refineries, pipelines and electrical grid are highly 
     vulnerable to conventional military, nuclear and terrorist 
     attacks. Disbursed, renewable and domestic supplies of fuels 
     and electricity, such as energy produced naturally from wind, 
     solar, geothermal, incremental hydro, and agricultural 
     biomass, address those challenges.

  The authors of the letter continue by stating that we must limit our 
vulnerabilities and increase our energy independence by passing, among 
other things, a Renewable Portfolio Standard. The energy proposal under 
consideration, however, does not include this innovative measure, or 
many of the other steps we can and must take to protect and enhance the 
security of energy infrastructure because it was drafted long before 
the terrible events of September 11 forced us to rethink our positions.
  Just as problematic, these amendments would open the priceless Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge for oil production. In the view of many, 
myself included, opening the refuge to drilling is not just bad 
environmental policy, it is bad energy policy and would do next to 
nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, as we have 
repeatedly pointed out, the refuge would not provide a drop of oil for 
at least a decade. This 10-year figure is a conservative estimate that 
was made by the Department of Interior under President Reagan, and 
proof positive that ANWR is not the answer or even an answer to our 
current crisis, let alone our long-term needs.
  What this proposal would do, however, is severely threaten a national 
environmental treasure, which is the last thing the American people 
would expect us to do at this moment of crisis. In times such as these, 
many of us found solace in nature, including many people at the heart 
of these horrific terrorist attacks. The New York times reported in the 
days following the attacks that Manhattan citizens were flocking to a 
garden in lower Manhattan to seek comfort, to grieve, and to connect 
with each other in sharing our grief.
  In my view, we need to know that vast natural areas such as the 
Arctic refuge exist as we cope with the events of the past month. 
Nature reminds us of the eternal rhythms of life of which we are a part 
and which will endure over time. Ensuring an enduring refuge in the 
Arctic, no matter how uncertain other parts of our life may seem right 
now, provides us solace and perspective in these trying times. This 
crisis has reawakened us to the importance of protecting our values, 
and I believe that the Arctic wilderness has a place on that list.
  The time to debate the merits of energy policy is not today, and not 
as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Debating the merits 
of these, and other, provisions will take time, time we do not have 
now. There will be deep divisions and much disagreement. As Senator 
Murkowski said just last week, consideration of energy legislation on 
the defense bill is ``inappropriate.'' ``[T]here is a place for the 
consideration of domestic energy development.  . . . That belongs in 
the energy bill where it should be debated by all individual members.''
  We should leave this Arctic refuge debate for another day and focus 
with intensity on the task at hand: supporting and strengthening our 
Armed Forces. This is not the time for the distraction and division 
that this amendment would create.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 1760

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. It is a 
filed amendment. It is amendment No. 1760.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. 
     Hutchinson, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hatch, 
     Mr. Johnson, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Specter, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Durbin, Ms. 
     Collins, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 1760.

  Mr. REID. 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:

 (Purpose: To strike the condition precedent for the effectiveness of 
        the dual compensation authority provided in section 651)

       Beginning on page 207, strike line 18 and all that follows 
     through page 209, line 12, and insert the following:

[[Page 18223]]

       (d) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this 
     section shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
       (2) No benefits may be paid to any person by reason of 
     section 1414 of title 10, United State Code, as added by the 
     amendment made by subsection (a), for any period before the 
     effective date under paragraph (1).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment along 
with Mr. Daschle, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
Edwards, Mr. Specter, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. 
Cantwell, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
Dorgan, and Mr. Bill Nelson.
  Our amendment will correct an inequity for veterans who have retired 
from our Armed Forces with a service-connected disability.
  This amendment is identical to the bill I sponsored on January 24, S. 
170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001. The Retired Pay 
Restoration Act currently has almost 80 cosponsors, 80 Senators, 
approximately. This clearly illustrates the bipartisan support for this 
legislation.
  As with the bill, this amendment will permit retired members of the 
Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive 
military retired pay concurrently with veterans disability 
compensation.
  In 1891, the original inequitable 19th century law was passed to 
prohibit the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA 
disability compensation. When this original law was enacted, the United 
States had an extremely small standing army. Only a portion of our 
Armed Forces consisted of career soldiers.
  Career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal 
retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to 
receive VA disability. The law simply discriminates against career 
military men and women. I repeat, under the current law, if you retire 
from the military and have a service-connected disability, you have to 
waive your retirement pay. When I first heard about this, I could not 
believe it. I thought my staff had given me bad advice. They had not.
  But adding to this injustice is the fact that the Federal employee 
has been able to collect VA disability compensation while working for 
the Federal Government--but not if you are in the military. You can 
work for the Department of Energy or the Park Service, and if you have 
a service-connected disability, you can draw your whole retirement pay. 
But if you retire from the military, no chance, you have to waive that 
or a portion of it. The civil service retiree may receive both his 
civil service retirement and VA disability with no offset at all.
  Disabled military retirees are only entitled to receive disability 
compensation if they agree to waive their retirement pay or a portion 
of it equal to the amount of the disability compensation. This 
requirement clearly discriminates unfairly against disabled career 
soldiers by requiring them to essentially pay their own disability 
compensation.
  If you are in the military, and you get out with a service-connected 
disability, you can draw all that pay unless you retire from the 
military. If you work for Sears & Roebuck, or if you work for the 
Interior Department, you get it all, but not if you are retired from 
the military. How unfair.
  To understand the law's unfairness, one must look at why the 
Government pays retirees and disabled veterans. Military retirement pay 
is earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices 
inherent in a military career. It is the promised reward for servicing 
at least two decades, and many times more, under conditions most 
Americans find intolerable. You are told when to get up, when to go to 
bed, where you are going to live, and what you are going to do. That is 
what the military is all about.
  Veterans disability compensation, on the other hand, is recompense 
for pain, suffering, and lost future earning power caused by a service-
connected illness or injury.
  Military retirement pay and disability compensation were earned and 
awarded for entirely different purposes. Current law ignores the 
distinction between these two entitlements.
  One of our valued staff on the minority side, every time there is a 
military bill, comes in this Chamber proudly wearing on his lapel a 
medal, the Silver Star. He wears that very proudly. But if he has a 
service-connected disability--and he may have one--he can draw that 
because he is not a retiree from the military or, if he is, he cannot. 
It does not make sense. It is not fair. Current law ignores the 
distinction between these two entitlements. Military retirement pay and 
disability compensation were both earned and awarded for entirely 
different purposes.
  This amendment represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice 
that has existed for a long, long time, for far too long. Allowing 
disabled veterans to receive military retired pay and veterans 
disability compensation concurrently will restore fairness to Federal 
retirement policy.
  It is unfair for our veterans not to receive both of these payments 
concurrently. Today we have 560,000 disabled military men and women who 
have sacrificed a lot for this country. Today nearly one and a half 
million Americans dedicate their lives to the defense of our Nation. 
And that is going up as we speak. The U.S. military force is unmatched 
in terms of power, training, and ability. Our great Nation is 
recognized as the world's only superpower, a status which is largely 
due to the sacrifices that veterans have made during the last century.
  This past weekend I read a book written by Stephen Ambrose. It is his 
latest book. It is about B-24s. It is the history of these bombers 
during World War II. It is a fascinating history. The losses of B-24 
pilots and crews were unbelievable. They were shot down all the time. 
They were big, heavy, awkward airplanes, and very hard to fly. And they 
lost a lot of them in noncombat situations. But it is an example of the 
sacrifices made by people who have served our country in the military.
  Why should not someone who flew a B-24, has a service-connected 
disability, and has retired from the military, be able to draw that 
disability compensation as a result of being hurt flying a B-24?
  Rather than honoring their commitment and bravery, the Federal 
Government has chosen instead to perpetuate a 110-year-old injustice.
  I know the Senate will seriously consider passing this amendment. 
With almost 80 cosponsors, it is a fair statement that this amendment 
should pass. I hope the Senate will pass this amendment to end at last 
this disservice to our retired military.
  Some believe this amendment may be too expensive. This country has 
saved lots of money by not doing the right thing in years past. We have 
1,000 World War II veterans who die every day. From today to tomorrow, 
there will be 1,000 funerals held for World War II veterans. Since last 
June, we have fallen a little short. It has not been quite 1,000 a day. 
It has been close. Since then we have lost 465,000 veterans. These 
dedicated service people will never have the ability to enjoy their two 
well-deserved entitlements. To delay any action on this amendment means 
we will continue to deny fundamental fairness to thousands of our 
Nation's retirees.
  If we can pass this legislation and give a World War II veteran 1 
month of the compensation they deserve before they pass on, we should 
do that.
  This amendment is supported by numerous veterans' service 
organizations--I cannot name them all--the Military Coalition, the 
National Military/Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, Disabled 
American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans 
of America, and the Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees, plus many 
more.
  This is the right thing to do, and we must eliminate this century of 
sacrifice. Our veterans have earned this. Now is our chance to honor 
their service to the Nation.
  I hope this legislation passes overwhelmingly and that it is not 
taken out in conference. We passed the amendment last year. Out of 100 
percent of what we needed, we maybe got 2 percent to help just a few 
people. We need to help them all.

[[Page 18224]]

  It is not easy for me to stand here and say that 1,000 World War II 
veterans die every day, but that is a fact. They do. Many of those 
World War II veterans are today receiving unfair payments by this 
Government. They are not able to receive their retirement and their 
disability. They have to waive part of their retirement. That is 
unfair.
  I hope this amendment is adopted. I am not going to require a vote on 
it. I am not one who believes a big heavy vote helps in conference. 
Everyone knows this has almost 80 Senate cosponsors. It is something 
the veterans community supports wholeheartedly.
  I was talking to one of the Armed Services staff people today. They 
get more mail on this issue than any other issue because people are 
desperate. They know they are dying off.
  I hope this amendment will be accepted. I repeat, I am not going to 
require a recorded vote. But the conscience of this Senate calls out 
for recognizing the sacrifices made by these veterans and that we adopt 
this amendment in the Senate and make sure the same happens in 
conference because they deserve this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. REID. Are we going to take action on this amendment? Is the 
Senator from Kansas speaking on my amendment?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I was not planning to, unless the 
distinguished Senator would ask me to do so. I have worked with him at 
great length on the Ethics Committee. Is the amendment ethical?
  Mr. REID. The two managers are not here, Mr. President. I have no 
objection, if the Senator from Kansas is going to file another 
amendment, to setting mine aside.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I think the agreement was, at least as far as this 
Senator understood, that I was going to have 20 minutes to talk about 
an amendment I had planned on introducing. I am not in a position to 
acquiesce to the Senator's request. I would have to check with our 
leadership in that regard. I have no doubt the Senator has an 
outstanding amendment.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has every right under postcloture to speak for 
an hour on anything relating to defense as he wishes. I know he has 
been a very stalwart member of the committee and has done so much for 
defense issues over the years. I certainly look forward to listening to 
him for 20 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my friend and colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


   Establishing a Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in the interest of germaneness and to 
move this bill along, I am acceding to the request by the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and Senator 
Warner, our distinguished ranking member, in that I had intended on 
introducing an amendment. I am going to speak to the amendment. I think 
my decision will be to simply lay down the amendment as a freestanding 
bill.
  Having said that, I rise this morning to warn my Senate colleagues 
about an urgent issue facing the Senate and this Nation. This issue has 
been identified many times now by various respected commissions, by 
leaders within the military, the academic, political, and national 
security communities. Whether we admit it or not, the need for action 
is instinctively understood by most Members of this body.
  However, despite months and years of hearings, testimony, and 
warnings, until September 11 there was little sense of urgency or 
desire to make changes to the structure of the Senate required to 
address the problems of homeland security and terrorism.
  I know the distinguished majority leader and our Republican leader 
and a few other Senators and staff have certainly given this 
recognition serious and careful consideration. As the former chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities within the 
Armed Services Committee, now the ranking member--the distinguished 
Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu is now the chairman--I come to 
this issue after 3 years of hearings and testimony from virtually all 
the experts and more than 40 agencies of the Government.
  It gives me little solace and a great deal of frustration to find the 
fine members of the subcommittee and our excellent staff in the role of 
Paul Revere, but unable to awaken the Federal Government, our 
colleagues, and the American people.
  Let me share two paragraphs from the very first report our 
subcommittee issued to the Congress, to the press, and to the public:

       The terrorist threat to our citizens, both military 
     personnel and civilians at home and abroad is real and 
     growing. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
     individual acts of terrorism have dramatically raised the 
     stakes and increased the potential of massive casualties in 
     the event of the terrorist attack.

  I further quote from the first report of the subcommittee:

       Further, the serious prospect that known terrorist Osama 
     bin Laden or other terrorists might use biological and 
     chemical weapons as well as individual acts of terrorism is 
     of great concern. His organization is just one of 
     approximately a dozen terrorist groups. bin Laden, for 
     example, has called the acquisition of these weapons ``a 
     religious duty'' and noted that how to use them is up to us.

  My colleagues, that was 3 years ago. We also stressed in our report 
that to confront this continuing and growing threat, it was critical 
that our governmentwide efforts to combat terrorism be coordinated and 
clearly focused. We noted at that time there were approximately 40 
Federal departments and agencies with jurisdiction in the fight against 
terrorism.
  Last spring, members of the Intelligence, Armed Services, and 
Appropriations Committees for the first time joined together and asked 
these same agencies to testify. All claimed jurisdiction. Many claimed 
they were in charge. We asked them three things: What is your mission? 
What do you really do? Who do you report to?
  The bottom line: The hearings demonstrated that too many Federal 
agencies do not have a firm grasp of their roles and responsibilities 
for preventing and preparing for and responding to acts of domestic 
terrorism.
  This patchwork quilt approach is not a substitute for a national 
strategy, the purpose of which would be to coordinate our Federal 
agencies into an effective force. It seems to me the administration is 
now working overtime to get that job done. Obviously, the 
administration has the attention of all Members of the House and Senate 
and the American people.
  Along with that summation, the three committee chairmen and two 
subcommittee chairmen sent a list of recommendations to the Bush 
administration. We responded after those hearings. Now that situation 
has dramatically changed. The attack on the United States, the deaths 
of more than 6,000 Americans, and the very real probability that other 
attacks on the United States by terrorists are not only possible but 
probable require--require--that the Senate take action now to create a 
single entity to focus the action of the Senate--not the Federal 
agencies, not the House, but the Senate--on homeland security and 
terrorism.
  I remind my colleagues that as tragic as September 11 was, it was not 
the first act of terrorism in this regard: The 1993 bombing of the 
World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole --the Intelligence 
Committee, by the way, is still progressing on an investigation in 
regard to the U.S.S. Cole--and the bombing of our embassies. These 
earlier attacks and the promises and threats that prefaced them should 
have been the clarion call to prepare adequately for homeland security. 
They were not. If we now fail to properly organize and coordinate our 
actions in the Senate as the Nation fights a war against terrorism, we 
will be part of the problem, not the solution.
  We do not now speak with one voice. As a body and as individual 
Members, we do not know all of the actions being taken within the 
various committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction or self-declared 
jurisdiction over homeland security and terrorism. I know this for sure 
in regard to reading about

[[Page 18225]]

hearings that were held 2 weeks before, hearings we held in the 
Emerging Threats Subcommittee with the same witnesses, or that there 
were hearings planned 2 weeks down the road from hearings we had 
planned, not that we had the exact answer to the problem by any means. 
Bluntly put, the Senate cannot be a contributing partner with the 
Executive to win the war against terrorism unless we are properly 
organized.
  On the other hand, we have done some good work. Last year, the 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, in an attempt to reduce 
confusion and focus action, required the Department of Defense to 
establish a single Assistant Secretary to speak for the Department. 
Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have worked hard to 
require a similar single point of responsibility in the Department of 
Justice.
  Last Thursday, the President of the United States designated 
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a former colleague of ours in the House, 
to head up a new Cabinet-level organization to focus attention and to 
speak for the administration on homeland security.
  Last week, the House of Representatives of the United States 
established a subcommittee to be the single voice for the House. The 
Senate leadership knows, I am sure--I have talked with them at length--
that we must create a single committee in some form to coordinate and 
to prioritize initiatives and programs concerning homeland security and 
terrorism.
  Mr. President, we have not done so. I say to my colleagues, it is our 
turn to act. The select committee I am recommending with this 
legislation will allow us to speak with one voice and be a key partner 
with the administration and the House of Representatives in the war on 
terrorism.
  Before I outline my proposed legislation, let me give some background 
regarding this urgent need.
  First, there is precedent for creating a select committee to address 
a very significant problem. The Truman committee: Convinced that waste 
and corruption were strangling the Nation's efforts to mobilize itself 
for war in Europe, President Truman conceived the idea for a special 
Senate committee to investigate the national defense program. Many 
consider this to be one of the most productive committees in the 
Senate's history.
  The Arms Control Observer Group provided a way for Senate leaders to 
observe arms reduction talks and anticipate issues that might block 
eventual ratification.
  Y2K was created to examine the year 2000 problem in the executive and 
judicial branches of the Federal Government, State governments, and the 
private sector operations in the United States and abroad. Everybody 
owes a debt of thanks to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. 
Bennett, for his leadership in that regard.
  Each of these organizations was created to solve a particular problem 
in extraordinary times, and they proved to be invaluable. This is an 
extraordinary time.
  To combat terrorism and protect our homeland is an issue demanding 
unity of effort in the Senate. Several studies and commissions have 
been conducted on the threat of terrorism and the preparedness of 
America to cope with an attack. We all know what they are. There is the 
Bremer commission, the Hart-Rudman commission, the Gilmore commission, 
and a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies; the 
acronym is CSIS. Each had elements of agreement. They all recommended 
the following:
  No. 1, the threat to our homeland is real. It is not a matter of if 
but when. Sadly, we know the answer to when. The people who planned the 
terrorist attack and killed 19 of our service men and women on the 
U.S.S. Cole are the same kind of people who planned the attack in New 
York and Washington and the same kind of people who are planning the 
next attack.
  Point No. 2, from all of these commissions, all of these experts: The 
executive branch is fragmented and poorly organized to prepare or deal 
with such an attack. The President is stepping up to that issue. So is 
Tom Ridge.
  Point No. 3, the Nation needs a strategy to address the problems in 
international terrorism. I think the President is doing a good job on 
that respect with the help of his Cabinet, with the help also of the 
international community.
  Point No. 4--and this is the point I want to make as of today--the 
Congress is as poorly organized and fragmented as the executive branch.
  Finally, if we need another example of why we must coordinate our 
actions on this issue, we need only look at the various legislative 
proposals moving through the Senate to direct the administration to 
reorganize the executive branch to face this war on terrorism. These 
actions are certainly well meaning.
  I do not oppose each or any of them, and I do not perjure their 
intent or the intent of the distinguished Senators who have introduced 
the bills. But, I say to my colleagues, could we not better serve the 
Nation in this critical time if there were a single select committee to 
coordinate and prioritize our efforts?
  Could not a single committee serve the Nation better and work more 
closely with the President than all of the various committees we have 
now with some measure of jurisdiction over homeland security and 
terrorism?
  How many committees and subcommittees must the administration meet 
with to take action now, to put politics second and America first?
  How many chairmen and ranking members must Governor Ridge meet with 
and convince before he can take action?
  Could not a single coordinating and prioritizing committee better 
serve the Nation during this war on terrorism and serve the Senate as 
well?
  During the hearings of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, we asked 
all the witnesses to state what keeps them up at night, what was their 
biggest worry, and to prioritize homeland security threats.
  Their suggestions mirror the threats now receiving national press 
attention and the priority challenges that now face Governor Ridge as 
he comes to the Senate asking for immediate consideration and expedited 
action.
  The first concern mentioned by our witnesses was the danger of an 
attack using bioterrorism. Goodness knows, we have seen headlines about 
that. The probability is low or perhaps medium, but the risk is severe, 
if not chaotic. Were I to be asked by Governor Ridge and his staff, I 
would recount that concern and recommend immediate funding and policy 
reforms.
  I see the distinguished former chairman of the full Armed Services 
Committee, the ranking member, the gentleman I like to refer to as the 
``chairman emeritus,'' the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who is 
very much aware of an exercise that was just taken at Andrews Air Force 
Base called ``Dark Winter,'' the use of biological weaponry. The 
results were very grim.
  I think both Senator Warner and this Senator would meet with Governor 
Ridge and say: Tom, this is something that must be addressed and is 
being addressed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
Secretary Thompson. But on whose door will the Governor knock? 
Certainly, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; 
certainly the Armed Services Committee; perhaps our subcommittee; the 
Intelligence Committee; and the Government oversight committee, and, of 
course, the Appropriations Committee and the appropriate subcommittee 
on the Appropriations Committee. And let's not ever forget the growing 
danger of agriterrorism. So, obviously, he better knock on the door of 
the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee.
  The second priority concern stressed by the experts was the danger of 
a cyber-attack, or information warfare. So Director Ridge doubtlessly 
would knock on the door of the Commerce Committee again, as well as the 
Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, doubtlessly the 
Banking Committee and others. Now I could go on, but I think my point 
has been made.

[[Page 18226]]

  The third priority concern was the danger of a chemical attack, and 
the fourth, the danger of any possible use by a state organization or a 
nonstate organization of terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction.
  As the September 11 tragedy demonstrated, there were few threats that 
were not discussed or that will be as Governor and now Director Ridge 
comes to the Senate to brief Senators to ask for our advice, our 
expertise, and our support, and we have that. We have had many 
hearings. We have many staff experts, and we have good judgments as 
evidenced by the Senator from Virginia and others who have worked so 
hard on this issue. That is how it should be.
  We have a great many Senators, as I have indicated, who have 
considerable expertise and experience. They can, and we will, be part 
of the answer, but we do not have time to introduce bill after bill and 
hold hearing after hearing and request Governor Ridge to knock on 
virtually every committee and subcommittee door of the Senate in a 
merry-go-round of turf contests.
  I know that senior committee chairmen and senior ranking members and 
even subcommittee members and ranking subcommittee members care about 
turfs. Scratch their turf, and it is like Ferdinand the bull. He does 
not smell flowers; he gets upset.
  I say again, the House has acted. The administration has acted. We 
have not. It is time. Last Sunday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld issued 
the long awaited Quadrennial Defense Review. In his forward he states:

       The vast array of complex policy operational and even 
     constitutional issues concerning how we organize and prepare 
     to defend the American people are now receiving unprecedented 
     action throughout the United States Government. Importantly, 
     since the scope of homeland defense security responsibilities 
     span an array of Federal, State, and local organizations, it 
     will also require enhanced interagency processes and 
     capabilities to effectively defend the United States against 
     attacks.

  Then he went on to say: The recent establishment of the Office of 
Homeland Security will galvanize this vital effort.
  That is the word, ``galvanize.'' ``Galvanize,'' that is the word, to 
be sure. Various dictionaries define ``galvanize'' as follows, and I 
quote:

       To arouse to awareness and action; to spur; to startle.

  Erskine Childers of dictionary fame said:

       A blast in my ear like the voice of 50 trombones galvanized 
     me into full consciousness and action.

  Mr. President, the Senate of the United States will not be able to 
galvanize or even play a significant part in winning the war against 
terrorism if in coming to the Senate the President, Tom Ridge, and the 
American people have to knock on 100 doors and listen to 100 different 
trombones. That is not galvanizing anything.
  My proposed legislation would do the following: First, establish a 
Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism. It would be 
cochaired by the majority and the minority leaders. It would have 
membership designated by the leadership from committees with preeminent 
and primary jurisdiction. Note I said preeminent and primary 
jurisdiction over homeland security and terrorism. And it would be 
responsible to coordinate and prioritize initiatives and programs of 
the U.S. Government concerning homeland security and terrorism.
  It would submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation 
and report to the Senate concerning such activities and programs.
  This is a modest proposal. It is not written in stone. This proposal 
is not perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect bill. It is one 
that does not take authority away from committees, despite a lot of 
discussion that that might be the thing to do; the committees that 
certainly currently have the jurisdiction over these matters. It does 
allow the Senate to have a single voice and a single point of contact 
the administration can deal with as we fight this war on terrorism.
  It is the right thing to do. It must be done now if the Senate is to 
be a key player and a meaningful partner in this Nation's war on 
terrorism.
  I have a more detailed summary of the bill. I ask unanimous consent 
that the summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Roberts Resolution Establishing a Select Committee

       1. Establishes a Select Committee on Homeland Security & 
     Terrorism.
       2. Select Committee would coordinate and prioritize federal 
     initiatives toward genuine homeland security and preventing 
     incidents of terrorism in the U.S.
       3. Select Committee will have a legislative jurisdiction 
     and shall have referred to it all legislation substantively 
     connected to addressing homeland security and terrorism 
     challenges.
       4. Composition of Select Committee would be: two co-
     chairmen (Majority Leader and Minority Leader), two vice-
     chairmen (appointed by majority and minority leaders), 
     chairmen and ranking members of Senate committees with clear 
     jurisdiction (as determined by leaders), four members not 
     sitting on such committees, and four members with expertise 
     in the area of homeland security and terrorism (these eight 
     members will also be appointed by the majority and minority 
     leaders).
       5. The Select Committee will hold hearings, compel the 
     attendance of witnesses, draft legislation, report 
     legislation, and generally be the focal point for the 
     Senate's legislative and policy response to the challenge of 
     keeping the American homeland safe and prepared in regards to 
     incidents of terrorism and the phenomenon of 21st century 
     terrorism (where each incident is exponentially more 
     catastrophic than the last).
       6. Select Committee will periodically report to the Senate 
     and the committees of the Senate on the federal long term 
     policy response to challenge of homeland security and 
     terrorism.
       7. Select Committee will require an annual report from the 
     President outlining the coordinated federal long term policy 
     response to challenge of homeland security and terrorism.
       8. Select Committee is to compliment (by coordination and 
     prioritization) the work of other committees in the Senate on 
     homeland security and terrorism. Other committee jurisdiction 
     is not removed by this proposal.
       9. After introduction, the resolution will be referred to 
     the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration for further 
     consideration.

  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my distinguished 
colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee. Let the Record 
reflect he was the chairman of the Emerging Threat Subcommittee, which 
as a new chairman I created many years ago. Many of us on the 
committee, preeminent and foremost our distinguished colleague, Senator 
Roberts, in his tireless efforts, brought to the attention first of the 
committee, then the Senate as a whole, the serious looming threats 
across the board. Often he was alone in those efforts, but he had me by 
his side. I say the two of us, I suppose, in some respects at times had 
to forge ahead.
  I do not say that in a partisan way because both sides of the aisle, 
in terms of our committee, at times had to push hard to get measures 
through and to eventually get what money we could from the 
Appropriations Committee to support the initiatives of the former 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats.
  We are fortunate the Senator remains as the ranking member under the 
chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
  I have not had an opportunity to examine the format of the Senator 
for this important initiative that must be taken at some point by the 
leadership of the Senate and hopefully the endorsement of the full 
Senate. From what I have heard of the Senator's remarks, I think it is 
a landmark place from which to begin to examine this question.
  If I might inquire, perhaps in the Senator's extended remarks he 
covers the budgetary authority. That, as the Senator knows, is very 
important. For example, in our bill now pending before the Senate for 
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2000, we have a number of billions of 
dollars directed towards the President's initiatives, the initiatives 
of the Congress of the United States, to thwart terrorism. How would 
that be treated under the proposal the Senator from Kansas has? Would 
that jurisdiction over those funds--would we have,

[[Page 18227]]

should we say, coequal authority of, say, the Armed Services Committee 
and other committees that have jurisdiction over portions of terrorism?
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to respond. 
The second point, which will be inserted in the Record following my 
remarks, the select committee would coordinate and prioritize the 
Federal initiatives toward genuine homeland security and preventing 
incidents of terrorism.
  It would have a legislative jurisdiction and have referred to it all 
legislation substantially connected to addressing homeland security and 
terrorism challenges, but the budget authority, of course, stemming 
from the Budget Committee and all the work they do and all the work the 
appropriators do would still remain in the Armed Services Committee. It 
is more of a clearinghouse.
  I suspect Director Ridge would come to the select committee, indicate 
his advice and counsel from the National Security Council, all that he 
has talked to, that we have the top five priorities and that, as a 
result, would go to our committee. We would recommend to the committees 
of jurisdiction, which I would think would be no more than four or 
five. They would not lose their jurisdiction.
  There was a great deal of concern, when I talked to various ranking 
members and chairmen of these committees, that they did not want to 
lose jurisdiction. Some thought about making them ex officio, but in 
terms of the budget authority, obviously the Senator from Kansas and 
the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee would have a 
direct say in terms of the authorization. It would be like everything 
else we do that is subject to our work with the appropriators.
  Mr. WARNER. If I might continue, one area of work of the Senator, as 
the former chairman, and I presume now in this bill the current 
chairman, is to prioritize those funds that go to the National Guard 
support teams. We started out 3 years ago with I think 4, 5, 6. Our 
committee each year increased the number of teams, increased the 
funding for the teams. Their teams would be the first responders; or 
maybe the local police, fire, and other authorities would be the first 
responders.
  There was a problem because we only had so many teams for the 50 
States. How many teams are we up to now?
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the distinguished Senator will continue to yield, we 
increased that number by 22. There was a GAO report, as the Senator 
knows. He always sat as the presiding chair and now ranking member at 
the subcommittee because of his intense interest. We would not have the 
subcommittee focus on this problem without the leadership and 
inspiration of the Senator from Virginia.
  The GAO issued a rather critical report in regard to the teams, what 
we call civil support teams, the idea being that very well trained 
National Guard units could be within 4 hours of any community to be one 
of the first responders and signal back to the Federal Government--now 
with the FBI, with FEMA, with the Red Cross, with everybody concerned--
exactly what the problem was.
  That report found no fault in the raid teams. That report focused on 
the lack of direction and leadership within the Department of Defense. 
We fixed that problem with the help of the able staff, including the 
able staff member sitting to the Senator's right. He goes on periodic 
inspections to make sure these raid dreams are up to snuff. It means 
within 4 hours of anywhere in the United States you will have a crack 
professional and well-trained National Guard team to come in to 
immediately recognize the problem, indicate to the first responder, and 
also Washington, exactly what the problem is, and respond as fast as 
possible.
  It was that initiative that the distinguished Senator mentioned to 
this Senator, and we were able to increase the number of teams even 
before the Department of Defense clearly recognized that need.
  Mr. WARNER. I wanted to discuss that. There was a clear and historic 
bipartisanship in the work by the committee.
  I pose it as a question now: Supposing in a future budget coming 
before the Congress from President Bush's team, and Mr. Ridge would 
have a voice, of course, and say, arbitrarily, he needed another 10 
teams, and that funding is in the Department of Defense budget, and our 
committee decided we ought to have 20 teams. However, the new committee 
that you envision would, I presume, get the budget request, as would 
the Armed Services Committee, and would either have to agree with our 
committee or disagree, and if there is a disagreement, how do you 
resolve it?
  Mr. ROBERTS. The same way we resolved the problems with Y2K. The 
leadership would have to make a decision in regard to the 
prioritization of what the distinguished Senator is talking about.
  I point out No. 8 in the summary of the bill. The select committee is 
to complement--complement, by coordination and prioritization--the work 
of other committees in the Senate on homeland security and terrorism. 
Other committee jurisdiction is not removed by this proposal. I cannot 
imagine that the Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism 
would not adhere to the recommendations of the Armed Services 
Committee, more especially the subcommittee on which I serve, and also 
the budget as submitted by the administration. The budget authority is 
more of a notification authority to this select committee. It is not 
``triplication''--if there is such a word--in terms of the Budget 
Committee.
  I do not want in any way to tread on the expertise and the knowledge 
of the distinguished chairman and all the members of the committees 
that have jurisdiction. The Senator might remember we had a chart that 
we showed weeks ago, before September 11. The Senator may remember he 
was an active participant when we had the 40 agencies that came in. We 
asked: What is your mission? Who do you report to? Who is in charge? As 
a matter of fact, I think you were the Senator who showed up with the 
chart that showed it was a hodgepodge. It would be impossible for 
anyone to figure it out. I held up a much smaller chart of 
``stovepipes,'' if you will.
  At that time, I thought there were five major committees that had 
jurisdiction that somehow could recommend or at least be part of this 
select committee, either ex officio or official. We had decided now to 
make them members because I didn't want to scratch that term. I have 
since found out there are eight, and there may be nine, and it may be 
growing more than that. It did affect our budget.
  Mr. WARNER. The Record should reflect the important contribution by 
that group of Senators. Senator Judd Gregg was in the leadership at 
that time. You were present. Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator 
Levin attended a lot of these. We had 2 full days of hearings.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Senator Mikulski was very active, Senator Hollings was 
very active, Senator Stevens was there, as I have indicated, and 
Senator Shelby on the Intelligence Committee. We had the Armed Services 
Committee, Intelligence, and the appropriators.
  Mr. WARNER. That was an important piece of work we did.
  Again, if no standing committee gives up any jurisdiction, I am still 
having difficulty understanding exactly how this new committee will 
function. I ask the question in a supportive manner and in no way to 
infer that I am not supporting the ultimate objective, especially of 
the leadership itself, to establish such a format. If we don't have 
some yielding of jurisdiction, I am not sure how that committee 
functions.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield again, I will try to do this 
one more time. We had plans A, B, C. The first plan was to create a 
task force. Then we thought after September 11 that yet another task 
force was not the thing to do. The task force was to be a clearinghouse 
of all the major committees that had that jurisdiction. The task force 
was to at least let everybody

[[Page 18228]]

know that the left hand knew what the right hand was doing. We have had 
meetings like that. Members come once, staff members come later, and 
simply protect the turf of the subcommittee or the committees.
  We said: We will hold a hearing on that. Why would you want to hold a 
hearing when we already held one? With whom are you working downtown in 
terms of the agencies? And round and round and round. So we decided the 
task force would not fit the bill.
  Then we had another plan. This plan I call the Bennett plan, although 
I am not sure the distinguished Senator from Utah would take credit for 
it, or even should. But it was based on the committee that he chaired 
in regard to the Y2K challenge we had. In this particular case, you had 
the majority leader, the minority leader designating two designees to 
be vice chairmen, which we do. He called it the worker bees, so they 
could get that done. They basically were in charge of that particular 
effort. It didn't mean that the Commerce Committee--I do not remember 
the other main committee involved; perhaps it was the Governmental 
Affairs Committee; I may be misspeaking--could not introduce 
legislation and have budget authority, which they did. It was an effort 
to make sure that the Senate of the United States was on top of this 
issue and everybody knew what was occurring.
  When the leadership would come to Senator Bennett or Senator Dodd, 
the other participant, they would say: This is our best recommendation.
  I will say any senior committee chair who has a strong feeling, I 
understand that, but in the end it will have to be a decision by the 
executive, by our leadership, hopefully by a single committee that can 
serve as a clearinghouse to prioritize. I don't think we get into the 
budgets that much.
  Plan C is the one I have introduced to make sure your senior 
committee chairmen, or at least part of the action, are not ex officio. 
Plan C was put in. First, this is flexible; this is not ``the'' plan.
  I am trying to prompt action. Frankly, what I am trying to do when we 
have a problem in Dodge City, and you have to use a cattle prod and 
start to push a little bit, that is what we are doing. I think it is a 
pretty good bill, but it may not be the best bill, and there may be 
another way to approach this.
  The distinguished Senator knows what has happened. We have been 
talking about this now for 6 months.
  Mr. WARNER. In fairness, Senator Lott has hosted several meetings--
you and I have been present--so he could look at all options on it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, I have been present.
  Mr. WARNER. I want to follow this carefully.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I have discussed this with the minority leader. I gave a 
similar plan, and I said it is not so much whether it is this plan or 
that plan, we must have a single select committee. We thought about a 
standing committee, and we said: No, that is going too far. You know 
and I know that if you tread on the turf of an important committee 
chairman, they will say no to the leadership. That is precisely what 
has happened. I am not going to get specific, but we have been working 
on this for 6 months to a year, and if we just get into personalities 
and turf fights, there ought to be a way to work this out. So this 
select committee would prioritize and coordinate with Tom Ridge. My 
word, if he can do it with 40 agencies, we can do it here with all the 
subcommittees and committees we have in the Senate. If we do not, we 
will not be part of the answer.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Senator is aware that I, in my 
capacity as ranking on Armed Services, have not objected to what 
Senator Lott has put out as some format. To the contrary, I have 
indicated to him my strongest support for whatever evolves, hopefully 
with his leadership and others'--yourself--out of this effort.
  I commend the Senator but I am prepared to make whatever adjustments 
are necessary in order for this very important concept to be formalized 
and instituted in the Senate.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for his help, support, leadership, 
and advice, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his continuing 
leadership. He was an absolutely marvelous chairman of the Emerging 
Threats Subcommittee and took that committee in a direction that really 
foresaw some of the activities that we have seen in the year since he 
began that effort. For that foresight we are all in his debt. He has 
continued that as ranking member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee 
now, with Senator Landrieu as Chair.
  But he has really been way, way ahead of his time. He has prodded us, 
as he used the image, in more ways than one and more times than just a 
few. I know the leadership is discussing some kind of a select 
committee. Hopefully they will come to some kind of conclusion so we 
can act with one voice.
  He has been sometimes a lone voice, often a voice with a lot of 
support--but nonetheless a strong voice in that direction. I thank him 
again as I often have publicly and privately for his extraordinary work 
on our committee and in the Senate.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished chairman and my good friend 
and colleague for his very kind remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1760

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask we return to amendment No. 1760.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the record, the amendment is accepted 
on this side.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am proud to be lead Republican 
sponsor of the concurrent receipt amendment offered by my distinguished 
colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. Now is the time to restore 
fairness to our military retired. Men and women who served our country, 
who dedicated their lives to the defense of freedom have earned fair 
compensation.
  Our veterans have earned and deserve fair compensation. I have been a 
longstanding supporter of efforts to repeal the 110-year-old law that 
prohibits military retirees from collecting the retired pay that they 
earned as well as VA disability compensation.
  This amendment will correct the inequity of disability compensation 
for our Nation's military retirees. Today, our military retirees are 
forced to fund their own disability compensation. Essentially, it is 
the view of this government, that those that have already given so much 
for our Nation must provide more. These are worthy Americans who 
answered our Nation's call for 20 years or more. They are veterans who 
stood the line, defending our Nation, during peacetime and conflict.
  Today as we face a new enemy we have the duty to show our men and 
women in uniform that we as a nation fully support them, that the 
United States Senate recognizes their sacrifice. I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1760) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 18229]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1834

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Thomas and Senator Gramm of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Thomas, for 
     himself and Mr. Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 1834.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike the material beginning with page 264, line 21 and 
     ending with page 266, line 6.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am sure we all remember the lengthy, 
spirited debate on the question of whether or not private businesses in 
this country should have an opportunity to bid on items which the 
Government is buying or whether they ought to be preempted from being 
able to bid on those items by the monopoly position of Federal Prison 
Industries. The Senate spoke and spoke loudly. Senator Gramm strongly 
opposed it. He had some suggestions afterward which I find acceptable, 
Senator Thomas finds acceptable, and those suggestions are now 
incorporated in the amendment which we have sent to the desk. It leaves 
intact the thrust of our amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Last week, the Senate voted 74-24 to table an amendment 
that would have removed the Federal Prison Industries provision from 
the bill. This vote was an overwhelming victory for those who believe, 
as I do, that Federal Prison Industries should not be able to prohibit 
private sector companies and their employees from bidding on federal 
contracts that are paid for with their tax dollars.
  Under Section 821 of the bill, which has now been endorsed by the 
full Senate, FPI's ``mandatory preference'' would come to an end, and 
Federal Prison Industries would have to compete for future Department 
of Defense contracts. Under this provision, the Department of Defense, 
not Federal Prison Industries, would be responsible for determining 
whether Federal Prison Industries can best meet the Department's needs 
in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery. If DOD determines 
that the FPI product is not the best available in terms of price, 
quality, and time of delivery, the Department is directed to purchase 
the product on a competitive basis.
  Today, we are agreeing to an amendment that would modify the Federal 
Prison Industries provision. In particular, this amendment would delete 
language from the bill which specifically addresses: (1) DOD purchases 
of integral or embedded products from FPI; (2) DOD purchases of 
national security systems from FPI; and (3) DOD purchases in amounts 
less than the micropurchase threshold of $2500.
  The first thing that I would like to emphasize about this amendment 
is that it does not in any way alter or undermine the key language in 
the provision, which would end FPI's mandatory preference and allow 
private companies to compete against FPI for Department of Defense 
contracts. Would the Senator from Wyoming agree with this?
  Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to end FPI's 
mandatory preference on DOD contracts, and we have not and would not 
agree to any amendment that would undermine that action. As Senator 
Levin stated, last week's vote sent a clear message that the Senate 
fully supports eliminating FPI's mandatory source status.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would now like to address the language that we are 
removing from the bill.
  First, we are removing language that would have expressly stated that 
DOD may not be required to purchase integral or embedded products from 
Federal Prison Industries. This provision was intended to address FPI's 
practice of using its mandatory source status to insist that it get a 
share of projects that would ordinarily be performed by a single 
general contractor.
  While we believe that some of FPI's practices in this area have been 
abusive, we are dropping this language from the bill because we do not 
believe that it is necessary. Since the language in the bill would end 
FPI's mandatory source status, FPI would no longer have the leverage it 
has used in the past to insist that contracts be divided up, that 
contract specifications specifically require the use of FPI products, 
or that subcontracts be awarded to FPI.
  Let me be clear. We expect FPI's abusive practices to end under this 
provision. It is our belief that with the elimination of the mandatory 
preference, these practices will come to a stop. Would the Senator from 
Wyoming agree with this?
  Mr. THOMAS. I agree. The only reason for dropping this language from 
the bill is that it is redundant.
  Mr. LEVIN. Second, we are removing language from the bill that would 
have expressly stated that DOD may not be required to purchase national 
security systems from FPI.
  There are certain types of products that are inappropriate to produce 
in our prisons. I don't think we want guns produced in our prisons. I 
don't think we want missile guidance systems to be produced in prisons. 
I don't think we want rocket launchers to be produced in prisons. I 
don't think we want bullet proof vests to be produced in prisons.
  We have agreed to drop the language in the bill because it is 
unnecessary. With the elimination of the mandatory preference, DOD will 
no longer be required to purchase any product from FPI, unless the 
Department determines that FPI offers the best product and the best 
price, and with a delivery schedule that meets the Department's needs. 
For this reason, we do not believe that is necessary to retain the 
language singling out national security systems.
  Would the Senator from Wyoming agree with this?
  Mr. THOMAS. I do agree and in fact, I think the American public would 
be shocked to learn that under a depression-era statute the DOD is 
required to purchase national security products from Federal prisoners.
  In addition, FPI's entry into services generally, and data services 
related to mapping and geographic information in particular is 
troubling. This is an inappropriate area for prison work for a number 
of reasons. First, Congress has included mapping and geographic 
information services within the statutory definition of professional 
architect-engineer (A/E) services. This law requires Federal agencies 
to award A/E contracts (including those for surveying or mapping 
services) to firms based on their ``demonstrated competence and 
qualification'' subject to negotiation of a fee ``fair and reasonable 
to the government'', rather than awarding such contracts to the lowest 
bidder. The vast majority of States have also adopted this process in 
their codes and it is recommended by the American Bar Association in 
its Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments.
  Public health, welfare and safety is dependent on the quality of work 
performed by professionals in the fields of architecture, engineering, 
surveying and mapping. To add to these highly technical and 
professional services the drawings, maps and images processed by prison 
inmates is questionable to the public interest.
  There are prisons engaged in a variety of digital geographic 
information services, including converting hard copy maps to electronic 
files; plotting maps at various scales; creating databases with 
information on homeowners, property appraisal and tax assessment; 
digitizing, and other computer aided design and drafting and geographic 
information services. FPI is involved in a program to provide support 
services to some of the Nation's most classified and sensitive mapping 
programs. I believe it is highly inappropriate for prisoners to be 
involved in programs where their work later becomes classified.
  It is unwise to provide inmates access to information about 
individual

[[Page 18230]]

citizens' property and assets, address information, and other data that 
carries serious civil liberty implications. I want to emphasize that 
inmates working for FPI in geographic information services often have 
access to homeowner data, property appraisal and tax assessment records 
and other information that most citizens would not want in prisoners' 
hands. It is equally dangerous in today's climate to give prisoners 
access to underground utility, infrastructure or power system location 
data.
  Moreoever, to train prisons in imaging techniques and technologies 
makes the potential for utilizing such skills in nefarious 
counterfeiting operations upon release from incarceration too tempting.
  These are examples of where prison industries has gone too far and 
where constraints are needed.
  Mr. LEVIN. finally, we are removing language from the bill that would 
have stated that DOD may not be required to make purchases with a value 
less than the micropurchase threshold of $2500 from FPI.
  The micropurchase threshold is important, because the removal of 
statutory requirements on small purchases makes it possible for DOD and 
other agencies to use efficient purchasing methods, including credit 
cards. For this reason, DOD has long sought, within the executive 
branch, an exemption from FPI's mandatory source requirement for 
purchases less than $2,500. So far, FPI has been willing to grant an 
exemption only for purchases up to $250.
  We are removing this language from the bill so that the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Justice can continue efforts to work it 
out within the executive branch. It is our hope that, with the 
elimination of the mandatory preference for DOD purchases from FPI, the 
two agencies will be able to work this issue out in a constructive 
manner. Would the Senator from Wyoming agree with this?
  Mr. THOMAS. I agree with the good Senator from Michigan and want to 
point out that FPI has been fighting such changes for more than 5 
years. Furthermore, FPI's reluctance to increase the micropurchase 
threshold points to FPI's unwillingness to recognize the legitimate 
needs of its Federal agency customers.
  Lastly, I want to point out that this amendment does nothing to 
address the numerous other competitive advantages that FPI enjoys. As I 
pointed out on the Senate floor last week, FPI will retain advantages 
such as: paying inmates between $.23--$1.15 per hour; not having to pay 
Social Security or Unemployment compensation; not having to pay for 
employee benefits; exemption from paying Federal and State income tax, 
excise tax, and State and local excise taxes; and utilities being 
provided by the host prison.
  Under this amendment FPI will continue to enjoy these, and other, 
competitive advantages. In no way does this amendment shut down FPI. In 
fact, FPI will continue to produce products for DOD contracts because 
the private sector cannot compete against not having to pay market 
wages, employee benefits, and Federal and State taxes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend the chairman, Senator Thomas, 
and the senior Senator from Texas for reconciling differences on an 
issue which was of great importance to all parties. I urge adoption of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1834) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                           amendment no. 1805

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment that 
would allow a needed land transfer agreement to take place in North 
Chicago among the Navy, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the 
Finch Medical School.
  The managers of this bill accepted my amendment and I thank them for 
their help. I want to take this opportunity to explain what the 
amendment does.
  The Navy's only boot camp facility is at the Great Lakes Naval 
Training Center in North Chicago, IL. Its Recruit Training Center area 
is a very long, thin stretch of land hemmed in by railroad tracks and 
by land that the Navy transferred to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, VA, many years ago. This layout forces recruits to do so much 
marching simply in the course of moving about the area in a normal day 
of training that these 19-year-olds have been suffering from overuse 
injuries.
  Both the barracks and the large drilling facilities used by recruits 
were built hastily during World War II and are in desperate need of 
replacement. These military construction projects have been endorsed by 
the Navy and by Congress, but the layout of the Recruit Training Center 
must be modified before all the buildings needing replacement can be 
built.
  The VA land adjacent to the Recruit Training Center was leased to the 
Finch Medical School, which is affiliated with the North Chicago 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The VA also has more 
land and buildings than it needs for veterans health care delivery 
today.
  The Navy, the VA, and the Finch Medical School have been in 
negotiations to set up a land swap that would benefit all concerned. 
The Finch Medical School is amenable to giving up the land on which it 
carries a 99-year lease so that the Navy can use that land. The VA is 
willing to transfer the land the medical school has leased for other VA 
property that the VA no longer needs. I commend all the parties for 
their willingness to work together, compromise, and find a solution 
that benefits all parties. The details of this agreement are still 
being worked out, and a public hearing will be held on it as well.
  This amendment simply authorizes the Navy to use up to $2 million of 
Operations and Maintenance funds to fulfill its obligations, once a 
final agreement is reached.
  I appreciate the support from the bill's managers on this amendment. 
The rebuilt Recruit Training Center area will allow a major improvement 
in the training environment as well as the quality of life for new 
recruits. This amendment is absolutely necessary for the Navy to carry 
out the plans for its new Recruit Training Center.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now the understanding that we will recess until 2:15 
and that we will be back at that time. We hope to be able to work out a 
pending amendment or two so we can complete consideration of this bill, 
hopefully before the briefing which has been scheduled for, I believe, 
2:30. It would be our goal that we can use that 15 minutes to resolve 
these pending amendments, that we can then go to final passage right 
after the 2:30 briefing. That would be my goal.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share that goal. After carefully 
offering opportunity to my colleagues, I understand, if we resolve the 
matters with Senator Allard, that may conclude the amendments. It won't 
seal them off, but we have made a great deal of progress.
  Mr. LEVIN. Senator Allard, Senator Nelson of Florida and others, 
Senator Dodd, are working hard to see if we can come up with something 
which moves in the direction we all want to move in terms of voting 
rights for our military personnel and that does so in a way that we can 
protect against any unintended consequences. That is our hope over the 
lunch period. We will come back at 2:15 with high hopes and, if not, we 
will have to resolve it in other ways.

                          ____________________