[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27692-27717]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dodd). The clerk will report the 
conference report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     3338) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, agree to the 
     same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by all conferees on the part of the two Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of December 19, 2001.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to offer my 
unqualified support for the conference agreement that was just 
reported. I am pleased to present the recommendations to the Senate 
today as division A of this measure. The recommendations contain the 
result of lengthy negotiations between the House and Senate managers 
and countless hours of work by our staffs acting on behalf of all 
Members.
  The agreement provides $317.2 billion, the same as the House and 
Senate levels, consistent with our 302(b) allocations.
  In order to accommodate Members of the Senate, may I request that I 
be given the opportunity to now set aside my statement and yield to the 
Senator from Arizona for his statement. Upon his conclusion, I will 
resume my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am not ready to give my statement yet. I 
am still having my people come over with information. As a matter of 
fact, we haven't even gotten through the entire bill yet. I will be 
ready shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join the distinguished chairman of the 
defense subcommittee, Senator Inouye, in presenting the fiscal year 
2002 Department of Defense conference report to the Senate.
  This bill enjoys my total support, and I urge all my colleagues to 
support this conference report, and the funds provided herein that are 
vital to our national security.
  In addition to the base funding for the current fiscal year, this 
bill also includes the allocation of $20 billion in emergency 
supplemental funding provided by Congress immediately after the 
September 11 attack.
  These funds fulfill the commitment made by Congress to respond to the 
needs of the victims of the September 11 attack. I commend the Governor 
of New York, the Mayor of New York City, and the two Senators from New 
York, for their stalwart work to ensure these funds meet the needs of 
their constituents.
  The enhanced funding provided in Division B of this bill for homeland 
defense will also have a significant effect on the security of this 
nation.
  It is appropriate that the homeland defense funding be included in 
this bill--in the war against terrorism, there are no boundaries.
  The money in this bill to secure our borders, our airports, our 
ports, to protect against bioterrorism and to assist first responders 
will send a strong signal to our citizens, and our potential 
adversaries, of our determination to win this war on terrorism on every 
front.
  Turning more specifically to the underlying defense bill in Division 
A, there are two matters in particular I wish to address today: missile 
defense and the tanker leasing initiative.
  The Senate version of the bill provided the full $8.3 billion 
requested by Secretary Rumsfeld for missile defense programs. The House 
bill provided approximately $7.8 billion.
  During our conference, we were informed of two major program changes 
in missile defense.
  The Undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, on behalf of Secretary 
Rumsfeld, reported that the department would terminate the Navy area 
defense system, and the SBIRS-low satellite program.
  Funding for these two programs, totaling more than $700 million, was 
realigned to other defense priorities within and outside missile 
defense.
  For example, of the Navy area program funds, $100 million was 
reserved for termination liabilities for the program and $75 million 
was transferred to the airborne laser program.
  From the SBIRS-low termination, $250 million is reserved for 
satellite sensor technology development--which could all be used for 
further work under the existing SBIRS-low contracts, if the department 
so chooses.

[[Page 27693]]

  Addressing the significance of protecting our deployed forces, the 
conference agreement provides an additional $60 million over the budget 
request to accelerate production of the Patriot PAC-3 missile.
  In his statement, the chairman of the subcommittee articulated his 
support for the air refueling tanker initiative, and I appreciate his 
kind words on my role in that effort.
  Contrary to some reports, this provision was not a last minute 
industry bailout, hidden from public view. In fact, this responds to 
military need, and unforeseen economic circumstances--and 
opportunities.
  The effort to lease these aircraft reflects an extensive review of 
the Air Force's needs, and the crisis it faces in the air refueling 
fleet.
  This lease provision, provides permissive authority for the Secretary 
of the Air Force to replace the 134 oldest KC-135E aircraft with new 
tankers.
  These aircraft average 42 years of age, and have not received the 
comprehensive ``R'' model refurbishment.
  All of these aircraft are operated by the Air National Guard, at 
bases throughout the Nation. The lease will provide the new tankers to 
the Air Force, and permit recently refurbished ``R'' models to cascade 
to the Guard.
  This permits the National Guard to have a common fleet of aircraft, 
providing significant training and maintenance cost savings. They daily 
do the refueling operations for our Air Force planes nationally and 
throughout the world.
  The KC-135E aircraft require extensive depot maintenance. Once every 
5 years, we lose that aircraft for an average of 428 days, and many 
more than 600 days.
  That means a squadron loses that aircraft for at least 15 months, up 
to 2 years.
  At any one time, one third of the fleet is unavailable for service--
redlined--putting that much more pressure on the rest of the force.
  During peacetime, one might argue we can survive with an inadequate 
air refueling fleet. Now, in wartime, the price for that failure 
becomes clear.
  Every sortie flown into Afghanistan requires at least two, and 
sometimes as many as four, aerial refuelings. This is the highest rate 
of sustained operations we have maintained since the gulf war.
  In the 10 years since that conflict, we have not purchased one new 
tanker--we've watched the fleet age and deteriorate. I know the feeling 
of watching a fuel gauge determine the fate of an aircraft and crew. It 
is not a comfortable or pleasant one. I remember one time I ran out of 
fuel on landing and had to have the aircraft towed off the field.
  This may sound like an arcane discussion, compared to the allure of 
new F-22's, or B-2 bombers, but let me give you an old transport 
pilot's perspective.
  Our forces today have virtually no margin for error--an F-15 doesn't 
glide very long, and an F-18 that cannot make the carrier deck has 
little hope for survival.
  We can buy the exciting, and needed, new weapons platforms but 
without the gas they'll never get home after the fight.
  Some have suggested the leasing approach is not a good deal for the 
Government. That is simply wrong. This provision includes the most 
stringent requirements ever set for an aircraft leasing program.
  The law states that the cost to the Air Force for the lease cannot 
exceed 90 percent of the fair market value of the aircraft. That means 
the Secretary cannot sign a contract if the lease cost would exceed 
that threshold.
  The Secretary must report to the Congress all the details of any 
proposed contract in advance of signing any agreement. We will get to 
look at this contract before the deal is set.
  Mr. President, nothing in the leasing authority provided in this bill 
is directive--the discretion rests solely with the Secretary of the Air 
Force.
  I have had extensive discussions about this initiative with the 
Secretary, with the former Commander of the Transportation Command, 
Gen. Robertson, and other DOD officials.
  All have endorsed this approach.
  The language in this bill is the product of extensive discussions 
with CBO and OMB. No objection has been raised.
  Secretary Rumsfeld's letter on the bill did not object to this 
initiative, nor did the Department's detailed appeals to the 
Appropriations Conference.
  Since taking office, Secretary Rumsfeld has sought to chart a course 
to manage the Pentagon consistent with the best practices in the 
private sector.
  This initiative seeks to do just that--give the Secretary all the 
tools we can to meet the Department's modernization needs, within the 
tight budget constraints he will face.
  The airlines lease aircraft, private businesses lease aircraft, our 
ally Great Britain currently leases U.S. built C-17 aircraft.
  In addition, Great Britain has issued a solicitation to lease air 
refueling tankers, and the Boeing 767 is the lead candidate.
  We did not decide to choose the 767. The Air Force told us this is 
the right aircraft for the mission.
  Gen. Jumper, the Air Force Chief, envisions moving the Air Force to a 
common wide body platform for a range of missions--he determined the 
767 is the best platform.
  Interestingly, two of our closest allies--Italy and Japan--have 
already signed contracts to purchase 767 tankers on a commercial basis.
  Some have suggested that this provision should have opened the door 
to competition with Airbus.
  The problem is that Airbus does not have a tanker on the world 
market. More telling, two of the Airbus founding partners--Britain and 
Italy--have both opted for the American-built tanker for their 
military.
  Personally, I have complete confidence we can extend this authority 
to the Secretary of the Air Force, and he will only use it if he 
believes it is absolutely in the best interest of the Air Force.
  I want to close by thanking again our Chairman, Senator Inouye, for 
his leadership in moving this bill through committee, the floor and 
conference in only 15 days--an incredible achievement.
  Also, our partners in the House, Chairman Lewis and Mr. Murtha, and 
the full committee chairman, Congressman Bill Young and ranking member, 
Dave Obey, deserve tremendous credit for managing their bill in the 
House, and working out this package in conference.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator 
Inouye for the hard work they did on this bill. Since this bill was 
left to be the last appropriations bill passed this year, it had many 
difficulties. During this time, our Armed Forces were prosecuting a war 
on last year's budget. That is very serious and it is unacceptable. We 
must pass this bill today. It is a good bill.
  Our armed services need the extra help that is in this bill. It 
provides $26 billion more in spending for the Department of Defense 
than was appropriated last year. That gives us the added equipment we 
need to be in Afghanistan and throughout the world, as we are today. It 
also reduces the military/civilian paygap by funding a pay raise of 5 
percent across the board and up to 10 percent for targeted ranks with 
low-retention rates.
  Thank goodness we are trying to address people who are leaving the 
armed services because we just can't compete with the private sector. 
Also, I want to mention the TRICARE For Life; $3.9 billion in this bill 
implements TRICARE For Life. This is something I worked on for a long 
time to make sure that those who have served in our military, who have 
done what we asked them to do for our country, will never be left 
without full medical care. That is something they deserve, it is 
something we promised, and it is a promise we must keep.
  I am very pleased that, finally, Desert Storm veterans are getting 
the notice they deserve for the symptoms that one in seven of them have 
shown

[[Page 27694]]

after returning to our country after serving in Desert Storm. One in 
seven of the people who served in the Desert Storm operation came back 
with symptoms and different stages of debilitation that they did not 
have when they went to serve our country.
  But for years, the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs have denied there was any kind of causal connection 
between these symptoms and their service. It just wasn't plausible.
  I happened to learn about some research that was being done at the 
University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, that did find a 
causal connection in a very small unit; it was the first research that 
really showed the causal connection between actual brain damage and 
service in the gulf war.
  This last week, I am proud to say, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
Secretary Principi, released a study indicating that gulf war vets are 
twice as likely to get ALS; that is, Lou Gehrig's disease. To his 
credit, Secretary Principi immediately widened the gulf war presumption 
to cover victims of Lou Gehrig's disease. I have also extended for 5 
years--and the President has signed the bill--the presumption that the 
people with these symptoms would still be able to get the benefits to 
which they are entitled, even though it hasn't been settled exactly 
what Desert Storm disease is.
  So the bill before us today does have $5 million to continue the 
research that shows that causal connection. That will not only help 
keep our promise to the people who served in Desert Storm, but it will 
also help us understand those whom we are sending today into places 
where there could be chemical warfare and what we might do to give them 
the best protection against that chemical warfare. It will also help us 
to inoculate and treat those who might be affected by chemical warfare 
in the future. This is something I worked on in the bill, and I 
appreciate so much Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens supporting this 
particular cause because I think these veterans have been ignored for 
too long. It is time we treated them the way they deserve to be 
treated, and that is to give them the medical care and the research to 
find the cause of the debilitating disease that we see in so many of 
the people.
  Finally, I am very pleased that the bill provides for missile 
defense. Clearly, we now have a cause to go forward on missile defense. 
I have always thought it was better to err on the side of doing more 
for defense, even if we weren't sure what the threats were. Now we know 
there are people throughout the world who will attack Americans just 
because we are Americans. So we must defend against that. That is what 
the missile defense system will prepare our country to do.
  This bill provides for that. I close by saying there may be small 
things in this bill that people don't like. I am sure there are some 
things in this bill that some people would not support. But the big 
things are done right. It would be inexcusable for us not to fully fund 
the war, while we have troops on the ground fighting for the very 
freedom that we have in this country and that we enjoy in this country.
  As we are leaving Congress to go home for the holidays with our 
families, we must show our appreciation to those who are in the caves 
in Afghanistan, in Uzbekistan and Pakistan, and who are on missions in 
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who are ready to go at the call of our 
country, if need be. We want to remember them. I think the most 
important way we can say thank you to those people is to fully fund 
their training, their equipment, and the support they deserve as they 
are going forward in the name of freedom and representing our country 
in the best possible way.
  I thank Senator Inouye for being the great leader that he is and 
Senator Stevens for working in a bipartisan way to assure our troops 
that we appreciate them and we are going to give them everything they 
need to do the job they are doing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. On behalf of Senator Stevens and I, I express our 
gratitude to the Senator from Texas for her kind remarks.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1214

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate considers Calendar No. 161, S. 1214, the port security bill, the 
only amendment in order be the Hollings-McCain-Graham substitute 
amendment, which is at the desk; that there be a time limitation for 
debate of 17 minutes to be divided as follows: 5 minutes each for 
Senators Hollings, McCain, and Murkowski, and 2 minutes for Senator 
Hutchison; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the substitute 
amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time 
and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with 
no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to applaud a provision in the supplemental 
portion of the Defense appropriations conference report. This 
conference report includes a bill authored by myself and Senator Kyl 
that will help honor the victims of the September 11 attacks. It is 
called the Unity in the Spirit of America Act, or the USA Act.
  We all witnessed a great national tragedy 3 months ago. While the 
deaths and damage occurred in New York, Washington, and in the fields 
of Pennsylvania, a piece of all of us died that day. Many people came 
up to me in Michigan after the attacks and asked: What can I do? I have 
given blood, I have donated to relief efforts, but I want to do more.
  We all shared in the horror and now everyone wants to share in the 
healing, but how? Then a constituent of mine, Bob Van Oosterhout, wrote 
me with an idea: Why not have the Federal Government devise a program 
that will encourage communities throughout the Nation to create 
something that will honor the memory of one of the victims lost in the 
attack, one by one by one. Together these local memorials to honor 
individuals would dot our Nation and collectively honor all of those 
who were lost in the attacks. What could be simpler or more moving?
  From that idea came the Unity in the Spirit of America Act. Here is 
how it works:
  Communities--they can be as small as a neighborhood block or 
nonprofit organizations, houses of worship, businesses or local 
governments--are encouraged to choose some kind of project that will 
unite and help their communities. It is a way they can give back to 
their community.
  Applications and the assigning of names for each project will be 
handled by the Points of Light Foundation. Basically, we will see a 
project in a local community dedicated to one of the victims of 
September 11. The Points of Light Foundation will set up a Web site, 
applications, and procedures for this. This is privately funded. It is 
an opportunity for our neighbors, coworkers, and communities across the 
United States to decide what will be a living legacy to those who died 
by helping each other.
  The Points of Light Foundation will track each project's progress on 
their Web site. The only rule is that qualified projects should be 
started by September 11, 2002. Then on that day, as all over America we 
gather to grieve over the first anniversary of the attack that enraged 
the world, we will be able to look over thousands and thousands of 
selfless acts that made our country better.
  In our sadness, we can create thousands of points of light across our 
Nation and show the world that our resolve was not fleeting and our 
memories are not short. They will see the unity in the spirit of 
America.
  I have many Members to thank for making the USA Act happen. First and 
foremost, I thank my chief cosponsor,

[[Page 27695]]

Senator Jon Kyl, for his commitment and hard work. I thank the chairman 
and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 
Senators Inouye and Stevens, for their support. I also express my 
gratitude to Senators Mikulski and Bond for their guidance in moving 
this legislation through the process. Finally, I thank all the 
cosponsors, who include our Senators from New York and Virginia.
  I am very pleased we have come together on our last day in a 
bipartisan way to put forward this important living legacy to the 
victims of September 11.
  Mr. President, I now yield to my colleague and friend who has been my 
partner in the USA Act, and that is Senator Jon Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for her 
leadership in this effort. It has been a pleasure to work with her on 
this legislation. It demonstrates a couple of things: First, that all 
Americans care about the victims of the tragedy of September 11. 
Second, that the U.S. Government can be a facilitator but does not have 
to be the financier of good works on behalf of the people of the 
country.
  At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask to print in the Record a 
letter from Robert K. Goodwin who is the president of the Points of 
Light Foundation.
  The president of the Points of Light Foundation points out that there 
are no Federal funds used in this project but, rather, that money has 
been raised by people from around the country to support these projects 
that literally will exist in every corner of this great country. Each 
one of these projects will be named for one of the victims of the 
September 11 tragedy.
  What the Points of Light Foundation will do is help coordinate so 
there is a common listing of all the different projects, in which part 
of the country they are located, and coordinating with the names of the 
victims. This is a good project for the American people to demonstrate 
their support for the country, to do good works at the same time, and 
to memorialize the victims of the tragedy of September 11.
  I compliment the cosponsor of the legislation and the chairman and 
ranking member of the committee for including this legislation in the 
Defense appropriations bill. I appreciate our colleagues' support for 
this important project.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
president of the Points of Light Foundation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Points of Light Foundation,

                                Washington, DC, December 20, 2001.
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: The Points of Light Foundation would like 
     to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for your 
     support and leadership of the Unity in the Spirit of America 
     (USA). We were informed last evening that it will indeed be a 
     part of the FY 2002 Defense Appropriations Bill. We are 
     excited and humbled by this opportunity to create living 
     memorials through service and volunteering, to those who 
     perished as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
       Please also let me extend my gratitude to your Legislative 
     Director, Tom Alexander. His hard work in securing the 
     necessary support was particularly appreciated as the bill 
     made its way through several conference committees. His 
     continued accessibility and hands-on approach were 
     invaluable.
       As the USA Act stipulates, no federal funds will be 
     utilized in carrying out its provisions. We are extremely 
     pleased to inform you that we have secured significant 
     private and corporate donations to fulfill this most worthy 
     project. In fact, The Walt Disney Company has made a 
     substantial commitment, paving the way for countless 
     community-based memorial service projects, as well as an 
     expansive national media campaign. We look forward to 
     continuing to work closely with yourself and Senator Stabenow 
     in cultivating this important initiative.
       In closing, please accept our gratitude and best wishes for 
     a safe, happy and healthy holiday season.
           Your very truly,
                                                 Robert K. Goodwin
                                                  President & CEO.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan if I may be a sponsor of the amendment. It is a very exciting 
amendment that we should be considering today.
  Ms. STABENOW. It will be my honor, Mr. President, to add the 
distinguished Senator's name.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, pursuant to the agreement, will the Chair 
recognize the Senator from Arizona?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not yet seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since no one is seeking time, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be allowed to speak 
for 5 minutes on the economic stimulus package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. What is the pending business? What is the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has asked to speak 
for up to 5 minutes on the economic stimulus package.
  Mr. REID. I reserve the right to object and ask the Senator to amend 
his request so that the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller, and the 
Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, have 5 minutes to speak on the 
economic stimulus package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time?
  Mr. REID. Two Senators, 5 minutes each: Senators Nelson and Miller.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Economic Stimulus Package

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to express my sincere 
disappointment with our seeming inability to consider a stimulus 
package; that is, a job-creating piece of legislation, for our people. 
Millions of Americans have lost their jobs over the last year. My 
fellow New Mexicans, as do all Americans, want and deserve action on 
this slowing economy.
  Let me be very clear. While some would like a different stimulus 
package than the one the House passed in the early morning hours today, 
there are alternatives that were considered in this first session.
  The House-passed bill will provide needed tax relief to millions of 
working Americans. It will provide tax relief to those individuals who 
make more than $28,000 and those who file joint returns making more 
than $46,000.
  These are not rich people. These are hard-working Americans.
  Along with provisions to encourage business investment with 30 
percent depreciation and extending businesses net operating losses 
carry back for two years, and increasing expensing provisions for small 
businesses, the House-passed bill provides nearly $60 billion in tax 
relief to encourage growth in this weakened economy.
  Further, addressing many of the concerns raised on the other side of 
the aisle, the House-passed bill is a significant improvement over an 
earlier bill in the area of providing needed help to the unemployed and 
dislocated workers.
  The House-passed bill provides significant support for those who for 
reasons they do not control, find themselves without employment this 
holiday season--all totaled nearly $32 billion would be provided in the 
form of direct payments to low-income workers, extended unemployment 
benefits and health insurance assistance.
  The House-passed bill provides cash payments for those who filed a 
tax return in 2000 but did not receive a rebate check earlier this 
year. These payments will be $300 for individuals and $600 for married 
couples.
  The House-passed bill provides 13 weeks of extended unemployment 
insurance going back to those displaced from work from the beginning of 
this recession last March.
  And including $8 billion in National Emergency Grants and Emergency

[[Page 27696]]

Medicaid funding to the states, over $21 billion would be assist 
individuals and families with their health care costs immediately.
  The House-passed bill is not perfect. But it is a major improvement 
over an earlier version, largely because of the input of a group of 
Senators know as the Centrists here and because of President Bush's 
willingness to work with them in crafting this package.
  I hope that we do not let ``one man rule'' prevent us from even 
having a vote on this bill.
  We need to pass something. But if we don't assure you I will be the 
first to be back here in January asking that we consider the ``payroll 
tax holiday'' proposal.
  I will take the remaining few minutes and talk to my fellow Senators. 
Whatever the case and whoever could not reach accord, I believe we have 
to tell our fellow Americans we did not do them right in the waning 
days of this session. While Christmas is upon us and good will is 
everywhere, it is quite obvious the House and Senate, even with the 
President nudging and participating, did not and will not produce a 
stimulus package that will get America going again.
  I wish we would have considered something in the Senate. I believe 
there was time for us to consider amendments and even vote on a 
stimulus package. I think that could have been worked out, and we could 
have passed something. I regret we have not. I say to the leadership in 
the Senate, they could have done better.
  While I have great respect and, in some cases, admiration for our 
leadership, I believe in this case one-man rule prevailed, the 
Democratic majority leader prevailed. He has what I would call a one-
man rule because he can keep us from debating and considering the 
House-passed measure. He can do that all by himself. That is a very big 
undertaking by any one Senator, to say we are not going to consider a 
stimulus package this year in this Senate. That is one-man rule. That 
is a very big exercise of power.
  While the Democratic majority leader has a very difficult job in the 
waning moments because of different ideas and different proposals and 
obviously some politics, I think we should have done better and he 
should have done better.
  I close by saying I proposed, along with about 10 Senators, an idea 
for a holiday from the Social Security taxes imposed on both employee 
and employer, to do that for 1 month. Nobody suggested to me that is 
not a very good stimulus, to put before the American people a month 
that is picked in the near future to put $42 billion into the hands of 
every working man and woman and every employer across this land in a 
rather instant payment to them, or nonpayment to the Government, of 
Social Security withholding.
  I believe if we start over with good will, and in a nonpartisan way, 
when we return because I do not believe the economy will improve and we 
will be back at this--I urge we consider it at a high enough level to 
let the country focus on this idea.
  There is a lot of talk about the negative aspects of it, and most of 
them are untrue. If we have a chance to get this issue before a 
committee, or debate it in the Senate, we would have a great starting 
point to which we could add the social welfare aspects of the 
unemployment benefits, of some health care coverage, and all the other 
issues we are talking about. We would have as a basis a single powerful 
issue that would be building jobs and causing America to take a look 
and say we know how to do something very positive.
  So I do not give up. If we are doing nothing, I assume this idea will 
come back and I assume, when we start thinking about it and analyze it 
well, it will be high on the agenda.
  I say to all of my friends in the Senate, they worked very hard. I 
congratulate them. They worked either as a centrist member of the 
committee or member of the leadership, put in a lot of time, a lot of 
effort. I am hopeful even in the last moment it will work and somehow 
it will come out of the forest and be sitting there for us to look at.
  If not, then I urge when we come back and consider how we stimulate, 
that we put this holiday back on the table with all the other things we 
have been considering.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity 
to address the Chamber today and speak on a very important issue we 
have all been concerned about and we all have had comments about, 
continue to have thoughts about, and will continue to have them into 
the future. I speak of the stimulus package.
  It is unfortunate we missed the opportunity to be able to conclude a 
package of the type the centrists put together based on what was 
supported by so many different individuals and groups. Unfortunately, 
the blame has already begun. So we are in a position where we are 
talking about would have, could have, should have. We will have an 
opportunity as time goes by over this holiday break to continue to talk 
and continue to look for solutions.
  In January, something must in fact be done so we can move forward to 
protect the jobs of those who currently have them, help those 
individuals who have lost them, and help create new jobs. This is about 
three things: Jobs, jobs, jobs. And it is about the people who support 
them.


                          Terrorism Insurance

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. In addition to being concerned about the 
future of the stimulus package, there is an aspect of stimulus that is 
involved in another proposal that hopefully will be brought up today, 
and that is the terrorism insurance issue. It is not about insurers, it 
is about insureds. It is about the ability to be able to insure one's 
property, one's house, one's home, one's apartment, one's automobile. 
If one is a business owner, it is about insuring their storefront or 
their business. It is about having workers compensation insurance and 
liability insurance. It is about having insurance for the protection 
one needs.
  There is a very important timeframe we must in fact look at, and that 
is January 1 of this coming year. I am hopeful we will be able to 
settle today on a bill and be able to pass something and send it on for 
reconciliation in conference, so we can match or in some way make it 
close enough to the House version that a reconciliation of the 
conference committee is possible, because if we fail to do that, there 
is a possibility, and perhaps even a strong likelihood, that on January 
1 of this coming year 70 percent of the reinsurance that is currently 
available to direct writers will be affected. It may not provide for 
terrorism in the future.
  I know for many people it seems sort of esoteric. It seems sort of 
complex and perhaps eyes-glazed-over thinking about insurance and 
reinsurance and whether there will be protection for terrorism or not, 
but it is a very real issue, a very real and present concern we must in 
fact have. It is not about simply insuring skyscrapers. It is about 
insuring small businesses. It is about apartment buildings, 
storefronts, and people's own personal residences, as well as their 
automobiles. It is about whether or not money will be available for 
lending or whether or not it will continue to be available for 
construction.
  If we are concerned, as I think we are, about a worsening economy and 
at what point we will be able to see the economy turn around and be 
stimulated so it can be a robust economy, one of the things we must in 
fact be concerned about is anything that tips the scales against the 
economy we have today that can make it worse. In fact, failure to take 
action can make it worse by not taking the appropriate action to 
undergird and support it.
  If we are unable to come together and make sure insurance continues 
to be available, as well as affordable, but certainly available to the 
public, if we fail to take that opportunity, then we might expect 
construction will be impeded, if not stopped, and that we may in fact 
see housing starts and other building starts stopped.
  Unemployment can be affected. We could end up with more people 
unemployed, and the economic downturn could be accelerated. I say these 
things not to provide a scare tactic but simply

[[Page 27697]]

to impress as to how important it is we solve this problem of 
availability of terrorism insurance in the near term so we can work for 
a longer term solution.
  What has been offered to date is, in fact, a short-term solution, a 
backup, a compromise to work in the immediate term, the short term, 
with broad-based support. I hope we will take this up and move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I, too, will have a few remarks on the 
economic stimulus bill. I think a decision not to have a straight up-
or-down vote on it and let the majority of this Senate prevail, 
regardless of the makeup of the majority, is a mistake. I know it is a 
loss for the country and the folks who need our help and need it 
immediately.
  Why do we always have to act as if we are in a football game where 
one side, one team, has to win and the other team has to lose? Why 
can't we have both parties the winners, along with the American people?
  Myself, when it gets down to the block, I am kind of a half-a-loaf 
man. Whether it is 75 percent, 65 percent, or 50 percent, when you get 
right down to it, that is always better than zero percent. You can eat 
half a loaf. Having no loaf at all may make a political point, but in 
the end somebody goes hungry.
  This is not the House bill. I could never have supported that bill. I 
would never have voted for it. This compromise package does not include 
everything either side wanted. Instead, it represents a reasonable 
compromise.
  Some say speeding up the reduction of the tax rates from 27 percent 
to 25 percent is just helping the wealthy. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. The folks who benefit from this are folks who earn as 
little as $27,000 a year, going up to $67,000 a year. For married 
couples, this rate reduction would help those who earn between $47,000 
to $120,000 a year. Those are not the wealthy or the rich. Those are 
middle-income Americans. Many are our friends and organized labor. This 
bill also includes a $300 rebate for those who did not get anything 
from the earlier tax cut.
  On the health insurance area, we recognize the need to help the 
unemployed by providing health insurance for them. This is a very 
significant change. This is a dramatic change and should be welcomed by 
both Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Some argue that the best way to give laid-off workers access to 
health care is to provide a 75-percent subsidy for COBRA premiums, as 
well as access to State Medicaid Programs. Others disagreed and 
preferred a broader tax credit for health insurance premiums. This 
package falls somewhere in between, providing a 60-percent advanceable, 
refundable tax credit for all health insurance.
  It is not a whole loaf for anyone, but it represents a practical 
solution, and it is the best way to do what we all want; that is, to 
help the workers and help them before it is too late.
  The package also includes help for State governments, something our 
Governors and legislators desperately need right now. It provides 
almost $5 billion in payments to State Medicaid Programs. This does not 
represent everything States or many of us wanted. I was hoping to get a 
fix for the upper payment limit but, again, it is half a loaf.
  As it is, we have no loaf. We have no loaf at all. We do not even 
have a slice. Who was it who said, Let them eat cake?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Arizona.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise, once again, to address the issue 
of wasteful spending in appropriations measures; in this case, the bill 
funding the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002.
  In provisions too numerous to mention in detail, this bill, time and 
again, chooses to fund porkbarrel projects with little, if any, 
relationship to national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget 
deficits, and underfunded urgent defense priorities.
  The Web site of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, in its 
opening sentence, states the following:

       Authorization laws have two basic purposes. They establish, 
     continue, or modify Federal programs, and they are a 
     prerequisite under House and Senate rules . . . for the 
     Congress to appropriate budget authority for programs.

  I will not go through all of the unauthorized programs that are in 
this legislation. I only mention those that relate to the committee of 
which I am proud to serve and be the ranking member, formally the 
chairman, the Commerce Committee. I and Senator Hollings and members of 
my committee take our responsibilities very seriously.
  Now we have seen, despite what apparently is the mission or the 
obligation of the Appropriations Committee--and that is to not 
appropriate funds for programs that are not authorized--just in the 
Commerce Committee alone, we have for the 2002 Winter Olympics, $93.3 
million; port security grants, $90 million; airport and airways trust 
fund, payment to air carriers, $50 million; DOT Office of the Inspector 
General, $1.3 million; FAA operations, taken from the aviation trust 
fund, without authorization, $200 million.
  Just as the appropriators are now taking away highway money 
appropriated under a formula passed by the full Senate and House and 
violating TEA-21, we are now taking away from the aviation trust fund 
for pet projects $200 million worth, to pet projects of the 
appropriators.
  We have FAA facilities and equipment, $108.5 million; Federal Highway 
Administration, proposed operations, $10 million was requested by the 
administration, $100 million; capital grants to the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, $100 million; Federal Transit Administration 
capital investment gains, $100 million; restoration of broadcasting 
facilities, $8.25 million; National Institutes of Standards and 
Technology, $30 million; Federal Trade Commission, $20 million; FAA 
grants and aid for airports, $175 million; Woodrow Wilson Bridge 
project, $29 million.
  Why did they have to do that? Because they took the money out of the 
highway funds in the Transportation appropriations bill, thereby 
shorting the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, so they had to add another $30 
million to make up for the shortfall. Unfortunately, that was about 
$500 million that they took, and every other State in America--by the 
way, not represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee--had 
highway funds taken away from them.
  Provision relating to Alaska in the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st century--it will be interesting to see the impact that has on the 
rest of America. We have the U.S. 61 Woodville widening project in 
Mississippi, $300,000; Interstate Maintenance Program for the city of 
Trenton, $4 million; international sports competition, $15.8, million, 
emergency planning assistance for 2002 Winter Olympics.
  I have to talk for a minute before I get into the major issue, and 
that is the Boeing lease, and discuss the Olympics issue. It is now up 
to well over $1.5 billion that the taxpayers have paid.
  I refer my colleagues to an article that was in Sports Illustrated 
magazine, December 10, 2001. The title of it is, ``Snow Job.''
  I will not read the whole article. It is very instructive to my 
colleagues in particular and to our citizens about what has happened in 
the Utah Olympics. The headline is ``Snow Job.''

       Thanks to Utah politicians and the 2002 Olympics, a 
     blizzard of federal money--a stunning $1.5 billion--has 
     fallen on the state, enriching some already wealthy 
     businessessmen.
       Is this a great country or what? A millionaire developer 
     wants a road built, the federal government supplies the cash 
     to construct it. A billionaire ski-resort owner covets a 
     choice piece of public land. No problem. The federal 
     government arranges for him to have it. Some millionaire 
     businessmen stand to profit nicely if the local highway 
     network is vastly improved. Of course. The federal government 
     provides the money.
       How can you get yours, you ask? Easy. Just help your 
     hometown land the Olympics. Then, when no one's looking 
     persuade the

[[Page 27698]]

     federal government to pay for a good chunk of the Games, 
     including virtually any project to which the magic word 
     Olympics can be attached.
       Total federal handouts. The $1.5 billion in taxpayer 
     dollars that Congress is pouring into Utah is 1\1/2\ times 
     the amount spent by lawmakers to support all seven Olympic 
     Games held in the U.S. since 1904--combined. In inflation-
     adjusted dollars.
       Enrichment of private interests. For the first time, 
     private enterprises--primarily ski resorts and real estate 
     developments--stand to derive significant long-term benefits 
     from Games-driven congressional giveaways.
       Most government entities tapped for cash. With all that 
     skill, grace and precision of a hockey team on a power play, 
     Utah's five-member congressional delegation has used the 
     Olympics to drain money from an unprecedented number of 
     federal departments, agencies and offices--some three dozen 
     in all, from the Office of National Drug Control to the 
     Agriculture Department.
       Most U.S. tax dollars per athlete. Federal spending for the 
     Salt Lake City City Games will average $625,000 for each of 
     the 2,400 athletes who will compete. (Not a penny of it will 
     go to the athletes.) That's a 996% increase from the $57,000 
     average for the 1996 Olympics. It's a staggering 5,582% jump 
     from the $11,000 average for the 1984 Summer Games in Los 
     Angeles.
       Parking lots are costing you $30 million. Some $12 million 
     of that is paying for two 80-acre fields to be graded and 
     paved for use as two temporary lots, then returned to meadows 
     after the flame is extinguished.
       Housing for the media and new sewers are each costing you 
     $2 million.
       Repaved highways, new roads and bridges, enlarged 
     interchanges and an electronic highway-information system are 
     costing you $500 million.
       Buses, many brought in from others states, to carry 
     spectators to venues are costing you $25 million.
       Fencing and other security measures at the Veterans 
     Administration Medical Center in northeast Salt Lake City--to 
     protect patients and staff from the Olympia hordes--are 
     costing you $3 million.
       A light-rail transit system that will ferry Olympic 
     visitors around Salt Lake City is costing you $326 million.
       Improvement at Salt Lake City-area airports are costing you 
     $16 million.

  The list goes on and on:

       Recycling and composting are costing you $1 million, and 
     public education programs for air, water and waste management 
     are costing you another $1 million.
       A weather-forecasting system being set up for SLOC is 
     costing you $1 million. The money is going to the University 
     of Utah to enable its Meterorology Department to provide data 
     that will supplement forecasts provided to SLOC by the 
     National Weather Service.
       New trees planted in Salt Lake City and other communities 
     ``impacted'', as the funding legislation put it, by the 
     Olympics are costing you $500,000. Said Utah Senator Robert 
     Bennett, who arranged for the money. ``We do the Olympics 
     because it gets us together doing thinks like planting 
     trees.''

  ``We do the Olympics because it gets us together, doing things like 
planting trees.''
  Wow.
  I want to repeat, I am all for whatever expenditure for security for 
the Salt Lake City Olympics. A good part of this $1.5 billion--and 
there is more in this appropriations bill--has nothing to do with 
security. It has to do with roadbuilding. It has to do with land swaps, 
worthless land for valuable land. It has to do with wealthy developers; 
it has to do with the enrichment of billionaires; and it really is 
quite a story. I hope every American will read that story that is in 
Sports Illustrated dated December 10 entitled ``Snow Job''--aptly 
entitled ``Snow Job.''
  As I pointed out before, our nation is at war, a war that has united 
Americans behind a common goal--to find the enemies who terrorized the 
United States on September 11 and bring them to justice. In pursuit of 
this goal, our service men and women are serving long hours, under 
extremely difficult conditions, far away from their families. Many 
other Americans also have been affected by this war and its economic 
impact, whether they have lost their jobs, their homes, or have had to 
drastically cut expenses this holiday season. The weapons we have given 
them, for all their impressive effects, are, in many cases, neither in 
quantity nor quality, the best that our government can provide.
  For instance, stockpiles of the precision guided munitions that we 
have relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear so effectively on 
difficult, often moving targets, with the least collateral damage 
possible, are dangerously depleted after only 10 weeks of war in 
Afghanistan. This is just one area of critical importance to our 
success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be 
allocating scarce resources to our national defense.
  Yet, despite the realities of war, and the responsibilities they 
impose on Congress as much the President, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its usual blatant 
use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some 
worthy purpose, but that certainly impair our national defense by 
depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding.
  Even in the middle of a war, a war of monumental consequences and 
with no end in sight, the Appropriations Committee, Mr. President, 
still is intent on using the Department of Defense as an agency for 
dispensing corporate welfare. It is a terrible shame that in a time of 
maximum emergency, the U.S. Senate would persist in spending money 
requested and authorized only for our Armed Forces to satisfy the needs 
or the desires of interests that are unrelated to defense needs.
  The Investor's Business Daily, on December 18, 2001, had this to say 
in an article titled At the Trough: Welfare Checks to Big Business Make 
No Sense:

       Among the least justified outlays is corporate welfare. 
     Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that business 
     subsidies will run $87 billion this year, up a third since 
     1997, Although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to 
     corporate welfare this year, Congress has proved resistant. 
     Indeed, many post-September 11 bailouts have gone to big 
     business. Boeing is one of the biggest beneficiaries. 
     Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat from Washington, is 
     pushing a substantial increase in research and development 
     support for Boeing and other defense contractors, the 
     purchase of several retrofitted Boeing 767s and the leasing 
     of as many as 100 767s for purposes ranging from surveillance 
     to refueling. Boeing has been hurt by the storm that hit 
     airlines, since many companies have slashed orders. Yet China 
     recently agreed to buy 30 of the company's planes, and 
     Boeing's problems predate the September 11 attack. It is one 
     thing to compensate the airlines for forcibly shutting them 
     down; it is quite another to toss money at big companies 
     caught in a down demand cycle. Boeing, along with many other 
     major exporters, enjoys its own federal lending facility, the 
     Export-Import Bank. ExIm uses cheap loans, loan guarantees 
     and loan insurance to subsidize purchases of U.S. products. 
     The bulk of the money goes to big business that sell 
     airplanes, machinery, nuclear power plants and the like. Last 
     year alone, Boeing benefitted form $3.3 billion in credit 
     subsidies. While corporate America gets the profits, 
     taxpayers get the losses. . . .

  As I mentioned last week when the Senate version of the Defense 
Appropriations bill was being debated--and now carried through the 
Conference Committee--is a sweet deal for the Boeing Company that I'm 
sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to the 
other. Attached is a legislative provision to the Fiscal Year 2002 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would require the Air 
force to lease one hundred 767 aircraft for use as tankers for $26 
million apiece each year for the next 10 years. Moreover, in Conference 
Committee the appropriators added four 737 aircraft for executive 
travel--mostly benefitting Members of Congress. We have been told that 
these aircraft will be assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air 
Force Base.
  Since the 10-year leases have yet to be signed, the cost of the 
planes cannot be calculated, but it costs roughly $85 million to buy 
one 737, and a lease costs significantly more over the long term.
  The cost to taxpayers?
  $2.6 billion per year for the aircraft plus $1.2 billion in military 
construction funds to modify KC-135 hangars to accommodate their larger 
replacements, with a total price tag of more than $30 billion over 10 
years when the costs of the 737 leases are also included. This leasing 
plan is five times more expensive I repeat, five times more expensive 
to the taxpayer than an outright purchase, and it represents 30 percent 
of the Air Force's annual cost of its top 60 priorities. But the most 
amazing fact is that this program is not actually among the Air Force's 
top 60 priorities--it was not among their top 60 priorities--nor do new 
tankers appear in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Service!

[[Page 27699]]

  That's right, when the Air Force told Congress in clear terms what 
its top priorities were tankers and medical lift capability aircraft 
weren't included as critical programs. In fact, within its top 30 
programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that 
would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet 
fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and 
fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and 
rescue helicopters for downed pilots.
  Let me say that again, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has 
asked for several essential items that would directly support our 
current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement 
parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self 
protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for 
downed pilots.
  This leasing program also will require $1.2 billion in military 
construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are 
too small for the new 767 aircraft. The taxpayers also will be on the 
hook for another $30 million per aircraft on the front end to convert 
these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the 
end of the lease, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for $30 
million more, to convert the aircraft back--pushing the total cost of 
the Boeing sweetheart deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease. Mr. 
President, that is waste that borders on gross negligence.
  I wrote a letter to the Director of OMB. Here is the answer I 
received:

       Dear Senator McCain:
       Thank you for your inquiry regarding the costs associated 
     with the conversion of 767 aircraft tankers. According to the 
     Air Force, the total cost for a program to lease 100 tankers 
     is approximately $26 billion.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Mitchell Daniels, 
Director of OMB, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                Washington, DC, December 18, 2001.
     The Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your inquiry regarding 
     the costs associated with the conversion of 767 aircraft to 
     tankers. According to the Air Force, the total cost for a 
     program to lease 100 tankers is approximately $26 billion. I 
     have attached a summary of assumptions and costs they have 
     identified. Please let me know if you require any additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
                                         Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to read a letter that I received 
recently. This letter is from the Americans for Tax Reform, Council for 
Citizens Against Government Waste, Congressional Accountability 
Project, Ronnie Dugger, Ralph Nader, National Taxpayers Union, Project 
on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, and Taxpayers for Common 
Sense.
  All of these organizations are on the right and the left of the 
political spectrum.
  They wrote the following letter:

                                                December 19, 2001.
       Dear Senator: Even as veteran observers of the 
     Congressional appropriations process, we are shocked, and 
     outraged, by the provision in the Defense Appropriations bill 
     that would have the Air Force lease Boeing 767s at a price 
     dramatically higher than the cost of direct purchase. We are 
     writing to urge you to take to the floor to speak and vote 
     against this specific siphoning of taxpayer money to the 
     Boeing company.
       Leave aside the serious questions about whether the Air 
     Force wants or needs the 767s, and simply consider the 
     economics of this sugar-coated deal:
       Under the Boeing lease provision, the Air Force will lease 
     100 Boeing 767s for use as tankers, at a pricetag of $20 
     million per plane per year, over a 10-year period. This $20 
     billion expenditure is far higher than the cost of direct 
     purchase. The government will accrue extra expenses because 
     it will be obligated not only to convert the commercial 
     aircraft to military configurations; when the 10-year lease 
     is over, it will be required to convert them back to 
     commercial format, at an estimated cost of $30 million 
     apiece. Senator John McCain says the cost of the lease plan 
     is five times higher than an outright purchase would be. 
     Senator Phil Gramm says, ``I do not think, in the 22 years I 
     have been here, I have ever seen anything to equal this.''

  ``I don't think, in the 22 years I have been here, I have ever seen 
anything to equal this.''
  The letter goes on to say:

       There is no conceivable rationale for such a waste of 
     taxpayer resources. If some in Congress believe Boeing needs 
     to be subsidized, then they should propose direct subsidies 
     to the company, and let Congress fully debate and vote on the 
     issue before the American people, following comprehensive 
     public hearings on the proposal.
       This is not a partisan issue. It is a basic test of whether 
     Congress views itself as fundamentally accountable to the 
     public interest, both procedurally and substantively.
       There will obviously be a Defense Appropriations bill 
     passed for the coming fiscal year. But it must not be one 
     that includes such a gross exhibition of corporate welfare. 
     We urge you to speak and vote against the bill; and to force 
     consideration of a revised bill, stripped of this 
     grotesquery.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Ralph Nader,

                                                  Grover Norquist,
                              President, Americans for Tax Reform.

  I have never seen Ralph Nader and Grover Norquist on the same letter 
in all the years I have been in this town.
  The letter is also signed by the following:

     Thomas A. Schatz,
       President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

     Gary Ruskin,
       Director, Congressional Accountability Project.

     Ronnie Dugger,
     Alliance for Democracy (organization listed for 
     identification only).

     Pete Sepp,
       Vice President for Communications, National Taxpayers 
     Union.

     Danielle Brian,
       Executive Director, Project on Government Oversight.

     Joan Claybrook,
       President, Public Citizen.

     Joe Theissen,
       Executive Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense.

  Mr. President, I guess the obvious question that would then be asked 
is, How did this happen? On its face it is incredible.
  Let me try to illuminate my colleagues on an article of December 12 
in the New York Times entitled ``Boeing's War Footing; Lobbyists Are 
Its Army, Washington Its Battlefield.''
  I will not read the entire article.
  It says:

       Staggered by the loss of the largest military contract in 
     history and the collapse of the commercial airline market, 
     Boeing has sharply intensified its efforts in Congress and 
     the Pentagon to win an array of other big-ticket military 
     contracts.
       Mobilizing an armada of well-connected lobbyists, 
     sympathetic lawmakers and Air Force generals, the company 
     argues that by financing its contracts Congress would reduce 
     the need for thousands of layoffs and help keep Boeing, the 
     second-largest military contractor, healthy in a time of war:

  It talks about losing the joint strike fighter to Lockheed Martin.

       Those events sent Boeing reeling. But like battle-tested 
     generals on the retreat, Boeing executives swiftly moved to 
     recover their losses in a time-tested Washington way: wooing 
     Congress and the Pentagon to support other contracts.
       Few companies can rival Boeing influence in the capital. 
     Its Washington office, headed by Rudy F. de Leon, the deputy 
     secretary of defense in the final year of the Clinton 
     administration, employs 34 in-house and more than 50 outside 
     lobbyists.
       One of the Boeing lobbyists' first moves after Sept. 11 was 
     to prod the Air Force to reconsider the 767 lease deal, which 
     had stalled months before. Though the Air Force has said it 
     plans to replace its 40-year-old KC-135 tankers in the next 
     decade or two, it has preferred to spend its money on elite 
     fighter jets like the F-22.
       But the war in Afghanistan has kept dozens of KC-135's in 
     the air almost constantly, putting pressure on the Air Force 
     to accelerate its replacement program. James Roche, the 
     secretary of the Air Force, and Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air 
     Force chief of staff, signed into the lease-purchase idea 
     because it would spread the cost out into the future, 
     Pentagon documents show.
       Boeing next had to break down resistance to lease 
     arrangements in Congress. According to one internal Pentagon 
     study, a lease-

[[Page 27700]]

     purchase deal for 100 767's would cost 15 percent more than 
     simply buying the planes. Moreover, federal rules discourage 
     such deals by requiring that most of the entire contract cost 
     be paid in the first year. To get around that, Boeing 
     proposed having the Air Force simply lease the aircraft 
     without a purchase option. But that would not cover the cost 
     of adapting them for refueling and surveillance, or of 
     ultimately buying them, as the Air Force is expected to do.
       The company recruited the Congressional delegations from 
     Washington and Missouri--the two states where it assembles 
     most of its aircraft--to support the plan. And in the Senate, 
     it found a powerful ally in Ted Stevens of Alaska, the 
     ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, who is a 
     fan of lease-purchase deals for the military.
       Boeing lobbyists with Congressional experience--including 
     Mr. de Leon, who also was a staff director for the House 
     Armed Services Committee, and Denny Miller, a former chief of 
     staff to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington--
     help negotiate the lease language.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Staggered by the loss of the largest military contract in 
     history and the collapse of the commercial airline market, 
     Boeing has sharply intensified its efforts in Congress and 
     the Pentagon to win an array of other big-ticket military 
     contracts.
       Mobilizing an armada of well-connected lobbyists, 
     sympathetic lawmakers and Air Force generals, the company 
     argues that by financing its contracts Congress would reduce 
     the need for thousands of layoffs and help keep Boeing, the 
     second-largest military contractor, healthy in a time of war. 
     ``You've got the nation's leading exporter, and one of its 
     leading military contractors, who has been hit hard,'' said 
     Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington State Democrat who 
     has led the charge for Boeing on Capitol Hill. ``We can 
     really help them.''
       The push underscores a broader trend for Boeing, company 
     officials and analysts say. The company, with most of its 
     production in the Seattle area, has suffered a sharp downturn 
     in commercial aircraft business, which last year generated 
     two-thirds of its $51.3 billion in sales. Boeing is expected 
     to announce this week that production of its 717 commercial 
     airliners will be cut by half, to as little as one plane a 
     month from two, company executives said. As recently as a 
     month ago, analysis predicted that the company would end all 
     717 production, in part because the Sept. 11 attacks have 
     slowed demand for commercial jets.
       As a result, Boeing is looking more than ever to its 
     military and space divisions to bolster sagging revenue.
       Last week, it won a big lobbying battle when the Senate 
     approved a sharply contested plan for Boeing to lease to the 
     Air Force 100 new 767 wide-body jets for use as refueling 
     tankers and reconnaissance planes. The proposal next goes 
     before a House-Senate conference committee.
       At an estimated cost of more than $20 billion over 10 
     years, that plan has been attacked as a costly corporate 
     bailout by critics led by Senator John McCain, a Republican 
     from Arizona. But supporters say that it would not only 
     significantly offset Boeing's loss of orders from ailing 
     commercial airlines but also help the Pentagon by 
     accelerating the replacement of aging midair refueling 
     tankers and reconnaissance aircraft that both have been worn 
     down by heavy use in the war in Afghanistan.
       ``Near term, it's a very nice financial salve to an 
     immediate wound,'' said Howard Rubel, a military industry 
     analysis at Goldman Sachs.
       The 767 plan is just one of several major Pentagon programs 
     that Boeing is prodding Congress to sustain, expand or 
     accelerate. The company is the lead contractor on more than a 
     dozen major contracts accounting for well over $10 billion in 
     the 2002 Pentagon budget alone. Those include the F/A-18 
     fighter jet for the Navy, the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft 
     for the Marine Corps, the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter for 
     the Army and the airborne laser for the Pentagon's Ballistic 
     Missile Defense Organization.
       In addition, Boeing has been trying for years to become the 
     dominant player in an array of new businesses, including 
     unpiloted aircraft, battlefield and cockpit communications, 
     surveillance technology and precision-guided numitions. The 
     war on terrorism has only underscored the Pentagon's need for 
     more of those systems, Boeing and its allies assert.
       ``What we're about to see was the reason for the merger 
     with McDonnell Douglas in the first place,'' said Gerald E. 
     Daniels, president of Boeing's military aircraft and missile 
     systems division. ``With the cyclical nature of the 
     commercial business, building strong military and space units 
     serves to tamp down those gigantic swings.''
       In 1999, two years after the merger with McDonnell Douglas, 
     Boeing delivered 620 commercial aircraft, for revenue of 
     $38.5 billion. By next year, analysts estimate, deliveries 
     are expected to tally only 367, with revenue down to $26 
     billion.
       The collapse in the commercial market resulted, of course, 
     from the suicide hijacking attacks of Sept. 11. Air travel 
     plummeted and airlines canceled dozens of jet orders, 
     prompting Boeing to announce plans to lay off 30,00 workers 
     over the next two years.
       Just when it seemed Boeing's fortunes could not be worse, 
     in October the Pentagon awarded a $200 billion contract for 
     the Joint Strike Fighter to Boeing's larger rival, Lockheed 
     Martin. The stealthy jet is expected to become the mainstay 
     fighter for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps in the next 
     two decades, raising doubts about Boeing's future in the 
     tactical fighter business.
       Those events sent Boeing reeling. But like battle-tested 
     generals on the retreat, Boeing executives swiftly moved to 
     recover their losses in a time-tested Washington way: wooing 
     Congress and the Pentagon to support other contracts.
       Few companies can rival Boeing's influence in the capital. 
     Its Washington office, headed by Rudy F. de Leon, the deputy 
     secretary of defense in the final year of the Clinton 
     administration, employs 34 in-house and more than 50 outside 
     lobbyists.
       One of the Boeing lobbyists' first moves after Sept. 11 was 
     to prod the Air Force to reconsider the 767 lease deal, which 
     had stalled months before. Though the Air Force has said it 
     plans to replace its 40-year-old KC-135 tankers in the next 
     decade or two, it has preferred to spend its money on elite 
     fighter jets like the F-22.
       But the war in Afghanistan has kept dozens of KC-135's in 
     the air almost constantly, putting pressure on the Air Force 
     to accelerate its replacement program. James Roche, the 
     secretary of the Air Force, and Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air 
     Force chief of staff, signed onto the lease-purchase idea 
     because it would spread the cost out into the future, 
     Pentagon documents show.
       Boeing next had to break down resistance to lease 
     arrangements in Congress. According to one internal Pentagon 
     study, a lease-purchase deal for 100 767's would cost 15 
     percent more than simply buying the planes. Moreover, federal 
     rules discourage such deals by requiring that most of the 
     entire contract cost be paid in the first year. To get around 
     that, Boeing proposed having the Air Force simply lease the 
     aircraft without a purchase option. But that would not cover 
     the cost of adapting them for refueling and surveillance, or 
     of ultimately buying them, as the Air Force is expected to 
     do.
       The company recruited the Congressional delegations from 
     Washington and Missouri--the two states where it assembles 
     most of its aircraft--to support the plan. And in the Senate, 
     it found a powerful ally in Ed Stevens of Alaska the ranking 
     Republican on the Appropriations Committee, who is a fan of 
     lease-purchase deals for the military.
       Boeing lobbyists with Congressional experience--including 
     Mr. de Leon, who also was a staff director for the House 
     Armed Services Committee, and Denny Miller, a former chief of 
     staff to the late Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington--
     helped negotiate the lease language.
       With Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, the 
     Boeing president, Philip A. Condit, has repeatedly met with 
     senior lawmakers like Daniel Inouye, the chairman of the 
     Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the military, and the 
     Senate majority leader, Thomas Dashle. Last week, Mr. Condit 
     returned to discuss the deal with several leading skeptics in 
     the House, including the speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, and 
     Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the influential 
     chairman of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations.
       A spokesman for Mr. Lewis, Jim Specht, said the Congressman 
     remained undecided on the lease deal, but added: ``There is 
     the concern that because of the Joint Strike Fighter 
     contract, something has to be done to make sure we support 
     all of our industrial base.''
       All the work, however, did not win over Senator McCain, who 
     last week accused Boeing of ``playing victim, blaming its own 
     job cuts, many of which occurred before Sept. 11, on the 
     tragedy itself.''
       Boeing seems to have won Congressional support for 
     accelerating purchases of C-17's, the all-purpose cargo 
     planes it builds in Long Beach, Calif., at a former McDonnell 
     Douglas plant. Last spring, Boeing formally asked that the 
     Pentagon buy 60 more planes at a cost of about $150 million 
     each. Without that increase, the Long Beach production line 
     is scheduled to close later this decade.
       Boeing has also tried to wiggle its way into the Strike 
     Fighter deal. The company has quietly hinted that it could 
     urge Congress to buy more unmanned aircraft or its F/A-18 to 
     take the place of Navy and Air Force versions of the Joint 
     Strike Fighter if Lockheed did not agree to give it a 
     substantial piece of the work.
       It has urged Senator Christopher S. Bond, a Missouri 
     Republican, to continue promoting legislation requiring 
     Lockheed to split the Strike Fighter work with Boeing. 
     Senator Bond withdrew his bill for lack of support, but on 
     Friday he won Senate funds for a study into whether the 
     Pentagon should have two manufacturers of tactical fighter 
     aircraft.

[[Page 27701]]

       ``I want to make sure we maintain that production line in 
     St. Louis, because it's in the national interest,'' Mr. Bond 
     said in an interview.
       Lockheed, however, notes that it already has two major 
     partners, the British military contractor BAE Systems and 
     Northrop Grumman. ``There is only so much work to go 
     around,'' said Charles Thomas Burbage, director of the 
     fighter project for Lockheed.
       Boeing, with the help of Senator Bond and Representative 
     Richard A. Gephardt, the House Democratic leader, who comes 
     from the St. Louis area, is also pushing the Navy to replace 
     its aging EA6-B Prowler radar-jamming planes with an 
     electronic-warfare version of the F-18, a move that could 
     help keep Boeing's St. Louis plant open longer.
       Unmanned aircraft are another focus of Boeing lobbying. 
     Last month, Boeing organized a new division headed by a 
     senior executive from its Strike Fighter program, Mike Heinz, 
     to help it expand into a market the company estimates will 
     top $1 billion a year.
       Boeing is already building a prototype unmanned fighter for 
     the Air Force, a project that many industry officials say is 
     Boeing's to lose. At a recent meeting of industry executives, 
     Darleen A. Druyun, the principal deputy assistant secretary 
     of the Air Force for acquisition and management, spoke 
     glowingly about the future of unmanned aerial vehicles.
       ``I see a very bright future for Boeing when it comes to 
     aviation,'' she said, ``particularly in the areas of UAV's 
     and in sales of C-17's.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill was on the floor, Senator Gramm of Texas, I, and 
others decided that we would do what we could to oppose this being 
included in the legislation.
  We were prepared to engage in extended debate on this and many of the 
other provisions of the Defense appropriations bill. After 
conversations with Senator Gramm and Senator Stevens, I agreed to an 
amendment on my behalf along with Senator Gramm that would give the 
President the authority not to spend the money if we found other more 
compelling needs for national defense, which seems like a reasonable 
solution to the dilemma in which we found ourselves.
  (Mr. CLELAND assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. McCAIN. I will admit to a certain degree of naivety. I believed 
that provision would be held in conference. Obviously, I was incredibly 
naive. That provision, I am told, was the first to go.
  So now we have a situation--even though the Air Force in its top 60 
priorities did not request additional tankers, but did have plans in 
the next 10 years or so to purchase aircraft with refueling 
capability--we now have a provision in law, which I obviously will not 
be able to reverse, without competition.
  Maybe Airbus could have provided some tankers. Maybe some airlines 
with excess aircraft could have provided some tankers. But no 
competition is allowed. It directs that it be 767s.
  Now, of course, to sweeten the pot, we have four 737s which will go 
out to Andrews Air Force Base and be part of the aircraft that are used 
for ferrying VIPs and Members of Congress around the world.
  I think you could make an argument that Boeing needs to be bailed 
out, that they are in trouble. They are a major manufacturing company. 
They lost out on a new fighter aircraft competition. There may be some 
argument to that. I might even consider cutting them a check for some 
money. We cut checks for a lot of other interests around here.
  But there was never a hearing in the Armed Services Committee--never 
a hearing in the Armed Services Committee--of a $30 billion purchase 
here. It was never considered by the Armed Services Committee--not 
once. Never did it come up. No. No, Mr. President. Again, it was stuck 
in an appropriations bill, stuck into an appropriations bill without a 
single hearing. Not even in the Appropriations Committee did they have 
a hearing on this.
  What I am saying is, this system has run amok. This system has run 
amok. We are now in the situation where anyone who is not on the 
Appropriations Committee becomes irrelevant, particularly at the end of 
the year.
  Where is the relevancy of the Commerce Committee when $310 million in 
appropriations is added on a Defense appropriations bill? Where is the 
relevancy when billions of dollars on a Defense appropriations bill are 
put in that have nothing to do with defense?
  Where is the relevancy of the authorizing committees when billions 
and billions and billions of dollars are added without a hearing, 
without consideration, and without authorization?
  I suggest that the Appropriations Committee change their Web site, 
the one I quoted earlier, that says that only authorized appropriations 
will be made. It says:

       Authorization laws have two basic purposes. They establish, 
     continue, or modify federal programs, and they are a 
     prerequisite under House and Senate rules . . . for the 
     Congress to appropriate budget authority for programs.

  I strongly recommend that the Appropriations Committee remove that 
from or at least add: However, in practice, that is not the case.
  We now have disabled veterans who are not receiving the money that 
they need. It is an effort that I and the Presiding Officer have 
engaged in for several years now. They do not have a very big lobby 
around here. They do not have Rudy de Leon and Denny Miller, and a lot 
of high-priced lobbyists. So veterans who have disabilities are being 
deprived money they should rightly have, that any other person stricken 
with a similar disability, under any other circumstance, would receive.
  We still have men and women in the military living in barracks that 
were built during World War II and the Korean war.
  We still have a situation, at least up until the surge of patriotism 
as of September 11, where there has been enormous difficulty in 
maintaining our noncommissioned officers and our midlevel career 
officers.
  A recent study by the U.S. Army showed the greatest exodus of Army 
captains in the history of the U.S. Army, which is quite interesting, 
to say the least.
  We will not take care of these veterans, but we will put about $3 
billion out of the Commerce Committee--under the Commerce Committee 
jurisdiction--into this Department of Defense appropriations bill. We 
will take care of the special interests. We will take care of the big 
campaign contributors.
  I am sure Boeing will be extremely generous at the next fundraisers 
that both the Republican and Democrat Parties have. They have already 
been incredibly generous. And, by the way, they are very schizophrenic 
in their political outlook because they give pretty much the same 
amount of money to both parties, which shows how ideologically driven 
they are.
  And we will get 767s. I am sure they are nice airplanes. But who is 
going to pay? Who is going to pay for it? The average taxpayer, because 
the cost to the taxpayer of this little backdoor, backroom maneuver is 
billions of dollars more than it should have been.
  I remind you, the average lifespan of a tanker is around 35 to 40 
years. That is the average lifespan because they are relatively simple 
airplanes. They are really flying gas stations. So they last a long 
time.
  So what are we going to do? Pay 90 percent of the cost of the 
airplane and, after 10 years, pay to have it de-engineered as a tanker 
and give it back to Boeing, at a minimum of one-third of the life of 
the tanker. With a straight face, how can we possibly do this?
  I had a lot of other concerns about the porkbarreling, but I want to 
say this. One of two things is going to happen around here in the 
Senate: Either the Appropriations Committee controls the entire agenda 
and does the things that we continue to see in ever increasing 
numbers--and I have been tracking it for many years; every year the 
Appropriations Committee adds more and more projects that are not 
authorized every year; and this year it is a big jump--or we are going 
to stop it; or we are going to have a change in the rules that comports 
with the Web site of the Appropriations Committee; that is, that no 
appropriation will be made that is unauthorized and no appropriation 
will exceed the authorized level either in an appropriations bill or in 
a conference report.
  It is a pretty simple rule. And it would be subject to a point of 
order.

[[Page 27702]]

  Now, there are times where appropriations have to be made, and that 
is where the point of order would come in. But unless we change the 
rules the way this body goes--I suggest to my colleagues that they 
understand we can have nice hearings.
  We have some very interesting hearings in the Commerce Committee on a 
broad variety of subjects. It is great. It is the most intellectually 
stimulating experience I have ever had in my service on the Commerce 
Committee and on the Armed Services Committee, of which I have been a 
member since 1987.
  I find it extremely enjoyable. The discussions are wonderful. I learn 
more about how our military is conducting their operations, how we are 
planning for the future. But do not think, as members of the 
authorizing committee, you will have the slightest effect on what is 
done in this body.
  I am not going to take too much longer, but I will just make a 
reference. In 1997--since the Senator from Hawaii is here--there was a 
proposal put in an appropriations bill to build two ships in 
Mississippi. And certain waivers were made in those requirements. In 
return for that, those ships would operate from the State of Hawaii. 
About $1 billion worth of taxpayers' money was on the line.
  I said, this is crazy. You can't do this. This is outrageous. Do you 
know what happened a few weeks ago? The company went bankrupt. There 
are two hulls sitting in the State of Mississippi. The taxpayers are 
already on the hook for $300-some million, and it will probably rise to 
$1 billion.
  If that proposal had gone through the Commerce Committee, it never 
would have seen the light of day because, on its face, it was crazy. To 
give a 30-year or 20-year, or whatever it is, exclusivity to a cruise 
line in return for them being built with taxpayers' dollars, there was 
no way it was going to succeed. And I said so at the time.
  So now the taxpayers are on the hook for $1 billion.
  We are talking about real money. What is going on here? It is because 
we are violating the process and the rules for the way we should 
operate. Perhaps this Boeing deal would have gotten some consideration 
in a very different fashion. Probably what would have resulted is that 
we would have authorized the purchase of three or four 767s and then in 
the following year we would have authorized some more, depending on 
what the administration wanted. But now we are putting in 100 airplanes 
that weren't in the top 60 requirements the Air Force told the Congress 
and the American people they needed. After 10 years, one-third to one-
fourth of their lifespan, we give them back. How does anybody justify 
this kind of procedure?
  I suggest that the Senate look at itself. I can't speak for the 
House. The Senate ought to look at itself. What are we doing? What do 
we do here? I think I may be one of four or five Senators who has 
examined this bill. I may be one of four or five who has looked at this 
bill because I have about 10 staffers leafing through it trying to 
figure out what is in it. Everybody certainly wants to go home. I 
understand that. That is why I will not talk too much longer.
  I said on the floor of the Senate that the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill would be the last bill we considered because it 
would have the most pork in it because everybody would want to go home 
and nobody would want to look at it. This is a bill that we received 
sometime this afternoon or late morning, this is the legislation, $343 
billion. What is it full of? Does anybody know? I have had about 10 
staffers trying to leaf through it and find out. We have already found 
billions of dollars of unauthorized projects.
  This kind of behavior cannot go on. It can't go on. You will lose the 
confidence of the American people. You will lose their faith that you 
are representing them and their tax dollars and their priorities.
  This is called war profiteering: On the 21st of December, the last 
bill, the last train loaded up, nobody has read it, and we vote for it. 
We all vote for it because, of course, we are in a war. We can't not do 
that. I won't. But the fact is, we better change the way we are doing 
business, and we ought to look at ourselves and see if we are proper 
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
  More importantly, are we proper stewards of our Nation's defense? Are 
we placing our national priorities for our military and the men and 
women in the military and their needs first?
  This is going to be a long war on terrorism. We can't afford to put 
all this stuff in a Defense appropriations bill that has nothing to do 
with defense. We can't load it up with all this pork for the Salt Lake 
City Olympics. We can't give sweetheart deals to cruise lines.
  Early next year when we come back, I will propose a change in the 
rules of the Senate. I hope it will be considered by many of my 
colleagues. I know it probably won't be considered by those on the 
Appropriations Committee because now they have all the power. But I 
believe that this is a body of equals, of 100 equal Senators. Some are 
elected to our majority; some are chairmen and ranking members of 
committees and, obviously, have more power than others. But we are 
equals when it comes time to do what we should be able to do with the 
taxpayers' dollars.
  The power is now in the hands of the Appropriations Committee and 
those members of the Appropriations Committees. You read these things. 
First you laugh, and then you cry. It is really unbelievable. I laughed 
when I saw $75,000 for the Reindeer Herders' Association. I cried when 
I saw $6 million for the airport in Juneau. We need to upgrade airports 
all over America.
  I was very disturbed when I saw that for the byways program, last 
year 40 States got money for the Scenic Byways Program; this year it is 
11. I was very disturbed when I saw the Transportation Appropriations 
Committee took $453 million out of the formula for highway fund 
distribution to the States and distributed it among the States of the 
appropriators. How do you justify that?
  We debated for a week in the Senate on that formula. I didn't like 
the result because Arizona receives less money from Washington in our 
taxpayers' dollars than we send, but I accepted the verdict of the 
entire 100 Senators. Now hundreds of millions of dollars that should be 
fairly distributed under that formula were taken by the Transportation 
appropriators without a debate, without a hearing, and distributed to 
the States of the appropriators.
  That kind of thing cannot continue. It cannot continue or it renders 
meaningless not only the nonappropriators but the debate we had. Why 
did we waste a week debating the TEA-21 formula. Because we thought it 
was important. We thought that was the way the money would be 
distributed. Then the Appropriations Committee takes that money and 
redistributes it, coincidentally, to the States of the members of the 
Appropriations Committee. We can't continue doing this.
  I know the hour is late. I apologize to my colleagues if I have 
inconvenienced them. But I warned them weeks ago that the last train 
would be the Defense appropriations bill, and everybody would want to 
vote for it and leave.
  I just hope that a document this big, with this much money, $343 
billion in taxpayers' money, that before we vote on something such as 
this again, at least let's look at it and see what it contains.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to set the 
record straight with respect to a good deal of misinformation which has 
been circulating about Federal support for the 2002 Winter Olympic 
Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. In fact, earlier today, one of our 
colleagues took the floor to condemn the funding Congress has provided 
for the 2002 Olympics. I listened carefully to his remarks. I have to 
say that if his understanding of the situation were true, I could 
understand how he feels. Unfortunately, however, I believe he and 
others have relied on incomplete and distorted press accounts which 
are, simply, a disservice to the Olympic spirit that a majority of 
Americans have raced to embrace. Most of these distortions seem to have

[[Page 27703]]

originated with an article in the December 10, 2001 edition of Sports 
Illustrated. The article, ironically entitled ``Snow Job,'' is in fact 
a snow job itself.
  The thrust of the criticisms to which I refer appears to be an 
incorrect assumption that, in seeking support for the Olympic Games, 
the State of Utah is somehow attempting to enrich itself unfairly at 
the expense of American taxpayers. Nonsense. Poppycock. Malarky. What 
those who race to criticize our Olympic games fail to consider is that 
these are the world's Olympic Games, a time-honored tradition which our 
nation is so fortunate to be hosting in February. I find these slams 
against the Olympic Games particularly discouraging given the fact that 
tomorrow the Olympic torch will arrive on Capitol Hill. And I cannot 
fail to note that it was this very body, only days ago, that 
unanimously authorized the torch to be carried to our Capitol, and some 
are here today questioning our support for that effort.
  Enthusiasm has been building across the country as the torch makes 
its way from Athens to Atlanta, and now from Atlanta to Washington to 
Salt Lake. Hundreds of thousands of spectators have been lining the 
streets, cheering on the torch-bearers as they carry the Olympic flame 
throughout the country. We have all been so heartened to see citizens 
from all walks of life passing the torch, honoring everyday heroes. The 
message of the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Torch Relay is ``Light the Fire 
Within.'' The flame symbolizes the spirit and passion of individuals 
who inspire others. The young people who make great sacrifices to 
become Olympic champions are certainly heroes. The flame celebrates not 
only the Olympians, but people of all walks of life who have inspired 
others.
  While the Torch Relay is only a part of the Olympics, it is symbolic 
of the fire and passion for excellence that the games are all about. it 
is ironic that a publication which has staked its reputation on 
America's passion for athleticism now just weeks before the opening 
ceremony seeks to diminish the glory of the games by sensationalizing 
an issue that has been scrutinized and laid to rest months ago. It is 
also personally discouraging to me that one of our colleagues would 
seize this one article, one story among a vast sea of positive 
journalism on the Olympics, as a populist club in a years-long crusade 
to curb unwise and unneeded Federal spending. Good motive. Wrong 
target.
  Those of our colleagues who are interested in a fair and balanced 
analysis of Olympic spending should consult the November, 2001 General 
Accounting Office, GAO, report, ``Olympic Games Costs to Plan and Stage 
the Games in the United States.'' And if you have any problem getting a 
copy of the report, let me know and I'll send it right over. The GAO 
study debunks many of the criticisms and draws an accurate picture 
which should put into proper perspective many of the misconceptions 
that are circulating. As any fair-minded reader can glean from the 
extensive GAO analysis, the Sports Illustrated article compares apples 
to oranges when calculating the costs of the various Olympic planning 
events that have taken place in this country. For example, critics of 
Olympic spending often compare transportation improvements in Utah to 
those in Lake Placid, a small rural community.
  The article also fails to take into consideration the passage of time 
and the changing scope of the Olympics as the international 
communities' participation in the Olympics has grown. Most 
disappointing, the article to fails to demonstrate an understanding of 
federal funding of state highway projects and the costs associated with 
highway projects already in the planning stages for federal funding.
  Earlier, our colleague decried that the Olympic Games will cost about 
$1.5 billion. Wrong again. Actually, it is over that amount. But as the 
GAO report makes perfectly clear, Federal support only accounts for 18 
percent of that total. In truth, as the GAO analysis makes clear, the 
total projected cost, both public and private, of staging the 2002 
Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, excluding additional security 
requirements resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 
is $1.9 billion. Of this total, GAO estimates that $342 million will be 
provided by the federal government, 18 percent. GAO also documents that 
the State of Utah will provide $150 million. That is eight percent, or 
almost half the Federal amount provided by the 50 States for this 
international effort.
  Local governments alone are providing four percent, or $75 million. 
And the Salt Lake Organizing Committee has raised the vast majority of 
the funding, $1.3 billion. That is 70 percent. This represents the hard 
work of hundreds of people who have spent weeks and months raising 
private donations. This is a true public-private partnership, which 
shows America at its best. So why are we not racing to praise this 
effort, rather than condemn it? The GAO report levels the playing field 
by making more accurate funding comparisons with previous Olympic Games 
held in the United States. Rather than using a dollar to dollar 
comparison, a distorted calculation, the GAO report uses a percentage 
comparison, a better gauge to assess the true costs to the Federal 
government.
  For the edification of my colleagues, I would like to point out that 
a second report will be published shortly that compares the 2002 Winter 
Salt Lake Winter Olympics with Olympic games in other countries. This 
report will be even more enlightening with regard to total cost growth 
for the Olympic games and to the extent other governments have 
subsidized the Olympics. The GAO report indicates that while the total 
costs for staging the U.S. Olympic games, particularly the winter 
games, have grown, the percentage of federal participation has remained 
fairly constant taking into consideration increasing security 
requirements due to the bomb incident in Atlanta and events since 
September 11, 2001.
  In fact, the Sports Illustrated article attempts to throw a negative 
spin on security spending for the Olympics by stating that 
``Surprisingly, all but $40 million of the $240 million in security 
spending was approved before September 11.'' Authors of the article 
fail to appreciate that a great majority of the security money was 
dedicated before September 11 because the intelligence community had 
knowledge of the growing terrorist threat in the world.
  After September 11, the fact that security required little revision 
is testimony to the thoroughness in Olympic security planning and 
preparation. For any of my colleagues who still remain unconvinced, I 
urge you to review the GAO report and obtain a true picture of federal 
support for the Olympic Games.
  I also want to address specifically the issue of federal funding for 
an area that has received the most attention in the press and 
elsewhere, yet is perhaps the least understood. This concerns federal 
funding for Utah transportation projects over the last five years. It 
has been a popular parlor game to criticize funding for Olympic 
transportation costs. Many naysayers have rushed to judgment incorrect 
judgment I might add assuming that any construction project underway in 
Utah must be a direct result of the Olympic Games and that the funding 
must be coming from sources outside Utah.


  Nothing could be further from the truth. The indiscriminate and 
arbitrary inclusion of all transportation costs in federal funding 
figures for the 2002 Olympics have dramatically skewed the numbers to 
incorrectly support the allegation that Utah has gotten more than its 
fair share of Federal transportation dollars because of the Olympics. 
In fact, the Sports Illustrated article is particularly guilty of this 
erroneous assumption.
  The article's $1.5 billion price tag for the Salt Lake Olympics 
includes well over $800 million in transportation projects that were 
not designed specifically for the Olympics. Let me address the three 
largest projects that have attracted considerable attention and set the 
record straight.
  First, let me address the North/South Light Rail in Salt Lake City. 
Since 1983, the Utah Transit Authority has planed a light rail system 
to handle the increased traffic in and around Salt

[[Page 27704]]

Lake City on a daily basis. The system design calls for two connected 
light rail lines one running north and south from downtown Salt Lake 
City south to Sandy City, and a second east/west line connecting 
downtown with Salt Lake International Airport and the University of 
Utah. The system is designed to be built in phases with the first phase 
winning approval by the Federal Transit Administration, FTA, through a 
rigorous competitive process, in 1996.
  Under this process, FTA is required to rank proposed projects 
according to a number of objective criteria and to select those 
projects that are ranked highest. The criteria address such areas as 
ridership, mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operational 
efficiencies, and cost effectiveness. It is important to remember that 
the project must meet the FTA criteria before it is ever considered for 
federal funding and must compete with other projects. The first phase 
of the program, the North/South line, was found worthy and funded by 
both Federal and state transportation monies. This action was 
completely independent of the Olympics.
  The North/South line was completed in December 1999 at a total 
project cost of $312.5 million, of which $241.3 million was paid by the 
federal government. The State of Utah paid $61.2 million which 
represents 20 percent of the bill. This is in keeping with the 
traditional split for state transportation projects, the state can fund 
as little as 20 percent and the federal as much as 80 percent of the 
project costs.
  It is important to note that this light rail project benefits all 
Salt Lake City citizens. Not only does it help the poor who are unable 
to afford cars but it also draws commuters out of cars thus helping the 
environment. Everyone benefits from greater mobility and better air 
quality. From the opening of the line in 1999, ridership has far 
exceeded expectations and it has continued to rise. Again, this project 
was not built or funded as an Olympic project--it was approved by the 
Administration and Congress based on a detailed analysis of the merits 
of the project itself and the long-term transportation needs of the 
Salt Lake Valley.
  The University Connector Light Rail is the second phase of the light 
rail program. It will run from downtown Salt Lake City to the 
University of Utah. In 2000, the Administration and Congress approved a 
full funding grant agreement, allowing the Utah Transit Authority to 
begin construction. The tremendous success of the North/South light 
rail line was a key factor in the decision by Congress and the 
Administration to approve construction. Like the first phase, this 
phase was approved by FTA pursuant to a rigorous evaluation process. 
However, once the project was deemed to qualify under the normal 
Federal guidelines, the Administration did choose to accelerate it 
based on a possibility that it could be completed before the Olympics. 
Nevertheless, everyone, including the Congress, recognized that there 
was a possibility that the segment would not be completed in time for 
the Olympic Games and, therefore, the agreement included provisions 
allowing for the temporary halt of construction with resumption 
following the Games.
  Fortunately, UTA is on schedule to complete the project and therefore 
the extension will be operating during the Olympics. However, it is 
important to note that this project was never deemed necessary for the 
Olympic Games by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee; in fact, 
operations on the line will be suspended for opening and closing 
ceremonies at Rice-Eccles Olympic Stadium, which is served by the 
University Connector. The cost of the project will be $118.5 million 
with $84.0 million federally funded. Without a doubt, the most 
misunderstood of all the Utah transportation projects is the I-15 
reconstruction. This $1.59 billion project has been characterized as an 
Olympic project funded by the Federal government. Not true.
  It must be remembered that Utah is a crossroads of the West and the 
I-15 interstate highway is critical to regional shipping and other 
transportation needs. It benefits everyone in the region, including 
those in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Idaho. The 
project was planned long before the Games, in the mid-1980s in fact. 
The I-15 improvements address additional capacity needs resulting from 
normal growth in the Salt Lake Valley and correct some deplorable 
infrastructure problems such as cracks in roadbeds and crumbling 
bridges. Critics also fail to recognize that the I-15 project has been 
a bargain for the Federal government by any analysis. The Federal 
taxpayer is only funding $210 million out of a $1.59 billion project. 
While the Federal government has authorized another $243 million in 
spending for this project in Utah for advance construction authority, 
these additional Federal funds may not be used.
  Based on current projections, the most the Federal government may 
contribute is 25-30 percent of the project cost well below the 
customary 80 percent Federal share. Instead of criticizing our State, 
we should be applauded. Some here today might ask, ``Why did Utah pick 
up the lion's share of the I-15 reconstruction?''
  Utah, though a relatively small state, is seriously committed to 
transportation improvements as demonstrated by the dedication of state 
funds for transportation projects. The Utah State Legislature, during 
the 1997 session, established an aggressive state funding program. The 
program, known as the Centennial Highway Fund, CHF, will provide for 
over $3 billion for transportation improvements across the entire state 
over a ten year period. The I-15 reconstruction project is the premier 
project funded under the CHF program. Clearly, the annual allocation of 
about $200 million per year in federal highway funds is insufficient to 
address all of the transportation needs of the state.
  I want to point out that these three transportation projects, rather 
than a grab of federal money based on some loose association with the 
Olympics, are in fact long-planned and well thought-out projects to 
benefit the local community. The light rail system has been nationally 
noted as a shining example of urban/suburban Smart Growth. And 
interestingly, all three projects were considered and planned as a 
Joint Transportation Corridor which was one of the first in the country 
submitted for an environmental impact assessment. Today such joint 
corridors are common, but the Utah projects were first among this 
trend.
  Finally, I take great exception with the Sports Illustrated article's 
sensational innuendos about some Utah businessmen. Did these 
businessmen benefit from road improvements due to the Olympic venues 
held on or near their property? Undoubtedly. However, we must remember 
that these are businessmen who have invested in property and 
infrastructure over the course of many years. They have taken risks by 
investing in the growth of the community.
  As a result, many others have benefitted from their efforts. When 
federal money is spent on any state transportation project, the 
citizens of that state benefit. Some are richer; some are poorer than 
others. The Sports Illustrated article holds the rest of the United 
States to one standard and Utah to another. I do not consider this 
responsible journalism.
  In closing, I want to express to my colleagues and the American 
people my appreciation for their overwhelming support of the Olympic 
Games. The Salt Lake Games promise to be a fantastic family event, one 
that I hope that the whole nation will enjoy. We should not let 
populist politics in Washington douse the Olympic flame in Utah.


                Procurement of Smokeless Nitrocellulose

  Mr. TORRICELLI. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Senator 
Inouye and Senator Stevens and the Defense Appropriations Staff for 
their cooperation in securing $2 million for the procurement of 
smokeless nitrocellulose in this year's Department of Defense, DoD, 
Appropriations Bill. Indeed, the provision included in this legislation 
will help ensure that our nation will continue to have at least two 
domestic suppliers of smokeless nitrocellulose.
  The $2 million direct procurement for this vital product will 
reestablish

[[Page 27705]]

Green Tree Chemical Technologies of Parlin, New Jersey as a viable 
competitor for the DoD industrial base. Furthermore, this purchase will 
enable Green Tree to be viable for the long term. It will continue to 
produce the qualified material for DoD programs and provide the only 
other production base in the United States for what is a volatile 
product.
  Mr. CORZINE. I concur with my colleague with regard to the importance 
of the smokeless nitrocellulose provision included in this year's 
defense spending bill. In fact the importance of this provision cannot 
be overemphasized because Green Tree now produces the qualified 
nitrocellulose for the Trident II, LOSAT, TOW and HELLFIRE missile 
programs. Had the provision providing the $2 million procurement of 
nitrocellulose been omitted, these important missile programs could 
have been disrupted because re-qualifying DoD materials can be costly 
and time consuming.
  Mr. CARPER. My two colleagues from New Jersey are correct in their 
assessment of the importance of this $2 million appropriation for 
smokeless nitrocellulose. Earlier this year, an anti-competitive joint 
venture, which would have centralized the production of this key 
ingredient in Defense Department programs, threatened Green Tree. 
Indeed, had the Federal Trade Commission not found the joint venture to 
be monopolistic, Green Tree would have been forced to close its New 
Jersey plant. The provision was inserted to the conference report to 
serve the same purpose as an amendment added to the Senate DoD 
appropriations bill to provide Green Tree with a $2 million production 
grant.
  By including this vital provision, Congress will ensure the survival 
of Green Tree and enhance and sustain the competitive domestic 
production base for smokeless nitrocellulose which plays a key role in 
many DoD weapons programs.
  Mr. BIDEN. I join my colleagues in thanking Senator Inouye and 
Senator Stevens for their assistance in keeping this funding in the 
final bill. As my colleagues have indicated, smokeless nitrocellulose 
is a critical precursor for the ammunition of a number of vital weapons 
systems. By ensuring that more than one company produces it here in the 
United States, we are being both fiscally responsible and prudent.


SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN HEALTH ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT OF A HAND HELD WATER 
                        QUALITY DETECTION DEVICE

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Fiscal Year 
2002 Appropriations Act for the Department of Defense, I would like to 
emphasize the importance of portable water quality detection equipment 
in homeland security. Such devices are a important tools for ensuring a 
safe water supply for all Americans.
  In Michigan, like the rest of the country, there is a vital need to 
implement responsible water quality monitoring and tracking due to 
serious threats to public health through raw sewage discharges into its 
lakes and the industrial outfalls that pollute lakes such as Lake St. 
Clair. Since September 11, this need is even more important. We must 
protect sources of drinking and recreational water for our citizens by 
developing technologies that can identify and quantify hazardous water 
pollutants in near ``real time''.
  Four county health departments, Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and St. Clair, 
together with the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research and Development 
Center, TARDEC, and Wayne State University, along with the support of 
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, comprise a consortium 
that is proposing to prove/develop methodologies to develop field 
portable equipment to detect chemical and biological contaminants 
including warfare agents. These technologies will accomplish the 
objectives of protecting public health and the health of our military 
by providing a valuable tool that can determine water quality.
  September 11 has placed a new urgency on the need to implement a 
field detection program to ensure safe potable drinking water supplies 
for civilians as well as military personnel. Funding provided in this 
bill is essential to the Southeast Michigan Health Association's 
research and I would urge the Environmental Protection Agency to make 
this project a priority when distributing the funds provided in this 
bill.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Michigan has a very important point. I 
hope that the people at the Environmental Protection Agency will take 
note of his remarks.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from West Virginia and the committee for 
their hard work in putting together this important legislation.


                       office of justice programs

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the supplemental spending portion of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, H.R. 
3338, including funding for the Department of Justice Office of Justice 
Programs' Justice Assistance account. Among the authorized uses of 
these funds are research and development to support counter-terrorism 
technologies, training for first responders, and grants for State and 
local domestic preparedness support. The scope of events for which our 
communities are attempting to prepare is broad, including release of 
radiological, chemical or biological agents, explosions, armed 
confrontations, and hostage-taking. While the details of how these 
situations would affect a community and the appropriate responses 
differ due to local circumstances, weather, and topography, similar 
methods for planning for, detecting, and monitoring these events may 
apply nationwide.
  It has come to my attention that technology and supporting online 
services are available to communities to provide emergency responders 
with the information necessary to manage and mitigate damage from such 
terrorist acts that have the potential to endanger individuals and 
entire communities. These systems are capable of monitoring from a 
remote location the release of radiological, chemical, and biological 
agents over open terrain or urban environments. Taking into 
consideration real-time weather conditions from multiple meteorological 
sensors, these systems can assess the need for evacuations and the 
potential for human loss or harm and physical damage.
  I appreciate that the Office of Justice Programs works hard, both 
within its research and development arm, the National Institute for 
Justice, and in coordination with other Departments and agencies, to 
develop new technologies and standardized equipment and training to 
assist State and local responders with their preparations for these 
type of events. It seems an appropriate use the funds provided by this 
bill to the Office of Justice Programs to assess the capabilities of 
such systems and their utility for State and local entities with 
domestic terrorism responsibilities, and to work with other departments 
and agencies to include such systems in standard equipment lists for 
domestic terrorism response. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, who 
is the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee overseeing the 
Department of Justice, whether he agrees with that assessment.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree that new technologies of the type described by the 
Republican Leader may indeed prove useful to local responders. I 
encourage the Office of Justice Programs to consider such systems and 
work to include such systems in its standard equipment list for 
domestic terrorism response if such systems prove effective.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank my distinguished colleague for his assistance in 
this matter.


                      boeing 767 leasing provision

  Mrs. MURRAY. I rise to engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the 
Boeing 767 leasing provision included in the fiscal year 2002 Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I rise to join my colleague from the State of 
Washington to discuss this matter.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be pleased to discuss this matter with the 
Senators.
  Mr. STEVENS. As would I.
  Mr. ROBERTS. This is a matter that is important to the Nation, our 
national security, and the great State of

[[Page 27706]]

Kansas. I, too, would like to join with my colleagues to review the 
leasing issue.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I agree with my colleague from Kansas. The aging of our 
military air refueling tanker fleet has become a critical military 
operations issue-one that requires a bold solution now. The Air Force's 
fleet of over 500 KC-135 air refueling tankers is, on average, more 
than 40 years old. In fact, the oldest of these tankers--100 KC-135E 
models--are close to 45 years in age. New 767 air refueling tankers are 
already under development and could begin replacing the KC-135 Es 
within 2 years. There would be no up-front development costs to the 
military.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Of equal importance is the need to support our 
commercial and military industrial base in the wake of the September 11 
terrorist attacks. The provision included in the fiscal year 2002 
Defense Appropriations bill will allow the Air Force to meet a pressing 
military need and ensure continued, strong demand for the Boeing 767 
aircraft. In this regard, it is my understanding that the provision 
included in the bill permits the leasing of up to 100 purpose Boeing 
767 aircraft in a commercial configuration for up to 10 years. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. INOUYE. That is correct. And contrary to some reports, this 
provision is permissive in nature. I believe this provision provides 
the right solution at the right time to address the Air Force's needs.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with Senator Inouye's remarks. Not only with 
this provisions allow for timely delivery of critical military assets, 
but it requires that the leasing costs be 10 percent less than the life 
cycle costs of the aircraft were they to be purchased outright.
  Mr. ROBERTS. It is my understanding that Italy and Japan have 
selected the 767 tanker for their air forces and that 767s are being 
modified in Wichita already. Italy intends to buy four of the tankers 
and Japan intends to purchase at least one. I also know that this same 
tanker configuration is being offered commercially to other countries 
to meet their in-flight fueling requirements. Is that the Senator from 
Alaska's understanding as well?
  Mr. STEVENS. It is. There are a number of other nations and at least 
one private company who have expressed an interest in procuring general 
purpose, commercially configured tanker aircraft.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Then would you say that a commercial market exists for 
these aircraft?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from Hawaii, would you agree that a 
general purpose aircraft that will meet the general requirements of 
many customers; that can operate as a passenger aircraft, a freighter, 
a passenger/freighter ``combination'' aircraft, or as an aerial 
refueling tanker; and is available to either government or private 
customers meets the definition of a general purpose, commercially 
configured aircraft?
  Mr. INOUYE. I believe that assessment makes sense.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. CANTWELL. The opportunity has been presented to the Air Force and 
the Boeing company to come together to make this leasing provision work 
for the benefit of our national security and our industrial base. I 
urge them to do so quickly and cooperatively.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I agree and pledge my support to making this effort a 
successful one.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senators for their remarks and for their 
pledges of support.
  Mr. INOUYE. I join with my friend, the Senator from Alaska, to thank 
you for your remarks and let you know that Senator Stevens and I will 
closely follow the progress of this new program.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record a 
preliminary scoring by the Budget Committee of the conference report to 
H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2002. I will be submitting a final, official statement for the record 
after CBO completes its scoring of the conference report.
  Preliminarily, the conference report provides $317.207 billion in 
nonemergency discretionary budget authority, almost all of which is for 
defense activities. That budget authority will result in new outlays in 
2002 of $212.907 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority 
are taken into account, nonemergency discretionary outlays for the 
conference report total $309.256 billion in 2002. By comparison, the 
Senate-passed bill provided $317.206 billion in nonemergency budget 
authority, which would have resulted in $309.365 billion in outlays.
  In addition, H.R. 3338 includes $20 billion in emergency-designated 
funding. That funding represents the second $20 billion previously 
authorized by and designated as emergency spending under Public Law 
107-38, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from 
and Response to Attacks on the United States. An estimate of the impact 
on outlays from the emergency funding is not available at this time.
  The conference report to H.R. 3338 violates section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 because it exceeds the subcommittee's 
Section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. 
Similarly, because the committee's allocation is tied to the current 
law cap on discretionary spending, H.R. 3338 also violates section 
312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. The bill includes language that 
raises the cap on discretionary category spending to $681.441 billion 
in budget authority and $670.206 billion in outlays and the cap on 
conservation category outlays to $1.473 billion. However, because that 
language is not yet law, the budget committee cannot increase the 
appropriations committee's allocation by the amount of the pending cap 
increase at this time, putting it in violation of the two points of 
order.
  In addition, by including language that increases the cap on 
discretionary spending, adjusts the balances on the pay-as-you-go 
scorecard for 2001 and 2002 to zero, and directs the scoring of a 
provision in the bill, H.R. 3338 also violates section 306 of the 
Congressional Budget Act. Finally, the bill violates section 
311(a)(2)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act by exceeding the spending 
aggregates assumed in the 2002 budget resolution for fiscal year 2002.
  The conference report to H.R. 3338 violates several budget act points 
of order; however, it is good bill that addresses the Nation's defense 
needs, including the defense of our homeland. The President and 
Congressional leaders from both parties agreed in the wake of the 
September 11 attack that more money was needed to respond to the 
terrorists and to protect our homeland. This report follows that 
bipartisan agreement and includes language that raises the cap on 
discretionary spending. I urge its adoption.
  I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee 
scoring of H.R. 3338 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 3338, CONFERENCE REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
                      ACT, 2002 PRELIMINARY SCORING
    [Spending comparisons--Conference Report, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                   purpose \2\   Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:
  Budget Authority...............      317,207          282      317,489
  Outlays........................      309,256          282      309,538
Senate 302(b) allocation:\1\
  Budget Authority...............      181,953          282      182,235
  Outlays........................      181,616          282      181,898
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............      319,130          282      311,224
  Outlays........................      310,942          282      311,224
House-passed:
  Budget Authority...............      317,207          282      317,489
  Outlays........................      308,873          282      309,155
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority...............      317,206          282      317,488
  Outlays........................      309,365          282      309,647
 
  CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:\1\
  Budget Authority...............      135,254            0      135,254
  Outlays........................      127,640            0      127,640
President's request:
  Budget Authority...............      (1,923)            0      (1,923)
  Outlays........................      (1,686)            0      (1,686)
House-passed \2\
  Budget Authority...............            0            0            0
  Outlays........................          383            0          383
Senate-passed \2\
  Budget Authority...............            1            0            1
  Outlays........................        (109)            0        (109)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the
  conference report to the Senate 302(b) allocation.

[[Page 27707]]

 
\2\ All but $3 million of the nonemergency budget authority provided in
  the conference report is for defense activities.
 
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions. In addition, the
  conference report includes $20 billion in emergency funding related to
  the September 11th attacks. An estimate of the outlay impact from the
  emergency spending is not available at this time.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise once again to address the issue of 
wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case the bill 
funding the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002. In provisions 
too numerous to mention in detail, this bill, time and again, chooses 
to fund pork barrel projects with little if any relationship to 
national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and 
underfunded, urgent defense priorities.
  As I pointed out previously to this body on December 7th, the massive 
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill Conference Report, totaling 
$343 billion, would be the last business in the Senate and so it is. 
Not because of its level of difficulty, but because it is so easy to 
hide the mother of all pork projects in a large massive bill or maybe 
it wasn't because we found it as well as many other groups. For 
example, let me read a few comments.
  Our Nation is at war, a war that has united Americans behind a common 
goal--to find the enemies who terrorized the United States on September 
11th and bring them to justice. In pursuit of this goal, our servicemen 
and women are serving long hours, under extremely difficult conditions, 
far away from their families. Many other Americans also have been 
affected by this war and its economic impact, whether they have lost 
their jobs, their homes, or have had to drastically cut expenses this 
holiday season. The weapons we have given them, for all their 
impressive effects, are, in many cases, neither in quantity nor 
quality, the best that our government can provide.
  For instance, stockpiles of the precision guided munitions that we 
have relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear so effectively on 
difficult, often moving targets, with the least collateral damage 
possible, are dangerously depleted after only 10 weeks of war in 
Afghanistan. This is just one area of critical importance to our 
success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be 
allocating scarce resources to our national defense.
  Yet, despite the realities of war, and the responsibilities they 
impose on Congress as much the President, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its usual blatant 
use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some 
worthy purpose, but that certainly impair our national defense by 
depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding.
  Even in the middle of a war, a war of monumental consequences, the 
Appropriations Committee is intent on using the Department of Defense 
as an agency for dispensing corporate welfare. It is a terrible shame 
that in a time of maximum emergency, the United States Senate would 
persist in spending money requested and authorized only for our Armed 
Forces to satisfy the needs or the desires of interests that are 
unrelated to defense needs.
  The Investor's Business Daily, on December 18, 2001, had this to say 
in an article titled At the Trough: Welfare Checks To Big Business Make 
No Sense, ``Among the least justified outlays is corporate welfare. 
Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that business subsidies will 
run $87 billion this year, up a third since 1997, Although President 
Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate welfare this year, 
Congress has proved resistant. Indeed, many post-September 11 bailouts 
have gone to big business. Boeing is one of the biggest beneficiaries. 
Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat from Washington, is pushing a 
substantial increase in research and development support for Boeing and 
other defense contractors, the purchase of several retrofitted Boeing 
767s and the leasing of as many as 100 767s for purposes ranging from 
surveillance to refueling. Boeing has been hurt by the storm that hit 
airlines, since many companies have slashed orders. Yet China recently 
agreed to buy 30 of the company's planes, and Boeing's problems predate 
the September 11 attack. It is one thing to compensate the airlines for 
forcibly shutting them down; it is quite another to toss money at big 
companies caught in a down demand cycle. Boeing, along with many other 
major exporters, enjoys its own federal lending facility, the Export-
Import Bank. ExIm uses cheap loans, loan guarantees and loan insurance 
to subsidize purchases of U.S. products. The bulk of the money goes to 
big business that sell airplanes, machinery, nuclear power plants and 
the like. Last year alone, Boeing benefitted from $3.3 billion in 
credit subsidies. While corporate America gets the profits, taxpayers 
get the losses. . . . The Constitution authorizes a Congress to promote 
the general welfare, not enrich Boeing and other corporate behemoths. 
There is no warrant to take from Peter so Paul can pay higher corporate 
dividends. In the aftermath of September 11, the American people can 
ill afford budget profligacy in Washington. If Congress is not willing 
to cut corporate welfare at a time of national crisis, what is it 
willing to cut?''
  As I mentioned last week when the Senate version of the Defense 
Appropriations bill was being debated and--now carried through the 
Conference Committee there is a sweet deal for the Boeing Company that 
I'm sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to 
the other. Attached is a legislative provision to the Fiscal Year 2002 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would require the Air 
Force to lease one hundred 767 aircraft for use as tankers for $26 
million apiece each year for the next 10 years. Moreover, in Conference 
Committee the appropriators added four 737 aircraft for executive 
travel mostly benefitting Members of Congress. We have been told that 
these aircraft will be assigned to the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air 
Force Base. Since the 10-year leases have yet to be signed, the cost of 
the planes cannot be calculated, but it costs roughly $85 million to 
buy one 737, and a lease costs significantly more over the long term.
  The cost to taxpayers?
  Two billion and six hundred million dollars per year for the aircraft 
plus another $1.2 billion in military construction funds to modify KC-
135 hangars to accommodate their larger replacements, with a total 
price tag of more than $30 billion over 10 years when the costs of the 
737 leases are also included. This leasing plan is five times more 
expensive to the taxpayer than an outright purchase, and it represents 
30 percent of the Air Force's annual cost of its top 60 priorities. But 
the most amazing fact is that this program is not actually among the 
Air Force's top 60 priorities nor do new tankers appear in the 6-year 
defense procurement plan for the Service!
  That is right, when the Air Force told Congress in clear terms what 
its top priorities were tankers and medical lift capability aircraft 
weren't included as critical programs. In fact, within its top 30 
programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that 
would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet 
fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and 
fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and 
rescue helicopters for downed pilots.
  Let me say that again, within its top 30 programs, the Air Force has 
asked for several essential items that would directly support our 
current war effort: wartime munitions, jet fighter engine replacement 
parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and fighter upgrades and self 
protection equipment, and combat search and rescue helicopters for 
downed pilots.
  This leasing program also will require $1.2 billion in military 
construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are 
too small for the new 767 aircraft. The taxpayers also will be on the 
hook for another $30 million per aircraft on the front end to convert 
these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the 
end of the lease, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for $30 
million more, to convert the aircraft back--pushing the total cost of 
the Boeing sweetheart deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease. Mr. 
President, that is waste that borders on gross negligence.

[[Page 27708]]

  But this is just another example of Congress' political meddling and 
of how outside special interest groups have obstructed the military's 
ability to channel resources where they are most needed. I will repeat 
what I've said many, many times before--the military needs less money 
spent on pork and more spent to redress the serious problems caused by 
a decade of declining defense budgets.
  This bill includes many more examples where congressional 
appropriators show that they have no sense of priority when it comes to 
spending the taxpayers' money. The insatiable appetite in Congress for 
wasteful spending grows more and more as the total amount of pork added 
to appropriations bills this year--an amount totaling over $15 billion.
  This defense appropriations bill also includes provisions to mandate 
domestic source restrictions; these ``Buy America'' provisions directly 
harm the United States and our allies. ``Buy America'' protectionist 
procurement policies, enacted by Congress to protect pork barrel 
projects in each Member's State or District, hurt military readiness, 
personnel funding, modernization of military equipment, and cost the 
taxpayer $5.5 billion annually. In many instances, we are driving the 
military to buy higher-priced, inferior products when we do not allow 
foreign competition. ``Buy America'' restrictions undermine DoD's 
ability to procure the best systems at the least cost and impede 
greater interoperability and armaments cooperation with our allies. 
They are not only less cost-effective, they also constitute bad policy, 
particularly at a time when our allies' support in the war on terrorism 
is so important.
  Secretary Rumsfeld and his predecessor, Bill Cohen, oppose this 
protectionist and costly appropriation's policy. However, the 
appropriations' staff ignores this expert advice when preparing the 
legislative draft of the appropriations bills each year. In the defense 
appropriations bill are several examples of ``Buy America'' pork--
prohibitions on procuring anchor and mooring chain components for Navy 
warships; main propulsion diesel engines and propellers for a new class 
of Navy dry-stores and ammunition supply ships; supercomputers; carbon, 
alloy, or armor steel plate; ball and roller bearings; construction or 
conversion of any naval vessel; and, other naval auxiliary equipment, 
including pumps for all shipboard services, propulsion system 
components such as engines, reduction gears, and propellers, shipboard 
cranes, and spreaders for shipboard cranes.
  Also buried in the smoke and mirrors of the appropriations markup is 
what appears to be a small provision that has large implications on our 
warfighting ability in Afghanistan and around the world. Without debate 
or advice and counsel from the Committee on Armed Services, the 
appropriators changed the policy on military construction which would 
prohibit previous authority given to the President of the United 
States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Service Secretaries to shift 
military construction money within the MILCON account to more critical 
military construction projects in time of war or national emergency. 
The reason for this seemingly small change is to protect added pork in 
the form of military construction projects in key states, especially as 
such projects have historically been added by those Members who sit on 
the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, at the expense, 
Mr. President, of projects the Commander-in-Chief believes are most 
needed to support our military overseas.
  Does the appropriations committee have any respect for the 
authorizing committees in the Senate?
  I look forward to the day when my appearances on the Senate floor for 
this purpose are no longer necessary. There is nearly $2.5 billion in 
unrequested defense programs in the defense appropriations bill and 
another $1.1 billion for additional supplemental appropriations not 
directly related to defense that have been added by the Chairman of the 
Committee. Consider what $3.6 billion when added to the savings gained 
through additional base closings and more cost-effective business 
practices could be used for. The problems of our armed forces, whether 
in terms of force structure or modernization, could be more assuredly 
addressed and our warfighting ability greatly enhanced. The public 
expects more of us.
  But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, blind to our 
responsibilities in war, going about our business as usual.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list of earmarks from the fiscal 
year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill Conference Report 
be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                  FY 2002 Defense appropriations pork

                             [In millions]

      DIVISION A....................................................

Operation and Maintenance, Army:
  Fort Knox Distance Learning Program...............................2.1
  Army Conservation and Ecosystem Management........................4.3
  Fort Richardson, Camp Denali Water Systems........................0.6
  Rock Island Bridge Repairs........................................2.0
  Memorial Tunnel, Consequence Management..........................16.5
  FIRES Programs Data...............................................6.8
  Skid Steer Loaders................................................7.5
  USARPAC Transformation Planning...................................8.5
  USARPAC Command, Control, and Communications Upgrades.............3.2
  Hunter UAV........................................................2.5
  Field Pack-up Systems.............................................2.5
  Unutilized Plant Capacity........................................17.5
  SROTC--Air Battle Captain.........................................1.0
  Joint Assessment Neurological Examination Equipment...............2.6
  Repairs Ft. Baker.................................................1.0
  Fires Program Data Capt...........................................6.8
  Mobility Enhancement Study........................................0.5
  Classified Programs, Undistributed...............................0.35
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
  Naval Sea Cadet Corps.............................................1.0
  Shipyard Apprentice Program.......................................7.8
  PHNSY SRM........................................................12.8
  Warfare Tactics PMRF.............................................20.4
  Hydrographic Center of Excellence.................................2.5
  UNOLS.............................................................1.5
  Center of Excellence for Disaster Management and Humanitarian 
    Assistance......................................................4.3
  Biometrics Support................................................2.5
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
  Pacific Server Consolidation......................................8.5
  Grand Forks AFB ramp refurbishment................................5.0
  Wind Energy Fund..................................................0.5
  University Partnership for Operational Support....................3.4
  Hickam AFB Alternative Fuel Program...............................1.0
  SRM Eielson Utilidors.............................................8.5
  Civil Air Patrol Corporation......................................3.2
  PACAF Strategic Airlift planning..................................1.7
  Elmendorf AFB transportation infrastructure......................10.2
  MTAPP.............................................................2.8
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
  Civil Military programs, Innovative Readiness Training............8.5
  DoDEA, Math Teacher Leadership....................................1.0
  DoDEA, Galena IDEA................................................3.4
  DoDEA, SRM........................................................5.0
  OEA, Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor.................4.0
  OEA, Fitzsimmons Army Hospital....................................3.8
  OEA Barrow landfill relocation....................................3.4
  OEA, Broadneck peninsula NIKE site................................1.0
  OSD, Clara Barton Center..........................................1.0
  OSD, Pacific Command Regional initiative..........................6.0
  OEA, Adak airfield operations.....................................1.0
  OSD, Intelligence fusion study....................................5.0
  Free Markets......................................................1.4
  Trustfund for demining and mine eviction.........................14.0
  Impact aid.......................................................30.0
  Legacy...........................................................12.9
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
  Distributed Learning Project.....................................25.5
  ECWCS.............................................................2.5
  Camp McCain Simulator Center, trainer upgrades....................3.2
  Fort Harrison Communications Infrastructure.......................1.0
  Communications Network Equipment................................0.209
  Multimedia classroom.............................................0.85
  Camp McCain Training Site, roads..................................2.2

[[Page 27709]]

  Full Time Support, 487 additional technicians....................11.2
  Emergency Spill Response and Preparedness Program................0.79
  Distance Learning................................................30.0
  SRM reallocation.................................................25.0
  Army Guard Education Program at NPS...............................2.0
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard:
  Extended Cold Weather Clothing System.............................2.5
  Defense Systems Evaluation........................................1.7
  Eagle Vision (Air Guard)..........................................8.5
  Bangor International Airport repairs..............................5.0
  Military Techniques Costing Model.................................6.3
  Angel Gate Academy................................................1.5
  GSA Leased Vehicle Program.......................................1.75
  Camp Gruber Regional Trade Center.................................2.4
  Information Technology Management Training........................1.0
  Rural Access to Broadband Technology..............................3.4
  National Guard State Partnership Program..........................1.0
Aircraft Procurement, Army:
  Oil debris detection and burn-off system..........................3.5
  ATIRCM LRIP.......................................................7.0
  Guardrail Mods....................................................5.0
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: Bradley 
  Reactive Armor Tiles.............................................20.0
Other Procurement, Army:
  Automated Data Processing Equipment..............................14.0
  Camouflage: ULCANS................................................4.0
  Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner..........................................3.5
  AN/TTC Single Shelter Switches w/Associated Support..............26.5
  Blackjack Secure Facsimile........................................7.0
  Trunked Radio System..............................................1.4
  Modular Command Post..............................................2.5
  Laundry Advance Systems (LADS)....................................3.0
  Abrams & Bradley Interactive Skills Trainer.......................6.3
  SIMNET...........................................................10.5
  AFIST.............................................................8.3
  Ft. Wainwright MOUT Instrumentation...............................6.5
  Target Receiver Injection Module Threat Simulator.................4.0
  Tactical Fire Trucks..............................................4.0
  IFTE.............................................................15.0
  Maintenance Automatic Identification Technology...................3.0
  National Guard Distance Learning Courseware.......................8.0
  Smart Truck.......................................................3.4
  ULCANS............................................................4.0
  Floating Crane....................................................7.0
  2KW Military Tactical Generator...................................2.5
  Firefighting Training System......................................1.2
  Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure.................................1.2
  GUARDFIST.........................................................3.0
  Army Live Fire Ranges.............................................3.5
  USARPAC C-4 suites................................................7.2
Aircraft Procurements, Navy:
  JPATS (16 aircraft)..............................................44.6
  ECP-583..........................................................24.0
  PACT Trainer......................................................6.0
  Direct Support Squadron Readiness Training........................4.5
  UC-45.............................................................7.5
Other Procurement, Navy:
  JEDMICS..........................................................11.5
  Pacific Missile Range Equipment...................................6.0
  IPDE Enhancement..................................................4.2
  Pearl Harbor Pilot................................................4.3
  AN/BPS-15H Navigation System......................................6.3
  Tactical Communication On-Board Training..........................4.5
  Air Traffic Control On-Board Trainer..............................2.8
  WSN-7B............................................................7.0
  Naval Shore Communications.......................................48.7
Missle Procurement, Air Force: NUDET Detection System............19.066
Other Procurement, Air Force:
  CAP COM and ELECT.................................................7.0
  Pacific AK Range Complex Mount Fairplay...........................6.3
  UHF/VHF Radios for Mont Fairplay, Sustina.........................3.0
National Guard and Reserve Equipment:
  Navy Reserve Misc. Equipment.....................................15.0
  Marine Corps Misc. Equipment.....................................10.0
  Air Force Reserve Misc. Equipment................................10.0
  Army National Guard Misc. Equipment..............................10.0
  Air Guard C-130.................................................219.7
  Lasermarksmenship Training Center.................................8.5
  UH-60 Blackhawk...................................................8.7
  Engage Skills Training............................................4.2
  Multirole Bridging Compound......................................15.7
  Braley ODS.......................................................51.0
  Heavy Equipment Training System...................................2.5
  Reserve Composition System.......................................15.5
  P19 Truck Crash...................................................3.5
Weapons Procurement, Navy: Drones and Decoys.......................14.9
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy:
  Minehunter Swath..................................................1.0
  Yard Boilers......................................................3.0
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army:
  Environmental Quality Technology Dem/Val........................10.36
  End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities......................20.6
   Defense Research Sciences Cold Weather Sensor Performance........1.0
  Advanced Materials Processing.....................................3.0
  FCS Composites Research...........................................2.5
  AAN Multifunctional Materials.....................................1.5
  HELSTF Solid State Heat Capacity..................................3.5
  Photonics.........................................................2.5
  Army COE Acoustics................................................3.5
  Cooperative Energetics Initiatives................................3.5
  TOW ITAS Cylindrical Battery Replacement..........................1.5
  Cylindrical Zinc Air Battery for LWS..............................1.8
  Heat Actuated Coolers.............................................1.0
  Improved High Rate Alkaline Cells.................................1.0
  Low Cost Reusable Alkaline (Manganese-Zinc) Cells.................0.6
  Rechargeable Cylindrical Cell System..............................1.5
  Waste Minimization and Pollution Research.........................2.0
  Molecular and Computational Risk Assessment (MACERAC).............1.4
  Center for Geosciences............................................1.5
  Cold Regions Military Engineering.................................1.0
  University Partnership for Operational Support (UPOS).............3.4
  Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS).............................3.0
  DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility..............................15.0
  Starstreak.......................................................16.0
  Center for International Rehabilitation...........................1.4
  Dermal Phase Meter................................................0.6
  Minimally Invasive Surgery Simulator..............................1.4
  Minimally Invasive Therapy........................................5.0
  Anthropod-Borne Infectious Disease Control........................2.5
  VCT Lung Scan.....................................................3.2
  Tissue Engineering Research.......................................4.7
  Monocional Anti-body based technology (Heteropolymer System)......3.0
  Dye Targeted Laser Fusion.........................................3.4
  Joint Diabetes Program............................................5.0
  Center for Prostate Disease Research..............................6.4
  Spine Research....................................................2.1
  Brain Biology and Machine Initiative..............................1.8
  Medical Simulation training initiative...........................0.75
  TACOM Hybrid Vehicle..............................................1.0
  N-STEP............................................................2.5
  IMPACT............................................................3.5
  Composite Body Parts..............................................1.4
  Corrosion Prevention and Control Program..........................1.4
  Mobile Parts Hospital.............................................5.6
  Vehicle Body Armor Support System.................................3.3
  Casting Emission Reduction Program................................5.8
  Managing Army Tech. Environmental Enhancement.....................1.0
  Visual Cockpit Optimization.......................................4.2
  JCALS............................................................10.2
  Electronic Commodity Pilot Program................................1.0
  Battle Lab at Ft. Knox............................................3.5
  TIME.............................................................10.0
  Force Provider Microwave Treatment................................1.4
  Mantech Program for Cylindrical Zinc Batteries....................1.8
  Continuous Manufacturing Process for Mental Matrix Composities....2.6
  Modular Extendable Rigid Wall Shelter.............................2.6
  Combat Vehicle and Automotive technology.........................14.0
  Auto research center..............................................2.0
  Hydrogen DEM fuel cell vehicle demonstration......................5.0
  Electronic Display Research.......................................9.0
  Fuel Cell Power Systems...........................................2.5
  Polymer Extrusion/Multilaminate...................................2.6
  DoD Fuel Cell Test and Evaluation Center..........................5.1
  Ft. Meade Fuel Cell Demo..........................................2.5
  Biometrics........................................................5.1
  Diabetes Project, Pittsburgh......................................5.1
  Osteoporois Research..............................................2.8
  Aluminum Reinforced Metal Matrix Composition......................2.5
  Combat Vehicle Res Weight Reduction...............................6.0
  Ft. Ord Celanup Demonstration Project.............................2.0
  Vanadium Tech Program.............................................1.3
  ERADS.............................................................2.0
  Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutic Digital Tech.................1.3
  Artifical Hip.....................................................3.5
  Biosensor Research................................................2.5

[[Page 27710]]

  Brain Biology and Machine Initiative..............................1.8
  Cancer Center of Excellence (Notre Dame)..........................2.1
  Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology......8.5
  Center for Untethered Healthcare at Worcester Polytechnic 
    Institute.......................................................1.0
  Continuous Expert Care Network Telemedicine Program...............1.5
  Disaster Relief and Emergency Medical Services (DREAMS)...........8.0
  Hemoglobin Based Oxygen Carrier...................................1.0
  Hepatitas C.......................................................3.4
  Joslin Diabetes Research-eye Care.................................4.2
  LSTAT.............................................................2.5
  Secure Telemedicine Technology Program............................2.0
  Memorial Hermann Telemedicine Network.............................9.0
  Monoclonal Antibodies.............................................1.0
  Emergency Telemedicine Response and Advanced Technology Program...1.5
  National Medical Testbed..........................................7.7
  Neurofibromatosis Research Program...............................21.0
  Neurology Gallo Center-alcoholism research........................5.6
  Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research Program...................17.0
  Polynitroxylated Hemogolbin.......................................1.0
  SEAtreat cervical cancer visualization and treatment..............1.7
  Smart Aortic Arch Catheter........................................1.0
  National Tissue Engineering Center................................2.0
  Center for Prostate Disease Research at WRAMC.....................6.4
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy:
  Southeast Atlantic Coastal Observing System (SEA-COOS)............4.0
  Marine Mammal Low Frequency Sound Research........................1.0
  Maritime Fire Training/Barbers Point..............................2.6
  3-D Printing Metalworking Project.................................2.5
  Nanoscale Science and Technology Program..........................1.5
  Nanoscale devices.................................................1.0
  Advanced wateriet-21 project......................................3.5
  DDG-51 Composite twisted rudder...................................1.0
  High Resolution Digital mammography...............................1.5
  Military Dental Research..........................................2.8
  Vector Thrusted Ducted Propeller..................................3.4
  Ship Service Fuel Cell Technology Verification & Training Program.2.0
  Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner..........................................1.5
  AEGIS Operational Readiness Training System (ORTS)................4.0
  Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology...................19.3
  Human Systems Technology..........................................2.6
  Undersea Warfare Weaponry Technology..............................1.7
  Medical Development..............................................59.0
  Manpower, Personell and Training ADV Tech DEV.....................2.0
  Environmental Quality and Logistics AD Tech.......................1.4
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide:
  Bug to Drug Identification and CM.................................2.0
  American Indian higher education consortium.......................3.5
  Business/Tech manuals R&D.........................................1.5
  AGILE Port Demonstrations.........................................8.5
Defense Health Program:
  Hawaii Federal healthcare network................................15.3
  Pacific island health care referral program.......................4.3
  Alaska Federal healthcare Network...............................2.125
  Brown Tree Snakes.................................................1.0
  Tri-Service Nursing Research Program..............................6.0
  Graduate School of Nursing........................................2.0
  Health Study at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant....................1.0
  Coastal Cancer Control............................................5.0
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense:
  Mississippi National Guard Counter Drug Program...................1.8
  West Virginia Air National Guard Counter Drug Program.............3.0
  Regional Counter Drug Training Academy, Meridian MS...............1.4
Earmarks:
  Maritime Technology (MARITECH)....................................5.0
  Metals Affordability Initiative...................................5.0
  Magnetic Bearing cooling turbin...................................5.0
  Roadway Simulator................................................13.5
  Aviator's night vision imaging system.............................2.5
  HGU-56/P Aircrew Integrated System................................5.0
  Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center................5.0
  National D-Day Museum.............................................5.0
  Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission..........................3.0
  Clean Radar Upgrade, Clean AFS, Alaska............................8.0
  Padgett Thomas Barracks, Charleston, SC..........................15.0
  Broadway Armory, Chicago..........................................3.0
  Advancer Identification, Friend-or-Foe...........................35.0
  Transportation Mult-Platform Gateway Integration for AWACS.......20.0
  Emergency Traffic-Management.....................................20.7
  Washington-Metro Area Transit Authority..........................39.1
  Ft. Knox MOUT site upgrades.......................................3.5
  Civil Military Programs, Innovative..............................10.0
  ASE INFRARED CM ATIRCM LRIP......................................10.0
  Tooling and Test Equipment.......................................35.0
  Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFIE).......................15.0
T-AKE class ship (Buy America)
Welded shipboard and anchor chain (Buy America)
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial
Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation lands
Air Forces's lease of Boeing 767s
Enactment of S. 746
2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah
  Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children..............39.0
  International Sports Competition.................................15.8
  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Survey.......................105.5
  Food and Safety Inspection.......................................15.0
Total Pork in Division A (FY 2002 Defense Approps): $2.5 Billion....

      DIVISION B....................................................

Commerce related earmarks:
  Port Security....................................................93.3
  Airports and Airways Trust Fund, payment to air carriers.........50.0
  DoT Office of the Inspector General...............................1.3
  FAA Operations (from aviation Trust Fund).......................200.0
  FAA Facilities and Equipment....................................108.5
  Passenger Bag Match Demonstration at Reagan National Airport......2.0
  Federal Highway Administration misc. appropriations ($10 m 
    requested)....................................................100.0
  Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation...100.0
  Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants........100.0
  Restoration of Broadcasting Facilities...........................8.25
  National Institute of Standards and Technology...................30.0
  Federal Trade Commission.........................................20.0
  FAA Grants-in-AID for Airports..................................175.0
  Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project..................................29.542
  Provision relating to Alaska in the Transportation Equity Act for 
    the 21st Century................................................
  US-61 Woodville widening project in Mississippi...................0.3
  Interstate Maintenance Program for the city of Trenton/Port 
    Quendall, WA....................................................4.0
  Interstate Sports Competition Defense............................15.8
  Utah Olympics Public Safety Command..............................0.02
  FEMA support of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Games.................10.0
  Relocation costs and other purposes for 2002 Winter Olympics.....15.0
  Chemical and Biological Weapons Preparedness for DC Fire Dept...0.205
  Response and Communications Capability for DC Fire Dept..........7.76
  Search and Rescue and Other Emergency Equip. and Support for DC 
    Fire..........................................................0.208
  Office of the Chief Technology Officer of the DC Fire Dept........1.0
  Training and Planning for the DC Fire Dept........................4.4
  Protective Clothing and Breathing Apparatus for DC Fire Dept....0.922
  Specialized Hazardous Materials Equipment for the DC Fire Dept..1.032
Total Commerce Related Earmarks:...........................$1.1 Billion
Total Pork in FY 2002 Defense Appropriations Conference Rep$3.6 Billion
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President. I rise to lend my strong support to the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report.
  And I do so with great admiration and respect for the leadership 
demonstrated by Chairman Daniel Inouye and Senator Ted Stevens. They 
have done great work, and I encourage the Senate to embrace this 
appropriations conference report.
  I do want to briefly address the issue of tanker replacement which 
has been

[[Page 27711]]

hotly debated here on the floor. I support the tanker leasing 
provisions in the bill, and I am again grateful to Senator Inouye and 
Senator Stevens for their work on the Boeing 767 leasing provisions. 
Many Senators worked on this issue. There were many hurdles to address 
and overcome. And we worked through them all together in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  I want to again quote the Secretary of the Air Force from a letter he 
wrote to me in early December. Secretary James Roche says and I quote,

       The KC-135 fleet is the backbone of our Nation's Global 
     Reach. But with an average age of over 41 years, coupled with 
     the increasing expense required to maintain them, it is 
     readily apparent that we must start replacing these critical 
     assets. I strong endorse beginning to upgrade this critical 
     warfighting capability with new Boeing 767 tanker aircraft.

  The record is clear. The Air Force has been a contributing partner 
and fully supports the tanker replacement program contained in this 
appropriations bill.
  The existing tankers are old and require costly maintenance and 
upgrades. The K-135s were first delivered to the Air Force in 1957. On 
average, they are 41 years old. KC-135s spend about 400 days in major 
depot maintenance every 5 years.
  The tanker replacement program contained in this bill will save 
taxpayers $5.9 billion in upgrade and maintenance costs.
  The record is clear. We need to move forward on tanker replacement. 
Our aging tankers have flown more than 6000 sorties since September 11. 
Our ability to project force depends on our refueling capabilities. We 
can no longer ignore these old and expensive aircraft.
  The record is also clear on my State of Washington. This will help 
the people of my state. Washington now has the highest unemployment 
rate of any state in the nation. I am here to do everything I can to 
help my constituents. Any Senator, including critics of the leasing 
provisions in this bill, would do the same thing.
  But this is not just about my State. Every state involved in aircraft 
production will benefit.
  In addition, it is in our national interest to keep our only 
commercial aircraft manufacturer healthy in tough times, to keep that 
capacity and to keep that skill set.
  The Air Force has identified this as a critical need. We rely on 
refueling tankers. Now is the time to move forward with tanker 
replacement. I again commend Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, Senator 
Cantwell, Senator Conrad, Senator Roberts and the many others who 
worked so hard to move this program forward.
  Shortly, we are all going to go home for the holidays to be with our 
families. Senators can go home knowing that they have sent a very 
powerful message to the families of our service members. We have acted 
today with this bill to equip our personnel now and in the future with 
best equipment and the best technology available to our armed forces. I 
will proudly vote for this conference report.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my Senate colleagues 
for their support of two important aviation needs and to express my 
disappointment that the House did not support those decisions. I know 
that it is always difficult to reconcile the decisions made in the 
Senate with those made in the House, but this case, I am very sorry to 
see that the Senate's wisdom was not sustained.
  When the Defense Appropriations bill left the Senate, it included 
full-funding for two important aviation assets--C-5 avionics 
modernization and 10 additional Blackhawks for the Amy National Guard. 
Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us does not include those 
items. Instead, the C-5 avionics funding is cut by $70.50 million and 
there are only 4 Blackhawks going to the Army National Guard.
  Let me first review the importance of the C-5 Avionics Modernization 
Program which was not only fully funded in the Senate's Defense 
Appropriations bill, but which both the House and Senate Armed Services 
Committees fully supported in their bills.
  The C-5 is what the military uses when it needs to deploy quickly 
with as much equipment as possible. This was confirmed once again in 
Operation Enduring Freedom where the Air Force reports that C-5s have 
hauled forty-six percent of the cargo during the operation while only 
flying approximately twenty-eight percent of the sorties. This plane is 
a vital part of our military success. It is also a key player in our 
nation's humanitarian efforts, so critical to the long-term success of 
our national security strategy.
  Taking $70.5 million from the President's funding request means that 
critical Secretary of Defense directed Flight and Navigation Safety 
modifications and Global Air Traffic Management modifications will be 
delayed by up to a year or more. Delays in installing the safety 
equipment continue to place aircrews at risk at a time when they are 
engaged around the world in the war on terrorism and humanitarian 
missions. Delays also prevent the C-5 from being fully employed in 
certain parts of the world as AMP modifications are necessary to comply 
with new GATM regulations.
  At a time when we are asking our military to do so much, to deny our 
aircrews and military planners C-5s that have the safety upgrades and 
operational improvements that the AMP will provide does not make sense. 
Again, I am sorry that the House did not agree with the Senate. I hope 
we can reverse this problem next year by accelerating the program with 
increased funding. I will certainly fight to do that and I hope that 
other colleagues who have been supportive in the past will join me in 
that fight next year.
  My other concern with this bill is that the Army National Guard's 
need for additional UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters has not been properly 
addressed. Today, the Army National Guard comprises fifty percent of 
the Army's total utility airlift capability. Unfortunately, only 
twenty-seven percent of the fleet is usually flyable. On a regular 
basis a full seventy-three percent of the utility helicopters in the 
Guard are grounded because of a lack of parts or safety of flight 
concerns! Virtually every state confronts significant shortages, and 
some states, like Delaware, have absolutely no modern helicopters, 
relying instead on one or two Vietnam-era helicopters.
  This means that regular state missions cannot be executed. Pilots and 
maintenance personnel cannot remain proficient. These skilled personnel 
are not able to do their job, get frustrated, and decide not to stay in 
the military. Meanwhile, the Army is simply unready in this area. In 
normal times, these are unacceptable realities. Today, when the Guard 
has been asked to do so much more, it is unfathomable to me that we 
would not do more to fix these problems.
  The Senate recognized the need to do more and provided a first 
installment of ten new Blackhawk helicopters for the Army Guard. 
Unfortunately, this bill only provides four. Today, many in utility 
aviation units do not have even the bare minimum they need to stay 
proficient, let alone do their missions. This is certainly true in 
Delaware and I know it also true for at least five other states. This 
bill does not even allow the Guard Bureau to put one new Blackhawk in 
each state that needs seven to ten!
  The men and women who serve in the Guard every day, both in their 
states and overseas, deserve to have the equipment they need to perform 
their missions. I am sorry the House did not agree to do more to 
address their aviation needs this year and I will work with my 
colleagues again next year to try to improve this situation.
  Mr. President, this bill includes a number of important items that 
will benefit our military and I support it. But, I want to put my 
colleagues on notice that next year I will be fighting to accelerate C-
5 modernization and to get additional UH-60s for the Army National 
Guard. The Senate spoke wisely last week in fully funding both of these 
aviation needs and I am sorry that the House was unwilling to sustain 
that wisdom.
  Mr. Allard. Mr. President, being that I was not able to discuss the 
Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization

[[Page 27712]]

Act last Thursday, I wanted to take a few minutes to discuss a few 
aspects of this very important bill.
  I strongly support the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act. I 
want to congratulate Chairman Levin and the Ranking Member Warner for 
the good work and the way they have moved this important bill for our 
men and women in the military. I believe this is a balanced bill which 
provides a much needed and deserved increase for our military men and 
women. After years of declining budgets, this bill continues the 
increase in resources which started 2 years ago.
  The bill provides $343.3 billion in budget authority, plus authorizes 
the $21.2 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations as requested 
by the President in order to respond to the terrorist attacks. The bill 
also adds over $779.4 million above the request for the Department of 
Energy's environmental cleanup programs and nuclear weapons activities.
  When I became the Personnel Subcommittee Chairman in 1999, the 
subcommittee provided the first major pay raise for our troops in over 
20 years and I am glad that this year's bill continues this trend. The 
bill provides a targeted pay raise effective January 1, 2002, ranging 5 
to 10 percent, with the largest increase going to junior officers and 
non-commissioned officers.
  While no member enjoys having bases closed in their State, or even 
the possibility of closure, it is that time that we recognize we do 
have excess capacity and that is time to consider another round of base 
closings as requested by the administration. After much negotiating, 
the conferees authorized a round of base closings in 2005, with 
established criteria based on actual and potential military value that 
the Secretary of Defense must use to determine which bases to 
recommend.
  As the rulemaking member of the Strategic Subcommittee, I would like 
to congratulate my chairman, Senator Reed, for his good work on this 
bill. He worked in a bipartisan and even handed manner. While we 
disagreed on the missile defense programs, Senator Reed and I were in 
agreement on most of the remaining major issues before the 
subcommittee.
  While many in Congress may disagree on funding levels of missile 
defense, no one can argue that ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear, 
biological, or chemical warheads, present a considerable threat to U.S. 
troops deployed abroad, allies, and the American homeland. The 
consequences of such an attack on the United States would be 
staggering; yet the United States currently has no system capable of 
effectively stopping even a single ballistic missile headed toward the 
American homeland or depolyed U.S. troops.
  To end this vulnerability, the President requested a significant 
increase in funding for ballistic missile defense programs which was an 
important first step toward protecting all Americans against ballistic 
missile attack. The conference provided up to $8.3 billion, $3 billion 
more than the fiscal year 2001 level, for the continued development of 
ballistic missile defenses. In addition, the conferees provided 
flexibility for the President to use up to $1.3 billion of these funds 
for programs to combat terrorism.
  In an effort to increase the efficiency and productivity of the 
missile defense programs, the administration requested to fundamentally 
restructure the nation's ballistic missile defense programs into six 
primary areas: Boost, Midcourse, Terminal Defenses, Systems 
Engineering, Sensor, and Technology Development. This new approach will 
provide the flexibility to allow programs that work to mature but the 
ability to cancel programs that do not. Plus, the program will provide 
enhanced testing and test infrastructure.
  A major testing initiative included in the President's request is the 
2004 Pacific missile defense test bed, the conferees supported the 
request, for $786 million for the including $273 million for 
construction primarily at fort Greely, Alaska and other Alaska 
locations. Beginning in 2004, the Pacific missile test bed will allow 
more challenging testing in a far wider range of engagement scenarios 
than can be accommodated today.
  The conferees provided the following levels for the restructured 
programs: $780 million for BMD system activities including battle 
management, communications, targets, countermeasures, and system 
integration; $2.2 billion (matching the President's request) for 
terminal defense systems, including Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-
3), Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), Navy Area (which has 
now been cancelled by the Administration), Theater High Altitude Air 
Defense (THAAD), and international missile defense programs, including 
the Arrow program; $3.9 billion (matching the President's request) for 
mid-course defense systems, including ground-based (formerly known as 
national Missile Defense) and sea-based (formerly known as Navy Theater 
Wide Defense) missile defense programs; $685 million (matching the 
President's request) for boost phase systems, including the Airborne 
Laser (ABL) and Space-Based Laser (SBL); $496 million (matching the 
President's request) for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and 
international sensor programs, including the Russian-American 
Observation Satellite project; $113 million (matching the President's 
request) for development of technology and innovative concepts 
necessary to keep pace with evolving missile threats;
  However, the conferees did not support the President's request to 
transfer PAC-3, Medium Extended Air Defense System, and Navy Area 
programs from BMDO to the military services. The bill requires the 
Secretary of Defense to establish guidelines for future transfers, and 
to certify that transferred programs are adequately funded in the 
future year defense program.
  Just as the President moves to reduce our nuclear forces the 
conferees repealed the statute that prohibits the U.S. from retiring or 
dismantling certain strategic nuclear forces until START II enters into 
force. As part of this effort, the conferees increased funding for the 
retirement of the Peacekeeper ICBM.
  The Strategic Subcommittee also has oversight over two-thirds of the 
Department of Energy's budget as it relates to our nuclear forces and 
defense nuclear cleanup programs.
  During the subcommittee's hearings, we heard from DOE that one of the 
major shortfalls of the Department is the conditions of the 
infrastructure of our DOE labs and plants, the need for a principal 
deputy administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration, 
and an increase in DOE's environmental cleanup programs and nuclear 
weapons activities.
  Therefore the conferees provided $6.2 billion for DOE environmental 
cleanup and management programs including: $3.3 billion for work at 
facilities with complex and extensive environmental problems that will 
be closed after 2006; $1.1 billion for the Defense Facilities Closure 
Project; $959.7 million for construction and site completion at 
facilities that will be closed by 2006; $216 million ($20 million more 
than the President's request) for the Defense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management Science and Technology programs; and $153.5 
million ($12 million more than the President's request) for Defense 
Environmental Management Privatization.
  In regards to the National Nuclear Security Administration conferees 
provided $7.1 billion for managing the nation's nuclear weapons, 
nonproliferation and naval reactor programs, including: $1 billion for 
stockpile life extension and evaluation programs; $2.1 billion for 
focused efforts to develop the tools and knowledge necessary to ensure 
the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear stockpile in 
the absence of underground nuclear weapons testing. Included in this, 
the conferees provided $219 million to fully fund plutonium pit 
manufacturing and certification; $200 million to begin to recapitalize 
the nation's nuclear weapons complex infrastructure, much of which 
dates to the post-World War II era; $688 million for the naval reactors 
program, which supports operation, maintenance and continuing 
development of Naval nuclear propulsion systems.
  There is one issue that I am very proud to say is included in this 
bill and

[[Page 27713]]

that is the creation of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. This 
effort has been done in a bipartisan manner with Congressman Udall and 
more than 2 years worth of work by local citizens, community leaders, 
and elected officials. Its passage has ensured that our children and 
grandchildren will continue to enjoy the wildlife and open space that 
currently exists at Rocky Flats. However, even with its passage, my 
primary goal remains the safe cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats.
  I would like to mention a few of the following high points of the 
bill.
  Rocky Flats will remain in permanent federal ownership through a 
transfer from the Department of Energy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service after the cleanup and closure of the site is complete;
  Secondly, we understand the importance of planning for the 
transportation needs of the future and have authorized the Secretary of 
Energy and the Secretary of the Interior the opportunity to grant a 
transportation right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site for 
transportation improvements along Indiana Street;
  The third point is one of the most important directives in this Act 
and it states that ``nothing . . . shall reduce the level of cleanup 
and closure at Rocky Flats required under the RFCA or any Federal or 
State law.'' I believe it is important to reiterate that the cleanup 
levels for the site will be determined by the various laws and 
processes set forth in the Rock Flats Cleanup Agreement and State and 
Federal law; and
  Fourth, we firmly believe that access rights and property rights must 
be preserved. Therefore, this legislation recognizes and preserves all 
mineral rights, water rights and utility rights-of-ways. This act does, 
however, provide the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Interior 
the authority to impose reasonable conditions on the access to private 
property rights for cleanup and refuge management purposes.
  I would also like to highlight another section of the bill which 
encourages the implementation of the recommendations of the Space 
Commission, which concluded that the Department of Defense is not 
adequately organized or focused to meet U.S. national security space 
needs. There are four major sections of the provision.
  The first provision requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report on steps taken to improve management, organization and oversight 
of space programs, space activities, and funding and personnel 
resources.
  The second provision requires the Secretary of Defense to take 
actions that ensure space development and acquisition programs are 
jointly carried out and, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that 
offers of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are assigned to 
and hold leadership positions in such joint program offices.
  Third, the conferees request that the Comptroller General report back 
to Congress on the actions taken by the Secretary of Defense to 
implement the recommendations contained in the Commission report.
  Fourth, due to the concerns of the ``tripled hatted'' nature of the 
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Air Force Space Command, the bill states that 
the position should not serve concurrently as commander of the North 
American Air Defense Command and as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space 
Command. Plus, the bill provides the needed flexibility in general 
officer limits to ensure that the commander of Air Force Space Command 
will serve in the grade of general.
  Finally, even though I strongly support the Fiscal Year 2002 
Authorization Act, I am very disappointed that this bill ignored real 
shortcoming as it relates to our military's voting rights.
  While my original bill went much further in implementing the Space 
Commission report, I believe this is a first good step and, if needed, 
I hope we can revisit this issue next year to ensure that space 
management and programs get the senior level support it deserves.
  Finally, even though I strongly support this bill, I am very 
disappointed that this bill ignored a real shortcoming as it relates to 
our military voting rights.
  When I introduce S. 381, my Military Voting Rights Bill, I sought to 
improve the voting rights of overseas military voters in six key ways. 
And this Senate agreed to include that bill in our version of the 
defense authorization. But I am severely dismayed that the conference 
report contained none of the most important provisions relating to 
military voting.
  Considering the egregious acts of last November, with the memory of 
campaign lawyers standing ready with pre-printed military absentee 
ballot challenge forms, we needed to respond. And yet the House of 
Representatives, led by the House Administration Committee, refused to 
accept the sections of the Senate passed bill that would most 
effectively ensure the voting rights of our military men and women and 
their families.
  In September, the GAO released a 92-page report entitled ``Voting 
Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be Improved.'' I 
will not read the entire thing, but let me read one of the summary 
headers: ``Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots in Small Countries 
Were Disqualified at a Higher Rate Than Other Absentee Ballots.''
  I also have an article from the Washington Post, page A17, November 
22, 2000 that reads in part `` . . . lawyers spent a contentious six 
hours trying to disqualify as many as possible of the absentee ballots 
sent in by overseas military personnel.''
  Let me also read from a Miami Herald article, November 19, 2000: 
``Forty percent of the more than 3,500 ballots in Florida were thrown 
out last week for technical reasons, and elections observers are 
wondering whether the State's election laws are fair, especially to 
military personnel.''
  Two main flaws in the military voter system--flaws that we have 
concrete proof were exploited--could have been fixed last week by 
sections of the Military Voting Rights bill that the House refuses to 
accept.
  The first section prohibits a State from disqualifying a ballot based 
upon lack of postmark, address, witness signature, lack of proper 
postmark, or on the basis of comparison of envelope, ballot and 
registration signatures alone--these were the basis for most absentee 
ballot challenges.
  There has been report after report of ballots mailed--for instance 
form deployed ships or other distant postings--without the benefit of 
postmarking facilities. Sometimes mail is bundled, and the whole group 
gets one postmark, which could invalidate them all under current law. 
Military ``voting officers'' are usually junior ranks, quickly trained, 
and facing numerous other responsibilities. We can not punish our 
service personnel for the good faith mistakes of others.
  And military voters who are discharged and move before an election 
but after the residency deadline cannot vote through the military 
absentee ballot system, and sometimes are not able to fulfill deadlines 
to establish residency in a State. There are roughly 20,000 military 
personnel separated each month. Our section allowed them to use the 
proper discharge forms as a residency waiver and vote in person at 
their new polling site. This brings military voters into their new 
community quicker. But the House rejected this section as well.
  The Senate moved to address these problems. The Houses refuses to do 
so. This is an issue I, and those who feel as strongly as I do, such as 
our nation's veteran and active duty service organizations, will 
continue to press.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President. I rise to raise some significant concerns 
about S. 1389, the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001, which has 
been attached to the Department of Defense-Supplemental conference 
report.
  This legislation will have serious adverse implications for the 
Federal Government most notably, the National Science Foundation (NSF) 
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--due to its unprecedented 
legal protections provided to the State and the Homestake Mining 
Company and its potentially significant budgetary costs.

[[Page 27714]]

  While some modifications to the original have been made to the bill 
to address many of the problematic legal and programmatic issues, these 
changes were modest at best and the bill as a whole still has 
significant legal, budgetary, and policy implications that could 
negatively impact NSF and EPA. This bill is an improvement over the 
original legislation introduced by the senators from South Dakota, but 
it is still problematic and troubling.
  As the ranking member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I 
believe in deferring to the scientific expertise and judgment of the 
NSF and its Science Board in determining which projects had scientific 
merit and deserved funding. The Congress should not be in the business 
of legislating what is scientifically meritorious. The Homestake 
legislation totally circumvents the merit review process long-
established and followed by the agency.
  The reality of this matter is that the South Dakota Senators are 
using NSF as a means to save jobs that will be lost from the closing of 
the mine. While I appreciate the effort to save people's jobs, it 
should not be done by undermining the scientific merit review process. 
This is simply the wrong approach and creates a new, dangerous 
precedent.
  Further, the broad indemnification provisions in the bill, even with 
the proposed modifications, are sweeping. The Federal Government would 
also be required to provide broad indemnification to both the Homestake 
Mining Company and the State for PAST and FUTURE claims related to the 
site. The sweeping and unprecedented language is in conflict with, and 
greatly expands, the Federal Government's potential tort liability well 
beyond provided in the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Federal 
Government's liability with respect to environmental claims would also 
be potentially unlimited. It is unclear whether the bill affects 
Homestake's obligations under court-approved Consent Decrees (CD) that 
the Federal Government has already entered into. These CDs address 
certain remediation and natural resource damage claims. There are 
additional legal issues related to the Anti-Deficiency Act and tort law 
concerning compensation after the fact of injury.
  Funding this costly project would also potentially sap funding for 
other current and new initiatives that have scientific merit and which 
the Congress and Administration fully support. Critically important 
scientific research initiatives such as nanotechnology, information 
technology, and biotechnology initiatives may be significantly 
impaired. Major research projects related to astronomy, engineering, 
and the environment could be cut back or not funded.
  I hope my colleagues will be sensitized to the dangerous legal, 
budgetary, and policy implications of the Homestake legislation. I am 
extremely troubled by this legislation and hope that political pressure 
does not influence the ultimate outcome of the proposed project in the 
Homestake bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Congress has 
incorporated S. 1389, the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001, as 
amended, into the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations 
conference report.
  This important legislation will enable the construction of a new, 
world-class scientific research facility deep in the Homestake Mine in 
Lead, SD. Not only will this facility create an opportunity for 
critical breakthroughs in physics and other fields, it will provide 
unprecedented new economic and educational opportunities for South 
Dakota.
  Just over a year ago, the Homestake Mining Company announced that it 
intended to close its 125-year-old gold mine in Lead, SD, at the end of 
2001. This historic mine has been a central part of the economy of the 
Black Hills for over a century, and the closure of the mine was 
expected to present a significant economic blow to the community.
  In the wake of this announcement, you can imagine the surprise of 
South Dakotans to discover that a committee of prominent scientists 
viewed the closure of the mine as an unprecedented new opportunity to 
establish a National Underground Science Laboratory in the United 
States. Because of the extraordinary depth of the mine and its 
extensive existing infrastructure, they found that the mine would be an 
ideal location for research into neutrinos, tiny particles that can 
only be detected deep underground, where thousands of feet of rock 
block out other cosmic radiation.
  Earlier this year, I met with several of these scientists to 
determine how they planned to move forward. They told me they intended 
to submit a proposal to the National Science Foundation for a grant to 
construct the laboratory. After a thorough peer review, the National 
Science Foundation would determine whether or not it would be in the 
best interests of science and the United States for such a laboratory 
to be built. The scientists also explained that since the National 
Science Foundation normally does not own research facilities, the mine 
would need to be conveyed from Homestake Mining Company to the State of 
South Dakota for construction to take place. For the company to be 
willing to donate the property, and for the state to be willing to 
accept it, both would require the Federal Government to assume some of 
the liability associated with the property.
  The purpose of the Homestake Mine Conveyance Act of 2001 is to meet 
that need. It establishes a process to convey the mine to the State of 
South Dakota, and for the Federal Government to assume a portion of the 
company's liabilities. This Act will only take effect if the National 
Science Foundation selects Homestake as the site for an underground 
laboratory. Only property needed for the construction of the lab will 
be conveyed, and conveyance can only take place after appropriate 
environmental reviews and after the Environmental Protection Agency 
certifies the remediation of any environmental problems. If the mine is 
conveyed, the State of South Dakota will be required to purchase 
environmental insurance for the property and set up an environmental 
trust fund to protect the taxpayers against any environmental liability 
that may be incurred.
  I believe this process is fair and equitable to all involved. It will 
enable the laboratory to be constructed and the environment to be 
protected.
  I am not a scientist, and the decision to build this laboratory must 
be made by the scientific community. However, it is helpful to review 
some of the information I have received from the team of scientists 
supporting this project to better understand why we would take the 
unusual step of conveying a gold mine to a state with federal 
indemnification.
  Dr. John Bahcall is a scientist at the Institute for Advanced Study 
in Princeton, NJ. He was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1998. 
He is a widely recognized expert in neutrino science and an authority 
on the scientific potential of an underground laboratory. Recently, I 
received a letter from him explaining the research opportunities 
created by an underground laboratory. In the letter, he explained, 
``There are pioneering experiments in the fields of physics, astronomy, 
biology, and geology that can only be carried out in an environment 
that is shielded from the many competing phenomena that occur on the 
surface of the earth. These experiments concern such fundamental and 
applied subjects as: How stable is ordinary matter? What is the dark 
matter of which most of our universe is composed? What new types of 
living organisms exist in deep underground environments from which 
sunlight is excluded? How are heat and water transported underground 
over long distances and long times?''
  As Dr. Bahcall's letter makes clear, the laboratory would provide an 
opportunity for a wide variety of important research. For that reason, 
it is receiving strong support in the scientific community. For 
example, every six to seven years, the Nuclear Science Advisory Board 
and the Nuclear Physics Division of the American Physical Society 
develop a Long Range Plan that identifies that the major priorities of

[[Page 27715]]

American nuclear physicists for coming years. After a series of 
meetings, these scientists ranked the creation of a National 
Underground Science Laboratory as one of their top priorities in their 
Long Range Plan.
  In a recent letter to the National Science Foundation, members of the 
Nuclear Science Advisory Committee explained their support for the 
creation of an underground laboratory at Homestake: ``[T]here is 
presently an outstanding opportunity for the United States to assume 
world leadership at the frontier of underground science through the 
acquisition and development by the National Science Foundation of the 
Homestake mine in South Dakota to create a deep underground (7000 meter 
of water equivalent (m.w.e.)) laboratory. . . . In the last decade, 
fundamental progress has been made in underground experiments in such 
diverse areas as nucleon decay, atmospheric neutrino oscillations, 
solar neutrino oscillations, and searches for dark matter. These 
studies not only have increased our understanding of the fundamental 
properties of the universe, but have pointed to new and even more 
challenging frontiers of compelling scientific interest. To explore 
these frontiers, the next generation of experiments (e.g. solar 
neutrino, double beta decay, etc.) will require a deep underground 
laboratory to reduce cosmic ray-related backgrounds, which constitute 
the limiting factor for high sensitivity experiments. A National 
Underground Science Laboratory at a depth of 7000 m.w.e., at the 
Homestake Mine site would constitute a world class facility, with a 
dedicated infrastructure to insure [sic] U.S. leadership in underground 
studies well into the next century.''
  While there are two other locations under consideration in the United 
States for the construction of an underground laboratory, scientists 
have stated that the Homestake Mine, because of its unique 
characteristics, is the best location in the country to conduct this 
research. Dr. Wick Haxton of the Institute for Nuclear Theory put 
together the team's findings in a report entitled, ``The U.S. National 
Underground Science Laboratory at Homestake: Status Report and 
Update.''
  I'd like to share some of their report: ``The announcement on 
September 11, 2000, that the historic Homestake Gold Mine would soon 
close presented a remarkable opportunity for creating a dedicated 
multipurpose deep underground laboratory in the U.S. Among its 
attributes are:
  Homestake has very favorable physical properties. It is the deepest 
mine in the U.S. The rock is hard and of high quality: even at depth 
there is an absence of rock bursts common at sites of comparable depth. 
Large cavities built at depths of 7400 and 8000 feet have been shown to 
be stable over periods of a decade or more. The mine is dry, producing 
only 500 gallons/minute of water throughout its 600 km of drifts.
  Homestake has shafts that can be adapted to provide unprecedented 
horizontal access. The replacement cost of the Ross and Yates shafts 
and the No. 6 winze, which access the proposed laboratory site, is 
approximately $300 million. The shaft cross sections are unusually 
large, 15 x 28 feet, and the Yates hoist, powered by two 1250 hp 
Nordberg motors, can lift nearly 7 tons. This makes it possible to 
lower cargo containers directly to the underground site. Finally, there 
are several existing ventilation shafts as well as an extensive set of 
ramps that connect the levels, providing important secondary escape 
paths.
  Homestake is a site with remarkable flexibility. There are drifts 
approximately every 150 feet in depth, allowing experiments to be 
conducted at multiple levels and opening up possibilities for an 
unusually broad range of science. Coupled with the extensive 
ventilation system--including a massive cooling plant with four York 
compressors and 2300 tons of refrigeration--this allows a wide range of 
experiments to be mounted, including those involving flammables, 
cryogens, or other substances best sequestered and separately vented.
  The flexibility to accommodate a very wide range of science is 
important because significant advantages will accompany a single 
multipurpose national laboratory. There are economies of scale in 
infrastructure and safety, including the development of common 
specialized facilities (like a low-background counting facility). This 
reduces costs and saves human scientific capital. Concentration also 
produces a stronger scientific and technical environment. It allows 
synergisms between disciplines to grow.
  The proposed principle site of the laboratory is the region at 7400 
ft between the Ross and Yates shafts. The site is accessible now: 
extensive coring studies of the site will be performed to verify its 
suitability, prior to any expenditures for major construction.
  The mine is fully permitted for safety and rock disposal on site, and 
is located in a state supportive of mining.
  The mine includes surface buildings, extensive fiber optics and 
communications systems, a large inventory of tools and rolling stock 
that may be transferable to the laboratory, and skilled engineers, 
geologists, and miners who know every aspect of the mine.''
  This is not the first time that Homestake, or other mines, have been 
used to support this kind of research. In fact, underground scientific 
research at the Homestake mine dates back to 1965, when a neutrino 
detector was installed in the underground mine at the 4850-foot level. 
Research from that experiment is acknowledged as critical to the 
development of neutrino astrophysics. Similar experiments have 
continued in the Soudan mine in Minnesota, and in underground 
laboratories outside of the United States, leading to important 
discoveries and developments in particle physics and theory.
  As I've stated, the purpose of the legislation passed by the Senate 
is to allow the conveyance of the property needed for the construction 
of the laboratory from Homestake Mining Company to the State of South 
Dakota. I'd like to take a moment to explain why it is necessary for 
the Federal Government to transfer the mine to the State, and to 
indemnify the company and the State in order for this conveyance to 
take place.
  The National Science Foundation, which is reviewing a $281 million 
proposal to construct this laboratory, does not operate its own 
research facilities. Instead, it provides grants to other entities to 
operate facilities or to conduct experiments. In keeping with this 
tradition, the proposed laboratory would not be owned by the Federal 
Government, but instead would need to be operated by an entity other 
than the NSF. Since it is not practical for the company to retain 
ownership of the site as it is converted into a laboratory, Homestake 
expressed a willingness to donate the underground mine and 
infrastructure to the State of South Dakota, together with certain 
surface facilities, structures and equipment that are necessary to 
operate and support the underground mine, provided that it could be 
released from liabilities associated with the transfer and the future 
operation of its property as an underground laboratory.
  Relief from liability is necessary because the construction of the 
lab will require the company to forgo certain reclamation actions that 
it would normally take to limit its liability in the mine. For example, 
in connection with closing the underground mine, Homestake planned to 
remove electric substations, decommission hoists and other equipment, 
turn off the pumps that dewater the mine, and seal all openings. Were 
the pumps to be turned off, the mine workings would slowly fill with 
water, rendering the mine unusable laboratory.
  The Act establishes a specific procedure that will be followed in 
order for conveyance to take place and Homestake to be relieved of its 
liability. First, the Act does not become effective unless the National 
Science Foundation selects Homestake Mine as the site for a National 
Underground Science Laboratory. This means that conveyance procedures 
will not begin until it is clear that the NSF supports the construction 
of a laboratory. Second, a due diligence inspection of the

[[Page 27716]]

property will be conducted by an independent entity to identify any 
condition that may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to 
public health or the environment. Third, any condition of the mine that 
meets those criteria must be corrected before conveyance takes place. 
Homestake may choose to contribute toward any necessary response 
actions. However, Section 4 of this Act includes a provision that 
limits Homestake's contribution to this additional work, if necessary, 
to $75 million, reduced by the value of the property and equipment that 
Homestake is donating. In addition, the State, or another person, may 
also assist with that action. Only after the administration of the 
Environmental Protection Agency has certified that necessary steps have 
been taken to correct any problems that are identified can the 
conveyance proceed.
  Since some of the steps required to convert the mine into a 
laboratory go above and beyond normal reclamation, the company is not 
obligated to deliver the property in a condition that is suitable for 
use as a laboratory. However, those portions of the mine that require 
the most significant reclamation, including the tailings pond and waste 
rock dumps, are specifically prohibited from being conveyed under this 
Act and will remain Homestake's responsibility to reclaim.
  Under normal circumstances, the mine would close in March of 2002. 
Since it must be kept open beyond that date to leave open the option to 
construct the laboratory, Congress has already appropriated $10 million 
in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill to pay for expenses needed for that 
purpose.
  It is important that all aspects of the conveyance process be 
completed in a timely fashion. To facilitate the construction of the 
laboratory, the inspections, reports and conveyance will need to 
proceed in phases, with the inspections being initiated after Homestake 
has completed the reclamation work that may otherwise have been 
required. While the Act sets no specific deadline for the completion of 
these procedures, it is important that the entire process be completed 
in no more than eight months from the date of passage of the Act. The 
timeframes in the Act for public comment on draft reports and on EPA's 
review of the report are intended to emphasize the need for timely 
action.
  S. 1389 also contains important provisions to protect taxpayers from 
any potential liability once the transfer of the mine takes place. 
First, South Dakota must purchase property and liability insurance for 
the mine. It may also require individual experiments to purchase 
environmental insurance. Second, the bill requires that South Dakota 
establish an Environment and Project Trust Fund to finance any future 
clean-up actions that may be required. A portion of annual Operations 
and Maintenance funding must be deposited into the fund, and the state 
may also require individual projects to make a deposit into the fund. 
The insurance and trust fund provisions of this bill will help to 
provide a firewall between the taxpayers and any future environmental 
clean-up that may be required.
  I want to thank all of those who have been involved in the 
development of this legislation. I particularly appreciate the hard 
work and support of Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota. I also want 
to thank my colleague, Senator Johnson, a cosponsor of this bill, for 
all of his work, particularly to secure the $10 million in transition 
funds that will bridge the gap between Homestake's closure and the 
establishment of the laboratory. And, I would like to thank officials 
from Homestake and Barrick.
  This legislation will provide an opportunity for the United States to 
conduct scientific research and will provide important new educational 
and economic opportunities for South Dakota. I thank my colleagues in 
Congress for their support of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that both a letter from the Nuclear Science 
Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation and a section-by-
section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report


                  Division E--Miscellaneous Provisions

                   Title I--Homestake Mine Conveyance

     Section-by-Section Analysis
       Section 101. Short Title. Names bill as ``Homestake Mine 
     Conveyance Act of 2001.''
       Section 102. Findings. States that Homestake Mine has been 
     selected by a committee of scientists as the preferred 
     location for a National Underground Science Laboratory. While 
     Homestake Mining Company is willing to transfer the mine to 
     the State of South Dakota, both must be indemnified against 
     future liability in order to do so.
       Section 103. Definitions. Defines the following terms: 
     Administrator, Affiliate, Conveyance, Fund, Homestake, 
     Independent Entity, Laboratory, Mine, Person, Project 
     Sponsor, Scientific Advisory Board and State.
       The term ``Mine'' refers to the property to be conveyed 
     from Homestake to South Dakota pursuant to the Act. This 
     property consists of only a portion of Homestake's property 
     in Lawrence County, South Dakota. The ``Mine'' is defined to 
     include the underground workings and infrastructure at the 
     Homestake Mine in Lawrence County, South Dakota and all real 
     property, mineral and oil and gas rights, shafts, tunnels, 
     structures, in-mine backfill, in-mine broken rock, fixtures, 
     and personal property to be conveyed for establishment and 
     operation of the laboratory, as agreed upon by Homestake and 
     the State. ``Mine'' is also defined to include any water that 
     flows into the Mine from any source. The real and personal 
     property that is to be conveyed will be subject to further 
     discussions among Homestake, the State and the laboratory. 
     The laboratory has identified parts of the surface, real 
     property, equipment, facilities and structures that will be 
     necessary or useful in the operation of the laboratory. 
     Homestake will determine if the identified property can be 
     included in the conveyance. The definition of ``Mine'' 
     excludes certain features, including the ``Open Cut,'' the 
     tailings storage facility and existing waste rock dumps. 
     These are not part of the ``Mine'' and cannot be conveyed 
     under the Act. Homestake remains responsible for reclamation 
     and closure of all property that is not conveyed under this 
     Act.
       Section 104. Conveyance of Real Property. The bill 
     establishes several requirements as conditions for 
     conveyance. Once conveyance is approved, the mine is 
     transferred to the state ``as-is'' via a quit-claim deed.
       Inspection. Prior to the conveyance, the Act provides for a 
     due diligence inspection to be conducted by an independent 
     entity. The independent entity is to be selected jointly by 
     the Administrator of the EPA, the South Dakota Department of 
     Environment and Natural Resources and Homestake. In 
     consultation with the State and Homestake, the Administrator 
     of the EPA will determine the methodology and standards to be 
     used in the inspection, including the conduct of the 
     inspection, the scope of the inspection and the time and 
     duration of the inspection. The purpose of the inspection is 
     to determine whether there is any condition in the Mine that 
     may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to public 
     health or the environment. The inspection will not attempt to 
     document all environmental conditions at the Mine, and will 
     not inspect or evaluate any environmental conditions on 
     property that is not part of the conveyance.
       Report. After conducting the inspection, the independent 
     entity must prepare a draft report on its findings that 
     describes the results of its inspection and identifies any 
     condition of or in the mine that may pose an imminent and 
     substantial endangerment to public health or the environment.
       This draft report must be submitted to the EPA and made 
     available to the public. A public notice must be issued 
     requesting public comments on the draft within 45 days. 
     During the 45-day comment period, the independent entity 
     shall hold at least one public hearing in Lead, South Dakota. 
     After these steps are taken, the independent entity must 
     submit a final report that responds to public comments and 
     incorporates necessary changes.
       Review to Report. Not later than 60 days after receiving 
     the report, the EPA shall review it and notify the state of 
     its acceptance or rejection of the report. The Administrator 
     may reject the report if one or more conditions are 
     identified that may pose an imminent and substantial 
     endangerment to public health or the environment and require 
     response action before conveyance and assumption by the 
     Federal Government of liability for the mine. The 
     Administrator may also reject the report if the conveyance is 
     determined to be against the public interest.
       Response Action. If the independent entity's report 
     identifies no conditions that may pose an imminent and 
     substantial threat to human health or the environment, and 
     EPA accepts the report, then the conveyance may proceed. If 
     the report identifies a condition in the Mine that may pose 
     an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or 
     the environment, then Homestake may, but is not obligated to, 
     carry out or permit

[[Page 27717]]

     the State or other persons to carry out a response action to 
     correct the condition. If the condition is one that requires 
     a continuing response action, or a response action that may 
     only be completed as part of the final closure of the 
     laboratory, then Homestake, the State or other persons must 
     make a deposit into the Environment and Project Trust Fund 
     established in Section 7 that is sufficient to pay the costs 
     of that response action. The amount of the deposit is to be 
     determined by the independent entity, on a net present value 
     basis and taking into account interest that may be earned on 
     the deposit until the time that expenditure is expected to be 
     made. Homestake may choose to contribute toward the response 
     actions. However, Section 4 includes a provision that limits 
     Homestake's contribution to this additional work, if 
     necessary, to $75 million, reduced by the value of the 
     property and equipment that Homestake is donating. Funds 
     deposited into the Fund to meet this requirement may only be 
     expended to address the needs identified in the inspection.
       Once any necessary response actions have been completed, or 
     necessary funds have been deposited, then the independent 
     entity may certify to the EPA that the conditions identified 
     in the report that may pose an imminent and substantial 
     threat to human health or the environment have been 
     corrected.
       Final Review. Not later than 60 days after receiving the 
     certification, the EPA must make a final decision to accept 
     or reject the certification. Conveyance may proceed only if 
     the EPA accepts the certification.
       Section 105. Assessment of Property. Section 5 sets forth 
     the process for valuing the donated property and services. 
     For purposes of determining the amount of Homestake's 
     potential contribution toward response actions identified in 
     Section 4(b)(4)(C), the property being donated by Homestake 
     is to be valued by the independent entity according to the 
     Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition. To 
     the extent that some property, such as underground tunnels, 
     only has value for the purpose of constructing a laboratory, 
     that entity is directed to include the estimated costs of 
     replacing the facilities in the absence of Homestake's 
     donation, and the cost of replacing any donated equipment. 
     The valuation is to be submitted to the Administrator of the 
     EPA, the state and Homestake in a separate report that is not 
     subject to the procedures in Section 4(b). If it is 
     determined that the conveyance can most efficiently be 
     processed in several phases, then the valuation report is to 
     accompany each of the due diligence reports.
       Section 106. Liability
       Assumption of liability. Upon conveyance, the United States 
     shall assume liability for the mine and laboratory. This 
     liability includes damages, reclamation, cleanup of hazardous 
     substances under CERCLA, and closure of the facility. If 
     property transfer takes place in steps, then the assumption 
     of liability shall occur with each transfer for those 
     properties.
       Liability protection. Upon conveyance, neither Homestake 
     nor the State of South Dakota shall be liable for the mine or 
     laboratory. The United States shall waive sovereign immunity 
     for claims by Homestake and the State, assume this liability 
     and indemnify Homestake against it. However, in the case of 
     any claim against the United States, it is only liable for 
     response costs for environmental claims to the extent that 
     response costs would be awarded in a civil action brought 
     under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Solid 
     Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or any other Federal 
     environmental law. In addition, claims for damages must be 
     made in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act.
       Exceptions. Homestake is not relieved of liability for 
     workers compensation or other employment-related claims, non-
     environmental claims that occur prior to conveyance, any 
     criminal liability, or any liability for property not 
     transferred, unless that property is affected by the 
     operation of the lab.
       Section 107. Insurance Coverage
       Requirement to Purchase Insurance for mine. To the extent 
     such insurance is available, the state shall purchase 
     property and liability insurance for the mine and the 
     operation of the laboratory to provide coverage against the 
     liability assumed by the United States. The requirement to 
     purchase insurance will terminate if the mine ceases to be 
     used as a laboratory or Operations and Maintenance funding is 
     not sufficient to operate the laboratory.
       Terms of Insurance. The state must periodically consult 
     with the EPA and the Scientific Advisory Board and consider 
     the following factors to determine the coverage, type and 
     policy limits of insurance: the nature of projects in the 
     laboratory, the cost and availability of commercial 
     insurance, and the amount of available funding. The insurance 
     shall be secondary to insurance purchased by sponsors of 
     individual projects, and in excess of amounts available in 
     the Fund to pay any claim. The United States shall be an 
     additional insured and will have the right to enforce the 
     policy.
       Funding of insurance purchase. The state may finance the 
     purchase of insurance with funds from the Fund or other funds 
     available to the state, but may not be compelled to use state 
     funds for this purpose.
       Project insurance. In consultation with the EPA and the 
     Scientific Advisory Board, the State may require a project 
     sponsor to purchase property and liability insurance for a 
     project. The United States shall be an additional insured on 
     the policy and have the right to enforce it.
       State insurance. The State shall purchase unemployment 
     compensation insurance and worker's compensation insurance 
     required under state law. The State may not use funds from 
     the Fund for this purpose.
       Section 108. Environment and Project Trust Fund
       Establishment of fund. On completion of conveyance, the 
     State shall establish an environment and Project Trust Fund 
     in an interest-bearing account within the state.
       Capitalization of Fund. There are several streams of money 
     that will capitalize the fund, some of which have 
     restrictions on the way they may be spent.
       Annual Portion of Operation and Maintenance Spending. A 
     portion of annual O&M funding determined by the State in 
     consultation with the EPA and the Scientific Advisory Board 
     shall be deposited in the Fund. To determine the annual 
     amount, the State must consider the nature of the projects in 
     the facility, the available amounts in the Fund, any pending 
     costs or claims, and the amount of funding required for 
     future actions to close the facility.
       Project Fee. The state, in consultation with NSF and EPA, 
     shall require each project to pay an amount into the Fund. 
     These funds may only be used to remove projects from the lab 
     or to pay claims associated with those projects.
       Interest. All interest earned by the Fund is retained 
     within the Fund.
       Other funds. Other funds may be received and deposited in 
     the Fund at the discretion of the state.
       Expenditures from Fund. Funds within the Trust Fund may 
     only be spent for the following purposes: waste and hazardous 
     substance removal or remediation, or other environmental 
     cleanup; removal of equipment and material no longer used or 
     necessary for use with a project or a claim association with 
     that project; purchases of insurance by the State (except for 
     employment related insurance; payments for other costs 
     related to liability; and the closure of the mine.
       Federal Authority. To the extent the United States is 
     liable, it may direct that amounts in the Trust Fund be 
     applied toward costs it incurs.
       Section 109. Waste Rock Mixing. If the State, acting in its 
     capacity overseeing the laboratory, determines to dispose of 
     waste rock excavated for the construction of the laboratory 
     on land owned by Homestake that is not conveyed under this 
     legislation, then the State must first receive approval from 
     the Administrator before disposing such rock.
       Section 110. Requirements for Operation of Laboratory. The 
     laboratory must comply with all federal laws, including 
     environmental laws.
       Section 111. Contingency. This Act shall be effective 
     contingent upon the selection of the Mine by the National 
     Science Foundation as the site for the laboratory.
       Section 112. Obligation in the Event of Nonconveyance. If 
     the conveyance does not occur, then Homestake's obligations 
     to reclaim the mine are limited to the requirements of 
     current law.
       Section 113. Payment and Reimbursement of Costs. The United 
     States may seek payment from the Fund or insurance as 
     reimbursement for costs it incurs as the result of the 
     liability it has undertaken.
       Section 114. Consent Decrees. Nothing in this title affects 
     the obligation of a party to two existing consent decrees.
       Section 115. Offset. Offset for title.
       Section 116. Authorization of appropriations. Such funds as 
     are necessary to carry out the Act are authorized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________