[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24343-24346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. 
        Domenici):
  S. 1778. A bill to designate the National Foreign Affairs Training 
Center as the George P. Shultz National Foreign Affairs Training 
Center; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, it is a great honor to rise today to 
introduce legislation that would name the Department of State's Foreign 
Affairs Training Center after former Secretary of State George P. 
Shultz. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Helms, Hagel, and 
Domenici in honoring this outstanding public servant.
  Many of my most productive and enjoyable foreign policy experiences 
were those involving George Shultz as Secretary of State. Secretary 
Shultz celebrated the visits of foreign leaders to Washington by 
inviting hundreds of people to a luncheon or dinner at the State 
Department. If the guests were, for example, the President of Brazil, 
Shultz would identify prominent Brazilian business leaders, 
journalists, and scholars in the United States and a host of comparable 
Americans with interests in Brazil. He sprinkled the invitation list 
with members of the Reagan Administration and both houses of Congress. 
On most occasions, I was invited and introduced to a host of new 
friends deeply interested in international affairs.
  When I became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 
1985, the Secretary invited me to breakfast about once a month when 
Congress was in session. He always had a list of Reagan Administration 
legislative objectives for me to achieve and good suggestions on people 
and resources needed to accomplish each task.
  In a two year period, I chaired extensive hearings on the 
Philippines, South Africa, and the prospects for democracy in Central 
America. Though the recommendations of Secretary Shultz, I co-chaired 
Presidential election observer efforts in Guatemala, El Salvador and 
the Philippines. These experiences led to considerable post-election 
interest and diplomacy, especially in the Philippines. These events and 
the influence of Secretary Shultz played a large role in the context of 
my book ``Letters to the Next President''.
  In recent years, I have been a participant in the Asia Roundtable 
meetings sponsored by Stanford University and inspired by the 
leadership of George Shultz and his ability to bring statesmen from 
each Asian country to his meetings. Similarly, he brings distinguished 
leaders from all over the world to Stanford University Advisory 
Committee meetings and I have been the beneficiary of those rich 
experiences.
  My continuing service in the United States Senate has received 
constant support from Secretary Shultz. His letters and wise counsel 
during conversations have made a significant difference in my 
understanding of complex issues. From the years at the State Department 
dinners to the present, he has introduced me to a legion of friends in 
many countries, and

[[Page 24344]]

this network of friends and advisors has been invaluable.
  Secretary Shultz decided to back President George W. Bush very early 
in the Presidential Campaign of 2000 and has offered strong support to 
President Bush's bold diplomacy and the importance of employing and 
retaining the best foreign service personnel to achieve our 
international goals. Naming the National Foreign Affairs Training 
Center after George P. Shultz will be a fitting tribute to a great 
public servant who continues to exemplify the hallmark qualities in 
United States international leadership.
  This bill has the full support of the Department of State. In fact, 
it is at Secretary Powell's request that we are seeking to expedite its 
consideration. Secretary Powell has invited former Secretary Shultz to 
visit Washington in January. I understand that Secretary Powell hopes 
to announce the dedication of the Foreign Affairs Training Center 
during Shultz's stay in Washington. It is my hope that the Majority and 
Minority Leader and the Members of the Senate will fine the opportunity 
to move this important legislation in the near term. Congressman Hyde 
and Lantos have offered the same legislation in the House and have 
similar hopes for speedy passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 1780. A bill to provide increased flexibility Governmentwide for 
the procurement of property and services to facilitate the defense 
against terrorism, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
help Federal agencies fight our Nation's war against terrorism. I am 
introducing this bill at the request of the President and on behalf of 
myself as ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and 
Senator Warner, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.
  For many years, we have accepted that the Federal Government pays a 
premium, both in dollars and time spent, for the goods and services it 
buys solely because of unique requirements it imposes on its 
contractors. While the Federal procurement system has been streamlined 
and simplified over the last several years, much red tape and barriers 
to ``commercial-style'' contracting still exist. This is due in part to 
trying to maintain the proper balance between an efficient procurement 
system and accountability when spending taxpayer dollars.
  In ordinary times and because of recent procurement policy reforms, 
we believe that a Federal agency can buy most anything it needs quickly 
and efficiently under current law if it has good management practices 
in place and smart, well-trained contracting officers. However, these 
are not ordinary times. Further, we know that the Federal Government is 
not well-managed and our acquisition workforce is rapidly dwindling. 
With that said, it is our responsibility to ensure that Federal 
agencies with a role in homeland security can purchase, quickly and 
efficiently, the most high-tech and sophisticated products and services 
to support antiterrorism efforts and to defend against biological, 
chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks.
  The bill which we are introducing builds on emergency contracting 
authority already in place for the Department of Defense and other 
agencies and goes further by providing additional contracting 
flexibilities. Today, national security and homeland security have the 
same kinds of requirements, detection, tracking, preparedness, 
prevention, response and recovery. By providing additional procurement 
flexibilities, the agencies involved in homeland security will be able 
to apply more easily many new and proven defense-related technologies.
  For example, current law gives agencies the ability to use 
streamlined, simplified contracting procedures for contracts under 
$200,000 which are made and performed outside the United States in 
support of a contingency operation or a humanitarian or peacekeeping 
operation. This bill would raise that threshold to $500,000 for any, 
outside or within the United States, contract awarded for products or 
services in support of a contingency operation or a humanitarian or 
peacekeeping operation.
  Current law also provides simplified contracting procedures for the 
purchase of commercial items, goods and services produced for the 
commercial marketplace and not encumbered by government specifications 
or requirements. The bill would allow goods and services purchased to 
help agencies fight against terrorism or biological, chemical, nuclear, 
radiological or technological attacks to be treated as if they were 
purchases for commercial items, in other words, agencies needing these 
goods and services could use the simpler, expedited procedures. This 
would allow agencies to quickly buy technologies or products which are 
cutting-edge, but which may not have made it to the commercial 
marketplace yet.
  This legislation also encourages the use of current procurement 
flexibilities which are authorized in existing statutes. An agency can 
use these existing provisions where it is appropriate to provide quick 
and responsive solutions to its emergency contracting requirements. 
Further, the bill includes language which will allow agencies to use 
approaches other than contracts to buy research and development for new 
technologies to fight against terrorism. The Department of Defense 
currently has this authority and the bill would extend that authority 
to the rest of the Federal agencies.
  And finally, this bill would encourage more competition in the 
Federal marketplace by requiring agencies to do ongoing market research 
to identify new companies with new capabilities to help agencies in the 
fight against terrorism.
  We must ensure that Federal agencies which are preparing to fight 
terrorism have access to a wide variety of traditional and innovative 
solutions in a timely fashion. The bill we are introducing today will 
go a long way toward that goal.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I join Senator Thompson in introducing 
the Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act. This bill will 
provide emergency contracting relief to Federal agencies in support of 
our Nation's fight against terrorism by allowing agencies to 
effectively buy what is needed to address the threats to our Nation.
  While the Federal procurement system has improved in the last decade, 
there are still many areas where changes should be made to support the 
current emergency. This bill provides for streamlining the contracting 
process to access new technology, provides for emergency authorities 
for small purchases, and maximizes the use of existing streamlined 
procurement authorities.
  The United States has some of the best ideas and technology in the 
world. To win the war on terrorism, the government needs to do all it 
can to gain access to this technology, much of which is located in the 
private sector. However, many firms, particularly in the biotechnology 
and information technology sectors, have been deterred from bidding on 
government contracts by the perception that government contracting is 
burdened with red tape and requirements.
  In this time of crisis, we can not afford to keep these businesses on 
the sidelines. To promote the participation of these firms in solving 
our homeland defense problems, this bill would authorize the use by 
federal agencies of ``other transactions'' authority for research and 
development and prototype projects. ``Other transactions'' authority is 
a streamlined acquisition approach currently available only to the 
Department of Defense. This authority has been enormously helpful in 
allowing the Department of Defense to gain access to the research and 
expertise of non-traditional defense contractors. I anticipate that the 
Department of Health and Human Services or the Environmental Protection 
Agency, for example, would be able to effectively use ``other 
transactions'' authority to research and prototype new vaccines, 
detection systems, and remediation technology to meet the bioterrorist 
threat.

[[Page 24345]]

  For production, service or research needs where ``other 
transactions'' authority is not appropriate, this bill authorizes 
``commercial like'' contracting procedures for those contracts that 
facilitate the defense against terrorism or nuclear, chemical, 
biological or information attack on the United States. These commercial 
contracting procedures are exempted from many government unique 
requirements and allow for the use of a more streamlined acquisition 
approach.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 1781. A bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish a 
voluntary national registry system for greenhouse gases trading among 
industry, to make changes to United States Global Change Research 
Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I, rise to introduce the Emission 
Reductions Incentive Act of 2001. I thank Senator Brownback for his co-
sponsorship and his cooperation in drafting this bill, along with his 
commitment to addressing this growing problem.
  Earlier this year, I announced intentions to consider the 
establishment of a ``cap and trade'' system for carbon dioxide 
emissions. I am continuing to work with Senator Lieberman on this 
effort. However, the bill which I am introducing today is not in lieu 
of that commitment, but rather in support of it.
  The bill proposes the establishment of a national voluntary registry 
for entities to register carbon emissions reductions. The registry 
would support current voluntary trading practices in private industry 
and other non-governmental organizations. Over the past years, the 
Commerce Committee has heard testimony from several organizations on 
their efforts conduct trading programs internally or across a small 
segment of industry. This registry bill will aid those efforts greatly 
by establishing a national system whereby these companies may be able 
to participate and be assured that a ton of carbon purchased is indeed 
a ton of carbon.
  Establishment of the registry would also require the development of 
certain standards for measuring, verifying and reporting emission 
reductions to the registry. I believe that with these procedures in 
place, the registry would be able to withstand any future requirements 
imposed by a mandatory ``cap and trade'' system. The bill would also 
provide for consideration of credits realized under this program 
against any future mandatory system.
  The bill also proposed changes to the US Global Climate Change 
Program, USGCRP. It requires a new strategic plan for the next 10 
years. The bill would provide for dedicated management to support the 
interagency USGCRP and have this office report to the Director of the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy. We feel this will provide a 
needed channel to the White House for the Federal scientific community 
to be heard. We have also asked the office to work with the agencies' 
development activities.
  The bill proposed additional changes to the Partnership for New 
Generation Vehicles, PHGV, program and provides additional incentives 
for the licensing of technologies. I hope that we can increase the 
deployment of technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 
providing further incentives to Federal employees, those who are 
ultimately responsible for the transfer of the research results. The 
National Research Council recently made recommendations on the PNGV 
program, a cooperative research and development program between the 
Federal Government and the US Council for Automotive Research. The bill 
requires the Department of Commerce to implement many of those 
recommendations.
  As we all know, more than 160 countries recently reached an agreement 
on the Kyoto Protocol, which would require industrialized nations to 
reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. There are many US companies that 
operate facilities in other countries. These facilities will have to 
meet local emissions requirements. The bill requires the Secretary of 
Commerce to study the effects that a ratified treaty will have on the 
US industry and its ability to compete globally.
  Again, I thank Senator Brownback for help on this piece of 
legislation. I understand that other members of the Commerce Committee 
have recently introduced legislation in this area and look forward to 
working with them on a comprehensive package.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I am please to join Senator McCain 
today in introducing the Emission Reductions Incentive Act of 2001. 
This bill will put into place a voluntary registry for greenhouse gas, 
GHG, reductions house in the Department of Commerce. Furthermore, the 
bill establishes structure for the independent measurement and 
verification of GHG reductions. This is an important step in providing 
an incentive for companies who wish to reduce their emissions, and it 
will provide assurance that companies who take positive action on 
climate change today will be rewarded in the future. All this can be 
accomplished with barely any cost to the government, since it will be 
private, third party groups that undertake the burden to measure, 
verify and prove actual greenhouse gas emission reductions.
  There are those who wonder why such a measure is needed, given the 
fact that there is an existing registry in the Department of Energy and 
the uncertainty on the climate change issue. First, the new registry 
will only hold information that has been independently verified. Like 
the current registry, this new registry would be completely voluntary. 
However, unlike the DOE program, this registry will focus on keeping 
track of proven greenhouse gas reductions, and will therefore, 
encourage more companies to undertake measures to reduce emissions 
since they will have the ability to defend these reductions as real if 
future regulations are put in to place. Also, since this registry will 
be housed in the Department of Commerce and verified by independent 
parties, it treats the issue as an investment or transaction between 
companies to limit risk, rather than an environmental regulation.
  Several utilities and other companies who emit high levels of carbon 
dioxide have expressed real concern that they need certainty to be able 
to plan for the life of new power plants and investment decisions which 
will last for 20 years or more. Currently, there is no certainty with 
regard to how the climate change issue will be handled. This means 
companies must plan for an uncertain future which leads to undue 
expense. This bill will allow companies to decide for themselves how 
much action they need to take, and provide a way of taking out an 
insurance policy, of sorts, on the climate change issue. This is 
important because we need more investment in energy infrastructure, 
more clean coal plants and natural gas plants. Yet these new plants 
won't move forward if they fear being hit with a high carbon tad in the 
next 5-10 years.
  This bill offers industry a way to make investments in GHG reductions 
or carbon sequestration offsets gradually, building up credits that 
could be used down the road if regulations are put into place. While 
there is no ``one-for-one'' trade in on these credits, there would be a 
government certified stamp of approval on early actions to reduce 
greenhouse gases--which any future regulations would have to account 
for
  Second, there are those who argue that the science is still unsettled 
with regard to the climate change issue, and that we should not move 
toward costly measures which will punish industry for a problem that is 
still not fully understood. Actually, this is the very reason why we 
should establish a voluntary, but measured and verified registry now. 
This bill given industry the opportunity to experiment and get credit 
for pro-active measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
without unduly burdening energy consumers. New and better technology is 
the key to solving this issue, but why

[[Page 24346]]

would a company employ such technology now with the uncertainty 
surrounding how this issue will be addressed? They could in fact, be 
punished for such actions if later regulations are put into place which 
do not account for reductions that were already taken. This is a free-
market approach to reward and encourage responsible industry to 
continue and even make a market out of reducing greenhouse gases. This 
registery will help establish and encourage the most cost-effective 
ways to tackle this problem while also finding where difficulties may 
lie.
  We can not shrink from difficult challenges, nor should we overreact. 
When there is the opportunity to allow market force to work on a 
problem, we should most definitely encourage that process. I am pleased 
to be joining my friend from Arizona in introducing this legislation 
and look forward to pursuing this policy during the upcoming energy 
debate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Allen, Mr. Cleland, 
        and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1782. A bill to authorize the burial in Arlington National 
Cemetery of any former Reservist who died in the September 11, 2001, 
terrorist attacks and would have been eligible for burial in Arlington 
National Cemetery but for age at time of death; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation for 
myself, Senator Stevens, Senator Allen Senator Cleland, and Senator 
Inouye to provide a exception to the rules governing burials at 
Arlington national Cemetery.
  This very limited legislation will permit individuals with extensive 
military service, who lost their lives on September 11, to be buried at 
Arlington National Cemetery.
  I am introducing this legislation today, along with my colleagues, to 
address a specific situation that involves Captain Charles F. ``Chic'' 
Burlingame III, a resident of Oak Hills Virginia and others who may 
have the same accrued entitlement.
  Captain Burlingame was the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, that 
ill-fated aircraft which was hi-jacked by terrorists and used as a 
horrible weapon of destruction against the Pentagon on September 11.
  Captain Burlingame, however, was more than the pilot of that plane--
he was also a retired veteran of the United States Navy.
  He served his country with distinction for 8 years by flying fighter 
planes off aircraft carriers--one of the military's most hazardous 
duties.
  He continued his military career as a reserve officer, honorably 
retiring with the rank of Captain. Ironically, Captain Burlingame's 
reserve duty was in the Pentagon, a building he knew so well.
  In the aftermath of September 11 we have learned of many heroic acts 
of those who lost their lives in trying to overcome the terrorists on 
that tragic morning. This is certainly true in the case of Captain 
Burlingame.
  Recent information from the FBI indicate that Captain Burlingame was 
killed by the terrorists prior to the crash of the Flight 77 into the 
Pentagon. Clearly, Captain Burlingame gave his life fighting to protect 
the passengers of the plane and those on the ground. One can clearly 
see that Captain Burlingame and those who lost their lives on September 
11 were the first casualties of our War on Terrorism.
  Arlington Cemetery is the resting place for many American heroes who 
gave their lives to protect American freedoms. Certainly, Captain 
Burlingame's service to country and his sacrifice on Flight 77 should 
be recognized by our nation.
  Captain Burlingame's widow, Sheri, and his brothers and sisters, 
desire that Captain Burlingame be buried in Arlington National 
Cemetery. Captain Burlingame's superb military service would make him 
eligible for burial in any of our other National Cemeteries.
  The very strict regulations which govern burials at Arlington, 
however, do not allow for burial of a person retired from the Reserves 
until they reach sixty years of age. Had he merely reached the age of 
sixty, he would have been fully eligible for burial in Arlington 
National Cemetery.
  Additionally, there may be others who lost their lives on September 
11 who are in a similar situation. This bill will also allow those 
person to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
  I respectfully request that my colleagues support this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1782

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR BURIAL OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AT 
                   ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall authorize 
     the burial in a separate gravesite at Arlington National 
     Cemetery, Virginia, of any individual who--
       (1) died as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the 
     United States on September 11, 2001; and
       (2) would have been eligible for burial in Arlington 
     National Cemetery by reason of service in a reserve component 
     of the Armed Forces but for the fact that such individual was 
     less than 60 years of age at the time of death.
       (b) Eligibility of Surviving Spouse.--The surviving spouse 
     of an individual buried in a gravesite in Arlington National 
     Cemetery under the authority provided under subsection (a) 
     shall be eligible for burial in the gravesite of the 
     individual to the same extent as the surviving spouse of any 
     other individual buried in Arlington National Cemetery is 
     eligible for burial in the gravesite of such other 
     individual.

                          ____________________