[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15481-15518]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT


               Amendment Nos. 4400 through 4411, en bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I will be sending to the desk shortly a 
set of amendments. None of these amendments would add any money to the 
bill. They are either earmarks or technical amendments. All of these 
amendments have been cleared by both managers.
  I will explain these amendments before I send the amendments to the 
desk. First, the Bingaman amendment is earmarking $2.5 million for the 
Maglev upgrade program. An amendment for Senator Dorgan is earmarking 
$10 million for the Chameleon miniaturized wireless systems; An 
amendment for Senator Murray is earmarking $7 million for short pulse 
laser development; An amendment for Senator Reid is earmarking $4 
million for clean-bio consequence management; An amendment for Senator 
Warner is earmarking $5 million for study of a roadway at Fort Belvoir; 
An amendment for Senator Dodd is earmarking $5 million for microfuel 
cell research; An amendment for Senator Nickles is earmarking $3 
million for supercritical water systems explosive demilitarization 
technology; An amendment for Senator Roberts is earmarking $1 million 
for agroterrorism research; An amendment for myself is for making a 
technical correction to the emergency supplemental to correct an 
editorial mistake; An amendment for Senator Collins makes a technical 
correction to the emergency supplemental; An amendment for Senator 
Carper is earmarking $8 million for biological warfare training; An 
amendment for Senator Biden is earmarking $5 million for multifuel 
auxiliary power units.
  I send to the desk these amendments and ask unanimous consent they be 
agreed to, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 4400 through 4411) were agreed to en bloc as 
follows:


                           amendment no. 4400

  (Purpose: To set aside from amounts available for the Air Force for 
 research, development, test, and evaluation for Major T&E Investment 
        (PE0604759F), $2,500,000 for the Maglev upgrade program)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'' and available for Major T&E Investment up to 
     $2,500,000 may be available for the Maglev upgrade program.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4401

  (Purpose: To provide funds for the Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless 
                                System)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``Of the funds appropriated under the heading `RDT&E, 
     Defense Wide', $10,000,000 may be made available for the 
     Chameleon Miniaturized Wireless System.''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4402

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Army for 
research, development, test, and evaluation, $9,000,000 for continuing 
design and fabrication of the industrial short pulse laser development-
                           femtosecond laser)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Availability of Amount for Industrial Short 
     Pulse Laser Development.--Of the amount appropriated by title 
     IV under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Army'', up to $7,000,000 may be available for 
     continuing design and fabrication of the industrial short 
     pulse laser development-femtosecond laser.
       (b) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under 
     subsection (a) for the purpose specified in that subsection 
     is in addition to any other amounts available under this Act 
     for that purpose.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4403

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available to the Navy for 
research, development, test, and evaluation $4,000,000 for Marine Corps 
     program wide support (PE0605873M) for chemical and biological 
     consequence management for continuing biological and chemical 
decontamination technology research for the United States Marine Corps 
 Systems Command on a biological decontamination technology that uses 
            electro-chemically activated solution (ECASOL))

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Of the amount appropriated by title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $4,000,000 may be available for Marine Corps 
     program wide support for chemical and biological consequence 
     management for continuing biological and chemical 
     decontamination technology research for the United States 
     Marine Corps Systems Command on a biological decontamination 
     technology that uses electro-chemically activated solution 
     (ECASOL).
       (b) The amount available under subsection (a) for the 
     program element and purpose set forth in that subsection is 
     in addition to any other amounts available under this Act for 
     that program element and purpose.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4404

(Purpose: To require a preliminary engineering study and environmental 
analysis of establishing a connector road between United States Route 1 
 and Telegraph Road in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and to 
earmark $5,000,000 for the Army for operation and maintenance for that 
                    preliminary study and analysis)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Preliminary Study and Analysis Required.--
     The Secretary of the Army shall carry out a preliminary 
     engineering study and environmental analysis regarding the 
     establishment of a connector road between United States Route 
     1 and Telegraph Road in the vicinity of Fort Belvoir, 
     Virginia.
       (b) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated by title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to 
     $5,000,000 may be available for the preliminary study and 
     analysis required by subsection (a).
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4405

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Army for 
research, development, test, and evaluation $5,000,000 for research on 
                 miniature and micro fuel cell systems)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for research on 
     miniature and micro fuel cell systems.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4406

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Of the funds appropriated in the Act under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' 
     up to $3,000,000 may be made available for the Supercritical 
     Water Systems Explosives Demilitarization Technology.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4407

  (Purpose: To appropriate, with an offset, $1,000,000 for research, 
   analysis, and assessment of federal, state, and local efforts to 
                counter potential agroterrorist attacks)

       At the end of Title IV, Research, Development, Test & 
     Evaluation, Defense Wide, add the following:

     SEC.  AGROTERRORIST ATTACK RESPONSE.

       (a) Availability.--(1) Of the amount appropriated under 
     Title IV for research, development, test, and evaluation, 
     defense-wide, the amount available for basic research, line 
     8, the Chemical and Biological Defense Program (PE 0601384BP) 
     is hereby increased by $1,000,000, with the amount of such 
     increase to be available for research, analysis, and 
     assessment of federal, state, and local efforts to counter 
     potential agroterrorist attacks.
       (2) The amount available under paragraph (1) for research, 
     analysis, and assessment described in that paragraph is in 
     addition to any other amounts available in this Act for such 
     research, analysis, and assessment.

[[Page 15482]]

       (b) Offset.--Of the amount appropriated under Title IV for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, 
     the amount available for Agroterror prediction and risk 
     assessment, line 37, Chemical and Biological Defense Program 
     (PE 0603384BO), is hereby reduced by $1,000,000.


amendment no. 4408
                                  ____


     (Purpose: To make a technical correction to the supplemental 
                  appropriation for fiscal year 2002)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Effective upon the enactment of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from 
     and response to terrorist attacks on the United States for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
     purposes'', section 309 of such Act is amended by striking 
     ``of'' after the word ``instead''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4409

 (Purpose: To provide for the transition of the naval base on Schoodic 
Peninsula, Maine, to utilization as a research and education center for 
                         Acadia National Park)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. The Secretary of Defense may modify the grant 
     made to the State of Maine pursuant to section 310 of the 
     2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery 
     From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States 
     (Public Law 107-__) such that the modified grant is for 
     purposes of supporting community adjustment activities 
     relating to the closure of the Naval Security Group Activity, 
     Winter Harbor, Maine (the naval base on Schoodic Point, 
     within Acadia National Park), and the reuse of such Activity, 
     including reuse as a research and education center the 
     activities of which may be consistent with the purposes of 
     Acadia National Park, as determined by the Secretary of the 
     Interior. The grant may be so modified not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4410

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Navy for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation $8,00,000 for the 
           Integrated Biological Warfare Technology Platform)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $8,000,000 may be available for the Integrated 
     Biological Warfare Technology Platform.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4411

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Army for 
research, development, test, and evaluation $5,000,000 for the Rotary, 
                   Multi-Fuel, Auxiliary Power Unit)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for the Rotary, 
     Multi-Fuel, Auxiliary Power Unit.
                                  ____

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4364

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I am not going to call up the 
amendment yet, unless the managers are ready to do so. If they are, I 
will. I call up amendment No. 4364.
  Madam President, I have spoken on this amendment and I wait for other 
Senators to come to the floor. It is a very simple amendment. What it 
would do is bar the funds in this bill from being used to enter into 
contracts with U.S. companies who incorporate overseas to avoid U.S. 
taxes. Madam President, I went over this amendment before.
  Let me add a couple of points so my colleagues know what my thinking 
is.
  As I said, I wanted to keep it very simple. I want to keep it very 
basic and very straightforward, and I think very fair.
  I think there are two issues here. One of them has to do with tax 
fairness or tax unfairness. I think it is absolutely maddening when 
people in our country see U.S. corporations using creative paperwork 
and then transforming themselves into Bermuda corporations so they do 
not have to pay their fair share of U.S. taxes.
  What I am saying is if these companies, post-December 31, 2001, have 
engaged in such a practice, and they no longer call themselves U.S. 
citizens, then they are not beneficiaries of U.S. defense contracts. My 
thinking about this is as follows: I am thinking to myself, we are all 
aware of 9/11 and what it meant to our country. I have given companies 
time to respond in the positive to 9/11 and be the best of good 
corporate citizens, be the best of good, patriotic corporate citizens. 
I even allowed some lag time after 9/11. But what I am saying is 
starting the beginning of this year, if any of these companies have 
engaged in the same sham practices so they do not have to pay U.S. 
taxes, they are not going to be the beneficiary of the public 
contracts. It really is that simple.
  We all make sacrifices. God knows, many Americans are making 
sacrifices today. The only sacrifice this amendment asks of Federal 
contractors is they pay their fair share of taxes like everybody else, 
and at the very minimum, given 9/11 and how strongly our country feels, 
no corporation from the beginning of the year on, engage in this kind 
of deceitful practice.
  This is a narrowly tailored amendment; this is not a tax bill. Not in 
the spirit of bragging but I will just say it, I know at least the 
first piece of legislation that eliminated this tax loophole I wrote, 
and we sent it to the Finance Committee. They did good work. The have 
done great work. They reported out a bill that basically eliminates 
this egregious loophole.
  But what I am saying is until that loophole is eliminated, and no 
company is able to engage in this practice, what a great message for 
the Senate to send.
  When the homeland defense bill comes to the floor, I will join forces 
with other colleagues--I am sure Senator Lieberman and others--and we 
will do something parallel to what was done, to my understanding, in 
the House of Representatives. But right now on this appropriations 
bill, knowing full well the House did not take any action, I am trying 
to be a legislator here. I thought to myself: I will narrowly tailor 
it. I will have it speak specifically to this 1-year appropriations 
bill. It will send a very unmistakable message. And I believe this 
amendment will command widespread support.
  I do not know whether we will have unanimous consent. The 
distinguished chair of the Defense Appropriations Committee tells me 
there is some opposition, in which case I am pleased to have the 
debate. Then we will have a vote after the debate.
  Again, this is the second time I have come to the floor. I want to be 
clear what this amendment is about and what it is not about. I hope 
there will be very strong support on both sides of the aisle for this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, in order to expedite the consideration 
of this amendment, a call has been placed for Senators interested in 
this matter to report to the floor to carry out the debate.
  May I ask a question of the sponsor of this measure? By ``tax haven 
country,'' does the Senator mean countries such as Barbados, Bermuda, 
British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Commonwealth of the Bahamas, 
Cyprus, Gibralter, Isle of Man, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the 
Principality of Monaco, the Republic of Seychelles, and any other 
country that the Secretary of the Treasury determines is used as a site 
of incorporation, primarily for the purpose of avoiding U.S. taxation?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the chairman, that is correct. I make it 
clear the Secretary of the Treasury, in addition to listing those 
countries, if there is another country that he determines is using this 
site of incorporation primarily to avoid U.S. taxation, that is 
included.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator's amendment also provides if the President of 
the United States should consider that

[[Page 15483]]

the interests of national security would require it, notwithstanding 
this designation, they may do business?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. INOUYE. How many companies are involved?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the distinguished chair, I do not really 
know. Since I am talking about from the beginning of this year on, I do 
not know how many companies are actually going to be affected by this. 
I do not reach back. I just simply say, post beginning of this year, it 
is completely inappropriate, given 9/11, given how everybody feels in 
the country. I don't know how many companies are affected. I want to 
put every company on notice if they continue in this practice they are 
not going to get the contracts.
  Mr. INOUYE. May I ask another question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Please.
  Mr. INOUYE. Am I correct, in the last fiscal year, approximately $2 
billion worth of contracts were awarded to companies incorporated in 
these countries?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? At the moment 
there is not.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senate is 
considering the Wellstone amendment. Is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                Amendment No. 4412 to Amendment No. 4364

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4412 to amendment No. 4364.

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


                           amendment no. 4412

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available in this Act for 
        payment on any new contract to any corporate expatriate)

       Strike all after the first word:
       Sec. 8124. Corporate Expatriates. (a) Limitation.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be obligated for 
     payment on any new contract to a subsidiary of a publicly 
     traded corporation if the corporation is incorporated after 
     December 31, 2002 in a tax haven country but the United 
     States is the principal market for the public trading of the 
     corporation's stock.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     ``tax haven country'' means each of the following: Barbados, 
     Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Commonwealth 
     of the Bahamas, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, the 
     Principality of Liechtenstein, the Principality of Monaco, 
     the Republic of the Seychelles, and any other country that 
     the Secretary of the Treasury determines is used as a site of 
     incorporation primarily for the purpose of avoiding United 
     States taxation.
       (c) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) with 
     respect to any specific contract if the President certifies 
     to the Appropriations Committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that the waiver is required in 
     the interest of national security.
       (d) Effective one day after enactment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are colleagues who may very well 
have some technical suggestions that don't change the import of this 
amendment one bit. I certainly invite their consultation and their 
support which would help strengthen the amendment.
  My understanding is that there may eventually be a vote to table the 
amendment. I do not know. If so, I want to make sure one more time that 
I am crystal clear about what this amendment does and what it doesn't 
do.
  It is a simple amendment. It bars any funds in this bill from being 
used to enter into contracts with U.S. companies that incorporate 
overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. It is really simple.
  Former U.S. companies that have renounced their citizenship--and 
Senator Inouye asked me about this--currently hold at least $2 billion 
worth of contracts with the Federal Government.
  It seems to me the companies that play by the rules and that pay 
their fair share of taxes should not be forced to compete with the bad 
actors that undercut the bids through a tax loophole. I am saying, put 
on notice all U.S. companies post-January 1: If you engage in this 
egregious practice post-9/11 and you set up some sham business in 
Bermuda, et al, and therefore you don't pay any U.S. taxes, you don't 
get any defense contracts.
  I do not know. Maybe Senators want to vote against this proposition. 
But I will tell you that this is pretty simple and it is pretty 
straightforward.
  These companies--and we know all about it--transform themselves into 
Bermuda companies, which are basically shell corporations. They don't 
have any staff. They don't have any offices. They don't have any 
business activity. They exist for the sole purpose of shielding income 
from the IRS.
  What these bad corporate former citizens do is exploit a specific 
loophole in current law so that the company is treated as a foreign 
company for tax purposes, and therefore they do not pay any U.S. taxes 
on the foreign income. This loophole gives tens of millions of dollars 
in tax breaks to major multinational companies with significant non-
U.S. business.
  It also puts other companies that play by the rules at a complete 
disadvantage. No American company, colleagues, should be penalized by 
staying put. For now on--reaching back to the beginning of this year--
no American company should be penalized for staying put in our country 
while others decide they are going to renounce U.S. citizenship for a 
tax break. It is just simply unacceptable.
  I said it before, and I will say it again, there are a heck of a lot 
of businesses in Minnesota--small businesses and otherwise--that, No. 
1, wouldn't do it even if they could; and, No. 2, surely they do not 
have all of the lawyers and accountants to show them how to do their 
books Enron-style and get away with not paying their fair share of 
taxes. So the only price all the good corporate citizens pay--of which 
there are many--is a higher tax bill.
  I think we should close this loophole this year. I think we should 
close the tax loophole this year. As I said before, I wrote a piece of 
legislation to do that. I have worked with the Finance Committee. The 
Finance Committee, through the bipartisan work of Senator Baucus and 
Senator Grassley, has reported out a good piece of legislation. And 
assuming it passes, this tax loophole will be gone.
  But it seems to me, while this piece of legislation is on the floor, 
for this 1 year, what a powerful and positive message for us to send 
which is, again, post-December 31, 2001--I don't even reach back--I 
give companies enough time to respond to 9/11, and say: Wait a minute, 
this is not the right thing to do or patriotic thing to do. But I will 
tell you something, post-December 31st of last year, if a U.S. company 
has set up a sham corporation, so it does not have to pay part of its 
fair share of taxes, it is not going to be eligible for defense 
contracts. It is really that simple.
  So, again, I don't see colleagues out here to debate this. I 
understand there is opposition. I say to both of my colleagues, Senator 
Inouye and Senator Stevens, I am certainly not trying to delay the 
passage of this overall Defense appropriations bill.

[[Page 15484]]

  I think I have a good amendment on the floor, and I look forward to 
debate or I would look forward to constructive suggestions from other 
Senators if they think there is a way to strengthen this amendment.
  I am not backing off on the basic proposition here. I am not backing 
off on the basic proposition. And the basic proposition, again--and I 
think we are going to do the same thing on the homeland defense bill. 
It was done in the House. In fact, it was broader, more sweeping on the 
House side on homeland defense.
  This is 1 year. This is Department of Defense appropriations. This is 
not a tax amendment that I have offered to this piece of legislation. 
That would not be appropriate. But I do think it is appropriate to put 
every single U.S. corporation on notice, forthwith, reaching back to 
the beginning of this year, given the unfairness of this, given the 
obviousness of the ways in which companies are not paying their fair 
share of taxes, and, more importantly, given all that has happened to 
our country post 9/11: You are not going to be able to do this any 
longer. And if you do, you are not going to then be able to come to the 
U.S. Department of Defense and get defense contracts.
  That is what this amendment says. It is simple. It is 
straightforward. I am, frankly, at a loss to understand the opposition.
  Senator Inouye asked me an important question. He wanted to go over 
some of the countries, some of the tax-haven countries that were listed 
here. And we went through them.
  But there is also additional language that says there could be other 
countries that the Secretary of Treasury determines have been used as a 
site of a corporation primarily for the purpose of avoiding U.S. 
taxation. So we really write it the right way.
  Then, of course, there is the waiver where the President may waive 
this with respect to any specific contract if the President certifies 
to the Appropriations Committees of the House and the Senate that the 
waiver is required in the interest of national security.
  I will tell you something: This is very straightforward. I thank my 
colleague from Hawaii for asking me these questions. I would love to 
adopt this on a 100-to-0 vote or to have a debate if colleagues want to 
come out here and speak against this amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to ask some questions to my 
friend, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
  Are you aware of some of the Federal contracts that corporate 
runaways now hold? Let me give an example. Are you aware that Foster 
Wheeler, who was reincorporated in Bermuda about a year ago, has 
Federal contracts amounting to $286,253,000?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would say to the whip that I have 
here a list of corporate runaways, and I am aware of this one of many 
egregious examples.
  Mr. REID. To run through some of these to kind of get a picture of 
the substance of the Senator's amendment, is the Senator aware that 
Tyco Company reincorporated in Bermuda and has Federal contracts of 
$224 million-plus in Fiscal Year 2001 alone?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am aware of that.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that PricewaterhouseCoopers Monday, 
who spun off of PricewaterhouseCoopers of New York and incorporated in 
Bermuda a couple of months ago, has Fiscal Year 2001 Federal contracts 
of almost $221 million? Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, unfortunately, I have the same 
list with many egregious examples.
  Mr. REID. I would like the Senator to acknowledge if we have the same 
list; for example, Ingersoll-Rand, which reincorporated 6, 7 months ago 
in Bermuda, has Fiscal Year 2001 Federal contracts of over $40 million?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am aware of this. Could I just add, I am aware of 
this, but more importantly, the American citizens are aware of this, 
and people don't like it one bit. People feel as if, first of all, it 
is just outrageous in terms of tax evasion. And, second of all, it is a 
loophole that should not be about. People say, look, boy, this is the 
opposite of the right and patriotic thing to do.
  Mr. REID. I will not go through the entire list because the Senator 
and I both have the same list. It was compiled by the Federal 
Procurement and Data Center off their Web site. The amounts are over $1 
billion, just on this short list we have, of companies that go to 
Bermuda and avoid paying taxes like other companies that are 
incorporated in the United States and work hard and pay their fair 
share of taxes. I certainly applaud the Senator's amendment. I hope we 
can dispose of this quickly. I think the debate has been good and 
directly to the point. I would really think it would be hard to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague and whip that I appreciate his 
questions. If there is going to be agreement, we are going to pass this 
amendment on the floor of the Senate. I say great. The summary of this 
amendment is that it is appropriate for the Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, to say today that if a U.S. company wants to bid for a 
contract for U.S. defense work, then it should not renounce its U.S. 
citizenship for a tax break. It is that simple. We are just putting 
everybody on notice: You are no longer going to be able to do that. You 
will not be able to make a bid for a contract for U.S. defense work if 
you are going to go out and renounce your citizenship for the purposes 
of getting a tax break. It couldn't be simpler.
  I am going to stay on the floor of the Senate or stand on the floor 
of the Senate and keep talking about this until we get a vote or until 
we get acceptance of this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of corporate 
runaways and fiscal year 2001 Federal contracts.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Corporate Runaways and FY2001 Federal Contracts

       Foster Wheeler: Clinton, N.J. engineering, environmental 
     and construction company re-incorporated in Bermuda on May 
     25, 2001.
       Total FY2001 Federal Contracts: $286,253,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $248,835,000.
       accenture: Consulting firm spun off of Arthur Anderson of 
     Chicago and incorporated in Bermuda in July.
       Total FY2001 Federal Contracts: $281,904,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $144,834,000.
       tyco: Exeter, N.H. electronics, security, healthcare and 
     engineering conglomerate reincorporated in Bermuda in March.
       Total FY2001 Federal Contracts: $224,171,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $182,453,000.
       PricewaterhouseCoopers Monday: Consulting firm spun off of 
     PricewaterhouseCoopers of New York and incorporated in 
     Bermuda on March 27, 2002.
       Total FY2001 Federal Contracts: $220,801,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $129,073,000.
       Ingersoll-Rand: Woodcliff Lake, N.J. industrial equipment, 
     construction and security company reincorporated in Bermuda 
     on December 31, 2001.
       Total FY2001 Federal Contracts: $40,289,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $39,328,000.
       apw: Waukesha, Wisconsin electronics and technology 
     products reincorporated in Bermuda in July 2000.
       Total FY2001 Federal Contracts: $7,077,000
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $4,912,000.
       Cooper Industries: Houston electrical equipment tool and 
     hardware company reincorporated in Bermuda on May 21, 2002.
       Total FY2001 Federal Contracts: $6,357,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $5,954,000.
       Stanley: New Britain, Connecticut tool maker voted to 
     reincorporate in Bermuda on May 9, 2002. The vote was 
     disputed and the Stanley Board of Directors has authorized a 
     re-vote.
       Total FY 2001 Federal Contracts: $5,660,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $5,298,000.

[[Page 15485]]

       Fruit of the Loom: Bowling Green, Kentucky apparel company 
     reincorporated in Bermuda on March 4, 1999.
       Total FY 2001 Federal Contracts: $2,389,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $2,389,000.
       Weatherford: Houston drilling, oil and gas technology and 
     services company reincorporated in Bermuda on June 26, 2002.
       Total FY 2001 Federal Contracts: $234,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $234,000.
       Noble: Sugar Land, Texas drilling contractor reincorporated 
     in the Cayman Islands on May 1, 2002.
       Total FY 2001 Federal Contracts: $50,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $0.
       Total Value--known FY2001 Federal contracts to corporate 
     runaways: $1,075,185,000.
       Defense and Homeland Security related: $763,310,000.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will my colleague and friend yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I haven't seen a list. I am trying to 
figure out what companies would be impacted by that. Do you have a copy 
that maybe you might share with other Senators?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me say to my colleague that there are two parts to 
this equation. The first part is the definition of ``tax haven 
countries.'' There is Barbados, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman 
Islands, British Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Cyprus, Gibraltar, and so 
on. Then the additional language where, because we want to have 
flexibility, we also say: or any other country that the Secretary of 
Treasury--these countries listed in the amendment--are the main tax 
haven countries.
  In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury could determine that there 
is another country that has been used at the site of incorporation for 
the purpose of avoiding U.S. taxation. That is No. 1.
  The second part of this--to give the operational definition--is that 
this would be any U.S. company that set up this phony citizenship 
post--actually, December 31.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, I am asking for a list of 
companies--not countries--that have done this egregious deed of 
reincorporating in some other country.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I sent the list over to you. I think you have a list 
that lists some of the companies that would be affected by this.
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me get that in question----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. These are the countries that reincorporated.
  Mr. NICKLES. Accenture reincorporated in July of 2001. Your deadline 
is January 1, so it would not apply.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. It would apply to only those companies--what I am 
trying to do----
  Mr. NICKLES. I found one. PricewaterhouseCoopers evidently 
reincorporated in Bermuda on March 27, 2002; is that correct, according 
to your sheet?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. They do defense contracts of $220 million and total 
Federal contracts in defense and homeland security-related, $129 
million; is that correct?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am trying to follow the list and where the Senator 
is.
  Mr. NICKLES. I got this from you.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is right. You mentioned it, but I have to go down 
and find it in the column.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am trying to figure out who we are trying to punish 
here.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, if I could, since he asked the 
question--let me say this and be real clear about it. I wrote probably 
the first legislation here eliminating this action and that is moving 
through the Finance Committee and it will come to the floor. I hope in 
the future all these companies will be covered, period.
  Second, if you want to reach back, you can do so and that would be 
just fine with me. My thinking is that I took a look at--I am thinking 
of two issues. No. 1, just sort of this loophole and, No. 2, I think of 
9/11 and I say, look, given 9/11, you can give companies some 
flexibility to understand that it doesn't seem very patriotic to 
continue to do this.
  For God's sake, from the beginning of this year on, all companies--
anybody that does this in the future is in trouble.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, I found a guilty 
party--PricewaterhouseCoopers. I will say I had no idea--I have read in 
the paper, and I heard about Stanley and Ingersoll-Rand. I didn't find 
somebody--
  Mr. WELLSTONE. You will find a number of them.
  Mr. NICKLES.--guilty as under your provision. PricewaterhouseCoopers 
is a $220 million contractor. That is pretty significant.
  Let me ask you a question. PricewaterhouseCoopers does a lot of 
business, evidently, with the Department of Defense, homeland security, 
and other Federal contractors. They would be banned from all Federal 
contracts--or only Federal contracts dealing with Department of 
Defense?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Department of Defense.
  Mr. NICKLES. So now we are down to $129 million worth of contracts. 
If they do those contracts with U.S. employees, do they pay taxes on 
their U.S. contracts if they make income--I mean, if they make income, 
don't they pay corporate income tax on the contracts they have in the 
United States?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. So they do pay income tax?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is right. But there is a portion of the tax that 
they should be paying that they are deliberately evading. That is 
unacceptable. If that is their practice--and that is what this 
amendment does--don't expect to be getting these contracts any longer.
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me make sure I understand. So this company, which 
does a lot of work--they do software, management, and a lot of 
different things--is doing $129 million worth of defense-related 
contracts, they would be banned from any of those contracts; is that 
correct?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. Under the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct if, but only if, after all we have 
been through as a country, they basically renounce their citizenship 
and set up some sham/dummy corporation in Bermuda to avoid taxes--only 
if they do that.
  Mr. NICKLES. Whoa, whoa.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. They are welcome to come back home, in which case they 
are eligible for all of this.
  Mr. NICKLES. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't they pay U.S. income 
taxes on every penny of the contract they have with the Department of 
Defense?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. They do. So if they incorporate in Bermuda, or Barbados, 
or someplace else, they might try to not pay U.S. taxes on foreign 
income, but they are already required, under present law, to pay U.S. 
taxes on U.S. income; isn't that correct?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am told--I say to my colleague, I am not a tax 
expert--they may not actually pay all their taxes on U.S. contracts. 
But, in addition, what is egregious about this--and I say to my 
colleague from Oklahoma, if he wants to vote no, he can vote no. This 
is a pretty simple proposition, which is, if you are going to renounce 
your U.S. citizenship so you can locate in some other country where you 
don't do business so you can avoid paying part of the taxes you should 
be paying so that other businesses and other companies and other 
Americans have to pay those taxes, you renounce your citizenship and 
you will not be eligible for these defense contracts. It is that 
simple.
  Mr. NICKLES. There are 200-some-odd-million-dollars' worth of 
contracts. There is no prohibition right now that I know of that would 
keep a foreign company from doing the same work that 
PricewaterhouseCoopers is doing, or some other company, so a French 
company or a German company could pick up this contract that we are 
going to foreclose from PricewaterhouseCoopers, or somebody else and, 
correct me if I am wrong, under the Senator's amendment a German 
company could do it, and 100 percent of those employees could be in

[[Page 15486]]

Germany and do 100 percent of this work and there would be no U.S. 
income tax--I take that back. I will rephrase this. This is a $129 
million PricewaterhouseCoopers contract and they would be barred, so 
now those contracts would be open. There is nothing to prohibit a Swiss 
company, a German company, a French company, Israeli company, or any 
other company worldwide from doing that work, and those jobs might be 
domiciled someplace else in the U.S.; isn't that correct?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  But I say to my colleague, this is about American companies. I am 
going to be clear about that. This is about an egregious practice. This 
is about good corporate citizenship. This is about being patriotic and 
about saying to these companies, in all due respect, you can come back 
home. You don't need to renounce your citizenship, in which case you 
are eligible. But if you continue to exploit this egregious tax 
loophole, then you are not going to be eligible. It is that simple.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments on 
the legislation. My colleague mentioned that he is not on the Finance 
Committee. This is an item that has jurisdiction in the Finance 
Committee. Of late, I think maybe we don't use the committees anymore. 
I am kind of shocked that the chairman and ranking member of the 
Finance Committee are not here saying, wait a minute, we are dealing 
with this issue. Actually, I believe an amendment has been reported out 
on this issue, but it is a different amendment.
  We are dealing with taxation issues. My colleague from Minnesota 
already admitted--and it happens to be factual--if you do business in 
the United States and you are a U.S. company, at 100 percent you pay 
taxes on that contract, period. And if you are domiciled in Bermuda and 
you do a U.S. contract, you pay 100-percent corporate taxes. What we 
are talking about is a differential of taxes of international taxation 
of foreign source income, not U.S. contracts.
  We are using U.S. contracts and threatening thousands of U.S. jobs 
that, if this amendment is adopted--and I hope it is not--these jobs 
may be done elsewhere because there is nothing in this amendment that 
says other companies in other countries need not apply. They are not 
going to be prohibited.
  We may well have a situation, as absurd as it sounds, of: Oh, we are 
sorry, you do not pay enough in foreign taxes on foreign source income; 
therefore, we are going to deny you U.S. contracts. And now we are 
going to export U.S. jobs.
  I am not sure that makes sense. Let me be very clear. My colleague 
from Minnesota agreed with me, U.S. companies, whether domiciled in 
Bermuda or not, if they do U.S. contracts with the Department of 
Defense or any U.S. contracts, they pay U.S. corporate income taxes, 
period. They pay U.S. taxes, period. There would be U.S. taxes paid on 
every dime of this contract.
  We are really dealing with foreign international taxes, a very 
complicated issue, one that should be dealt with appropriately in the 
taxation committee, not on the Department of Defense appropriations 
bill, not where people do not know what we are talking about when we 
talk about foreign source income.
  On occasion, this Senate should rise and say this is not the way to 
legislate. I understand the beautiful demagoguery that somebody is able 
to say--and I have read in the papers--look at those companies, they 
are leaving the country, turning their backs. I do not know I agree 
with that statement.
  I will give an example. I do not know that much about Stanley. It is 
a Connecticut-based toolmaker. They took a lot of flack. Stanley 
decided they got enough pressure, and they rescinded their corporate 
move, or they were contemplating going to Bermuda, and they rescinded 
it. PR-wise, this is bad news if a company tries to reincorporate in 
Bermuda or anyplace else--I do not know why my colleague included 
Cyprus. I never considered Cyprus a tax haven.
  Stanley decided not to reincorporate in Bermuda. I do know that if 
they did incorporate in Bermuda, for every contract they had with the 
Department of Defense, they would pay 100 percent U.S. corporate income 
taxes--100 percent. They would pay as much as Nickles Machine 
Corporation would.
  This is an easy issue to demagog, but it is a complicated issue in 
tax policy. The Finance Committee, of which I happen to be a member, 
and Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have worked on a bill. It is 
not perfect, but it is a much better approach than what we have before 
the Senate today.
  To say you cannot get the jobs--I do not know, I am sure 
PricewaterhouseCoopers has thousands of employees. I am sure they have 
some employees my State. I am not sure they have employees in every 
State, but they have a lot of employees, and those are employees in the 
United States. They pay U.S. taxes.
  Should we say they should be denied any Federal contract or any 
Department of Defense contract? I am not ready to say that. They may 
well be providing goods and services--$129 million to DOD or $220 
million--that are very much needed. As a matter of fact, they are 
probably doing jobs that Arthur Andersen used to do. So we need more 
accounting consulting companies.
  Should they be totally debarred? That is a pretty serious penalty. 
Debarment is usually a penalty for pretty egregious conduct such as 
fraud or criminal liability, not necessarily moving a headquarters.
  I know a lot of companies incorporate in the State of Delaware. All 
across the country companies incorporate in the State of Delaware. 
There must be some advantage in incorporating in the State of Delaware. 
I am amazed at the number of corporate headquarters in Delaware. Is 
that for income tax evasion? I do not know. I do not think so. But 
should we deny them contracts? I am not sure. I darn sure question the 
wisdom of saying all Government contracts will be banned.
  Maybe there should be a penalty if people reincorporate in Bermuda to 
avoid foreign taxes. Should that penalty be taxation? Right now this 
penalty is total debarment from Federal contracts. I question that 
penalty. I am not sure that is the right penalty. Maybe there should be 
a better way. Maybe we should reconsider foreign taxation and make sure 
we are competitive.
  I know in some countries they are growing, and growing dramatically 
because their international taxation picture is much better than ours. 
Take, for example, Ireland. They have reduced their international 
taxation, and they happen to be growing. There are other countries that 
have done quite well because they have a low tax structure. God bless 
them. I am proud of them.
  Should we say that anybody who happens to have a headquarters in 
those facilities, but also has a branch in the United States, should be 
denied any business in the United States and automatically export those 
jobs to other countries? I do not think so. I just question the wisdom 
of the amendment.
  I know the amendment is well intended. I know it is populist. I know 
it is very comfortable to beat these companies up, and maybe some 
rightfully so. But I am not sure that total debarment from any Federal 
contract of those employees who work for those companies and are going 
to find themselves unemployed because we just said they cannot do 
Government work, when they pay taxes on that Government work, I am not 
so sure that is the right penalty.
  I have serious reservations about my colleague's amendment. I am not 
so sure that we should adopt it. I am sure it does not belong on this 
bill. If we are going to deal with taxation issues, I think it should 
come out of the Finance Committee and be dealt with on a tax bill, not 
on a Federal procurement bill.
  The amendment reaches pretty far. I hope people will start taking a 
look at it. I am trying to see who is covered by this. Let me find 
another company. I do not want to mention just one company.

[[Page 15487]]

  Ingersoll-Rand, I noticed, incorporated in Bermuda on December 31. 
That happens to fall on the Senator's date. I read his language.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, maybe they should be, but they 
are not. It is after December 31.
  Mr. NICKLES. They made it by 1 day.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator wants to make it tougher, we will make 
it tougher.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am trying to figure out what we are doing. Let's take 
Ingersoll-Rand. Ingersoll-Rand will not be covered. They would not be 
debarred. This is very interesting. Ingersoll-Rand makes heavy 
industrial equipment. I know that because I used to be in the heavy 
industrial equipment business. Actually, I was a competitor with 
Ingersoll-Rand at one time.
  Ingersoll-Rand does about $40 million worth of contracts. They have a 
lot of employees in the United States. They have employees in my State 
of Oklahoma. Ingersoll-Rand has a plant in Tulsa, OK. They would be 
debarred from doing any work with the Federal Government. No, they 
would not because they incorporated on December 31. Cooper Industries 
competes with Ingersoll-Rand. They reincorporated in Bermuda on May 21. 
They probably did it because Ingersoll-Rand did it. They compete. They 
are competitors. So one company got in and will not be affected by 
debarment; they would not lose $40 million worth of contracts.
  Cooper Industries, on the other hand, is doing about $6 million worth 
of contracts. They would be debarred because they reincorporated on May 
21. So here we have two competing industries, one of which made it in 
under the wire, and so they are not denied $40 million worth of 
contracts, but their competitor--I believe their principal competitor--
would be debarred for $6 million.
  That is a little troublesome. Both have a lot of employees in the 
United States. I notice Cooper Industries--I know my colleague from 
Texas is here--is headquartered in Texas. I know they have thousands of 
employees in the United States. I know they pay Federal income taxes on 
every single dime of these contracts.
  I guess that is what bothers me. I believe there is a 
misunderstanding that if somebody reincorporates in Bermuda they will 
not pay U.S. taxes on U.S. contracts, and that is false. They will pay 
U.S. taxes on U.S. contracts. To have a penalty that says if they 
reincorporate in Bermuda because they want to avoid taxation on foreign 
source income and we are going to debar them from U.S. contracts and 
maybe cost thousands of jobs domestically, that is very shortsighted 
and probably not the right solution.
  Maybe the right solution would be we would work through the 
appropriate committees and try to discourage people from relocating in 
Bermuda. Maybe we can make our tax structure more competitive 
internationally.
  I have been on the Finance Committee for a long time. Those of us who 
have looked at it for years have said we need to relook at 
international taxation.
  We are not competitive internationally. We encourage jobs to go 
overseas because of our international posture. If we do not fix it, we 
are going to continue encouraging people to relocate. The amendment of 
my colleague from Minnesota is going to exacerbate that problem. He 
will, in effect, be denying contracts to a lot of U.S. firms that have 
jobs in the United States that pay taxes on these contracts.
  I am afraid the net result is competitors from other countries, with 
employees in other countries, are going to be competitive and win these 
contracts, and the net loss is we are not only not going to get U.S. 
taxes on these contracts, we are going to have employees go overseas.
  The amendment may be very well intended politically, and my 
compliments to my colleague from Minnesota. It is a very popular 
amendment. It looks good, it is populist, but I think it is bad tax 
policy. I think tax policy should be done in the Finance Committee, not 
on the floor of the Senate on a Department of Defense bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The deputy majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Minnesota that 
this amendment is a good amendment. U.S. corporations have to pay 
corporate taxes on what they earn here in the United States and on what 
they earn in other countries. But foreign corporations only have to pay 
taxes on what they earn in the U.S. So a lot of U.S. companies figured 
out that if they move their corporate papers overseas but leave their 
operations and employees and everything else here in the United States, 
they can get off the hook for most of their taxes.
  Tyco did that. It incorporated in Bermuda in 1997 and saved $400 
million a year in taxes. Just by going across the water to file 
reincorporation papers. Stanley Works did the same thing and saved $30 
million annually; Cooper Industries, $55 million, Ingersoll Rand, $440 
million annually.
  These companies get all the benefits of being U.S. corporations, and 
their stocks are mostly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, but they 
are escaping U.S. taxes. That means that you and I have to make up the 
difference. I think the Senator from Minnesota is on the right track.
  To show this is not some bizarre, ridiculous amendment, look at what 
the State of California did. The State of California is usually on the 
cutting edge of what is going on in this country because they are 
almost a country unto themselves. Thirty-five million people live in 
California. The State of California announced last week that corporate 
expatriates are no longer eligible to hold State government contracts. 
That is California, where over 10 percent of the people in this country 
live. It is one State, and that State recognizes what is being done is 
wrong.
  Also, in the House of Representatives, which is evenly divided 
basically between the Republicans and Democrats, 318 Members voted for 
an amendment that is substantially similar to Senator Wellstone's 
amendment.
  Another thing. This amendment does not absolutely bar these companies 
from holding government contracts, as my very good friend from Oklahoma 
said. These companies can change this in a matter of a couple of hours. 
All they have to do is come back to the U.S., where they came from, and 
reincorporate again in America. That is the patriotic thing to do. That 
is the right thing to do. They cannot have it both ways.
  Why do they do this?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I will yield in a little bit.
  They do it because turning their backs on their country in their 
country's hour of need makes their profit margins look better. The 
process they use is complicated. As I said before, the foreign 
corporations, the expatriates, only owe taxes on their U.S. income. But 
companies that never left the U.S. owe taxes on both their U.S. income 
and their foreign income. Although the U.S. government does give them a 
tax credit in the amount of any foreign tax on the profits, which 
prevents double taxation. So incorporating outside the United States 
eases--and I have gone through the list of how it eases--a 
corporation's tax liability.
  Expatriates also often engage in earnings stripping, it is called. 
Earnings stripping occurs when a foreign corporation legally funnels 
its U.S. earnings outside the United States without paying taxes in the 
United States. The two main avenues they do this with are: First, a 
U.S. subsidiary can borrow a substantial amount of money from the 
foreign parent corporation and make large interest payments to the 
foreign parent. The interest is considered a business expense and is 
then not taxable under the United States Code.
  What else can they do? The U.S. subsidiary may make other payments to 
the foreign corporation for royalties or intellectual property payments 
or for other purposes. These payments many times seem grossly out of 
proportion to the service that foreign corporation actually renders.
  For instance, the U.S. branch of one expatriate company paid its 
parent

[[Page 15488]]

company royalties in an amount of about 4 percent of its total revenue 
just for the right to use the company's name. That is a little out of 
line, I would think. The payment got routed through the Swiss branch of 
the company's Luxembourg holding corporation, which is a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of the Bermuda parent company. All to ensure that the 
company takes advantage of every conceivable tax break possible. Under 
the current Tax Code, that is a business expense and is nontaxable 
under the United States Code. And because of an existing tax treaty 
between the United States and Switzerland, the payments are not subject 
to Swiss taxes either. So they got to move that 4 percent of their 
total revenues out of the U.S. without incurring any U.S. corporate 
taxes on it. That's a relatively tame example of how earnings stripping 
works.
  So I say to my friend from Minnesota, these companies that run 
offshore to tax havens get all the benefits of doing business in the 
United States, and they do not have to pay like other corporations.
  I also say that every time a bill comes up, they say it should be 
under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. We should have a 
committee of the whole, and we should all become members of the Finance 
Committee. It seems, they say, everything should be taken through that.
  I do not believe that is proper. The jurisdiction of the Finance 
Committee is fairly well restricted. I say to anyone within the sound 
of my voice, we have a committee system and we do our very best to 
follow it, but there are certain things that come up as we do 
legislation that demand not a lot of committee hearings. This is one of 
those instances.
  The Senator from Minnesota is on the cutting edge of what we should 
be doing legislatively. It is important we are doing this. And the talk 
about how it's too bad that we're barring this poor company from 
holding government contracts. If it is so bad for them, let them come 
back to the United States and reincorporate, and they will have all the 
benefits they did before. But they cannot have it both ways. They 
cannot have all of these--I refer to them as shady deals. I have gone 
over a couple that I pinpointed, and I think they are significant.
  I also say to those who were listening to the prior debate, they are 
really feeling bad about the consulting branch of 
PricewaterhouseCoopers. They shouldn't worry. PwC announced today that 
it was being sold to IBM, which is a U.S. corporation. IBM, the new 
parent company, is a U.S. corporation. That takes care of the problem, 
as far as I understand it. I think that solves the big problem there.
  So we have, as far as I am concerned, a very valid amendment. I 
understand my friend from Oklahoma. He is someone for whom I have the 
deepest respect, and he is always in tune with the business community's 
needs and wants. And I do not say that in any negative way. He was a 
businessman before he came to the Senate, and he has not lost that. I 
understand how he believes they should always be given a fair shot, and 
I believe they are in this instance. The business community is being 
given a fair shot. In fact, I think this is a gunshot across their bow 
that they should come back to this country again. This is what they 
should do, and I think they should plug these tax loopholes and end 
these tax havens. If the Finance Committee wants to do more, let them 
do more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take 10 seconds because I know 
the Senator from Texas wants to speak, and then I will respond later 
before the vote. I first want to thank the whip and make a technical 
point.
  Actually, contracts are not----
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a brief question without his 
losing the floor?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator agree that these monies that they are not 
paying, avoiding taxes in this country, are going in many instances to 
line the pockets of its fat cat corporate executives?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would say to the whip, I am trying to be a moderate 
today. I do not know whether I want to respond to that question, but it 
sounds to me as if the question is going in the right direction.
  I point out that I do not really think this is a big issue, but 
technically--I have already thanked about four or five times both 
Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for moving this bill. I introduced 
the bill that says we ought to eliminate this egregious tax loophole. 
Technically, the Finance Committee does not have jurisdiction over 
contracts. Let me make that clear.
  Second, let me also make one other thing clear: That to the people in 
the coffee shops in Minnesota and the coffee shops in all of our 
States, American citizens, this whole jurisdictional battle is not 
really all that important to them. They believe if these companies are 
going to renounce their citizenship, go abroad, set up these dummy 
corporations--and by the way, quite often they use those new structures 
to shift earnings from the U.S. branch to the foreign branch so they do 
not have to pay their fair share of taxes--and that could include 
earnings from Government contracts--that they do not pay their fair 
share of taxes. Frankly, most people in the country say: Come home, 
declare your American citizenship, then you are eligible. If not, you 
are not. It is that simple.
  I hope this amendment will have a strong vote. I can talk a lot more 
about it, but I know my colleague from Texas is in the Chamber, and I 
always look forward to what he has to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if you are trying to get cheers in coffee 
shops, this is an excellent amendment. If you are trying to make law in 
the greatest capitalistic country in the history of the world, a 
country that more than any other country on Earth has had companies 
operating in other countries, come to America and gradually move the 
bulk of their business to our country over the years in order to 
benefit from the fact we have better laws and lower tax rates, then 
this is a very bad amendment.
  Let me make it clear. I don't have any sympathy for people who are 
transferring where their company is domiciled to try to get a tax 
advantage. But I would make the following points. Whether a company is 
domiciled in Barbados, Germany, Ireland, or Saudi Arabia, the IRS Code 
is very clear on one thing. Section 881 of the IRS Code says any income 
effectively connected with the United States is taxed in the United 
States of America.
  When companies are relocating--and I noticed Ireland is not listed 
here even though Ireland is a major relocation center for companies all 
over America because they have very low tax rates on business, and I 
congratulate them for being smart enough to do that--we double tax 
dividend income, we double tax the income on corporate America. It is 
not an enlightened policy, and in my opinion, we should not do it.
  This is the point. Under section 881 of the IRS Code, if you earn 
income in America, you are taxed here. Companies are seeking 
jurisdictions where they get more favorable overall tax treatment, 
including tax treatment on their foreign earnings. I don't have 
sympathy for companies that do this, but the plain truth is they are 
doing it. The plain truth is by affecting Government procurement, this 
amendment is GATT illegal and violates GATT.
  Also, it is astounding to me that we would want to give one 
individual, the Secretary of the Treasury, the power to unilaterally 
disbar any company that is domiciled in a foreign country. Under this 
amendment, we outline all these countries that we are saying are tax 
havens, and then we add any other country that the Secretary of the 
Treasury determines is used as a site of a corporation primarily for 
the purpose of avoiding U.S. taxation.
  As I pointed out, you do not avoid U.S. tax by changing where your 
company is domiciled because the IRS Code requires income earned in the 
United States is taxed here.

[[Page 15489]]

  What companies do, however, is they get a more favorable environment. 
What we should be doing is looking at our corporate tax structure and 
trying to become more competitive.
  The amendment gives the Secretary of the Treasury unilateral power to 
disbar any company that is domiciled in a foreign country from selling 
goods to the Defense Department.
  I understand politics. I once was engaged in it. I have now given it 
up. But I understand it is very good politics to basically attack 
people who are operating in foreign countries that have low tax rates, 
that we choose to call tax havens. I long for America to be a tax 
haven. I long for us to get back to the situation we once had where 
companies were moving out of Germany, Italy, and Britain to domicile in 
the United States of America because we had favorable tax treatment. I 
don't remember us thinking it was a bad deal then. We thought it was a 
good deal.
  I had not heard the business about giving up your citizenship. This 
thing has nothing to do with citizenship. If Stanley Works changes 
their domicile, the people who own Stanley Works do not change their 
citizenship. The people that run Stanley Works do not change their 
citizenship. I don't know from where that comes from. That has nothing 
to do with this debate.
  Now, we had a debate once where people were giving up their American 
citizenship to avoid death taxes. Fortunately, we have passed a tax cut 
that eliminates death taxes and some of us want to make that 
elimination permanent. You can be guaranteed that will never happen 
again if our elimination of the death tax becomes permanent.
  Now, I conclude by saying I don't have any doubt about the fact that 
if this is brought to a vote it will pass. We are in an environment 
where slapping businesses around is good politics. Talking about 
denying procurement opportunities to companies domiciled in other 
countries is always popular until you remember that we sell more 
military equipment to foreign countries than any other country in the 
world--and more than every other country in the world combined.
  Under the IRS Code, you have to pay American income taxes on income 
earned in America. If you are domiciled somewhere else, you do not have 
to pay American taxes on income earned in another country.
  This amendment is not good public policy. I hope we can find a way of 
dealing with this. I am very reluctant to see this amendment pass. On 
the other hand, if this amendment had to be clotured, we would be 
talking about 2 days before we would have an opportunity to do it. I 
hope people who are managing the bill can find some way out of this. I 
don't think anyone really believes this issue belongs on this Defense 
bill. I think this is something we ought to be discussing at the 
authorization level. This is an appropriations bill.
  Our goal as taxpayers is to procure the best stuff we can for 
military use at the lowest possible price. I know that is not a popular 
view, but it is a rational view, whether it is popular or not.
  This amendment is GATT illegal. It will be subject to retaliation if 
it actually becomes law. I don't know that anyone here is serious about 
it becoming law.
  In any case, if you want to pick a debating point for the local high 
school and you get to pick which side you will be on, you want to pick 
this topic, and you want to pick Senator Wellstone's side.
  But in terms of public policy, this is an amendment that is bad 
public policy. While it is easy to attack companies that are domiciled 
in other countries, especially countries with low tax rates, the bottom 
line is, for most of the 220-odd-year history of America, we have been 
the tax haven. We have had companies move from other countries to 
America seeking lower taxes and better opportunity.
  How much better our time would be spent if we were debating ways to 
make America more competitive rather than trying to build walls around 
our country to try to keep capital in. What a far cry this is from the 
basic American approach, which has been to have an environment that is 
so favorable to investment and capital creation and wealth that other 
countries have to try to build walls around themselves to keep their 
capital in. Now we are talking about building walls around America to 
keep people from taking capital out.
  I understand it is easy for us to say: Look, we think you should not 
use your money in a way that you view as most efficient. We know more 
about your money than you do. We did not invest it, we did not save it, 
we did not risk it, but we are perfectly capable of telling you how to 
do it.
  I think, again, if we are debating this in terms of popular hoorah, 
we are basically saying that in a free country someone who owns wealth 
cannot take that wealth out of the country and invest it and still have 
the right to engage in commerce--which we grant to companies in Germany 
and Ireland and Czechoslovakia. We are going to take that position 
because right now slapping around people who are trying to engage in 
business is popular. It may be popular, but I do not think it is good 
public policy. We should be debating how we can change our laws so that 
no company would ever want to move out of the United States. But if 
they want to move out of the United States, you either believe in 
freedom or you do not--and I do.
  So I wish they did not find it desirable to do it. I wish Stanley 
Works would keep their headquarters in America. But I have to say I am 
not an investor in Stanley Works. Now TIAA-CREF, my teacher retirement, 
may invest in Stanley Works. But so far as I know, I do not own any 
Stanley Works stock. So who am I to be trying to tell them where they 
put their money? I may not like how they do it, just like I do not like 
it when people waste their money. I have never understood why people 
buy lottery tickets. But I know it sends some people to college and it 
is a free country. If they want to do it, let them do it.
  I never understood why people go out and spend their money buying a 
lot of different things that I do not value. People might not 
understand why I want to own a whole bunch of shotguns, more than I 
will ever pull the trigger on, but it is a free country and you either 
believe in freedom or you do not.
  Now, some freedom is not popular. Here today on the floor of the 
Senate, the freedom to take your wealth that you created and put at 
risk and invest it in any one of the following countries--Gibralter, 
Cyprus, and others. I don't know why we are picking on Cyprus. I 
thought we were trying to make peace there. I thought we were trying to 
create jobs for both the Greeks and the Turks. But it is popular to 
say, today: It is your money, you earned it, you put it at risk, but 
you can't invest it in Cyprus and have the freedom to engage in 
international commerce and sell to the U.S. Government.
  I know that is popular today, but the question is, Is it right? What 
if it were our money, if we owned these companies as public companies, 
and if this were really a socialistic country? I know some dream of it 
being that, but it is not. Thank God. Thank you, sweet Jesus, it is 
not. The commanding heights of the world are dominated by capitalism. 
The Berlin Wall has collapsed. Tears are still shed about it, not just 
in East Germany, either.
  But freedom is tested when it is unpopular, not when it is popular. 
Standing up and cheering for the team that wins the Super Bowl is an 
exercise in freedom of speech, but that is not where you measure 
freedom of speech. You measure it when somebody is saying something you 
do not agree with, something that is not popular. I would say that I do 
not own any Stanley Works stock. I did not invest in Stanley Works. Who 
am I to be telling them they can't have the rights that we give to 
every other company in the world that is domiciled in Germany or in 
Taiwan or Korea or the Philippines or Morocco or wherever? They can 
produce things and sell to the Defense Department, but Stanley Works, 
domiciled in Cyprus or elsewhere, they are not going to sell to the 
United States.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

[[Page 15490]]


  Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. You made some excellent points. The point that the company 
that invests overseas, if it is a foreign company, it has the right to 
do that, but under this rule, if it is an American company, it would 
not have that right if it were domiciled outside the United States--
  Mr. GRAMM. That is exactly right. Had they invested their money in a 
company domiciled in Germany, which competes with Stanley Works, they 
could have sold products to the Defense Department. But under this 
amendment, a company operating in Germany, making drills that might be 
bought by the Defense Department, having not one American employee, can 
sell to the Defense Department. Under this amendment, Stanley Works, 
which may have 40 percent of its employees in this country, many of 
them in the Northeast, as the Senator is aware, is not allowed to sell 
in this country if they choose to domicile in Cyprus or Gibraltar.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for another question on that point. 
Aren't we talking about aftertax dollars? I mean basically what we are 
saying is if an American company generates American revenues, it has to 
pay taxes on those American revenues. When an international company 
generates American revenues, it has to pay taxes on those revenues. The 
United States Treasury has taken in dollars from American-generated 
income from an American or international company.
  Mr. GRAMM. As I said earlier, every penny of American income is taxed 
under IRS code 881. But the point you are making is, the money they are 
investing abroad is after tax money, which belongs to them.
  Mr. GREGG. Right.
  Mr. GRAMM. Which gets back to my point: You either believe in freedom 
or you do not. If you believe in freedom, you have to believe if it is 
somebody's money--they have earned it, they pay taxes on it--and if 
they want to invest it in Cyprus. You may not like it, and you might 
get big cheers at the local coffee bar by saying we are not going to 
let people invest in Cyprus and sell to the United States. That is just 
wildly popular, but the point is it violates our basic precept of the 
right of people to use their own money for their own purposes, to 
promote their own goals.
  Mr. GREGG. After they pay taxes on them.
  Mr. GRAMM. And they pay taxes on that money. And it may not be the 
goal of the Members of the United States Senate, but the point is this: 
In a very real sense, when you cut through all the ability to make this 
a popular issue--when you cut through to the bottom line, it is about 
freedom; freedom to do something that is very unpopular. It is very 
unpopular. We all hate it. When there is a company operating in our 
State and they decide it is to their advantage to move their corporate 
headquarters to Ireland, we decide we do not want them to do it. We 
hate them doing it. They do it, not because it changes their taxes on 
their American-earned income but because it changes their taxes on 
money they make in Europe and Asia and because they can have a better 
business climate. We hate that they do it, but it is their money and 
they have a right to do it. They have a right to do what we think is 
wrong.
  Now to come in through the back door and try to limit their right 
because they are doing something we do not like, we are saying: You 
can't do the same thing that a German company that never invested in 
America and that has no employees in America can do. So it is popular, 
it gets you applause, but it is fundamentally wrong.
  I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I tell my friend and colleague that one 
Oklahoma-headquartered company relocated in Texas called Phillips 
Petroleum. I wasn't very happy about that, but they had the right to do 
that.
  Let me make it clear. My friend and colleague from Texas read the 
statute that says you pay taxes on all American-source income. Isn't 
that correct?
  Mr. GRAMM. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. Corporate income tax--not just payroll tax.
  Mr. GRAMM. Section 881 of the IRS Code.
  Mr. NICKLES. Really, the difference we are talking about is income 
generated in other countries.
  Mr. GRAMM. And the greater flexibility they have in their tax 
treatment in those countries. But they still have to pay American taxes 
on American income. In fact, the language of art is ``any income 
effectively connected with the United States.''
  Mr. NICKLES. Any contract with the Department of Defense--and any 
company doing that has to pay U.S. corporate income taxes if they 
generate income off those contracts.
  Mr. GRAMM. That is right.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the clarification.
  Mr. GRAMM. I conclude by noting that with the adoption of this 
amendment, it will say to companies that pay half of their employees in 
America that we are not going to let you sell to the American 
Government, but to foreign companies that have no employees in America 
and have never invested a penny in America, we are going to let you 
sell to the U.S. Government.
  Again, it is popular. It will get you a big hurrah anywhere in the 
country, but it is not good public policy.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. There is a major automotive company called Chrysler that 
recently merged--or you could say was acquired by Daimler, a German 
company. They are headquartered now in Germany and domiciled in 
Bermuda. I am guessing; I don't know. If my memory serves me correctly, 
Chrysler used to make tanks, or used to make military equipment. They 
wouldn't be covered by this because the effective date is beginning 
January 1. But the theory is, if the effective date was earlier, they 
would be prohibited from making tanks or providing goods and services 
that maybe they provided for a long time. In other words, they might be 
providing an essential component to our national defense, and those 
thousands of employees who might be employed making products for 
national defense would find themselves unemployed.
  Mr. GRAMM. They would be in Detroit, MI. That is the point.
  We basically come down to the question as to whether or not this is 
good public policy. It is popular policy. It will always get applause. 
But the question is, Is it good public policy? I would answer no.
  Should we be building walls around America? Can you imagine the 
United States of America trying to penalize people who want to transfer 
their wealth somewhere else? We are the country where people from all 
over the world send wealth here. This is a role reversal, if I have 
ever seen it. These are games that other countries play.
  This is GATT-illegal. This has no redeeming virtue, other than it is 
momentarily popular and it will get you a rousing applause.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about 
Senator Wellstone's amendment.
  Ironically, I agree with Senator Wellstone's amendment, but also 
agree with some of the points made by my distinguished friends from 
Oklahoma and Texas.
  First of all, I want to be clear that I agree with Senator 
Wellstone's purpose. As I have said repeatedly in public, companies 
should have their hearts in America. If they don't have their hearts in 
America, they ought to get their rear ends out of America. In my mind, 
this notion applies especially to Government contracts.
  Mr. President, when the Finance Committee marked up legislation to 
shutdown corporate expatriation, I considered adding this Government 
contracting ban to the tax legislation. However, out of deference to 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee with jurisdiction 
over Government contracts, I withheld. So, let's be clear that this 
matter is not a Finance Committee matter. Chairman Baucus and I moved 
legislation on this matter out of committee. If Government contracting 
were within Finance Committee jurisdiction, we would've addressed it.

[[Page 15491]]

  Now, let me say that my friends from Oklahoma and Texas are correct 
in one respect. That is, the problem of corporate expatriation springs 
from our flawed international tax code. It needs to be reformed. I am 
committed to reform. In the meantime, we need to stop the bleeding of 
the U.S. tax base and not reward expatriate companies with Government 
contracts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized for up to 15 minutes; 
following that, Senator Wellstone be recognized for up to 4 minutes, 
and, following that, this matter be voted on. And we will do that by 
voice. We will announce that to the Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I will probably not take the entire 15 minutes.
  I do concede the point made by the Senator from Texas that many of us 
come to this debate with a level of emotion. I am not happy to read in 
the newspaper that a company such as Stanley Tools has decided, for tax 
reasons, they are going to forsake their American citizenship and move 
to Bermuda. I will guarantee you, I will never knowingly buy one of 
their products again.
  I honestly believe the American corporations--proud to be in this 
country, proud to be part of this country, accepting their obligation 
to support this country, and paying taxes here--deserve my business 
before the folks at Stanley who decided it is much more fashionable to 
wear Bermuda shorts than to wear the red, white, blue.
  Let me address three specific elements that came out in debate.
  I have read, over the course of my education and my service in 
Congress, a lot of things relative to rights. I have read a great deal 
about the rights of individuals and the rights of others.
  We all know about the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. We have heard about those, and some trace them back to Plato 
and Aristotle. They go through all the great Renaissance thinkers, and 
certainly to the Founding Fathers and Mothers of America, who came to 
these concepts and fought for them.
  But I never read about the inalienable, immutable, nontransferable 
right of a business, wherever it is located, to bid on contracts at the 
U.S. Department of Defense. That does not exist. That is a creature of 
law and policy.
  We, in the United States, decide who will bid on Government 
contracts. We establish standards. We establish qualifications. And we 
establish disqualifications.
  Should Saddam Hussein's agent show up at the Pentagon tomorrow and 
suggest that the Iraqi National Business Corporation wants to start 
bidding on American defense contracts, you can imagine, we will laugh 
him out of town. We decide who will bid on our defense contracts, in 
the name of our national values and our national defense.
  What the Senator from Minnesota brings before us is a very basic 
challenge: If it is not an inalienable right to bid on contracts at the 
Department of Defense, are we going to offer that right to bid to a 
company which has forsaken and denounced its American citizenship in 
order to avoid paying taxes in the United States?
  I will go back to the point made earlier by the Senator from Texas. I 
do not think there is any right to that. And I do not think he can find 
it.
  The second point I would like to make is this: The argument that 
these poor companies go to Bermuda, the Virgin Islands, Barbados, and 
the Isle of Man in order to escape American taxes--our critics say it 
is really a condemnation as to the high tax rates in America. They 
argue that we should lower our corporate tax rates so they will not 
even consider going to a tax haven such as Bermuda.
  Trust me, no matter how low we bring our corporate taxes, some small 
country somewhere in the world will have a lower corporate tax rate. We 
cannot race to the bottom and expect to sustain the civilization we 
enjoy and the common defense which is funded under this bill if we do 
not have a tax base in America.
  These same people could argue, logically, that we should encourage 
companies to move overseas to the lowest possible wage rate where 
people are being paid 5 and 10 cents an hour because it is such a smart 
business decision. We do not encourage it. We discourage it. We should 
continue to.
  But to argue that somehow we are at fault as a nation because we ask 
businesses to pay their fair share of sustaining the strength and 
quality of life in America, I think is ludicrous.
  The third point I will make is this: This is a Defense bill. We talk 
about the Department of Defense, but we all know that within the pages 
of these bills, particularly this bill, we will find not just words, 
but we will find the support for the men and women in uniform in 
America.
  Think about what we ask of the men and women in uniform sustained by 
this Department of Defense appropriations.
  We ask these men and women, out of loyalty to America, to be willing 
to pay with their lives for the privilege to be an American citizen. 
And each and every one of us is so proud that young men and women come 
forth willing to do so, willing to give their careers, their lives, to 
their country.
  But think about what those who oppose this amendment are saying: That 
corporations with so little loyalty to the United States that they are 
unwilling to pay taxes to this country should somehow be honored with 
the right to bid on Department of Defense contracts.
  I disagree. I disagree. Let me hope that this amendment is adopted. 
Let me hope that after it is adopted, the next time a major corporation 
draws its board of directors together and brings in their shifty 
accountant, who says, ``I just came up with a great idea: We're moving 
to Bermuda, and we can save taxes, and you all can make more money,'' 
somebody will say, ``What impact is that going to have on our customer 
base in America? What impact is that going to have on our business in 
America? Shouldn't we think twice before we abandon this Nation because 
we want to save a few bucks on taxes?''
  My friends and colleagues in the Senate, I support this amendment by 
the Senator from Minnesota. I will concede that I come to it with some 
emotion when I consider these businesses that are moving overseas to 
avoid paying taxes to our Government. Businesses are moving their 
operations overseas to avoid hiring men and women in the United States. 
I do not think we should reward them or applaud them or say it is just 
an exercise of their freedom. They have the freedom to leave. We should 
have the freedom in the Senate to tell them that their departure is 
going to cost them an opportunity to bid on these contracts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we had a long debate this afternoon. My 
understanding is that my colleagues are going to accept the amendment. 
I am appreciative of that. I think it is a very good amendment. I think 
it is important to have good, strong bipartisan support.
  I thank Senator Durbin and Senator Reid, our whip, for their help. 
And if it is OK with them, I ask unanimous consent they be added as 
cosponsors to my amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am looking at just a few editorials and op-ed 
pieces. I will quote from them and do it in 3 minutes so we can get on 
with this vote:


[[Page 15492]]

       The trouble is that hinting, even by silence, that it's 
     O.K. not to pay taxes is a dangerous game, because it can 
     quickly grow into a major revenue loss. Accountants and tax 
     planners have taken the hint; they now believe that it's safe 
     to push the envelope. . . . Furthermore, what does it say to 
     the nation when companies that are proud to stay American are 
     punished, while companies that are willing to fly a flag of 
     convenience are rewarded?

  That was from columnist Paul Krugman of the New York Times, May 14:

       Even more galling is the fact that many of the same 
     companies are giving the taxman the brushoff as they shield 
     themselves with their Bermuda ZIP codes think nothing of 
     holding out their hand when Uncle Sam is doling out 
     government contracts.

  That is from columnist Arianna Huffington, LA Times, May 15.
  I ask unanimous consent material from the New York Times to the 
Houston Chronicle, to the Springfield Union News editorial, to the 
Philadelphia Inquirer--there is a ring of editorials and opinions on 
this question, and I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Editorials and Opinions Against Corporate Expatriation

       ``Tax policy of this sort is outrageously offensive, if not 
     masochistic. It penalizes businesses that behave ethically 
     and responsibly and rewards those that do not. It increases 
     the federal deficit and decreases the federal resources to 
     keep the country running and rivers clean. It extends 
     privileges to corporations that can afford the legal bills 
     which it won't extend to $20,000-a-year day-care workers. 
     Americans should be outraged, and so should Congress, which 
     should move quickly to pass pending legislation outlawing the 
     dodge.''--Peoria Journal Star editorial, May 12.
       ``The company has thumbed its nose at anyone who questioned 
     its plans. Stanley officials initially tried to bar reporters 
     from the annual meeting, despite high public interest in the 
     Bermuda vote. They also mailed confusing shareholder 
     information about how the vote would be tabulated. Businesses 
     that want to enjoy the benefits and protections provided by 
     this country should pay their fair share of taxes. Guess who 
     will wind up picking up the tab as a result of Stanley's tax 
     avoidance? Other American taxpayers, of course.''--Hartford 
     Courant editorial, May 14.
       ``Even in the best of times, it is outrageous for companies 
     to engage in offshore shenanigans to avoid paying their fair 
     share of taxes. Doing so after the Enron scandal, in dire 
     fiscal times and when the nation is at war is 
     unconscionable.''--New York Times editorial, May 13.
       ``American companies that have no headquarters, no 
     employees or operations in foreign tax havens should not be 
     able to lower their taxes by, in essence, acquiring an island 
     post office box. Basic fairness to American companies that 
     remain incorporated in the United States is at stake.''--
     Houston Chronicle editorial, May 9.
       ``When a U.S.-based corporation decides to reincorporate, 
     basing its operations in, say, the Cayman Islands when the 
     company has little more than a mailbox there, it can legally 
     avoid millions of dollars in taxes. . . . there will come no 
     better moment than this one to right that wrong. We look 
     forward to the floor vote.''--Springfield Union News 
     editorial, May 7.
       ``Even more galling is the fact that many of the same 
     companies are giving the taxman the brushoff as they shield 
     themselves with their Bermuda ZIP codes think nothing of 
     holding out their hand when Uncle Sam is doling out 
     government contracts.''--Columnist Arianna Huffington, Los 
     Angeles Times, May 15.
       ``The trouble is that hinting, even by silence, that it's 
     O.K. not to pay taxes is a dangerous game, because it can 
     quickly grow into a major revenue loss. Accountants and tax 
     planners have taken the hint; they now believe that it's safe 
     to push the envelope. . . . Furthermore, what does it say to 
     the nation when companies that are proud to stay American are 
     punished, while companies that are willing to fly a flag of 
     convenience are rewarded?''--Columnist Paul Krugman, New York 
     Times, May 14.
       ``Yet it [Stanley] won't have to pay its fair share for the 
     good life and safe business climate we have created here. It 
     shouldn't be allowed to get away with this. It's time to slam 
     this loophole shut--for Stanley and other companies that have 
     the so-called inversion strategy.''--Columnist Jeff Brown, 
     Philadelphia Inquirer, May 12.

  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. DODD. I thank our colleague from Minnesota.
  A lot of people are talking about Stanley Works. I represent the 
State where that company was located, with a wonderful history and 
tradition for many years of the Stanley Works Company, with the 
contribution of employment in my State.
  It is a source of great disappointment to many of us that they have 
taken this position of setting up a shell operation, in this case in 
Bermuda, with no people there at all--nothing--to avoid taxes. That is 
deeply disturbing to people in my State. And we are embarrassed, in a 
sense, that this has become the poster child, if you will, on this 
issue.
  But the Senator from Minnesota has raised a very important point, one 
that all of us here, in a time such as this, over the last 10 months, 
after 9/11 understand taxes may be too high. We need to work at that. 
We need to improve the situation. But to have people stand up in a 
company and say that, right now, we are going to have profits trump 
patriotism, that we are going to worry about our pocketbook before we 
worry about what is best for America, is something over which all of us 
ought to be outraged.
  So I thank the Senator for raising this issue. We are going to have a 
vote shortly. I believe it is going to carry overwhelmingly, and it 
should. The other body has voted similarly on a different bill. 
Nonetheless, I suspect they may on this as well. We need to send a 
united message that this kind of behavior we do not like to see in 
individual citizens, who would trade their citizenship, and we do not 
want to see it in corporations either.
  I thank the Senator for the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. President, I just want to also, for the record, say I have spoken 
to Senator Grassley, who said he would be very proud to be a supporter. 
And I talked with the staff of both Senator Grassley and Senator 
Baucus, and we want to work together on exactly what the reach of this 
is. We will work hard on that in conference.
  The date of 9/11 has been mentioned more than once. The truth is, it 
also ties into Enron and WorldCom and all the rest. Frankly, people are 
tired. Thank goodness there are many corporations and businesses that 
are very good corporate citizens, but people are really tired of this. 
This is an egregious practice.
  Again, this amendment puts everybody on notice, forthwith, actually 
reaching back to January 1 of this year, if you are going to go to 
another country and set up a dummy corporation and then shift some of 
your profits to that corporation and not pay taxes, you are not going 
to be eligible for any of the defense contracts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe in short order the Senate will be 
prepared to dispose of this amendment. I wish to take a minute at this 
time to express my appreciation and the appreciation of the entire 
Senate and I think a grateful country for the outstanding work that is 
done year in and year out by these two Senators managing this 
legislation.
  Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens are two unique personalities, 
first of all. The service they gave to their country and the military 
during World War II would be enough by itself to cause us to want to 
express our appreciation to them. But their service in this institution 
and their leadership in these Defense bills year after year is really 
outstanding. They have done a tremendous job. They have helped keep 
America strong. They have helped make sure we have the facilities and 
the equipment our men and women need to do the job.
  That is why when we made the decision to go to war against terrorism 
and put our men and women into a situation in Afghanistan to deal with 
al-Qaida, the terrorists, we had some incredible equipment. The 
American people got glimpses of some of the tremendous things that have 
been done.
  Once again this year they have done a fantastic job. Unless I am 
mistaken, this is the largest Defense bill in the history of the 
country. It was asked for

[[Page 15493]]

by the President. They have been very careful to be judicious in how 
they have handled it. But they have brought it to the floor in such a 
way that Senators on both sides of the aisle agree with their product, 
and I thought I should take a minute to tell them how much I appreciate 
it.
  Obviously, I am prejudiced. In my neck of the woods we build ships. 
We are very close to the Navy, but we also have Camp Shelby where 
Senator Inouye got his training at the beginning of World War II. They 
have made sure that we paid attention to what we needed for the future 
in ships, even though the Navy actually had a declining request in this 
area.
  On a personal basis and one based on knowledge of what would have 
been in the bill but what is in it, what needed to be done, I express 
my appreciation to the managers and thank them for what they have done 
here, in the past for the country, and what I know they will always do 
in their roles in the Senate.
  They and their staffs spent many long hours hammering out the details 
of what amounts to the largest defense budget in the history of our 
nation and they are to be commended for their hard work.
  I want to particularly thank Senators Inouye and Stevens for filling 
a major hole in the defense budget--the distinct lack of ship 
production for our Navy. During this time of war against terrorism, we 
need to maintain our ability to strike at the heart of our enemy far 
from American shores--namely, their training camps, intelligence 
centers, chemical/biological weapon production facilities, and 
conventional arms caches. Ships play a central role in our ability to 
project power and--before the actions of the Senate Appropriations Sub-
committee on Defense--it looked like we, as a nation, were close to 
losing a key pillar in our fight against global terrorism.
  Mr. President, the military budget as presented to this body earlier 
this year represented the largest increase in military spending that 
our country has seen in a long time, and yet the Navy's request for 
shipbuilding represented a decline in spending from the previous year. 
It certainly was difficult to understand and even more difficult to 
understand given that our forces are engaged in combat overseas. This 
spending profile not only threatened the capability of our Navy, but 
also threatened to severely dismantle our capability to produce ships 
in the United States. I don't need to spell out the dire implications 
of losing what little shipbuilding capacity that we have left in 
America.
  Thanks to Senators Inouye and Stevens and their staffs' hard work, we 
have made great strides in righting our ship that was about to sink. I 
want to applaud the foresight and efforts of committee staff, 
particularly Charlie Houy, Steve Cortese, Leslie Kalan, Menda Fife and 
Kraig Siracuse to correct this problem. They put a lot of hard work 
into this mark-up and I believe they hit a home run for shipbuilding. 
This SAC-D mark-up has set the vision for the future and will help the 
Pentagon as they develop the shipbuilding plan for POM '04.
  I also want to acknowledge the forward thinking of Pete Aldridge, 
John Young, and Dov Zakheim for identifying future funds in POM '04 
that will be leveraged into the fleet of tomorrow--a fleet that will be 
fully capable of addressing threats to our nation that we cannot yet 
envision. An early version of the ship building plan for POM '04 
includes laying the keel for a CVN in 2007; ramps up production of 
Virginia Class submarines from one ship per year in fiscal years 2004 
through 2006 to two ships in 2007 through 2009; production of three 
DDG-51 class ships per year in 2004 and 2005; commencement of DD(X) 
production in 2005 with continuation of that program well into 2020; 
steady-state production of LPD-17 class ships through 2009; and a 
three-year interval between production of LHA(R)/LHD class ships in 
2006 and 2009.
  Again, I thank Senators Inouye and Stevens for putting together a 
Defense Appropriations bill that makes sense for our Navy, our nation, 
and our ship building industry. Thank you. I commend you for the great 
service you have done for our Nation, our military, and our service 
members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4412.
  The amendment (No. 4412) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the underlying Wellstone amendment was 
adopted; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not correct. The Wellstone amendment 
is now pending. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the action on amendment 
4412 be vitiated and the amendment withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4364) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have spoken with Senator Grassley and 
with his staff and the Staff of Senator Baucus about the definition of 
expatriating firms and tax havens in my amendment. It would be my hope 
that the conferees to the Defense Appropriations bill could conform the 
definition in my amendment with the definition in S. 2119, the 
Reversing the Expatriation of Profits Offshore Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues. I think this is an amendment of 
which we can be proud, and I am very proud that it passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.


          Amendments Nos. 4388 and 4422 Through 4434, En Bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the managers of this bill, Senator Stevens 
and I, wish to submit several amendments for consideration. We ask 
unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc and 
adopted en bloc. Before we do that, may I explain the amendments.
  They are; an amendment for Senator Akaka earmarking $6 million for 
critical infrastructure protection; an amendment for Senator Clinton 
earmarking $500,000 for renovation of a hangar at Griffiss Air Force 
Base; an amendment for Senator Inhofe earmarking $5 million for remote 
logistic network; an amendment for Senator Feinstein earmarking $5 
million for integrated chemical biological warfare detector chips; an 
amendment for Senator Hutchison earmarking $1 million for nanoenergetic 
material research; an amendment for Senator Frist and Senator Thompson 
earmarking $2 million for the Communicator force notification system; 
an amendment for Senator Landrieu earmarking $5 million for the D-Day 
museum; an amendment for Senator Nelson earmarking $6 million for the 
Center for Advanced Power Systems; an amendment for Senator Bunning 
earmarking $1 million for security locks; an amendment for Senator 
Kennedy earmarking $10 million for the Non-Self Deployable water craft 
study; an amendment for Senator Carnahan earmarking $850,000 for 
National Guard medical equipment; an amendment for Senators Smith, 
Wyden, and Murray to earmark $8 million for the Navy's Sealion program; 
an amendment for Senator Craig earmarking $3 million for foreign 
document digitization.
  May I advise the Chair that there is not a single dollar added to the 
appropriation. These are just earmarks. It has been cleared by both 
sides.
  I send the amendments to the desk. I ask that they be considered en 
bloc and approved en bloc.

[[Page 15494]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Indiana 
is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in the list 
that the distinguished Senator just read, was there a Lugar amendment 
dealing with weapons of mass destruction?
  Mr. INOUYE. No.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will not object. I simply was hopeful 
that the amendment might be included at this point.
  Mr. INOUYE. It was objected to because it was not authorized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, I shall not object, a point 
of parliamentary procedure: When would be the appropriate time for this 
amendment to be considered or this Senator to offer the amendment or 
for the managers to offer the amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the bill is still 
open to amendment. The Senator still has his right to offer it at any 
time.
  Mr. LUGAR. Very well. So it would be appropriate, if I can gain the 
floor, to do so following the resolution of the amendments the Senator 
has offered. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask to amend the request of the Senator 
from Hawaii and ask unanimous consent that the amendment I shall send 
to the desk for the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, be adopted. It 
deals with the awarding of a Medal of Honor flag to recipients of the 
Medal of Honor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 4388 and 4422 through 4434) were agreed to en 
bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4388

 (Purpose: To provide for the designation of a Medal of Honor Flag and 
   for presentation of that flag to recipients of the Medal of Honor)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Congress finds that--
       (1) the Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in 
     action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an 
     individual serving in the Armed Forces of the United States;
       (2) the Medal of Honor was established by Congress during 
     the Civil War to recognize soldiers who had distinguished 
     themselves by gallantry in action;
       (3) the Medal of Honor was conceived by Senator James 
     Grimes of the State of Iowa in 1861; and
       (4) the Medal of Honor is the Nation's highest military 
     honor, awarded for acts of personal bravery or self-sacrifice 
     above and beyond the call of duty.
       (b)(1) Chapter 9 of title 36, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 903. Designation of Medal of Honor Flag

       ``(a) Designation.--The Secretary of Defense shall design 
     and designate a flag as the Medal of Honor Flag. In selecting 
     the design for the flag, the Secretary shall consider designs 
     submitted by the general public.
       ``(b) Presentation.--The Medal of Honor Flag shall be 
     presented as specified in sections 3755, 6257, and 8755 of 
     title 10 and section 505 of title 14.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``903. Designation of Medal of Honor Flag.''.
       (c)(1)(A) Chapter 357 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3755. Medal of honor: presentation of Medal of Honor 
       Flag

       ``The President shall provide for the presentation of the 
     Medal of Honor Flag designated under section 903 of title 36 
     to each person to whom a medal of honor is awarded under 
     section 3741 of this title after the date of the enactment of 
     this section. Presentation of the flag shall be made at the 
     same time as the presentation of the medal under section 3741 
     or 3752(a) of this title.''.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3755. Medal of honor: presentation of Medal of Honor Flag.''.
       (2)(A) Chapter 567 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 6257. Medal of honor: presentation of Medal of Honor 
       Flag

       ``The President shall provide for the presentation of the 
     Medal of Honor Flag designated under section 903 of title 36 
     to each person to whom a medal of honor is awarded under 
     section 6241 of this title after the date of the enactment of 
     this section. Presentation of the flag shall be made at the 
     same time as the presentation of the medal under section 6241 
     or 6250 of this title.''.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``6257. Medal of honor: presentation of Medal of Honor Flag.''.
       (3)(A) Chapter 857 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 8755. Medal of honor: presentation of Medal of Honor 
       Flag

       ``The President shall provide for the presentation of the 
     Medal of Honor Flag designated under section 903 of title 36 
     to each person to whom a medal of honor is awarded under 
     section 8741 of this title after the date of the enactment of 
     this section. Presentation of the flag shall be made at the 
     same time as the presentation of the medal under section 8741 
     or 8752(a) of this title.''.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``8755. Medal of honor: presentation of Medal of Honor Flag.''.
       (4)(A) Chapter 13 of title 14, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 504 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 505. Medal of honor: presentation of Medal of Honor 
       Flag

       ``The President shall provide for the presentation of the 
     Medal of Honor Flag designated under section 903 of title 36 
     to each person to whom a medal of honor is awarded under 
     section 491 of this title after the date of the enactment of 
     this section. Presentation of the flag shall be made at the 
     same time as the presentation of the medal under section 491 
     or 498 of this title.''.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     504 the following new item:

``505. Medal of honor: presentation of Medal of Honor Flag.''.
       (d) The President shall provide for the presentation of the 
     Medal of Honor Flag designated under section 903 of title 36, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (b), to each 
     person awarded the Medal of Honor before the date of 
     enactment of this Act who is living as of that date. Such 
     presentation shall be made as expeditiously as possible after 
     the date of the designation of the Medal of Honor Flag by the 
     Secretary of Defense under such section.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4422

 (Purpose: To set aside $6,000,000 of operation and maintenance, Navy, 
 funds for Servicewide Communications for the Critical Infrastructure 
                          Protection Program)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title II 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', for 
     Servicewide Communications, $6,000,000 may be used for the 
     Critical Infrastructure Protection Program.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4423

 (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Air Force 
   for operation and maintenance $500,000 for a contribution to the 
 renovation of Hangar Building 101 at former Griffiss Air Force Base, 
New York, in order to facilitate the reuse of the building for economic 
                         development purposes)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', up to 
     $500,000 may be available for a contribution to the Griffiss 
     Local Development Corporation (GLDC) for the renovation of 
     Hangar Building 101 at former Griffiss Air Force Base, New 
     York, in order to facilitate the reuse of the building for 
     economic development purposes. Such renovation may include a 
     new roof, building systems, fixtures, and lease-hold 
     improvements of the building.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4424

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Defense-Wide 
    research, development, test, and evaluation $5,000,000 for the 
                 Maintainers Remote Logistics Network)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for the 
     Maintainers Remote Logistics Network.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4425

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Navy for 
    research, development, test, and evaluation $5,000,000 for the 
      Integrated Chemical Biological Warfare Agent Detector Chip)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'',

[[Page 15495]]

     up to $5,000,000 may be available for the Integrated Chemical 
     Biological Warfare Agent Detector Chip.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4426

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       Of the funds provided under the heading ``Research and 
     Development, Air Force,'' up to $1,000,000 may be made 
     available for research on nanoenergetic materials.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4427

    (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Army 
    National Guard for operation and maintenance $2,000,000 for the 
              Communicator emergency notification system)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     up to $2,000,000 may be available for the Communicator 
     emergency notification system.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4428

  (Purpose: To authorize a grant of $5,000,000 to the National D-Day 
                                Museum)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. The Secretary of Defense may, using amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act, make a 
     grant to the National D-Day Museum in the amount of 
     $5,000,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4429

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Navy for 
 research, development, test, and evaluation $6,000,000 for the Center 
                      for Advanced Power Systems)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $6,000,000 may be available for the Center for 
     Advanced Power Systems.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 4430

   (Purpose: To allow the Department of Defense to obligate funds to 
 secure its sensitive and classified materials to further enhance the 
                national security of the United States)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     section:
       Sec.  . Out of the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, 
     funds appropriated, $1,000,000 may be available to continue 
     the Department of Defense's internal security-container lock 
     retrofit program for purchasing additional security locks 
     which meet federal specification FF-L-2740A.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4431

  (Purpose: To make available from the National Defense Sealift Fund 
  $10,000,000 for implementing the recommendations resulting from the 
Navy's Non-Self Deployable Watercraft (NDSW) Study and the Joint Chiefs 
 of Staff Focused Logistics Study to determine the requirements of the 
   Navy for providing lift support for mine warfare ships and other 
                                vessels)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title V under the 
     heading ``National Defense Sealift Fund'', up to $10,000,000 
     may be available for implementing the recommendations 
     resulting from the Navy's Non-Self Deployable Watercraft 
     (NDSW) Study and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Focused Logistics 
     Study, which are to determine the requirements of the Navy 
     for providing lift support for mine warfare ships and other 
     vessels.


                           amendment no. 4432

  (Purpose: To set aside from amounts available for the Air National 
  Guard for operation and maintenance $350,000 for medical equipment)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', up 
     to $350,000 may be available for medical equipment.

                           amendment no. 4433

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Navy for 
research, development, test, and evaluation $18,000,000 for the Sealion 
                   Technology Demonstration program)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'' 
     and available for Ship Concept Advanced Design up to 
     $18,000,000 may be available for the Sealion Technology 
     Demonstration program for the purchase, test, and evaluation 
     of a Sealion craft with modular capability.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4434

(Purpose: To provide for standardized digitizing, conversion, indexing, 
and formatting of captured foreign documentary materials, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place in Title VIII, insert the 
     following:
       ``Sec.  . Of the funds made available in this Act under the 
     heading `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
     Wide', up to $3,000,000 may be made available to digitize, 
     convert, index, and format captured foreign documentary 
     materials (including legacy materials) into a standard, 
     usable format, to enable the timely analysis and use of 
     mission critical data by analytical and warfighter personnel.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that action.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4435

  (Purpose: To authorize the waiver of the prohibition on the use of 
  Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for chemical weapons destruction)

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

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. LUGAR], for himself, Mr. 
     Biden, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Graham, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
     Dodd, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 4435:
       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Section 1305 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 22 
     U.S.C. 5952 note) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Limitation.--'' before ``No fiscal 
     year''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Waiver.--(1) The limitation in subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat 
     Reduction programs for a fiscal year if the President submits 
     to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate a written certification 
     that the waiver of the limitation in such fiscal year is 
     important to the national security of the United States.
       ``(2) A certification under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 
     2003 shall cover funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat 
     Reduction programs for that fiscal year and for fiscal years 
     2000, 2001, and 2002.
       ``(3) A certification under paragraph (1) shall include a 
     full and complete justification for the waiver of the 
     limitation in subsection (a) for the fiscal year covered by 
     the certification.''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, during the Memorial Day recess, it was the 
privilege of this Senator to travel again with my colleague and 
partner, Senator Sam Nunn, and with Representative John Spratt and 
Representative Christopher Shays to a number of sites in Russia. One of 
particular interest to us was the chemical weapons facility at 
Shchuch'ye, which is approximately 1,200 miles east of Moscow. That 
particular installation has been a part of the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program insofar as the United States has worked cooperatively 
with Russia to put extensive fencing and various other security around 
what amounts to 1.9 million weapon shells--that is, chemical weapon 
shells--filled with nerve gas, saran, and VX.
  I had visited the sites 18 months before, and this was a return to 
envision precisely these 85-millimeter shells, these small shells that 
you can put in a small suitcase. Indeed, I have an illustration of 
this, Mr. President.
  Here is the small suitcase, and here is the Senator from Indiana, and 
a Russian major took the picture.
  As we discuss proliferation, this intersection between terrorists and 
weapons of mass destruction, envision, if you will, that there are 1.9 
million more of these 85-millimeter shells. The Russians on the site 
estimate if one shell was put into a stadium of 100,000 people, 
everybody would die. It has that degree of efficacy and it has this 
degree of portability.
  This is why the United States takes seriously the penning up of the 
chemical weapons of Russia. Russia has declared 40,000 metric tons. 
One-seventh of them are at Shchuch'ye, in this condition. Also at 
Shchuch'ye is our greatest hope in working with the Russians to destroy 
the chemical weapons. They

[[Page 15496]]

are in the process of building a plant that will require U.S. money to 
complete. The German Bundesbank has appropriated money this year for 
this plant, and so has Great Britain, Canada, and Norway, in modest 
amounts, to join us.
  The Russian Duma has appropriated substantially more money for this 
purpose. Why? Because Russia and the United States and many other 
nations ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. We did so 5 years 
ago. The Russians did so a short time thereafter. It is a 10-year 
treaty. We are almost at halftime and not the first pound of chemical 
weapons has, in fact, been destroyed because there was not the money, 
not the technical organization, until at least this present point.
  Mr. President, when I came back from Russia, Senator Biden, the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I were asked to come 
to the White House to visit with the President and the Vice President, 
Condoleezza Rice, and Andrew Card. Six of us sat there and talked about 
the new treaty between the United States and Russia, on which we have 
had testimony at some of our committee hearings. The point made by the 
President, Secretary Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld is that we have a 
turn of the road with Russia. We are not naive with regard to all of 
the problems with Russia, but the President is asking for ratification 
of this new treaty that would substantially reduce nuclear warheads in 
the next 10 years.
  I took the opportunity to point out to the President of the United 
States that it is one thing to ratify a treaty, and to negotiate one to 
begin with, and it is quite another to see actual results from the 
treaty. We are working in this country to reduce our chemical weapons, 
and we hope to do so in the 10 years. We have pledged to do so under 
the treaty. The Russians have a whole lot more of them. My point is 
that there has not been a reduction there. In this case, it is not a 
lack of good will, it is a lack of money, lack of technical support.
  In the midst of all of this, the dilemma for President Bush--and he 
raised this during our face-to-face meeting--is: What can I do about 
it? With the other Nunn-Lugar programs, the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Programs, the President could certify that the conditions 
imposed by Congress on the Nunn-Lugar Act are being met. In the past 10 
years, such certification has come each year. This year, it did not.
  Ms. Rice and the Vice President advised the President that the 
administration has sought authorization to waive the certification 
requirement so that the money could be spent. In effect, no new 
programs under cooperative threat reduction have occurred for 10 months 
of this fiscal year due to lack of certification and lack of waiver.
  Now, in the supplemental appropriations bill we passed the other 
evening, as this becomes law--at least for the last 2 months of this 
year--our Government can actively move to destroy weapons of mass 
destruction with new contracts--nuclear, chemical, and biological--for 
2 months. In a conference now on the authorization of the Defense 
Department, there is a debate as to how long a waiver might last. The 
President has asked for permanent authority, and the Senate has offered 
that in its bill. The House has offered, as I understand it, a 3-year 
time for the President to waive this certification. But when we come to 
chemical weapons, the President apparently has no ability to waive 
anything, or to certify anything.
  An additional six requirements are posed, and they have not been met, 
in the judgment at least of those in the administration who were 
involved in these deliberations. So as a result, nothing is happening 
with regard to American money or the destruction of these weapons.
  Following my meeting with the President, I wrote a letter to 
Condoleezza Rice, and I stated everything that I have indicated in 
these remarks today. I appreciate the fact that she has responded and 
indicated to me that:
  The President has repeatedly emphasized the importance of cooperative 
threat reduction in his strategy to reduce and prevent the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, delivery means, and the 
materials and technology to develop them. Because of the program's 
value to the nation's security, the President has asked the Congress to 
grant him permanent authority to waive CTR certification requirements 
if he determines that is in the national interest. We strongly support 
the waiver provision of the Senate version of the FY2003 Defense 
Reauthorization bill, and have urged the conferees to adopt it.
  Our serious concerns about Russian chemical and biological weapons 
activities make it difficult for the Secretary of State to certify 
Russia as eligible for CTR assistance. Waiver authority will enable the 
Administration both to pursue essential CTR weapons reduction and 
nonproliferation projects, and to work with Russia to resolve our 
concerns about its chemical and biological weapons activities.
  Parenthetically, I might say that one of the concerns is the four 
installations, allegedly with biological weapons or preparations for 
them, in Russia to which none of us have had access.
  It is my hope in the coming recess to enter two of these and at least 
clear away whatever may be the dilemmas of those two situations and 
maybe in the fullness of time to make the other two.
  I have been permitted to go into a number of biological situations, 
in addition to the full gamut of the chemical ones, largely because 
there is a sense of cooperative threat reduction.
  The Russians themselves appreciate that if there are accidents, 
theft, or a breakdown of the system, Russians will be killed first and 
in large numbers. This is a grim and serious business which ought not 
be a part of parliamentary byplay and that has been the dilemma this 
year.
  Condoleezza Rice continues:

       Similarly, we welcome your proposal of a waiver of the 
     legislative conditions on CTR assistance to construct a nerve 
     agent destruction facility at Shchuch'ye. As you point out, 
     the small, transportable munitions at Shchuch'ye pose a real 
     proliferation risk. The President underscored the importance 
     of assistance to Russian chemical weapons destruction in his 
     December speech at the Citadel and most recently in the G8 
     Leaders announcement of Global Partnership Against the Spread 
     of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.
       We have been working hard with Russia to meet the 
     legislative conditions on the Shchuch'ye project, and have 
     made considerable progress. Nevertheless, it may be difficult 
     to assess with confidence that the information we have from 
     Russia on its chemical weapons stockpile is full and 
     accurate. At a minimum, the information-gathering process 
     will be very time-consuming, but the proliferation threat 
     gives us no time to delay. Indeed, the Administration 
     concluded after its thorough review of nonproliferation 
     assistance to Russia that the destruction project at 
     Shchuch'ye should be accelerated.
       Therefore, the Administration has urged the conferees to 
     the FY2003 Defense Authorization bill to provide the 
     President the authority to waive the conditions on CTR 
     chemical weapons destruction assistance, if he determines 
     that to do so is in the national interest.

  Given this letter, Mr. President, I have offered the amendment that 
is at the desk. It achieves that objective of giving the President 
waiver authority that he does not have with regard to these chemical 
weapons. In due course, the conference committee and the armed services 
will come to a decision as to whether the request by the President for 
permanent waiver authority on all Nunn-Lugar programs is to be granted 
to the President.
  In a commonsense way, I pray that will be the case. I cannot imagine 
that it is in the national interest for us to deliberately, having 
authorized money for Nunn-Lugar, having appropriated money for the 
Nunn-Lugar program, to have it all tied up in terms of new projects for 
10 months.
  My point to the President has been: Mr. President, that could very 
well be the fate of a nuclear treaty with regard to warheads. Why do we 
believe that somehow that might be exempt because, clearly, American 
money is going to be involved if we are to make progress in seeing 
those warheads reduced.
  The Russians may want to reduce the warheads to 2,200 or 1,700 or 
whatever figure is in their national interest, but

[[Page 15497]]

they clearly do not have the means to do so.
  Some Americans, perhaps even Members of this body, may say: Well, 
that is the Russian's problem; they made their bed; let them sleep in 
it. But it is our problem because those warheads are aimed at us. The 
nerve gas at Shchuch'ye will not be aimed at us if it is destroyed, and 
it can be destroyed during this historical window of opportunity.
  Therefore, I earnestly ask for support of the Senate in adopting this 
amendment so it is absolutely clear that the President has the 
authority to give the waivers so that we may move ahead on something I 
think is vital not only to our national interest but in the war against 
terrorism is imperative. My feeling always has been if the Senate had 
any idea of this general problem, there would be a speedy resolution.
  The purpose of my speech tonight is to make sure this Senate does 
understand and makes a commitment to destroy these weapons as rapidly 
as possible, given the storage and given the destruction facility.
  I add finally that for those who are at all wondering how they 
destroy the stockpile, this is the weapon in the suitcase. It would be 
taken down to a vacuum space. Two holes would be drilled in the bottom 
of the weapon. The material would be drained out and put in a chemical 
formulation which finally renders that toxic material without 
consequence. This has to happen 1.9 million times. It will take 6 years 
if we begin now.
  I hope it will begin now. My plea is for immediate action on the 
amendment which I hope will be favorable.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter addressed to Dr. Rice dated 
July 12, 2002, and her response to me dated July 30, 2002, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2002.
     Dr. Condoleezza Rice,
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Rice: We write out of great concern over the 
     current status of various projects in the Nunn-Lugar 
     Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program at the Department 
     of Defense. Final disposition has yet to be reached on an 
     Administration request for permanent annual waiver authority 
     relative to legislatively-imposed conditions requiring 
     certification by the Executive branch in order to permit 
     elements of the program to go forward. That will remain 
     dependent on the outcome of a conference between the two 
     houses of Congress on the FY 2003 Defense Authorization bill.
       Despite the Administration's difficulties in attempting to 
     secure permanent waiver authority from the Congress in order 
     to proceed with the overall Nunn-Lugar/CTR program, we are 
     encouraged that the Administration has continued to seek the 
     waiver to the certification requirements. The same cannot be 
     said with respect to the Administration's approach to the 
     Nunn-Lugar/CTR chemical weapons elimination project in 
     Russia. Congressional conditions--above and beyond those that 
     apply to CTR in general--continue to stymie and delay 
     construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility at 
     Shchuchye, Russia, that is decidedly in the national security 
     interests of the United States. A swift solution to the 
     current stalemate is only possible with strong Administration 
     leadership.
       The project at Shchuchye was reviewed by the Administration 
     as part of its non-proliferation program review last year. In 
     a Fact Sheet released December 27, 2001, the White House 
     stated that: ``The Department of Defense will seek to 
     accelerate the Cooperative Threat Reduction project to 
     construct a chemical weapons destruction facility at 
     Shchuchye, to enable its earlier completion at no increased 
     expense. We welcome the contributions that friends and allies 
     have made to this project thus far, and will work for their 
     enhancement.'' Unfortunately, little progress has been made 
     in this direction.
       Several of us recently visited Shchuchye and have come to 
     the conclusion that the U.S. needs to move forward 
     expeditiously if we are to eliminate this critical 
     proliferation threat. The depot houses nearly 2,000,000 
     modern ground-launched chemical weapons. These artillery 
     shells and SCUD missile warheads are in excellent working 
     condition and many are small and easily transportable and 
     could be deadly in the hands of terrorists, religious sects, 
     or para-military units. We were told by our Russian hosts 
     that the weapons stored at Shchuchye could kill the world's 
     population some twenty times over. The size and lethality of 
     the weapons at Shchuchye are clearly a direct proliferation 
     threat to the American people.
       Last year, the House of Representatives attached six 
     conditions to the Shchuchye project. Of the original six 
     conditions, four can be met but two continue to be 
     problematic. The remaining conditions require the Secretary 
     of Defense to certify that the information provided by Russia 
     on the size of its chemical weapons stockpile is full and 
     accurate and that Russia has developed a practical plan for 
     destroying its stockpile of nerve agents. We share the goals 
     associated with these conditions, but these same concerns 
     prompted the Administration to seek a waiver to the larger 
     certification requirements required under the Nunn-Lugar 
     program. Unfortunately, without a similar White House request 
     for a waiver at Shchuchye, it is unlikely that the Pentagon 
     will be able to begin construction of a facility to destroy 
     these weapons in the foreseeable future.
       We urge the Administration to weigh in with conferees to 
     the FY 2003 Defense Authorization bill to include a national 
     security waiver of congressionally-imposed conditions on the 
     spending of funds authorized for chemical weapons elimination 
     under the Nunn-Lugar program. As the war on terrorism 
     continues we must ensure that terrorists do not intersect 
     with weapons of mass destruction. Failure to begin 
     destruction of the chemical weapons arsenal at Shchuchye 
     would leave these dangerous, highly portable weapons in an 
     unsafe and insecure location and vulnerable to proliferation. 
     Construction could start tomorrow if Congress were to embrace 
     the proper policy prescription.
       The Administration's plans to speed up implementation of 
     this important Nunn-Lugar project cannot coexist with the 
     current Congressional conditions on the program. We urge you 
     to provide vitally needed leadership to permit the Pentagon 
     to begin dismantlement efforts. Without strong White House 
     leadership we fear that progress will again be stymied and 
     U.S. national security interests will suffer.
       We look forward to discussing this with you in the near 
     future.
           Sincerely,
         Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senator; Joseph R. Biden Jr., U.S. 
           Senator; Chris Shays, U.S. Representative; John Spratt, 
           U.S. Representative; Pete Domenici, U.S. Senator; Jeff 
           Bingaman, U.S. Senator; Ellen Taushcher, U.S. 
           Representative; Bob Graham, U.S. Senator; Chuck Hagel, 
           U.S. Senator; Vic Snyder, U.S. Representative.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, July 30, 2002.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lugar: Thank you for your letter on the 
     Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) 
     program.
       The President has repeatedly emphasized the importance of 
     CTR in his strategy to reduce and prevent the proliferation 
     of weapons of mass destruction, delivery means, and the 
     materials and technology to develop them. Because of the 
     program's value to the nation's security, the President has 
     asked the Congress to grant him permanent authority to waive 
     CTR certification requirements if he determines that is in 
     the national interest. We strongly support the waiver 
     provision in the Senate version of the FY2003 Defense 
     Authorization bill, and have urged the conferees to adopt it.
       Our serious concerns about Russian chemical and biological 
     weapons activities make it difficult for the Secretary of 
     State to certify Russia as eligible for CTR assistance. 
     Waiver authority will enable the Administration both to 
     pursue essential CTR weapons reduction and nonproliferation 
     projects, and to work with Russia to resolve our concerns 
     about its chemical and biological weapons activities.
       Similarly, we welcome your proposal for a waiver of the 
     legislative conditions on CTR assistance to construct a nerve 
     agent destruction facility at Shchuch'ye. As you point out, 
     the small, transportable munitions at Shchuch'ye pose a real 
     proliferation risk. The President underscored the importance 
     of assistance to Russian chemical weapons destruction in his 
     December speech at the Citadel and most recently in the G8 
     Leaders announcement of the Global Partnership Against the 
     Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.
       We have been working hard with Russia to meet the 
     legislative conditions on the Shchuch'ye project, and have 
     made considerable progress. Nevertheless, it may be difficult 
     to assess with confidence that the information we have from 
     Russia on its chemical weapons stockpile is full and 
     accurate. At a minimum, the information-gathering process 
     will be very time-consuming, but the proliferation threat 
     gives us no time to delay. Indeed, the Administration 
     concluded after its thorough review of nonproliferation 
     assistance to Russia that the destruction project at 
     Shchuch'ye should be accelerated.
       Therefore, the Administration has urged the conferees to 
     the FY2003 Defense Authorization bill to provide the 
     President the authority to waive the conditions on CTR 
     chemical weapons destruction assistance, if

[[Page 15498]]

     he determines that to do so is in the national interest.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Condoleezza Rice,
     Assistance to the President for National Security Affairs.
                                  ____


  U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Holds Hearing On Nuclear Treaty With 
 Russia, July 25, 2002, Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC

       Levin: My final question. Secretary Rumsfeld, the 
     Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is coming to a halt 
     because of the inability to make the necessary 
     certifications. The Senate bill that's in conference contains 
     the legislative authority that the administration requested 
     which is permanent authority for the president to grant an 
     annual wavier of the prerequisites in the Freedom Support Act 
     and the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act. The House bill 
     contains authority to grant waivers for three years. I assume 
     that you support the administration positions relative to 
     permanent authority, and so, I won't ask you that. But if you 
     disagree with it, perhaps in your answer to the question I'm 
     going to ask you, you could let me know that, too. But here's 
     the issue. The permanent authority requested by the 
     administration to grant annual waivers of the prerequisites 
     to Implementation of the Cooperative Threats Reduction 
     Program does not include an ability to waive the special 
     prerequisites for the Russian chemical weapons destruction 
     program being carried out under the CTR program. President 
     Bush said that not only did he support this important effort 
     to destroy the Russian chemical weapons destruction program, 
     he actually wanted to accelerate it. But there's no authority 
     to waive those special prerequisites for the chemical 
     destruction, then that program is going to be shut down. Will 
     you be asking for waiver authority for the special 
     prerequisites for the Russian chemical weapons destruction 
     program?
       Rumsfeld: The administration either has or will be asking 
     for that waiver authority with respect to the chemical weapon 
     destruction program----
       Levin: Do you support that request?
       Rumsfeld: Indeed, I do.
       Levin: Thank you. General, you support that, too?
       Myers: Yes sir.
       Levin: Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor to the amendment of the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. LUGAR. I will be delighted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Indiana and 
thank him and our former colleague, Senator Nunn, whom he has mentioned 
on several occasions during his remarks this evening. These two 
individuals have made a significant contribution to the improved 
environment in which the world finds itself today, with all of its 
problems. Had it not been for the efforts of Senator Nunn and Senator 
Lugar over the years, we would not find ourselves in the position we 
are today to significantly reduce the kinds of threats the Senator from 
Indiana just highlighted in his remarks.
  I am confident this amendment will be overwhelmingly supported. It 
should be. My cosponsorship is not a gratuitous act, but I want to be 
identified with the substance of his remarks and, more importantly, the 
substance of this amendment.
  We had some testimony this morning, in fact, before the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations in talking about Iraq. These are very 
fine hearings that the chairman of the committee, Senator Biden, and 
Senator Lugar have cosponsored to give us a wonderful opportunity to 
consider what options we have with regard to Iraq.
  I do not want to dwell on that except to point out that Ambassador 
Butler this morning, when talking about various options and what we 
ought to consider and specifically talking about the issue of 
containment and whether we have exhausted the containment approach, 
questioned himself as to whether we had. But he said one thing we need 
to do, if anything at all, is to work more closely with Russia because 
they could play a very important role.
  What the Senator from Indiana is doing, not only with this amendment 
in the short term, is creating at least the possibility of that 
cooperation which may be essential in the months and years ahead.
  It is a staggering statistic. I do not know if my colleagues were 
listening carefully. Over the next 6 years, I presume working 5 or 6 
days a week, 10- or 12-hour days--that is how long it will take to 
eliminate this incredible risk. The idea that we would be prohibited 
from doing so because we deny the President waiver authority because of 
an existing parliamentary situation or treaties that require some prior 
action I think would be a great missed opportunity.
  I commend the Senator from Indiana immensely for his efforts in this 
regard, and I thank Senator Nunn as well for his previous work here and 
his continuing work. I wish to associate myself in this effort. This 
may be one of the most important things we will do in this bill, and I 
commend the Senator for offering the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut for his cosponsorship.
  Cosponsoring this amendment are the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Mr. Biden; Mr. Domenici; Mr. Hagel; Mr. Graham; Mr. Levin, 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Mr. Dodd; and I am pleased to 
add my colleague from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. We are prepared to accept this amendment and take it to 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4435.
  The amendment (No. 4435) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 4443

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a couple of amendments the managers 
have accepted, and I have another amendment that would be the subject 
of debate. I send those two amendments that I think are agreed to, to 
the desk at this time and ask for their immediate consideration, either 
separately or en bloc. The first amendment I would request be called up 
would be amendment No. 4443.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4443.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To remove the waiting period in the limitation on use of 
    funds for conversion of the 939th Combat Search and Rescue Wing)

       Beginning on page 221, line 24, strike ``60 days after''.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the first amendment would remove the 
reporting period required for the positioning of UH-60s and would allow 
that the report be submitted at any time. It is largely technical in 
nature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4443.
  The amendment (No. 4443) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4444

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4444.

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

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for leasing of transport/VIP 
aircraft under any contract not entered into pursuant to full and open 
                              competition)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for leasing of transport/VIP aircraft under any 
     contract entered into under any procurement procedures other 
     than pursuant to the Competition and Contracting Act.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this calls for full and open competition 
in

[[Page 15499]]

the case of a lease of a transport/VIP aircraft. It would address the 
complaints of industry with respect to the Boeing 767 tanker lease and 
Boeing 737 transport/VIP lease and the first five multisensor command 
and control aircraft, and would replace the JSTARS E-3 AWACS and the 
RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft.
  Basically, it calls for full and open competition for these aircraft, 
in the case of four 737 transport aircraft, and, as I understand, 
prospective Boeing 767 tanker aircraft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I misspoke. This amendment does not apply 
to the 767, only to the 737 aircraft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. With that amendment, the managers are prepared to accept 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4444.
  The amendment (No. 4444) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4445

  Mr. McCAIN. For the benefit of my colleagues, I have one more 
amendment that is not agreed to and would require a rollcall vote, 
which I understand from the majority leader would be scheduled for 
tomorrow. I have a statement I would like to read concerning the 
pending bill and then discuss the amendment, or if the managers so 
choose, I would discuss the amendment first and then describe my views 
on the overall legislation.
  Mr. President, I send amendment No. 4445 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, and Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 4445.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I object. I do not think we have a copy 
of that amendment yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue 
with the reading of the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. The Secretary of the Air Force shall not enter 
     into any lease for transport/VIP aircraft for any period that 
     includes any part of fiscal year 2003 until there is enacted 
     a law, other than an appropriation Act, that authorizes the 
     appropriation of funds in the amount or amounts necessary to 
     enter into the lease and a law appropriating such funds 
     pursuant to such authorization of appropriations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the managers of the bill if there 
are any further amendments that will be included in the managers' 
package.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. There are no amendments left in the managers' package. 
However, there may be amendments brought up at this moment by others, 
but we do not have any.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand there may be further amendments brought up 
for a vote. I was speaking directly concerning the managers' package of 
amendments which, as we know, sometimes are not voted on individually 
and included in the package. I am very interested in seeing the 
managers' package of amendments. I thank the managers so far that they 
have been very helpful in sharing these amendments with me. I would 
like to see the final package of managers' amendments before it is 
agreed to.
  This amendment is a pretty straightforward amendment. It requires 
authorization of appropriations for the leasing of any transport/VIP 
aircraft. It would ensure that the Senate Armed Services Committee 
maintained its relevance by requiring Senate Armed Services Committee 
approval and authorization of any tanker lease.
  The amendment basically would instruct the Secretary of the Air Force 
that he could not enter into a lease for transport/VIP aircraft for any 
period that includes any part of fiscal year 2003 until he submits a 
report and there is a law enacted that authorizes the funds necessary 
to enter into the lease.
  This is a very expensive acquisition on the part of the United States 
Air Force. I believe it should be authorized before this transaction is 
entered into. It is basically a matter of whether the Senate Armed 
Services Committee will maintain its relevance over the acquisition of 
very expensive pieces of equipment. It would be appropriate for the 
Armed Services Committee to approve of it. That is the way we have 
traditionally done business around here, particularly on issues of 
major consequences--although it has fallen into neglect in years past.
  I do not think I need to elaborate further on the amendment except I 
believe it should be authorized before appropriated.
  I see the distinguished manager of the bill on the floor. If he would 
like to respond before I give my statement on the overall Defense 
appropriations bill, I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Congress has passed legislation, and 
the President has signed it, that authorizes the Secretary of the Air 
Force to lease, for up to 10 years, these aircraft. It was a decided 
policy of the Congress based on our advice.
  The capital costs of acquiring such equipment now would be such that 
it would move out of the budget other items that have to be acquired in 
the moneys needed for homeland defense. So we authorized the Secretary 
of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into agreements 
not to exceed 10 years for these aircraft. They are readily available 
for lease. We limit the time they may lease them. But it is a very 
successful practice in the business world and I think would be a 
successful practice for the Department of Defense to lease this 
equipment when necessary and not to have standing around equipment that 
is not needed.
  We believe a leasing policy is the best policy for this type of 
aircraft. There are a series of competing aircraft available, but it is 
up to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force to 
decide which ones they want.
  My advice to my friend from Hawaii, and I think he will join me, is 
that we oppose this legislation. It would in effect modify the 
legislation, the law that was passed in the last Congress that 
authorized the procedure for which we are making available funds in 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I concur with the statement of my distinguished friend, 
and I associate myself with his remarks.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator from Arizona has completed, I am prepared 
to offer a motion to table this amendment with the understanding that 
the time for the vote would be established by the leadership sometime 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is fine with me, whenever he wants to 
make the motion to table. I do have additional comments on the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, there is further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise again to address the issue of 
wasteful spending in appropriations measures, in this case, in the bill 
to fund the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003. This 
legislation would provide $355.5 billion to the Department of Defense. 
Each year, in provisions too numerous to mention in great detail, this

[[Page 15500]]

bill funds pork barrel projects with questionable relationship to 
national defense at a time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and 
underfunded, urgent defense priorities. This year's measure continues 
this alarming tradition, by adding 581 programs not requested by the 
President, at a further cost of $5.2 billion.
  America remains at war, a war that continues to unite Americans in 
pursuit of a common goal to defeat international terrorism. All 
Americans have made sacrifices for this war, and many have been deeply 
affected by it and at times harmed by difficult, related economic 
circumstances. Our servicemen and women in particular are truly on the 
front lines in this war, and are separated from their families, risking 
their lives, and working extraordinarily long hours under the most 
difficult conditions to accomplish the ambitious but necessary task 
their country has set for them. 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 
relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear very effectively on 
difficult, often moving targets in Afghanistan, with the least 
collateral damage possible, are dangerously depleted. 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.
  Despite the realities of war, and the serious responsibilities the 
situation imposes on Congress and the President, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its 
blatant use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve 
some worthy purpose, but that clearly impair our national defense by 
depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding.
  Mr. President, even in the middle of a war against terrorism, a war 
of monumental consequences that is expected to last for some time, the 
Senate Appropriations Committee remains intent on ensuring that part of 
the Department of Defense's mission is to dispense corporate welfare. 
It is a shame that at such a critical time, the United States Senate 
persists 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 and even, in truth, unconcerned about the true 
needs of our military.
  An Investor's Business Daily article published late last year 
entitled At the Trough: Welfare Checks to Big Business Make No Sense, 
stated, ``[a]mong the least justified outlays [in the federal budget] 
is corporate welfare. Budget analyst Stephen Slivinski estimates that 
business subsidies will run $87 billion [in 2001], up a third since 
1997. Although President Bush proposed $12 billion in cuts to corporate 
welfare [in 2001], Congress has proved resistant. Indeed many post-
September 11 bailouts have gone to big business. Boeing is one of the 
biggest beneficiaries. . . . 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 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 will to cut?''
  Yet, Congress didn't get the message this year. In the FY03 defense 
appropriations bill we are considering today, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee added nearly $1.3 billion to Boeing's programs, constituting 
more than 20 percent of the total plus-ups in the bill. As Defense Week 
noted unequivocally on July 22, ``in this bill, Boeing made out like a 
bandit.''
  Mr. President, you will recall that last year, during conference 
negotiations on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee inserted into the bill 
unprecedented language to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 Boeing 
767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers, and to lease four 
Boeing 737 commercial aircraft for passenger airlift to be used by 
congressional and Executive Branch officials. Congress did not 
authorize these leasing provisions in the fiscal year 2002 National 
Defense Authorization Act, and in fact, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee was not advised of this effort by the U.S. Air Force during 
consideration of that authorization measure.
  Again this year--without benefit of authorization committee debate or 
input--the Senate Appropriations Committee has added funding in the 
FY03 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for $30.6 million to 
cover initial leasing costs for the four Boeing 737 VIP transport 
aircraft noted above. Furthermore, additional language in the bill 
modifies a provision that had been carefully negotiated by OMB with 
appropriators last year, and may now permit the Air Force to circumvent 
standard leasing arrangements and, with respect to the 100 Boeing 767s, 
may allow the Air Force to extend the termination liability costs over 
the full term of the lease.
  Mr. President, I am concerned that the impact of these provisions has 
not been adequately scrutinized, and the full cost to taxpayers has not 
been sufficiently considered. In fact, after review of the Air Force's 
proposed lease for the four 737s and its comparison of leasing and 
purchase options for these aircraft, it appears that certain leasing 
costs are being hidden to make the leasing option appear more cost-
effective.
  For example, although the Department of Defense self-insures its 
equipment and would not take out an insurance policy if it purchased 
these 737s, the Air Force's comparison of the leasing and purchase 
options assesses at least $17 million in insurance costs to the 
purchase option, thereby inflating the estimated purchase price 
significantly. In addition, the proposed leasing arrangement includes 
provisions requiring the Air Force to pay to insure the four 737 VIP 
aircraft and, in the event of loss or destruction of an aircraft, 
requiring the Air Force to pay a lease cancellation charge equal to 
one-year's worth of lease payments, or $10 million. These provisions 
add not only the cost of insurance, but also another $10 million to the 
leasing costs that would not be incurred under a traditional purchase 
arrangement and have not been disclosed up-front in discussions with 
OMB or Congress. These examples of hidden costs illustrate the lack of 
transparency of this transaction and strongly suggest that the Air 
Force's analysis of the $3.9 million advantage to leasing over purchase 
is illusory.
  But you do not have to take my word for it. Rather, in a July 23 
letter to Representative Curt Weldon on this matter, Congressional 
Budget Office Director Dan Crippen advised that the Air Force's 
estimated purchase price of the four 737s may be too high and that:

       Small adjustments in the assumed purchase price, residual 
     value, or insurance cost would reduce the projected savings 
     from leasing the aircraft or make the purchase alternative 
     the less expensive option.

  In its analysis, CBO notes that the cost of the purchase option is 
estimated and not based on any negotiation between the Air Force and 
Boeing. Significantly, CBO states,

       Just as Boeing and the Air Force negotiated a lower lease-
     price from Boeing's initial offer, CBO believes it might also 
     be possible for the Air Force and Boeing to negotiate a lower 
     purchase price for the aircraft, if the Air Force were a 
     willing buyer. CBO estimates that the Air Force would only 
     need to negotiate a purchase price about $1 million less per 
     plane than Boeing's initial estimate in order for the cost of 
     the purchase option to be equal to the cost of the lease 
     option, in net present value terms. . . . Using Air Force 
     data and a model for calculating commercial lease payments, 
     we estimate that a purchase price of $249 million (rather 
     than the $269 million price used in the Air Force's analysis) 
     would be consistent with the lease terms. . . . We estimate 
     that, if a purchase price for the four aircraft could be 
     negotiated for $249 million or $5 million less per aircraft, 
     then the purchase alternative would save about $15 million 
     compared to the lease. GAO and CBO report that it would cost 
     the government and ultimately the taxpayers between $13.5 to 
     $20 million less to

[[Page 15501]]

     purchase the Boeing 737 VIP aircraft than to lease them--but 
     they report it could be more.
  In addition, it is not clear that the Air Force has negotiated a fair 
lease price for these VIP aircraft. Financing experts advise that to 
evaluate whether leasing is the preferable option, as compared to 
purchase of aircraft, one month's lease payment should be equal to 
approximately 1 percent of the total cost of the aircraft. In GAO's 
current analysis of the proposed Air Force lease, on which I have been 
briefed, GAO contends that the Air Force's proposed lease with Boeing 
for four 737 VIP aircraft is $32 million more than the norm that I have 
just stated. I am concerned that the Air Force appears to be going 
against the advice of financial experts not only by choosing to lease 
instead of purchase these aircraft, but also by not getting a good deal 
on the lease price. American taxpayers should be concerned by this 
behavior.
  I would like to note that OMB Director Mitch Daniels has often 
indicated his preference to maintain scrutiny of Government leasing 
practices out of regard for U.S. taxpayers. Just last year, in a letter 
from the OMB Director to Senator Kent Conrad, OMB cautioned against 
eliminating rules intended to reduce leasing abuses. OMB's letter 
emphasized that the Budget Enforcement Act--BEA--scoring rules:

       . . . were specifically designed to encourage the use of 
     financing mechanisms that minimize taxpayers' costs by 
     eliminating the unfair advantage provided to lease-purchases 
     by the previous scoring rules. Prior to the BEA, agencies 
     only needed budget authority for the first year's lease 
     payment, even though the agreement was a legally enforceable 
     commitment to fully pay for the asset over time.

  OMB's letter continued by explaining that this loophole had permitted 
the General Services Administration to agree to 11 lease-purchase 
agreements with a total, full-term cost of $1.7 billion, but to budget 
only the first year of lease payments. OMB's letter stated:

       [t]he scoring hid the fact that these agreements had a 
     higher economic cost than traditional direct purchases and in 
     some cases allowed projects to go forward despite significant 
     cost overruns. . . .

  In my view, this leasing proposal for Boeing 737 VIP aircraft also 
puts the Air Force at risk of being unable to procure higher priority 
items needed to fight the war on terrorism. On March 1, 2002, the Air 
Force presented Congress with a list of its top priorities encompassing 
38 items totaling $3.8 billion. Within its top 10 programs, the Air 
Force asked for several essential items that would directly support our 
current war effort: wartime munitions, aircraft engine replacement 
parts, night vision goggles, anti-terrorism/force protection efforts, 
bomber and fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat 
search and rescue helicopters for downed pilots; yet, the list also 
includes these four VIP aircraft. In reviewing these Air Force 
priorities, I don't know what to be more critical about regarding the 
Air Force Secretary's effort on these VIP aircraft--that he's pushing 
in this time of war for this deal with Boeing for VIP aircraft or that 
his 13th priority of the top 38 in this time of war is for VIP aircraft 
for Executive Branch and congressional officials. Is it lost on the Air 
Force Secretary that we are at war?
  I have asked OMB Director Daniels to continue his strong oversight of 
Government leasing practices, and I ask the Senate today to closely 
scrutinize this unprecedented, costly leasing deal for Boeing 737 VIP 
transport aircraft. But, this Boeing deal is just another example of 
Congress's political meddling and 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 considered in the Senate so far this year--an 
amount totaling nearly $7 billion.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the day when my appearances on the 
Senate floor for this purpose are no longer necessary. I reiterate--
over $5.2 billion in unrequested defense programs in the defense 
appropriations bill have been added by the Committee. Consider how that 
$5.2 billion, when added to the savings gained through additional base 
closings and more cost-effective business practices, could be used so 
much more effectively. 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 American 
taxpayers expect more of us, as do our brave service men and women who 
are, without question, fighting this war on global terrorism on our 
behalf. But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, seemingly 
blind to our responsibilities at this time of war, going about our 
business as usual.
  Mr. President, I may be wrong. I may be wrong in all of the 
information I just provided to the Senate. There is legitimate room for 
legitimate debate. I believe OMB and GAO have clearly stated that we 
could save money by not leasing this aircraft. Certainly we could save 
money through competition and certainly we could save money to the 
taxpayers by negotiating a better deal with the Boeing Aircraft 
Company--which, by the way, although President Bush proposed $12 
billion in cuts to corporate welfare, Boeing is one of the biggest 
beneficiaries. In other words, Boeing as the Defense Weekly noted 
unequivocally on July 22, in reference to the Defense Appropriations 
Committee bill that we are considering today, Defense Weekly noted 
unequivocally on July 22, ``In this bill, Boeing made out like a 
bandit.''
  I think they did. I think they did.
  The managers of the bill and I could debate what is right and what is 
wrong as far as these numbers are concerned. I think I have compelling 
numbers on my side that would indicate we could either lease or 
purchase at a much less cost than the appropriators put in the bill. 
But the point here is that it should be authorized. It should not be 
done by the Appropriations Committee without authorization. This is 
what we come back to time after time after time on the floor of this 
Senate.
  Where is the role of the Senate Armed Services Committee to authorize 
the purchase of aircraft worth many tens of millions of dollars? They 
have been bypassed.
  I hope the majority of my colleagues would recognize that an issue of 
this magnitude deserves the hearings and scrutiny that can be conducted 
by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The job of the Appropriations 
Committee is to appropriate funds that have been previously authorized. 
I hope my colleagues will agree with that.
  I ask unanimous consent a list of Appropriations Committee earmarks 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     FY2003  Defense Appropriations


                        Military Personnel, Army

Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................6.4


                        Military Personnel, Navy

Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................2.9


                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................0.6


                     Military Personnel, Air Force

Undistributed:
  B-52 force structure..............................................3.7
  Adopted legislative proposals.....................................4.2


                        Reserve Personnel, Army

Other Training and Support:
  Additional AGR end strength (Transfer from BA1)..................11.4
  Sustainment of current AGR force.................................26.1
Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................1.0


                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

Undistributed: Adopted legislative proposals........................0.1


                     National Guard Personnel, Army

Undistributed:
  Emergency Spill Response and Preparedness Program.................0.6
  Adopted legislative proposals.....................................2.1

[[Page 15502]]

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

Other Training and Support: Additional AGR end strength.............0.8


                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

Operating Forces:......................................................
  USARPAC C4I PACMERS...............................................5.0
  USARPAC C4 shortfalls.............................................6.0
  Hunter UAV.......................................................10.0
Training and Recruiting:
  SROTC-Air Battle Captain..........................................2.0
  SCOLA Language training...........................................1.0
  Ft. Knox Distance Learning........................................3.0
Administration and service wide activities:
  LOGTECH...........................................................2.0
  Biometrics support...............................................10.0
  Army conservation and ecosystem management........................4.0
  Innovative Safety Management......................................5.0
  Rock Island Bridge Repair.........................................2.3
  Yukon training infrastructure and access upgrades.................2.0
  Fort Wainwright Bldg. 600 repairs.................................4.5
  Fort Wainwright Utilidors........................................10.0
  Tanana River Bridge Study.........................................1.5
Undistributed:
  Classified.......................................................41.8
  Anti-corrosion programs...........................................1.0


                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

Operating Forces:
  Shipyard Apprentice program......................................10.0
  Warfare Tactics PMRF facilities..................................20.0
  Hydrographic Center of Excellence.................................3.5
  Cntr. for Excellence in Disaster Management.......................5.0
  MK-45 Overhaul...................................................15.0
  MK-245 Decoys.....................................................2.0
Mobilization: Ship Disposal Project.................................5.0
Training and Recruiting: Naval Sea Cadet Corps......................2.0
Administration and Statewide Activities:
  Navy-Wide PVCS Enterprise License.................................5.0
  Navy Armory Inventory and Custody Tracking........................0.8
  Flash Detection System............................................0.9
Undistributed:
  Classified.......................................................29.4
  Anti-Corrosion Program............................................1.0
  Stainless steel sanitary spaces...................................5.0


                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

Operating Forces: Polar Fleece shirts...............................1.0
Undistributed: Anti-corrosion programs..............................1.0


                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

Operating Forces:
  B-52 Attrition Reserve...........................................40.0
  B-1 Bomber Modifications.........................................11.0
  11th AF Range upgrades--fiber optics and power infrastructure.....8.0
  University Partnership for Operational Support....................4.0
Mobilization: PACAF strategic airlift...............................3.0
Training and Recruiting: MBU-20 Oxygen Mask.........................4.0
Administration and Service-wide Activities:
  Hickam AFB Alternative Fuel Vehicle Program.......................1.0
  Eielson AFB Utilidors............................................10.0
  ALCOM Wide Mobile Radio Network...................................0.4
  Range Residue recycling program...................................3.0
Undistributed:
  Classified.......................................................81.4
  Anti-corrosion Programs...........................................1.0
  MTAPP.............................................................6.0


                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

Operating Forces: SPECWARCOM: Mission Support Center................2.0
Training and Recruiting: Joint Military Education Venture Forum.....0.5
Administration and Service-wide activities:
  Innovative Readiness Training....................................10.0
  DLA-PTAP..........................................................5.0
  DODEA-UNI Math Teacher Leadership.................................1.0
  Galena IDEA.......................................................5.0
  OEA CUHSC, Fitzsimmons Army Hospital.............................10.0
  OEA Relocate Barrow Landfill......................................4.0
  OEA Port of Anchorage Intermodal Marine Facility Program..........5.0
  OSD Clara Barton Center...........................................3.0
  OSD Pacific Command Regional Initiative...........................6.0
  OSD Intelligence Fusion Study Continuation........................5.0
Undistributed:
  Legacy (Programs for Naval Archaeology)..........................12.0
  Impact Aid.......................................................30.0
  Impact Aid for Children with Disabilities.........................5.0
  Operation Working Shield..........................................5.0


                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

Operating Forces: ECWCS.............................................4.0


              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

Administration and service wide activities: Command server activitie4.0


             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

Operating Force:
  ECWCS.............................................................6.0
  Homeland Security Training Camp Ground............................3.8
  1st Bn, 118th Infantry Brigade Rifle Range........................3.0
  Distributed battle simulation program support.....................0.9
Administration and service wide activities: Information operations  6.0
Undistributed:
  Additional Military Technicians..................................11.3
  Distance Learning................................................50.0
  Emergency Spill response..........................................0.5
  National Guard Youth Challenge, Camp Minden.......................1.7
  SE Regional Training..............................................2.0


             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

Operating Forces: ECWCS.............................................4.0
Administration and service wide activities: Information Operations..5.0
Undistributed: Defense Support Evaluation Group--NW.................4.0
Montana Air National Guard: Training Range Planning and Study.......1.0


                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

Utility F/W (MR) Aircraft: 2 UC-35 aircraft........................15.2
UH-60 Blackhawk (MYP): 9 Blackhawk helicopters.....................96.3
Helicopter-New Training: 6 TH-67 helicopters........................9.6
AH-64 MODS:
  Apache engine Spares.............................................64.0
  Bladefold kits....................................................2.0
UH-60 MODS
  Army NG Pacific CSAR Mods.........................................3.0
  DCS-HUMS..........................................................6.0
Common Ground Equipment: HELO Maintenance Work Platform System......2.0


                       Missile Procurement, Army

Patriot System Summary: Additional Missiles........................25.0
HIMARS Launcher: Additional Launchers...............................5.0


         Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles Procurement, Army

Bradley Base Sustainment: Electronics Obsolescence Reduction........4.5
BFVS Series: Bradley Reactive Armor................................35.0


                      Ammunition Procurement, Army

81MM Mortar, All Types: 81MM Mortar, Infared M816...................4.0
CTG, Mortar, 120 MM, All Types: White Phosphorus Facility Equipment13.0
Proj ARTY 155MM HE M107: Additional Funding.........................1.0
Bunker Defeating Munition (BDM): SMAW-D Bunker Defeating Munition...5.0
Rocket, Hydra 70, All Types: Additional Funding....................40.0
Demolition Munitions, All Types: MDI Demolition Initiators..........2.0
Ammunition Peculiar Equipment: Additional Funding...................3.0
Provision of Industrial Facilities: Munitions Enterprise Technology 
  Insertion.........................................................1.3
Conventional Ammo Demilitarization: Additional Funding.............10.0
Arms Initiative: Additional Funding................................10.0


                        Other Procurement, Army

Tactical Trailers/Dolly Sets: M871A3 22.5 Ton Trailers..............3.5
HI MOB Multi-Purp WHLD Vehicles:
  Additional Vehicles for NG........................................7.5
  Additional Vehicles for Reserve...................................7.5
  Up-Armored Vehicles..............................................29.0
Firetrucks & Associated Firefighting Equipment: Tactical Firefighting 
  Equipment........................................................10.0
Armored Security Vehicles: Additional Vehicles.....................25.0
Combat Identification Program: Quick Fix Program....................1.0
Comms-Elec Equip Fielding: Virtual Patch Crisis Communication 
  Coordination......................................................3.2
Base Support Communications: AK Wide Mobile Radio Program...........7.7
Information Systems: USARPAC C4 Equipment...........................6.0
Sentinel Mods: AN/MPQ-64...........................................20.0
Striker Family: Additional Units....................................3.5
Automated Data Processing Equip:
  NG Distance Learning Courseware...................................7.5
  Rock Island Arsenal Automatic Identification Technology...........3.0
  Regional Medical Distributive Learning............................8.0
  Digitization of DoD Technical Manuals............................40.0
Tactical Bridge, Float-Ribbon: Common Bridge Transporter............4.0
GRND Standoff Mine Detection System: Handheld Standoff Mine Detection 
  System............................................................5.0
Combat Support Medical:
  Hemorrhage Control Dressings......................................4.0
  Rapid Intravenous Fusion Pumps....................................2.5
Mission Modules-Engineering: 2 Additional Companies.................7.0
Logistic Support Vessel: Vessel Completion..........................8.1
Training Devices, Nonsystem:
  EST 2000..........................................................5.0
  Advanced Aviation Institutional Training Simulator...............10.0
  MOUT Intrumentation at Ft. Campbell...............................4.0
  MOUT Instrumentation at Ft. Richardson............................4.3
  172nd SIB Army Range Improvement Program..........................7.5


                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

MH-60R: AQS-22 Airborne Low Frequency Sonar (ALFS)..................5.0
AH-1W Series:
  Tailboom strakes..................................................6.5
  Night Targeting System............................................6.0

[[Page 15503]]

SH-60 Series: Integrated Mechanical diagnostics.....................9.0
Special Project Aircraft: AMOSS.....................................5.0
Common Ground Equipment: Direct Squadron Support Training...........5.0


                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

RAM................................................................10.0
Drones and Decoys: ITALD...........................................20.0
CWIS MODS: Block 1B................................................38.0


             Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps

.50 Caliber: .50 Caliber SLAP.......................................0.3


                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

Carrier Replacement Program: Advance Procurement..................229.0
LCAC SLEP: Additional Craft........................................22.0


                        Other Procurement, Navy

Items Less than $5 Million: ICAS....................................8.0
Operating Forces IPE:
  IPDE Enhancement and PDM Interoperability........................10.0
  PHNSY Equipment..................................................15.0
Weapons Range Support Equipment:
  Mobile Threat Emitter............................................10.0
  PMRF Equipment....................................................9.8
Other Aviation Support Equipment: Joint Tactical Data Integration..15.0
SSN Combat Control Systems: SSN Modernization......................13.0
Surface ASW Support Equipment: MK 32 SVTT Remanufacture.............5.0
Submarine Training Device Mods: INTERLOCKS Development Tools........4.0
Tactical Vehicles: Additional MTVR.................................35.0
Other Supply Support Equipment: Serial Number Tracking System.......6.0


                       Procurement, Marine Corps

COMM Switching & Control System: Joint Enhanced Corps Communication 
  System...........................................................25.0
Material Handling Equipment: Tram...................................5.0
Training Devices: Live Fire Training Range Upgrades.................2.0


                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

C-17(MYP):
  Fully Fund Purchase of 15 Aircraft..............................585.9
  Maintenance Trainer..............................................11.3
EC-130J: Purchase 1 additional aircraft............................87.0
C-40 ANG: Leasing costs............................................30.6
B-52:
  Attrition reserve................................................25.2
  B-52 electronic countermeasures..................................10.0
F-15:
  Block Upgrades...................................................15.0
  E-kit modifications..............................................20.0
  AN/AL-67 (V) 3&4 countermeasure ser...............................5.0
  ALQ-135 Band 1.5.................................................20.0
  APG-63 (v)1 Program...............................................7.5
C-130:
  AAN/AYW-1 dual autopilot (ANG)....................................0.8
  Senior Scout; COMINT system.......................................3.0
  NP2000 propeller support upgrades................................10.0
MISC Production Charges:
  Magnetic bearing cooling turbine technology.......................5.0
  LITENING targeting pod upgrades (ANG)............................24.9


                     missile procurement, air force

AGM-65D MAVERICK: Additional Missiles...............................4.0
Evolved Expendable Launch VEH: Mission Assurance...................14.5


                  procurement of ammunition, air force

Sensor Fuzed Weapon: Additional Funding............................20.0
Flares: BOL IR MJU-52/B Expendables for ANG.........................1.0


                      other procurement, air force

Intelligence Comm Equipment: Eagle Vision..........................25.0
Theater Air Control System Improvements: AN/TPS--75................12.0
Air Force Physical Security: Containment Air Processing System......4.0
Combat Training Ranges:
  Mobile Remote Emitter Simulators.................................11.0
  AK Air Training Upgrade/ P4BE Pods................................5.0
  11th AF Unmanned Threat Emitter Modification Program.............11.0
  11th AF JAWSS-Scoring System Processor............................6.7
Base Information Infrastructure: AK Wide radio (LMR) Program........6.7
Items Less than $5 Million:
  Emergency Bailout Parachute System................................3.0
  Wall Style Troop Seats............................................3.0
Mechanized Material Handling: Point of Maintenance Initiative--POMX.8.0
Items less than $5 Million:
  Vaccine Facility Project..........................................1.0
  Heilbasket Technology.............................................4.5


                       procurement, defense-wide

SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades: ATIRCM/CMWS..............................12.0
SOF Intelligence Systems:
  Portable Intelligence Collection and Relay Capability.............6.0
  LAW Trajectory Mounts (M72).......................................1.0
Maritime Equipment Mods: MkV Advanced Shock Mitigating Seats........2.0
Individual Protection:
  M40 Masks.........................................................3.0
  M45 Masks.........................................................1.0
  M48 Masks.........................................................0.5
  MEU Masks.........................................................2.5
Decontamination:
  M12 Decon System upgrades.........................................6.0
  M291 Decontamination Kits.........................................1.0
  M100 Sorbent Decontamination Kits.................................1.0
Joint Biological Defense Program:
  Bio-Detection Kit storage.........................................1.0
  JBPDS-BIDS.......................................................10.0
Collective Protection:
  Chem-Bio protective shelters......................................7.0
  Filter Surveillance Program.......................................1.5
  M49 Fixed Installation Filter.....................................1.0
Contamination Avoidance: M22 Automatic Chemical Agent Alarms........7.0


           research, development, test, and evaluation, army

Defense Research Sciences:
  Animal Modeling Genetics Research.................................1.0
  Biofilm Research..................................................1.0
  Integrated Desert Terrain Analysis................................4.0
  Knowledge Management Fusion Center................................5.0
  Optical Technologies Research.....................................2.0
  Prediction of Land-Atmosphere Interactions........................2.5
University and Industry Research Centers:
  Armor Materials Design--Laser based material processing...........2.5
  Composite Materials Center of Excellence..........................0.8
  Dendrimer Nanotechnology Research.................................3.5
  Ferroelectric Materials Nanofabrication...........................1.5
  Institute for Creative Technologies...............................5.0
  Jidoka Project....................................................3.0
  University Research Coalition for Manufacturing and Design........4.0
  University Program in Mobile Robotics.............................3.0
Materials Technology:
  Advanced Materials Processing.....................................4.0
  Electronics Components Reliability................................2.5
  FCS Composite Research............................................3.0
  Future Affordable Multi-Utility Materials for FCS.................2.0
  Low Cost Enabling Technologies....................................3.0
Sensors and Electronic Survivability:
  Advanced Sensors and Obscurants...................................2.0
Missile Technology;
  Advanced Composite Chassis........................................2.0
  E-Strike Short Range Air Defense Radar............................3.0
Advanced Concepts and Simulation:
  Institute for Creative Technologies--Interactive training tech....5.0
  Photonics.........................................................5.0
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology:
  21st Century Truck...............................................17.0
  Advanced Coatings Research........................................1.5
  COMBAT............................................................5.0
  Fastening and Joining Research....................................1.8
  Next Generation Smart Truck.......................................4.0
Chemical, Smoke, and Equipment Defeating Technology: Vaporous Hydrogen 
  Peroxide Technology...............................................8.0
Weapons and Munitions Technology:
  Nanotechnology Consortium.........................................2.0
  Phyto-Extraction Technology.......................................3.0
Electronics and Electronic Devices:
  Display and Development and Evaluation Laboratory.................3.5
  Flat Panel Displays..............................................10.0
  Low Cost Reusable Alkaline Manganese Zinc.........................0.6
  Portable Hybrid Electric Power Systems............................2.0
Countermine Systems:
  Acoustic Landmine Detection.......................................3.0
  Polymer Based Landmine Detection..................................2.0
Environmental Quality Technology: Environmental Response and Security 
  Protection (ERASP) Program........................................5.0
Military Engineering Technology:
  Center for Geo-Sciences...........................................2.0
  Stationary Fuel Cell Initiative..................................10.0
  University Partnership for Operational Support....................4.0
Warfighter Technology: Chemical/Biological Nanoparticle Materials...3.5
Medical Technology:
  Dermal Phase Meter................................................1.5
  EndoBiologics Vaccination Program.................................2.0
  Gulf War Illness..................................................1.0
  International Rehabilitation Network..............................5.0
  Hemorrhage Control Dressings......................................3.5
  Remote Acoustic Hemostasis........................................4.6
  Tissue Replacement and Repair for Battlefield Injuries............2.5
Warfighter Advanced Technologies:
  Biosystems Technology.............................................5.0
  Personnel Navigation for Future Warfighter........................5.0
  Scorpian Future Combat Helmet.....................................8.0
Medical Advanced Technologies:
  Brain, Biology, and Machine Initiative............................5.0
  Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology.....10.0
  Juvenile Diabetes Research........................................3.0
  Laser Fusion Elastin..............................................5.0
  Medical Simulation Training Initiative (MSTI).....................1.0
  National Bioterrorism Civilian Medical Response (CIMERC)..........1.0
  Rural Telemedicine Demonstration Project..........................1.3
  Texas Training & Technology for Trauma and Terrorism.............11.0
Aviation Advanced Technology: UAV Data links-AMUST..................3.0
Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology:
  Composite Body Parts--CAV Technology Transition...................3.0

[[Page 15504]]

  Hybrid Electric Vehicles..........................................7.5
  IMPACT............................................................5.0
  Mobile Parts Hospital.............................................8.0
  NAC Standardization Exchange for Product Data (N-STEP)............3.0
  Pacific Rim Corrosion Project.....................................3.0
  Rapid Prototyping.................................................2.0
  Tracked Hybrid Electric Vehicle...................................1.0
Command, Control, Communications, Advanced Technology: Networking 
  Environmental for C3 Mobile Services..............................4.0
Manpower, Personnel, and Training Advanced Technology: Army Aircrew 
  Coordination Training.............................................2.0
Missile Simulation Technology......................................11.0
Landmine Warfare and Barrier Advanced Technology:
  Advanced Demining Technology......................................5.0
  Electromagnetic Wave Detection and Imaging Transceiver............2.5
Joint Service Small Arms Program: Objective Crew Served Weapons.....5.0
Night Visions Advanced Technology:
  Night Vision Fusion...............................................4.5
  Warfighter/Firefighter Position, Location, and Tracking Sensor....3.0
Military Engineering Advanced Technology:
  Canola Oil Fuel Cell..............................................1.5
  Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell Technology...............5.0
  Solid Oxide Fuel Development......................................5.0
Advanced Tactical Computer Science and Sensor Technology:
  IMRSV Program for Simulation Based Operation......................3.0
  Army Missile Defense System Integration..........................14.0
  Kodiak Launch Infrastructure, Transportation and Security........10.0
  SMDC Institute for Chemical Assembly of Nanoscale.................3.0
  Targeted Defense for Asymmetric Biological Attack (TDABA).........1.0
Army Missile Defense Integration (DEM/VAL):
  Advanced Tactical Operations Center...............................1.0
  Battlefield Ordnance Awareness (BOA)..............................6.5
  Cooperative Micro-Satellite Experiment (CMSE).....................5.0
  Eagles Eyes.......................................................4.0
  Enhanced Scamjet Mixing...........................................3.0
  Family of Systems Simulator (FOSSIM)..............................2.0
  Low Cost Interceptor (LCI)........................................8.0
  MTHEL............................................................20.0
  P-3 Micro-Power Devices for Missile Applications..................3.0
  Radar Power Technology............................................4.5
  Supercluster Distributed Memory Technology........................4.0
Tank and Medium Caliber Ammunition: MRM/TERM TM3...................15.0
Environmental Quality Technology Dem/Val:
  Army Environmental Enhancement Program............................1.0
  Casting Emissions Reductions Program..............................8.0
  Transportable Detonation Chamber..................................5.0
  Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention.......................3.0
Logistics and Engineer Equipment--Adv. Dev: Composite Prototype Hull 
  Design for Theater Support Vessel.................................5.5
All Source Analysis System: Non-traditional Intelligence Analysis 
  Toolset (NTIAT)...................................................1.0
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles: HEMTT 2 Technology Insertion Pro16.0
Future Combat Systems SDD (formerly Armored Systems Modernization): 
  Non-Line of Sight Cannon Development............................173.0
Combined Arms Tactical Trainers (CATT) Core: AVCATT--A Upgrade......1.5
Aviation--Eng. Dev.: High Level Ballistic Protection................0.5
Weapons and Munitions--Eng. Dev:
  Commonly Remotely-Operated Weapons System Station (CROWS).........2.0
  Mortar Anti-Personnel Anti-Material (MAPAM).......................5.0
  Command, Control, Communications Systems--Eng. Dev................9.0
  Applied Communications and Information Networking (ACIN).........17.0
  SLAMRAM...........................................................2.0
Combat Identification: Integrated Battlefield Combat Situational 
  Awareness System (IB-CSAS)........................................4.6
Information Technology Development:
  JCALS............................................................25.0
  Electronic Commodity Program......................................1.0
Threat Simulator Development:
  Multi-Made Top Attack Threat Simulator Program....................3.0
  RF/SAM Threat Simulator...........................................3.0
Concepts Experimentation Program: Battle Lab Fort Knox..............3.0
Army Test Ranges and Facilities:
  Cold Region Test Activity Infrastructure..........................2.5
  Hybrid Electric Vehicle Testing only at Cold Region Test Activity.5.0
  Non-Discarding SABOT Technology only at Cold Region Test Activity.2.0
DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility: HELSTF Infrastructure Upgrades.3.0
Technical Information Activities: Knowledge Management Fusion.......1.5
Munition Standardization, Effectiveness Safety: Plasma Ordnance 
  Demilitarization System (PODS)....................................2.0
Combat Vehicle Improvement Program: Abrams M1A1 Fleet Sidecar/Embedded 
  Diagnostics.......................................................3.5
Aircraft Modification/Product Improvement Program:
  Blackhawk Dual Digital Flight Control Computer....................4.0
  Integrated Mechanical Diagnostics--HUMS, UH60L Demonstration.....20.0
Digitization: University XXI Digitalization Support at Fort Hood....2.0
Special Army Program: SASC add......................................4.0
Security and Intelligence Activities:
  Language Training Software........................................5.2
  Base Protection and Monitoring System.............................4.0
  Contiguous Connection Model (CCM).................................4.0
Information Systems Security Program:
  Biometrics........................................................5.6
  ISSP..............................................................3.5
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities:
  Bipolar Wafer Cell NiMH...........................................2.0
  Continuous Manufac Process for Metal Matrix Composites............0.5
  MANTECH for Cylindrical Zinc Air Battery for Land Warrior Sys.....3.0
  MERWS--Phase II...................................................5.7
Army Space & Missile Defense Command: Domed Housing.................2.0


           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy

Defense Research Sciences:
  Consortium for Military Personnel Research........................2.0
  Robotic Mine Countermeasures......................................3.0
Power Projection Applied Research:
  Interrogator for High Speed Research..............................2.0
  Low-cost Fused Remote Sensors for Target Identification...........2.0
Force Protection Applied Research:
  Anti-Corrosion Modeling Software..................................2.5
  Endeavor..........................................................4.0
  Fusion Processor..................................................4.0
  Integrated Fuel Processor--Fuel Cell System.......................3.0
  Laser Welding and Cutting.........................................3.0
  Miniature Autonomous Vehicles (MAVs)..............................1.5
  Modular Advanced Composite Hull Form..............................2.0
  Small Watercraft Demonstrator.....................................5.0
  Unmanned Sea Surface Vehicles.....................................9.0
Communications, Command and Control, Intelligence, Surveillance: Common 
  Senor Module......................................................3.0
Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology: Innovative 
  Communications Materials--Thick Film..............................1.0
Common Picture Applied Research:
  Modular Command Center...........................................15.0
  Tactical Component Network Applications Integration..............35.0
  Theater Undersea Warfare.........................................10.0
  UESA.............................................................15.0
Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research:
  Advanced Fouling & Corrosion Control Coatings.....................7.0
  Advanced Materials and Intelligent Processing.....................3.0
  Biodegradable Polymers for Naval Applications.....................1.3
  Bioenvironmental Hazards Research Program.........................2.0
  Carbon Foam for Navy Applications.................................0.5
  Modernization Through Remanufacturing and Conversion (MTRAC)......4.0
  Ceramic and Carbon Based Materials................................2.0
  Titanium Matrix Composites Program................................2.6
  Visualization and Technical Information...........................2.0
RF Systems Applied Research:
  Advanced Semiconductor Research...................................1.5
  High Brightness Electron Source Program...........................3.0
  Maritime Synthetic Range..........................................6.0
  Nanoscale Science and Technology Program..........................3.0
  Silicon Carbide High Power Diode Development......................2.5
  Wide Bandgap Silicon Carbide Semiconductor Research...............2.5
Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research:
  Hydrography Research..............................................2.5
  SEACOOS--Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System........8.0
Undersea Warfare Applied Research:
  Acoustic Temperature Profiler.....................................3.0
  Low Acoustic Signature Motor (LAMPREY)............................3.5
  SAUVIM............................................................2.0
  Magnetorestrictive Transduction (TERFENOL-D)......................5.4
Power Projection Advanced Technology:
  HYSWAC Lifting Body Development...................................7.0
  LSC(X)...........................................................12.0
  Precision Strike Navigator........................................1.0
  Variable Engine Nozzle............................................3.0
  Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller Helicopter Tech. Demo............4.0

[[Page 15505]]

Force Protection Advanced Technology:
  HTS AC Synchronous Propulsion Motor and Generator................10.0
  Wave Powered Electric Power Generating System for Remote Naval....4.0
Common Picture Advanced Technology: Improved Shipboard Combat 
  Information Center................................................6.0
Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology:
  Energy and Environmental Technology...............................4.0
  Integrated Aircraft Health........................................2.0
  Wire Chaffing Detection Technology................................2.0
Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration: Project Albert......7.0
Environmental Quality and Logistics Advanced Technology: National 
  Surface Treatment Center..........................................4.0
Undersea Warfare Advanced Technology: University Oceanographic 
  Laboratory System (UNOLS).........................................5.0
Advanced Technology Transition: Man-portable Quadruple Resonance 
  Landmine Detection Program........................................5.0
Aviation Survivability:
  Modular Helmet....................................................3.0
  Rotorcraft External Airbag Protection System (REAPS)..............4.0
ASW Systems Deployment: LASH ASW....................................5.0
Surface Torpedo Defense: Anti-Torpedo...............................2.0
Carrier Systems Development: Advanced Battlestation/Decision Support 
  System............................................................6.0
Shipboard System Component Development:
  MTTC/IPI..........................................................8.0
  REPTILE--Regional Electric Power Tech Integration and Leveraging..1.0
  Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes-Airbag Technology....................5.0
Advanced Submarine System Development:
  Electronic Motor Brush Technology.................................3.0
  Electromagnetic Actuator Development..............................1.9
  Fiber Optic Multi Line Towed Array (FOMLTA).......................5.0
  High Performance Metal Fiber Brushes..............................7.5
  Rotary Electromagnetic (Torpedo) Launcher System..................2.0
Ship Concept Advanced Design: Advanced, Integrated Low-Profile Antenna 
  (HF, VHF, UHF)....................................................4.0
Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System:
  Innovative Stand-off Door Breeching Munition......................2.5
  Nanoparticles for the Neutralization of Facility Threats..........3.0
Navy Energy Program:
  Proton Exchange Membrane (PET) Fuel Cell Technology...............5.0
  Thermally Activated Chiller/Heater................................2.5
Land Attack Technology: Semi-Automated IMINT Processing (SAIP)......2.0
Nonlethal Weapons Dem/Val:
  Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Technology Innovation....................2.0
  Urban Ops Environment Research....................................2.0
E-2C Radar Modernization: E-2C Technical Upgrade for Optimized Radar8.0
SC-21 Total Ship Engineering:
  Littoral Combat Ship Research and Development....................30.0
  Power Node Control Centers........................................2.0
Surface Combatant Combat System Modernization Program:
  Silicon Carbide MMIC Producibility Program........................3.0
  DDG-51 Optimized Manning Initiative...............................5.0
  Solid-State Spy-1E Multi Mission Radar............................3.0
Shipboard Aviation Systems: IASS/ITI................................4.0
SSN-21 Developments: SEAFAC Range Upgrade..........................15.0
Submarine Tactical Warfare System: CCS MK2--Submarine Combat System 
  Modernization Program............................................14.5
Unguided Conventional Air-launched Weapons: Light Defender..........6.0
Lightweight Torpedo Development: Align Lightweight and Heavyweight 
  Torpedo Baselines.................................................5.0
Navy Energy Program: Photovoltaic Energy Park.......................2.5
Battle Group Passive Horizon Extension System: Cooperative Outboard 
  Logistics Update Digital Upgrade..................................5.0
Ship Self Defense (Engage: Hard Kill): Phalanx SEARAM1..............5.0
Ship Self Defense (Engage: Soft Kill):
  NULKA Decoy Improvements..........................................9.2
  Radar Tiles for Reduced Surface Ship Signature....................1.0
Medical Development:
  Coastal Cancer Center.............................................5.0
  Naval Blood Research Laboratory...................................3.0
  Treatment of Radiation Sickness Research..........................4.0
Distributed Surveillance System: Advanced Deployable System.........5.0
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)--EMD: F136 Interchngable Engine.........35.0
Information Technology Development Condition Based Maintenance Enabling 
  Technologies......................................................0.6
Management, Technical & International Support Combating Terrorism, 
  Wargaming & Research..............................................2.0
Marine Corps Program Wide Support Nanoparticles Responses to Chemical 
  and Biological Threats............................................3.0
Navy Science Assistance Program:
  LASH Airship Test Platform Support................................2.0
  LASH ISR/Mine Countermeasures.....................................8.0
Marine Corps Communications Systems: Improved High performance Long-
  Range Radar Transmitter...........................................3.0
Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms System: Navy Body Armor 
  Upgrades..........................................................1.0
Information Systems Security Program: HG-40A Modernization Program..2.0
Joint C4ISR Battle Center (JBC): Strategic Interoperability Initiave4.0
Modeling and Simulation Support: Naval Modeling and Simulation......3.0


         Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force

Materials:
  Composite materials training program..............................0.5
  Nanostructured Materials..........................................5.0
  Advanced Materials Deposition for Semiconductor Nano..............1.5
  Closed cell foam material.........................................1.0
  Durable coatings for aircraft systems.............................4.0
  Free electron laser materials processing..........................3.0
  Titanium Matrix...................................................4.4
  Metals affordability initiative...................................7.5
  Nanostructured protective coatings................................2.0
  Strategic partnership for nanotechnology..........................6.0
  Cost-effective composite materials for UAVs.......................2.5
Human Effectiveness Applied Research: Human effectiveness applied 
  research..........................................................9.8
Aerospace Sensors: AFRL information and sensors directorate.........2.5
Space Technology:
  Lightweight and novel Structures..................................1.0
  HAARP incoherent scatter radar....................................3.0
  ICASS.............................................................2.0
  Seismic Nuclear Test Monitoring research..........................5.0
  Substrates for solar cells........................................2.0
  Carbon foam for aircraft and spacecraft...........................0.5
  TechSat 21........................................................5.0
Command, Control, and Communications:
  Information protection and authentication.........................3.0
  Secure Knowledge management.......................................5.0
Advanced Materials for Weapons Systems:
  Low bandwidth medical collaboration...............................2.0
  Powdered programmable process.....................................5.0
Assessing aging of military aircraft                                2.0
  Ceramic matrix composites for engines.............................5.0
Flight Vehicle Technology: E-SMART threat agent network.............5.0
Aerospace Technology DEV/DEMO: Sensor Craft (UAV)...................5.0
Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology: Advanced Aluminum 
  Aerostructures....................................................4.0
Crew Systems and Personnel Protection: TALON........................5.0
Advanced Spacecraft Technology:
  Robust aerospace composite materials/structures...................3.5
  Thin amorphous solar arrays......................................10.0
MAUI space Surveillance System (MSSS):
  MSSS Operations and Research.....................................35.0
  PANSTARS.........................................................15.0
Multi-Disciplinary Advanced Development Space Technology: Aerospace 
  relay mirror system...............................................7.0
Conventional Weapons Technology: LOCAAS.............................7.0
C31 Advanced Deployment: Fusion SIGNIT enhancements to ELINT........4.0
Pollution Prevention (DEM/VAL): 02 Diesel air quality improvement at 
  Nellis, AFB.......................................................1.0
B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber: LO maintenance improvements........10.0
EW Developments: BLAID upgrade to ALR-69...........................14.7
MILSTAR LDR/MDR Satellite Communications: Painting and coating 
  pollution prevention..............................................1.0
Agile Combat Support: Deployable Oxygen System......................2.5
Life Support Systems:
  Crew Seating......................................................2.5
  SEE-RESCUE distress streamer......................................4.0
Distributed Mission Interoperability Toolkit (DMIT).................4.0
Combat Training System: Air Combat training ranges..................3.0
Integrated C2 Application: ASSET/eWing..............................3.0
RDT&E for Aging Aircraft: Landing gear life extension..............10.0
Link-16 Support and Sustainment: 611th AOG enhanced tactical data 
  display link......................................................8.0
Major T&E Investment: Mariah II hypersonic wind tunnel.............10.0
AF TENCAP: GPS jammer defection and location........................3.0

[[Page 15506]]

National Air Intelligence Center:
  NAIC space threat assessment......................................1.0
  NAIC threat modeling..............................................2.0
Information Systems Security Program: Lighthouse cyber security prog7.5
Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Global Hawk lithium batteries...2.0
Airborne Reconnaissance Systems:
  SYERS.............................................................4.0
  Ultra-wideband airborne laser communications......................3.0
  Theater airborne reconnaissance (TARS) P31.......................13.6
Manned Reconnaissance Systems: Network-centric collaborative (NCCT).4.0
Industrial Preparedness: Bipolar wafer-cell NiMH battery............2.0
Productivity, Reliability, Availability (PRAMPO): Modeling/Re-
  engineering for Oklahoma City ALC.................................4.0


       Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

Defense Research Sciences:
  Advanced photonics composites.....................................2.0
  University optoelectronics........................................2.0
  Life Science Education and Research...............................5.0
  Molecular electronics.............................................2.0
University Research Initiatives:
  Infotonics........................................................4.0
  MEMS Sensor for rolling element bearings..........................1.5
  Nanoscience and nanomaterials.....................................5.0
  Corrosion protection of aluminum alloys in aircraft...............2.0
  Fastening and joining research....................................1.0
  Secure Group communications.......................................2.0
  University Bioinformatics.........................................2.0
  AHI...............................................................4.0
Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research: DEP10.0
Chemical and Biological Defense Program:
  Bug to drug countermeasures.......................................5.0
  Chemical Warfare protection.......................................1.2
  Detection of chem-bio pollutant agents in water...................5.0
  Nanomulsions of decontamination...................................5.0
  Bioprocessing Facility............................................7.0
Historically Black Colleges and Universities:
  American Indian Tribal Colleges...................................3.5
  Technical assistance program......................................3.0
Embedded Software and Pervasive Computing: Software for autonomous 
  robots (AE-02)....................................................2.0
Biological Warfare Defense: Bioscience Center for Infoscience.......2.1
Chemical and Biological Defense Program: Chem-bio defense initiatives 
  fund.............................................................25.0
Tactical Technology: CEROS..........................................7.0
Materials and Electronics Technology:
  Heat actuated coolers.............................................2.0
  Optoelectronics...................................................5.0
  Fabrication of 3-D structures.....................................4.0
  Strategic Materials...............................................4.0
  Friction stir welding.............................................1.0
WMD Defeat Technology: Deep Digger..................................3.0
Explosive Demilitarization Technology:
  Explosives demilitarization technology project....................3.0
  Hot gas decontamination HWAD......................................3.2
  Innovative demilitarization technologies..........................4.0
  Metal reduction and processing....................................1.5
  Rotary furnace--HWAD..............................................0.6
  Water gel explosive/program delays................................0.6
Combating Terrorism Technology Support:
  Asymmetric warfare initiative.....................................3.0
  Blast mitigation testing..........................................5.0
  Counter-Terrorism ISR system (CT-ISR).............................3.0
  Electrostatic Decontamination System..............................9.0
  NG multi-media security technology................................2.5
Ballistic Missile Defense Technology:
  Massively parallel optical interconnects..........................2.0
  Wide Bandgap Silicon Carbide Semiconductor Research...............5.0
  Gallium Nitride high power microwave switch.......................4.0
  Bottom anti-reflective coatings (BARC)............................5.0
  Improved materials for Optical memories--Phase II SBIR............3.3
  PMRF upgrades....................................................25.0
  ESPRIT............................................................3.5
  Range Data monitor................................................3.5
  Thick Film silicon coatings.......................................3.0
  SHOTS.............................................................5.0
  High data rate communications.....................................5.0
  Advanced RF technical development.................................4.0
  AEOS MWIR adaptive optics.........................................3.0
  Wafer scale (ultra flay) planarization............................5.0
  High resolution color imaging.....................................5.0
Chemical and Biological Defense Program:
  Bio-adhesion research.............................................3.0
  Advanced Chemical detector........................................6.0
  Agroterror prediction and risk assessment.........................5.0
  High intensity pulsed radiation facility for chem-bio defense.....2.0
  Vaccine Stabilization.............................................3.0
Special Technical Support: Graphic Oriented Electronic Technical 
  Manuals...........................................................1.5
Generic Logistics R&D Tech. Demonstrations:
  Fuel Cell Locomotive..............................................1.0
  Computer assisted technology transfer (CATT)......................4.0
  Microelectronics testing technology/obsolescence program.........10.0
  Ultra-low power battlefield sensors..............................25.0
  Chameleon mini wireless system....................................5.0
  Vehicle fuel cell program........................................10.0
  Agile Part Demonstration (CCDOT)..................................5.0
  New England Manufacturing supply chain............................6.0
Advanced Electronic Technologies: Defense Tech Link.................1.5
Advanced lithography--thin film research............................6.0
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations: Guardian portable radiation 
  search tool.......................................................5.0
High Performance Computing Modernization Program
  Missile Defense engineering and assessment center................20.0
  High Performance visualization initiative.........................1.5
  MHPCC.............................................................5.0
  Simulation Center HPC upgrades....................................2.0
Sensor and Guidance Technology: Large Millimeter telescope..........3.0
Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office: Rapid 3-D visualization 
  database..........................................................2.0
Joint Robotics Program:
  Deployable/mission-oriented robots................................5.0
  Tactical unmanned ground vehicle..................................2.0
  Unmanned ground vehicles..........................................2.0
CALS Initiative: CALS...............................................7.0
Ballistic Missile Defense System Segment: Maintain T&E Levels......10.0
Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense: Arrow..................80.0
Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors:
  Airborne infrared surveillance (AIRS)............................10.0
  Ramos solar arrays...............................................10.0
Joint Service Education and Training Systems Development: Academic 
  advanced distributed learning co-lab..............................1.0
Joint Electromagnetic Technology Program:
  HIPAS observatory.................................................3.0
  Delta Mine Training Center........................................3.0
Joint Robotics Program--EMD:
  Field testing support............................................10.0
  Tactical mobile robot.............................................4.8
General Support to C31: Pacific Disaster Center.....................7.0
Classified Programs: Information Security Scholarships.............10.0
Development Test and Evaluation: Big Crow test support activities...5.0
Partnership for Peace (PFP) Info. Management: Information Systems...1.0
Information Security System Program: Network, Information, and Space 
  Security Center...................................................4.0
Global Command and Control System: Joint Information Technology Cent7.0
Defense Imagery and Mapping Program:
  Feature Level Database Development................................4.2
  Intelligent spatial technologies for Smart Maps...................1.0
  BRITE.............................................................4.0
  PIPES.............................................................9.0
Defense Joint Counter Intelligence Program:
  Joint Counterintelligence Assessment Group (JCAG)................15.0
Industrial Preparedness: Laser additive manufacturing...............6.0
Special Operations Tactical Systems Development:
  Joint threat warning systems......................................1.8
  Precision Target Locator Designator (PTLD)........................4.1
  TACNAV light vehicle-mounted land nav system......................3.0
Special Operations Intelligence Systems Dev: Embedded IBS receivers.1.0
SOF Operational Enhancements:
  Fusion goggle system..............................................5.0
  Nano-technology research..........................................5.0


                 operational test & evaluation, defense

Test 7 Evaluation Technology: Test & Eval. Science & Tech...........4.0
Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development (CTEIP):
  T&E Transfers from DOD--Wide Acquisition Programs................70.0
  Joint Directed Energy Combat Operations and Employment (JDECOE)...1.0
Live Fire Testing:
  Live Fire Test and Training Program...............................4.0
  Reality Fire Fighting/Homeland Security Training..................1.5
Total FY2003 Defense Appropriations Member Add-Ons = $5.2 billion

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to any 
vote tomorrow, at a time set by the majority, I be allowed 5 minutes 
and the managers of the bill be allowed whatever time they request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. The unanimous consent was before final passage?

[[Page 15507]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona asked for 5 minutes 
before the vote on his amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I explain my request to the Senator from Nevada? 
Could I be recognized, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to speak for 5 minutes. The Senator from 
Alaska has indicated he will move to table the amendment. I would like 
5 minutes, as the sponsor of the amendment, prior to the vote to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Has the Senator completed his statement?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the 5 minutes 
for Senator McCain, we have 5 minutes for the managers of the bill to 
speak in favor of the motion to table. I ask unanimous consent that be 
the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was part of the request of the Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. REID. Excellent. Perfect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the position of the Senator from Arizona 
is understandable from the point of view of not being really cognizant 
of the aging aspect of our aircraft. We found, for instance, on the 
tankers, the tankers that were flying nightly in and out of Afghanistan 
averaged more than 42 years of age. If you had told this Senator in 
1944 to fly a plane that was made 42 years earlier, 1902, it would have 
been laughable. Today, to have our people flying airplanes that were 
made in Harry Truman's day, is laughable.
  Just this past trip that we took to Europe, we flew on a plane that 
was 28 years old. It was one of these planes for this type of purpose, 
of carrying personnel, not cargo.
  We looked at this problem and we found that should we start an 
acquisition program for these new aircraft, which was requested by the 
people from the Department of Defense who pointed out in many of these 
statistics to us that the capital cost would be so great that it would 
force out of the budget items that are absolutely essential to our war 
against terrorism and to the modernization of our military forces in 
other places.
  We still have an absolutely difficult time replacing our ships--
replacing them at a rate that is far less than is necessary to maintain 
the number of ships in the line that we have. But we are stuck in that 
kind of economics where we can't lease the kind of military vessels we 
need for the Navy. But in this instance we are dealing with the world 
of aviation, and we can lease. We can lease planes, and we can also 
lease engines very competitively. There is a competitive market out 
there for both. There is a competitive market in the private sector for 
the planes we are talking about. We are not entering into a market 
where there is monopolistic practice at all.
  But for us to try to do what the OMB and the Congressional Budget 
Office might have wanted originally would have required a massive new 
procurement program in order to get the planes, and we would be getting 
them one or two a year for 20 years. We are going to lease a fleet of 
these to meet the needs of the Department of Defense and retire these 
planes which are so old that the cost to merely maintain them far 
exceeds their value now. Beyond that, their reliability is so low that 
I have been told in many places the concept of redlining--telling the 
pilots they cannot fly the plane because the plane won't pass even 
minimum standards--is so prevalent now in the Air Force that it is, in 
part, a matter of morale.
  I believe we should do everything we can to shift the acquisition of 
aircraft that we cannot lease into procurement accounts and try to get 
those planes to meet our military needs. Those that we can lease in a 
competitive world, we should do so. When we do so, we lease them at an 
asset that can be returned to the commercial market at the end of the 
lease.
  That is one of the things we have not been able to get real credit 
for yet in terms of the people who are reviewing this matter for the 
Senator from Arizona. We will pursue that further.
  But in this instance Congress and the White House agreed with us in 
the last year--and previously--about the concept of leasing, that there 
are going to be other items that have to be leased.
  When we were looking at some of the consequences of the terrible 
events of 9/11, we found that the NATO AWAX planes were brought to the 
United States and flown over our major cities for a substantial period 
of time. There were 19,000 to 20,000 hours put on those planes during a 
period where otherwise they probably would not be getting anywhere more 
than 100 hours a month. The engines on those planes have been 
effectively worn out.
  We are going to have to go into that process. I would invite the 
Armed Services Committee to do some studying of its own. If it has a 
better way to get us the equipment we need now without breaking the 
budget, I am sure the Senator from Hawaii and I would be pleased to 
join.
  The money for the leasing of these planes comes from the O&M account 
of the Department of Defense. It competes with all other things that 
O&M moneys are paid for. The Department is not going to be reaching out 
and leasing planes that are not needed. On the other hand, it is going 
to have to retire the planes that are so old now that their utility is 
so limited they should not be in the inventory of the U.S. Air Force.
  I hope the Senate will support the position. I am prepared to make a 
motion to table.
  I understand that it will be handled under a previous agreement. I 
shall make the motion to table before the evening is over. But it is my 
understanding that the amendment is pending. We will just leave it that 
way, and I will ask unanimous consent that it be put aside for the 
consideration of other matters that will come before the Senate this 
evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 4447

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4447.

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

(Purpose: To set aside Defense-wide operation and maintenance funds for 
  review and mitigation of domestic violence involving Department of 
                           Defense personnel)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Funds appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     used by the Military Community and Family Policy Office of 
     the Department of Defense for the operation of 
     multidisciplinary, impartial domestic violence fatality 
     review teams of the Department of Defense that operate on a 
     confidential basis.
       (b) Of the total amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', 
     $10,000,000 may be used for an advocate of victims of 
     domestic violence at each military installation to provide 
     confidential assistance to victims of domestic violence at 
     the installation.
       (c) In each of the years 2003 through 2007, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to Congress an annual report on the 
     implementation of the recommendations included in the reports 
     submitted to the Secretary by the Defense Task Force on 
     Domestic Violence under section 591(e) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 
     106-65; 113 Stat. 639; 10 U.S.C. 1562 note).
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think all of us were deeply concerned 
about the four domestic violence homicides that occurred over the past 
6 weeks at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The tragic murder of these 
young women by their husbands within such a

[[Page 15508]]

short period of time is devastating. It is devastating to the families 
of the victims. It is devastating to their friends. It is devastating 
to the military where soldiers and their families should be safe on 
base. And they should be safe in their homes.
  The Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, which is made up of 12 
military and 12 civilian members, was charged by Congress to 
investigate domestic violence in the military and to make 
recommendations for the Secretary on how to reduce the violence. In the 
introduction in its first report, the task force wrote:

       Domestic violence is an offense against the institutional 
     values of the Military Services of the United States of 
     America. It is an affront to human dignity, degrades the 
     overall readiness of our Armed Forces, and will not be 
     tolerated in the Department of Defense.

  I don't think anyone who has followed the recent events in North 
Carolina would disagree. In fact, the North Carolina incidents, while 
unusual in that they are clustered within such a short period of time, 
are not unique. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service reported 54 
domestic homicides in the Navy and Marines since 1995. The Army 
reported 131 homicides since 1995 and the Air Force reported 32.
  This is a problem that is by no means limited to the military, but 
its dimensions in the military are complex and need to be addressed. I 
know Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz share that view. 
I applaud the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for the attention they 
have given to this issue and for the willingness they have shown to 
address it.
  The amendment which I offer today would help the military reduce 
domestic violence in the ranks. In particular, it would ensure that 
funds are used to establish an impartial, multidisciplinary, 
confidential Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team at the Military 
Community and Family Policy Office. The team would be charged with 
investigating every domestic fatality in the military.
  The purpose of the investigation would be twofold: First, the team 
would determine what intervention and services were provided to the 
victim and to the offender prior to the fatality; second, what 
interventions and services could have been provided to the victim and 
offender that could have prevented the fatality.
  The team would also aggregate data from domestic violence fatalities 
to help determine patterns so as to develop systemic responses to 
domestic violence and prevent some tragedy from ever happening again.
  The need for such a review is clear. The Defense Department Task 
Force found that ``fatality reviews have yet to become an important 
element of DOD's overall response to domestic violence.''
  It would recommend the use of the Fatality Review Team in order to 
``provide a mechanism for ongoing review of domestic violence policies 
and case practices that may inadvertently contribute to the death of a 
victim or offender with the primary objective of contributing to 
systemic improvements in a military community's response to domestic 
violence.''
  While the military is conducting the review in the Fort Bragg case--
and this is an important first step--I believe and the task force 
believes that such reviews must become routine--not just at Fort Bragg 
but all across the country.
  The second part of this amendment would help the Department ensure 
that there are victims advocates at every military installation who 
provide confidential support and guidance exclusively to victims.
  The Defense Task Force expressed concern about the ``stark contrast 
between the availability of victim advocacy services in the military 
and civilian communities.'' It later asserts that ``Victims should have 
access to a well defined program for victim advocacy.'' And this should 
be in every military installation.
  The Defense Department does provide excellent family advocacy 
programs to victims, but the Defense Task Force and other researchers 
have found that the Family Advocacy Program, while serving an important 
function, can in many cases erect barriers to women finding safety for 
themselves and their children.
  Women have to be able to go to somebody where there is complete 
confidentiality. That is extremely important.
  The problem, in many cases, with the current system is that when a 
victim reports abuse, that abuse must be reported to Command regardless 
of the victim's wishes. This lack of confidentiality has a profound 
effect on victims' willingness to come forward and find safety.
  According to the task force, victims expressed ``fears related to 
personal safety, loss of career and the belief that commanding officers 
generally appeared more supportive of the service member than the 
spouse who is the victim.''
  That is important data, I say to Senators.
  Caliber Associates conducted two studies that also concluded that the 
No. 1 barrier to reporting domestic violence for victims is the fear of 
the negative impact on the offender's career.
  Other concerns with the current system are that ``the commanding 
officer's lacking knowledge of the complex dynamics of domestic 
violence led him/her to make decisions that placed the victim in unsafe 
circumstances with respect to the offender'' and that the family 
advocates often work with both the victim and the offender, leading 
victims to believe that their safety concerns actually get lost or 
actually their safety concerns become more serious.
  In sum, the task force reports, ``When the Military Services do not 
have advocates exclusively for domestic violence victims, the current 
system often disempowers victims.'' It is for these victims that a 
victim advocate is necessary.
  This amendment does not replace the Family Advocacy Program, nor is 
it meant to be critical of its very good work. Rather, the amendment 
ensures that victims whose lives are in danger have an alternative 
place to turn to that is confidential and where their needs can be met 
without qualification. The victim advocates would aid women through 
counseling, safety planning, and referral to civilian and military 
shelter, legal counseling, and medical and other relevant services so 
they can provide for their own safety and the safety of their families 
without fear.
  Finally, this amendment would require that the Secretary report to 
the Congress on progress in implementing the regulations of the task 
force. Domestic violence is something that we in Congress must 
constantly work to prevent, reduce, and eventually end. Having such 
reporting will help us work with the military to address domestic 
violence in one part of our society.
  Colleagues, what happened at Fort Bragg should never happen again. 
This amendment represents a small step toward preventing future 
tragedies. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the distinguished chair of the committee that 
I have had an opportunity to do a lot of work dealing with domestic 
violence, mainly because of my wife Sheila's work, and she has been my 
teacher. This is by no means an issue or problem just in the military. 
Some people say about every 15 seconds a woman is battered somewhere in 
our country, quite often in the home.
  A home should be a safe place for women and children, but quite often 
it isn't. We passed the Violence Against Women Act, and we reauthorized 
it, and things are starting to change. It is not true, any longer, in 
communities, everybody is saying: Well, that's private business. It's 
not our business.
  We do not turn our gaze away from this any longer. But, 
unfortunately, it is a huge problem, and also for these children who 
witness this violence.
  I believe the Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have shown 
great concern, and I appreciate that. This amendment is just an 
emphasis to put more focus on this and to have the Congress--the House 
and the Senate--

[[Page 15509]]

working with our Defense Department. I believe it is a constructive 
amendment and a positive amendment.
  I understand, although I wait to hear from the distinguished chair, 
that my colleagues are willing to accept the amendment. If that is the 
case, that is wonderful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. The managers wish to commend the Senator from Minnesota 
for this amendment. And we are prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I join on this. I have to say that I don't use this word 
too often, but I was appalled at that story about the violence. We all 
have tremendous respect for these young people representing our Nation 
abroad who get in harm's way and really are put under severe stress.
  I hope it is not only associated with the concept of the victims of 
abuse, but we ought to find some way to have greater counseling 
available to our people when they come home. Those of us who have come 
home in the past know it is a traumatic experience for anybody, but for 
those who have been deeply involved in combat, it is really difficult.
  We should be very moved by that story. I think this will be the first 
step in meeting that syndrome that has developed and trying to find 
some way to prevent it in the future.
  So I commend the Senator for his amendment, and I, too, support it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank both my colleagues. I cannot add to the words 
of the Senator from Alaska. He said it better than I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4447) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 4448

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have an amendment. I send it to the desk.
  Is there an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment has been set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 4448.

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

(Purpose: To provide certain requirements and limitations regarding the 
 use of government purchase charge cards and government travel charge 
               cards by Department of Defense personnel)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Limitation on Number of Government Charge 
     Card Accounts during Fiscal Year 2003.--The total number of 
     accounts for government purchase charge cards and government 
     travel charge cards for Department of Defense personnel 
     during fiscal year 2003 may not exceed 1,500,000 accounts.
       (b) Requirement for Creditworthiness for Issuance of 
     Government Charge Card.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
     evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing 
     the individual a government purchase charge card or 
     government travel charge card.
       (2) An individual may not be issued a government purchase 
     charge card or government travel charge card if the 
     individual is found not credit worthy as a result of the 
     evaluation under paragraph (1).
       (c) Disciplinary Action for Misuse of Government Charge 
     Card.--(1) The Secretary shall establish guidelines and 
     procedures for disciplinary actions to be taken against 
     Department personnel for improper, fraudulent, or abusive use 
     of government purchase charge cards and government travel 
     charge cards.
       (2) The guidelines and procedures under this subsection 
     shall include appropriate disciplinary actions for use of 
     charge cards for purposes, and at establishments, that are 
     inconsistent with the official business of the Department or 
     with applicable standards of conduct.
       (3) The disciplinary actions under this subsection may 
     include--
       (A) the review of the security clearance of the individual 
     involved; and
       (B) the modification or revocation of such security 
     clearance in light of the review.
       (4) The guidelines and procedures under this subsection 
     shall apply uniformly among the Armed Forces and among the 
     elements of the Department.
       (d) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2003, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     on the implementation of the requirements and limitations in 
     this section, including the guidelines and procedures 
     established under subsection (c).

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office has recently 
completed another in a long line of studies about financial 
mismanagement at the Department of Defense. A GAO report shows how 
Government-issued charge cards were abused for the personal gain of 
certain civilian employees and members of the Armed Forces.
  This issue is not about irresponsible use of personal credit cards so 
much. This is about using a Government charge card for personal use and 
leaving the American taxpayers on the hook. In some instances of abuse, 
the U.S. Government is left with only the interest on personal 
purchases to pay. In the worst cases of abuse, the Pentagon actually 
uses the funds that are appropriated for national defense to pay off 
the questionable charges on these credit cards.
  To understand the scale of the problem, it is important to understand 
how many charge cards are being used. According to the Department of 
Defense, it maintains 1.7 million charge cards that were responsible in 
fiscal year 2001 for--now hold on to your hat--$9.7 billion in 
spending.
  Neither the GAO nor I take issue with the well-regulated use of 
Government-issued charge cards. In the right hands, a charge card cuts 
through bureaucratic redtape, reduces paperwork, and limits the 
administrative costs of processing purchase orders. But put a 
government charge card into the hands of irresponsible individuals, and 
they can do some real damage.
  Take for example the case of a junior enlisted soldier at Fort Drum 
in New York. He ran up a bill of $10,029 on three travel cards, due 
mostly to charges made at a casino. Despite this serious abuse of the 
charge card, in October 2000, the soldier was allowed to be honorably 
discharged without punishment.
  But that horror story is just the tip of the iceberg. One soldier ran 
up charges of $1,058 in personal charges, including some from the Dream 
Girls Escort Service. Not to be outdone, another junior enlisted 
soldier ran up $2,278 in debt, including $110 from the Spearmint Rhino 
Adult Cabaret. According to the GAO, neither of those soldiers received 
any disciplinary action. These appear not to be isolated incidents, 
either. The GAO says that it found about 200 individuals who charged 
$38,000 in Fiscal Year 2001 alone at questionable establishments 
offering ``adult entertainment.''
  Those soldiers ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have betrayed 
the trust of the public by using government money to fund their 
dalliances. It is a disgrace not only to the uniform that they wear, 
but also to their superior officers who were apparently asleep at their 
posts.
  In addition to using the cards for personal purposes, some 
cardholders play games with paying back the money that they owe. One 
soldier in south Carolina ran up $35,883 in debt, then bounced 86 
checks, totaling $269,301, in a phoney attempt to pay off the card. It 
is small consolation that this soldier is undergoing a court martial 
for his criminal behavior.
  It appears that the astonishing lack of financial oversight in the 
Department of Defense has created a situation where it is easy to 
escape any kind of punishment. The GAO found 105 cardholders who held 
secret or top secret security clearances who had bad debt written off 
of their travel charge cards. Out of this group, 38 still had active 
security clearances even after they had experienced serious financial 
difficulties.
  I remind my colleagues of the serious security risks posed by 
individuals

[[Page 15510]]

with financial problems. Robert Hanssen, the former FBI agent, and 
Aldrich Ames, the mole at the CIA, betrayed their country for money. In 
1998, a retired Army officer, David Sheldon Boone, was caught and 
accused of selling secrets to Russia. His excuse? He claimed that 
financial problems led him to spying.
  The amendment that I offer today with Senator Grassley proposes to 
curb some of the most gross excesses of the charge card programs. 
First, the amendment limits the number of charge cards that can be made 
available to service members or civilian employees of the Department of 
defense to 1.5 million, a 10 percent reduction in the number of cards 
that are now out there. This cap will eliminate unnecessary cards and 
reduce the chance that the charge card numbers will be stolen.
  The amendment establishes a requirement that the Secretary of Defense 
evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing a charge 
card. It is astounding that this common-sense step has not been taken 
before. But it has not, and as a result, the GAO found that charge 
cards are getting in to the hands of individuals with a history of 
writing bad checks, making late payments on their personal credit 
cards, and even defaulting on loans. This must stop.
  The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to develop uniform 
disciplinary guidelines, so that members of each of the military 
services are held to the same standard of conduct for their use of 
charge cards. The amendment includes specific language on security 
clearances, so that security officials will be informed of the 
financial wrongdoings of individuals who have access to classified 
information.
  Finally, the amendment keeps the pressure on the Department of 
Defense to continue its financial reforms by reporting to the 
congressional defense committees not later than June 30, 2003, on the 
implementation of reforms to the charge card programs.
  I have no doubt that Secretary Rumsfeld is serious when he says that 
he wants to straighten out the financial and accounting messes at the 
Pentagon. He did not create these problems. They did not occur on his 
watch. But it is now his watch. Someone has to be held accountable for 
these scandals. William Wordsworth once said, ``No matter how high you 
are in your department, you are responsible for the actions of the 
lowliest clerk.''
  Congress has an important role in making sure that the money that we 
appropriate for our defense is well-spent. It is the Legislative 
Branch, after all, that is entrusted with the power of the purse. When 
money is wasted, we have an obligation to step in and take corrective 
action. The amendment that I have proposed with the Senator from Iowa 
Mr. Grassley, takes common-sense steps to crack down on the abuse of 
government charge cards in the Department of Defense. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd-Grassley 
Amendment regarding Department of Defense credit cards. Many of my 
colleagues will be aware of the ongoing oversight investigation that I 
have been involved with for over 2 years now looking into abuses of 
government purchase cards and travel cards issued by the Department of 
Defense. Working with the GAO, Chairman Horn's subcommittee in the 
House, and others, we have been able to uncover a disturbing number of 
instances where DoD issued credit cards have been abused. We're not 
just talking about little abuses either. These cards have been used to 
purchase everything from cars to Caribbean cruises. They have been used 
for mortgage payments and for cash in adult entertainment 
establishments. The horror stories go on and on.
  It is unfortunate that we are just now finding out about many of 
these instances of fraud and abuse, but I am pleased that Secretary 
Rumsfeld appears to be taking this problem seriously. The Office of 
Management and Budget has announced a crackdown on credit card abusers 
and salary offsets and other tools are being used to recover funds from 
unauthorized charges. However, the question remains, ``How were these 
abuses allowed to occur in the first place?'' The answer is ineffective 
internal controls. Receipts are not always matched with statements and 
inventory is not checked to make sure that DoD got what it paid for. We 
also know that the Army doesn't always ask for the credit cards back 
when individuals leave the service. If you leave the cookie jar 
unguarded with the lid off, people are going to reach in and help 
themselves when no one is looking.
  Perhaps most alarming is the lack of credit checks. It seems obvious 
that credit checks should be done on individuals before issuing them a 
government credit card, but this is not currently the case. Not only is 
no one double checking to make sure these credit cards are used 
appropriately, but no one is checking to see if the individuals they 
are issued to are up to the responsibility. A little diligence up front 
could prevent millions of dollars in fraudulent purchases that leave 
the bank or the taxpayer holding the bill.
  It is also true that once credit card abuses have been discovered, 
not enough is done to follow up. I am glad that DoD is finally 
recovering money that has been misspent, but this shouldn't be the end 
of the story. Those who abuse the trust that has been placed with them 
should not get off scott-free. There have been individuals who have 
been court marshaled for fraudulent transactions, while others with 
similar misdeeds have been promoted. In fact, many individuals with a 
record of questionable purchases continue to hold a security clearance. 
Under existing DoD rules, a person's level of financial responsibility 
is a key factor in determining whether that person holds a security 
clearance. Beyond simply requiring repayment, DoD needs to review the 
positions these people hold and consider disciplinary action. Failure 
to do so could even put our national security at risk.
  The Byrd-Grassley Amendment requires the Department of Defense to 
take the initial steps necessary to address many of these problems that 
have been uncovered in our ongoing investigation. I commend Senator 
Byrd for his initiative and leadership in this area and I am pleased to 
associate myself with this amendment.
  First, the Byrd-Grassley Amendment stems the tide of DoD credit 
cards, which are apparently being handed out willy-nilly to just about 
everyone, by limiting the number of government charge card accounts 
that may be issued in fiscal year 2003 to 1,500,000. The amendment also 
requires that DoD must evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual 
before issuing a government charge card and prohibits DoD from issuing 
a card to anyone found not credit worthy. Finally, the Byrd-Grassley 
amendment requires DoD to establish guidelines and procedures for 
disciplinary actions against DoD personnel for improper, fraudulent, or 
abusive use of government charge cards, including reviewing and 
possibly modifying or revoking security clearances. The Secretary of 
Defense would then be required to report to the congressional defense 
committees on the implementation of these requirements by June 30, 
2003.
  The requirements in the Byrd-Grassley Amendment are all well founded 
based on what I and others have been able to uncover regarding DoD 
credit card abuses. They are all measures that should be put in place 
by DoD without delay as a starting point toward getting this credit 
card debacle under control and preventing future abuses. This amendment 
shouldn't be needed as one would think all of the provisions would be 
implemented by DoD out of simple common sense. However, I assure you 
that it is needed, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Byrd and me 
in this important initiative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to commend the chairman of the 
committee on this most appropriate and timely amendment. As a manager 
of this measure, I am prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

[[Page 15511]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I join the Senator from Hawaii and 
welcome the opportunity to vote to accept this amendment. I think it is 
a very modest step. The Senator from West Virginia has been restrained 
in terms of the abuses that we have heard about. This will start the 
process of putting us on a straight track.
  I support the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4448.
  The amendment (No. 4448) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4454

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, and ask 
that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Nickles, proposes an 
amendment numbered 4454.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 4454

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Of the funds appropriated in the Act under the heading 
     ``Operations and Maintenance, Air Force'' up to $2,000,000 
     may be made available for the Aircraft Repair Enhancement 
     Program for the KC-135 at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics 
     Center.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4454) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the two managers withholding. 
The majority leader has asked me to announce that there will be no more 
rollcall votes tonight.


               Amendments Nos. 4455 through 4462, En Bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have a series of amendments. None of 
these amendments calls for new appropriations, and all of these 
amendments are either earmarking or technical in nature. I will submit 
them en bloc to be considered and passed en bloc.
  I will explain the amendments. One is an amendment of Senator Miller 
earmarking $1 million for an information data warehouse; an amendment 
for Senator Snowe earmarking $1.5 million for the Navy pilot human 
resources center; an amendment for Senator Graham earmarking $2.17 
million for nanophotonic systems fabrication; an amendment for Senators 
Snowe and Sessions earmarking $5 million for kill vehicles; an 
amendment for Senators Warner and Inouye earmarking $5 million for the 
common affordable radar processing program; an amendment for Senator 
Boxer encouraging the Department of Defense to allocate the budgeted 
amount for the family advocacy program; an amendment for Senators 
Torricelli and Corzine to earmark $2.5 million for the disposal of 
material from Reach A at Earle Naval Weapons Station.
  I send the amendments to the desk.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment of the 
Senator from Hawaii to add to that list. The amendment deals with 
obtaining a plan for refurbishing of the AWACS plane loaned to the 
United States after 9/11.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  The amendments (Nos. 4455 through 4462) were agreed to en bloc, as 
follows:


                           Amendment No. 4455

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Navy for 
  research, development, test, and evaluation, $1,300,000 for Trouble 
                  Reports Information Data Warehouse)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for Trouble Reports 
     Information Data Warehouse.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 4456

  (Purpose: To set aside Navy operation and maintenance funds for the 
         Navy Pilot Human Resources Call Center, Cutler, Maine)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title II 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', for 
     civilian manpower and personnel management, up to $1,500,000 
     may be available for Navy Pilot Human Resources Call Center, 
     Cutler, Maine.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 4457

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Defense-Wide 
    research, development, test, and evaluation $2,170,000 for the 
               Nanophotonic Systems Fabrication Facility)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $2,170,000 may be available for the 
     Nanophotonic Systems Fabrication Facility.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4458

  (Purpose: To make available for Defense-Wide research, development, 
   test, and evaluation $5,000,000 for small kill vehicle technology 
development (PE0603175C) for midcourse phase ballistic missile defense)

       On page 223, between line 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for small 
     kill vehicle technology development (PE0603175C) for 
     midcourse phase ballistic missile defense.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4459

(Purpose: To make available $10,000,000 for the Common Affordable Radar 
  Processing program under Title IV, Research, Development, Test and 
                              Evaluation)

       On page 144, line 25, after the word ``Forces'', add the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     under this section, up to $5,000,000 may be made available 
     for the Common Affordable Radar Processing program''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4460

   (Purpose: To provide additional resources to the Family Advocacy 
                 Program at the Department of Defense)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide,'' the Department 
     of Defense should spend the amount requested for the Family 
     Advocacy Program, with priority in any increase of funding 
     provided to bases that are experiencing increases in domestic 
     violence.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4461

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Navy for 
  operation and maintenance $2,500,000 for the disposal of materials 
    dredged from Reach A at Earle Naval Weapons Station, New Jersey)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', up to $2,500,000 
     may be available for the disposal of materials from Reach A 
     at Earle Naval Weapons Station, New Jersey, to an appropriate 
     inland site designated by the Secretary of the Navy.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4462

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:

[[Page 15512]]

       Sec.  . Not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, 
     the Commander in Chief of the United States European Command 
     shall submit a plan to the congressional defense committees 
     that provides for the refurbishment and re-engining of the 
     NATO AWACS aircraft fleet: Provided, That this report reflect 
     the significant contribution made by the NATO AWACS fleet in 
     response to the attacks on the United States on September 11, 
     2001, and the invocation of Article V of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty: Provided further, That the plan shall describe any 
     necessary memorandum agreement between the United States and 
     NATO for the refurbishment and re-engining of these aircraft.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4463

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Hollings to require the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over 
the portion of former Charleston Naval Base, SC, comprising a law 
enforcement training facility of the Department of Justice.
  The managers have looked over the amendment. We ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Hollings, proposes an 
amendment numbered 4463.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4463

 (Purpose: To require the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over 
the portion of former Charleston Naval Base, South Carolina, comprising 
   a law enforcement training facility of the Department of Justice)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Notwithstanding any provision of the Defense 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title 
     XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) or any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy may transfer 
     administrative jurisdiction of the portion of the former 
     Charleston Naval Base, South Carolina, comprising a law 
     enforcement training facility of the Department of Justice, 
     together with any improvements thereon, to the head of the 
     department of the Federal Government having jurisdiction of 
     the Border Patrol as of the date of the transfer under this 
     section.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. STEVENS. We accept the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. We accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4463) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4464

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Harkin to earmark $2 million for Uniformed Services 
University of the Health Services Center.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Harkin, proposes an 
amendment numbered 4464.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4464

  (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Defense 
  Health Program for the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
 Sciences Center (USUHS) $2,000,000 for Complementary and Alternative 
  Medicine Research for Military Operations and Healthcare (MIL-CAM))

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title VI under the 
     heading ``Defense Health Program,'' up to $2,000,000 may be 
     available to the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
     Sciences Center (USUHS) for Complementary and Alternative 
     Medicine Research for Military Operations and Healthcare 
     (MIL-CAM).
  Mr. INOUYE. The managers have looked over the measure and we have no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Iowa.
  The amendment (No. 4464) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 4465

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, and I ask it be 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Allard, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4465.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4465

    (Purpose: To set aside up to $30,000,000 for the acquisition of 
 commercial imagery, imagery products, and service from United States 
     commercial sources of satellite-based remote sensing entities)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the total amounnt appropriated by title II 
     under the heading ``OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-
     WIDE'', up to $30,000,000 may be appropriated for the 
     competitive acquisition of commercial imagery, imagery 
     products, and services from United States commercial sources 
     of satellite-based remote sensing entities.
  Mr. STEVENS. I believe this amendment has been accepted on both 
sides. I ask it be agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 4466

  Mr. INOUYE. I send to the desk for immediate consideration an 
amendment by Senator Tim Hutchinson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) for Mr. Hutchinson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4466.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 4466

    (Purpose: To set aside 9,000,000 for RDT&E. Defense-wide, for a 
   Department of Defense facility for the production of vaccines for 
  protecting members of the Armed Forces against the effect of use of 
                       biological warfare agents)

       On page 223, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Of the total amount appropriated by title IV 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to 9,000,000 may be available 
     for the development of an organic vaccine production 
     capability to protect members of the Armed Forced against the 
     effect of use of biological warfare agents.

  Mr. INOUYE. This measure has been studied by the managers. We approve 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the amendment 
is agreed to.

[[Page 15513]]

  The amendment (No. 4466) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           EPILEPSY RESEARCH

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand that the committee report 
includes a $50 million Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. The 
program funds medical research projects with clear scientific merit 
with direct relevance to military health.
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator from Nevada is correct.
  Mr. REID. Since military head injury is identified as the single most 
significant risk factor for the development of epilepsy, I would be 
interested in including epilepsy research among the projects specified 
in the bill. Would the chairman be willing to see that the conference 
committee includes epilepsy research as a suggested project for the 
Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program?
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to address the Senator from Nevada's 
concerns relating to epilepsy research in the conference committee.
  Mr. REID. I thank Chairman Inouye for his consideration.


                  DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY RESEARCH

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
discuss with my colleague the importance of research into Duchenne 
muscular dystrophy, the most common lethal childhood genetic disease 
worldwide. Progress on slowing the relentless progression of the 
disease has been nearly nonexistent, largely due to insufficient 
mechanisms to fund translational research. This research is closely 
linked to the broader investigation of muscle and nerve damage 
following toxin exposure, excessive exercise, and other motor neuron 
disease, all of which have significant implications and relevance for 
defense programs. For example, spinal cord injury is a major form of 
combat and training-related injury. Motor neurons and motor neuron 
disease is a potential target of bioterrorism. Muscle damage during 
training is a relatively common problem during basic training.
  Recognizing this, the House of Representatives has included in the 
Defense Health Program in the Department of Defense appropriations $4 
million dollars in funding for muscular dystrophy research. While I 
filed and was prepared to offer an amendment to include this funding in 
our Senate bill, I am willing to forgo this amendment if the chairman 
can assure me he supports this funding and will seek to ensure its 
inclusion in the bill's conference report.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with my colleague that this is an important area 
of research and that the House of Representatives has acted wisely in 
this regard. I appreciate his willingness to save us time here today, 
and I assure him I will do all I can to see that the House amount 
remains in the final conference bill.


                  Military Personnel Medical Research

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee for his foresight and leadership with the 
FY2003 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I commend the 
Chairman for including in this bill $50 million in the Military 
Personnel Defense Health Program for a Peer Reviewed Medical Research 
Program. Our military personnel face numerous unknown risks each and 
every day. Providing funding to treat, mitigate or eliminate these 
risks is the least we can do for those who have agreed to dedicate 
their lives to defending our nation and freedom.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the senior Senator from the State of Washington 
for her kind remarks.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The bill specifically directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in conjunction with the Service Surgeons General, to select medical 
research projects of clear scientific merit and direct relevance to 
military health. Included in the list of projects that could be funded 
through this project is an infectious disease tracking system.
  In my home state of Washington, our military community has an urgent 
need for such a system, facilitating the quick response to potential 
life-threatening events. Public health has long been focused on the 
ability to quickly identify epidemic diseases and intervene to protect 
public safety rapidly and as efficiently as possible. Preparing for and 
responding to a biologic crisis requires a clear understanding of such 
dimensions as geography, time frames, population demographics, 
resources, severity, and outcomes. The problem, at this point, is that 
the public health arena lacks the type of information infrastructure in 
place that is needed to guide an immediate response to a bioterrorism 
event. Do you agree, that an information system to track infectious 
diseases is a vital and worthy area of research?
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree this is one area worthy of investigation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I point out that great strides have been made in the 
area of infectious disease tracking by Paladin Data Systems Corporation 
in Seattle, WA. They have the background and experience in healthcare 
information systems and could provide a real-time data repository to 
aid in the detection of outbreaks of epidemic diseases as part of an 
overall effort to avert bioterrorism crises. Again, I thank the 
Chairman for this foresight and leadership.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.


                         war-related illnesses

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have before the Senate the Fiscal Year 
2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill (H.R. 5010). This 
legislation makes a valuable contribution to our Nation's efforts to 
enhance the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
Marines as well as their families, while continuing to transform our 
military forces to ensure that they are capable of meeting the threats 
to America's security now and in the future.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with my good friend from Michigan 
about the merits of this legislation. Once again, Chairman Inouye has 
produced an excellent bill that will ensure that our Nation's military 
remains the most capable fighting force in the world. Unfortunately, 
this Nation has unresolved issues with regard to previous conflicts, 
such as Operation Desert Storm, and I believe we must continue to 
pursue a better scientific understanding of war-related ailments.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Committee bill seeks to improve pay 
and benefits for our military personnel and makes considerable 
improvements in medical care that our men and women in uniform and 
their families receive. In addition, funding has been included to fund 
a ``Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program'' that addresses a wide-
array of important medical programs.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Hawaii about 
the significant efforts made by the Committee bill to address the well-
being of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Of particular 
interest to me is peer reviewed medical research that examines Gulf War 
Illnesses and their relationship to Chronic Multi-Symptom Illnesses. I 
believe that this research, which is conducted by the Center for 
Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research is providing valuable insights into 
undiagnosed post-deployment illnesses.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, my friend from Iowa is correct. For the 
past several years, the Center for Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research 
has conducted research that is unique in its focus on the internal 
mechanisms and most effective treatment of Gulf War Illnesses and other 
undiagnosed post-deployment illnesses. This research has been funded by 
Congress each year and overseen by the U.S. Army Medical Research and 
Material Command and its peer review process. Continued funding for 
this program will enable the continuation of research into a variety of 
illnesses reported by personnel upon returning from the Gulf War.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senator from South Dakota has noted, 
many soldiers returned from the Gulf War with a variety of symptoms 
that have no discernible cause. Although specific environmental 
exposures in the Gulf War cannot be ruled out as a cause, many believe 
that stresses triggering underlying conditions may have

[[Page 15514]]

contributed to these illnesses. I hope that efforts will be made to 
ensure that this bill provides adequate funding to ensure the 
continuation of this important research.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I understand the concerns that my 
colleagues have regarding poorly understood illnesses that have 
affected military personnel in nearly every conflict since the Civil 
War, and most recently in the Gulf War. As Chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I will work to ensure that adequate 
funding is provided for the Center for Chronic Pain and Fatigue 
Research in conference.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we appreciate the Chairman's concern and 
support for this work. We believe it has important implications for 
future generations of military personnel and we look forward to working 
with him and the committee as this bill moves forward to do all we can 
to address this important issue.


                  the uss scranton depot modernization

  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair for recognition. I would like to express 
my appreciation to Mr. Inouye, The Chair of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Defense, and to Mr. Stevens, the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, for the fine work they have accomplished in crafting this 
important FY2003 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill. It has been 
my pleasure, as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 
to work with them on this bill, as well as on the defense portions of 
the recently passed FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Bill, H.R. 4775. They 
certainly do a masterful job of setting priorities and balancing 
competing needs.
  I am also pleased that the Appropriations Committee chose to 
specifically provide $90 million in the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental 
bill to accelerate the depot modernization period of the USS Scranton 
at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard from FY2002 to FY2003, as it will result 
in dramatically improved fleet readiness. In addition, it will free up 
$90 million in FY2003, which had been programmed for the USS Scranton 
to be used for other U.S. Navy critical submarine requirements. This 
could include returning back to FY2003 the important USS Annapolis 
depot modernization period at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which the 
Navy was recently forced to slip from FY2003 to FY2004, because of a 
Navy funding shortfall.
  I would like to direct a question to my friends, the chair and the 
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Is it the 
Subcommittee's understanding that the appropriation of the additional 
$90 million to accomplish the USS Scranton depot modernization period 
in FY2002, now gives the U.S. Navy flexibility to allocate the FY2003 
USS Scranton funds to meet other critical submarine requirements?
  Mr. INOUYE. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is correct. 
It is the understanding of the Defense Subcommittee that the FY2003 $90 
million that the Navy had requested for the USS Scranton, may now be 
available to the Navy to meet other critical submarine depot 
modernization requirements.
  Mr. STEVENS.  I would tell the Senator from New Hampshire that it is 
also my understanding that the Navy now has the flexibility to 
reprioritize those FY2003 funds.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the Majority Leader, Senator Daschle, and the Chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, regarding the B-1 bomber.
  The B-1 remains the backbone of our nation's bomber fleet by 
providing our military with a reliable, long-range bomber capable of 
delivering a large amount of munitions to targets thousands of miles 
away. Nowhere was the continued importance of the B-1 more clear than 
over the skies of Afghanistan during the major battles of Operation 
Enduring Freedom. Since October, B-1s have dropped more than 38 percent 
of the bombs in Operation Enduring Freedom while maintaining over a 78 
percent mission capable rate. I am particularly proud of the 
accomplishments of the B-1 because a portion of the fleet is stationed 
at Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home state. On many occasions, I have 
had the opportunity to meet with the men and women who fly and maintain 
these planes, and each time I am struck by their dedication and 
professionalism.
  In order to maintain the integral role the B-1 plays in our national 
security, the Department of Defense has committed to reinvest the 
savings from the consolidation of the fleet into the modernization of 
the remaining aircraft. Currently, the Air Force is in the midst of a 
multi-year plan to upgrade the B-1 to improve its reliability, 
survivability, and lethality.
  One aspect of this ongoing effort is the Defense System Upgrade--
DSUP--program which will replace the existing defensive system on the 
B-1 with components of the ALQ-214 Integrated Defensive Electronic 
Countermeasures--IDECM--system, the ALR-56M Radar Warning Receiver, and 
the ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoy, FOTD. Completion of this upgrade 
will greatly enhance the survivability of the B-1 and improve its long-
range penetrating bomber capabilities.
  During the course of the DSUP program, problems arose with the 
deployment of the towed decoy system. It should be noted that these 
problems were not unique to the B-1, but did slow progress on the 
upgrade program. However, I was pleased to learn recently that DSUP 
testing of the towed decoy has once again begun. On June 25, a test was 
conducted at Edwards Air Force Base in which two decoys were 
successfully deployed and towed from a B-1. This was followed by a July 
25 test in which a decoy was deployed and towed while the B-1 flew with 
varying wing sweep positions. It is my hope these tests demonstrate the 
DSUP program is back on track.
  At the time the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were 
writing the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense appropriations bills, these DSUP 
problems had not been addressed. As a result, the bills currently 
contain reductions in funding for the B-1 program. The House version of 
the Defense appropriations bill rescinds $67 million in Fiscal Year 
2002 funding, and cuts the President's Fiscal Year 2003 request for the 
B-1 by $82 million. These cuts would terminate the DSUP program 
completely and would cripple the B-1 modernization program. The Senate 
version of the Defense appropriations bill would rescind $32 million in 
Fiscal Year 2002 funds and cut $40 million from the B-1 request for 
Fiscal Year 2003. I would like to thank the Chairman for including 
report language that would allow the Air Force to request reprogramming 
of funds for the B-1 if the DSUP problems are resolved.
  In the time since these bills were written, I believe we have seen 
progress within the DSUP program. It is my hope that we can address 
this funding issue within conference to restore funds for DSUP or 
provide additional funds for other aspects of the B-1 modernization 
programs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share my colleague from South Dakota's 
support for the B-1 and believe maintaining the B-1's capabilities is 
in our national security interests. I am concerned that the cuts 
proposed, particularly in the House version of the bill, are imprudent 
and could do lasting damage to our nation's military capabilities. 
Although I have not yet been able to confer with the Air Force about 
the newest test flights with the towed decoy, the results would seem to 
obviate the need to delay or restructure this program. More tests are 
expected in the weeks to come, and I am hopeful that in conference we 
will find a way to restore DSUP funding. If that seems imprudent when 
this matter is taken up in conference, I urge the committee to transfer 
the proposed DSUP funding into other B-1 modernization programs. For 
example, the B-1 is next scheduled to have its radar replaced with a 
version of the system now used on the F-16. It is important to me that 
we retain the funds within the B-1 upgrade program and reinforce the 
Administration's pledge that all savings from fleet reduction will be 
reinvested in B-1 modernization.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I share Senator Johnson's and Senator

[[Page 15515]]

Daschle's continued interest in maintaining the B-1 as a long-range, 
penetrating bomber. This plane's recent performance in Afghanistan 
testifies to its ability to help the nation deal with the types of 
threats we face in the 21st century. I appreciate their bringing to my 
attention the recent progress in the DSUP testing program. I will work 
with my colleagues from South Dakota to address B-1 funding issues when 
the defense appropriations bill goes to conference.


                      Operating Room of the Future

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman yield 
for the purpose of a colloquy concerning a program of great importance 
to ensuring the continued health and safety of our nation's Armed 
Forces?
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to yield to my friend, the Senator from 
Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, at present, the military lacks a process 
in which emerging medical technologies can be adapted and tested in 
real time emergency situations that replicate high velocity and 
surgical care settings. With the assistance of the Senator from Hawaii, 
Congress last year appropriated $2.5 million to begin development of a 
national test bed to implement the U.S. Army Medical Research and 
Materiel Command's ``Operating Room of the Future'' strategy to remedy 
this situation. This test bed, to be based at the University of 
Maryland Medical Center, aims to improve the performance of these 
emerging technologies and expedite their transfer to medical care in 
the battlefield. This will be done via testing new approaches to video-
assisted coordination, synchronized communications, mobile computing 
options, telesurgery techniques and distance learning. While 
spearheaded by UMMC, this program is linked via a number of 
collaborations with both industry and the military.
  In its fiscal year 2003 Defense appropriations bill, the House has 
included $3 million of the $9 million necessary to continue work on the 
Operating Room of the Future initiative. The Senate bill directs the 
Secretary of Defense to consider the Operating Room of the Future for 
funding under the Defense Health Program's $50 million Peer Reviewed 
Medical Research Program. I am pleased that both bills contain language 
supportive of the Operating Room of the Future, and I respectfully 
request that the Chair work with his colleagues on the conference 
committee to ensure that the continued funding needs of this critical 
program are being met.
  Mr. INOUYE. I certainly recognize the importance of this program and 
have been pleased to work closely with the Senator from Maryland on it 
in the past. Indeed, the Senator will recall that we recently visited 
the University of Maryland Medical Center to receive a briefing from 
both Army and hospital officials about the progress and importance of 
this project. You may be certain that I will continue to work on behalf 
of the Operating Room of the Future as we proceed to conference.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for his continued efforts on 
behalf of our men and women in uniform, and I look forward to 
continuing to work closely with him on this vital project.


                     chemical agent warning network

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I commend the committee's work to support 
very necessary research in the area of chemical and biological 
detection, response and defense. I also applaud the committee's 
recognition that there are many existing good ideas as well as on-going 
initiatives worthy of consideration by the Department as it develops 
effective technologies for our Nation's chem.-bio defense. As you may 
know, one of these excellent efforts is a program that was initiated by 
the U.S. Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force, 
CBIRF, and authorized by the Senate in S. 2514. This program focuses on 
the development of emergency response technologies by first responders, 
the demonstration of a chemical agent warning network and the 
coordination of response among military and civilian assets. Will the 
Committee work to include in the list of programs to be considered 
under the Chem-bio Defense Initiatives Fund, this initiative to 
demonstrate a chemical agent warning network and other emergency 
response technologies for use by first response units?
  Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct. The committee will work to 
include this among the program initiatives to be considered within the 
Chem-bio Defense Initiatives Fund, the Marine Corps' CBIRF program to 
develop a chemical agent warning network and develop emergency response 
technologies for first responder units.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the chairman for his hard work and consideration 
of this initiative.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend from 
Hawaii, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, 
Senator Inouye in a colloquy on funding for the Advanced Seal Delivery 
System (ASDS). I am concerned over the decision to cut advanced 
procurement funds for this critical special operations program. This 
will delay this critical program. As you know this manned mini-
submarine is used for the clandestine delivery of Special Operations 
Forces. It is a vast improvement over the current SEAL delivery system.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her interest in 
ASDS. As you are aware the first ASDS boat has encountered two 
technological challenges that must be overcome: screw noise and 
batteries. These issues require additional research and development. 
Since the budget was submitted, the Special Operations Command decided 
to restructure this program and has delayed procurement of the second 
ASDS boat until these issues have been solved. The Committee therefore 
reduced advanced procurement funding.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am aware of the problems facing the ASDS. The 
Carderock Naval Research Laboratory and scientists at Penn State 
University are working on the solution for screw noise. We believe a 
solution is well underway for this problem. A solution for the battery 
problem has been more elusive. The Navy has decided to develop Lithium-
Ion batteries for this purpose, but funded only one Lithium-Ion battery 
developer and a solution has been slow at best. Is the Chairman aware 
that the ASDS prime contractor funded a competing effort to develop 
Lithium-Ion batteries? A leading U.S. manufacturer of Lithium-Ion 
battery technology is close to meeting the ASDS battery need. The Navy 
program manager is excited by this alternative. As you know, I 
requested that funds be added to the FY 03 Defense Appropriation bill 
in order to allow the Navy to fund an alternative solution to help 
resolve the battery issue.
  Mr. INOUYE. I share your concern over development of a Lithium-Ion 
battery for ASDS. The Committee provided an additional $8 million for 
Procurement, Defense Wide at the request of the Senators from Maryland. 
We expect the Navy to use these funds to ensure competition to develop 
these Lithium-Ion batteries can take place and subsequently result in a 
more rapid solution to ASDS battery needs.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the Committee's increase in procurement 
for ASDS batteries. As you are aware the House provided $12 million for 
procurement of a Lithium-Ion Polymer battery and shifted $22.5 million 
from advanced procurement to research and development. I hope we will 
be able to fulfill the Navy's request to move $23.2 million from 
advanced procurement to research and development in Conference. 
Nonetheless, I am concerned that restricting the battery procurement to 
a Lithium-Ion Polymer battery will result in less competition.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her steadfast 
support of this program and appreciate her concern. I will explore the 
possibility of increasing research and development funding for ASDS and 
language that facilitates competition for the Lithium-Ion battery in 
conference, so that we can get this new technology deployed sooner.
  Mr. BYRD. I rise to engage the mangers of the FY 2003 Defense 
Appropriations bill, Senators Inouye and Stevens, in a colloquy on Navy 
Basic Research funding.

[[Page 15516]]


  Mr. INOUYE. I would be glad to discuss this matter with the Chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. STEVENS. I, too, would be glad to join with my colleagues to 
review this matter.
  Mr. BYRD. Earlier this year, I received information from our 
Appropriations Committee staff which caused me some concern about the 
Defense Department's budget request for Navy basic research in fiscal 
year 2003. The information indicated that over the past five years, 
funding levels for basic research have stayed at roughly the same level 
or have grown slightly, in real/constant dollar terms--that is, 
excluding increases for inflation. Growth in funding for applied 
research, however, has been significant, averaging about 10% per year. 
Indeed, the perception and reality of a greater emphasis on applied 
research is common in both private and public labs. Just as we've found 
to be the case in the private sector, the federally funded labs have 
been forced to be better `marketers' of their products. This has led to 
a greater emphasis on applied research because, by its very nature, the 
work being done in applied research is more product-oriented. For 
fiscal year 2003, the Defense Department proposes to cut funding for 
the Navy's basic research program--a cut of 1% in real terms.
  This shift in emphasis to applied research is understandable. But, if 
this shift comes at the expense of funding basic research programs, our 
science and technology programs will suffer in the long run. Basic 
research is the fuel for the engine of invention. Without a growing 
understanding of the fundamentals of our physical environment--energy 
sources, molecular structures, materials, and biological systems, to 
name just a few--our scientific prowess will weaken and our 
technological edge will become dull.
  Given these concerns, I believe it is prudent that Congress sustain 
funding for this important program at traditional levels. That is why I 
am pleased to report that this bill includes, at my behest, a $6 
million increase for the Navy Research lab. I want to thank the 
managers of the bill--the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator 
Inouye, and the Ranking Member, Senator Stevens--for agreeing with my 
recommendation and for their continuing efforts to enhance our 
military's technology edge.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for bringing this 
matter to the Senate's attention and for his continuing support of 
America's armed forces.
  Mr. INOUYE. I also thank the Senator for his efforts regarding Navy 
basic research and the Navy Research Lab. This is an important 
initiative, and one that I am pleased that Senator Stevens and I could 
include in the bill that we have brought before the Senate.


                       aerospace worker training

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the chairman for 
the tremendous job that he and the members of his subcommittee have 
done to craft this bill. I support their efforts to ensure that our 
Nation continues to have the best-trained and equipped military force 
in the world.
  As the chairman knows, my State has a long history of achievement in 
the field of aviation and harbors an enormous pool of talented 
individuals capable of turning innovative technological discoveries 
into manufactured reality rapidly and efficiently. We also have one of 
the most highly skilled pools of aerospace workers in the world.
  I believe that the security of our Nation and the future of the 
aviation industry will rely heavily on the development and 
implementation of highly advanced composite materials. But for the 
large-scale deployment of existing and future technologies to develop, 
it is critical that our Nation have the skilled workforce capable of 
understanding these next generation materials.
  That is why I appreciate the subcommittee's support of a new 
initiative to train aerospace workers in the use and manufacturing of 
composite materials.
  Edmonds Community College and Central Washington University in 
Washington State are developing a program aimed at improving the 
scientific and technical competencies of high school and college 
graduates in the area of materials used in manufacturing technologies. 
This program will develop a comprehensive curriculum to meet the 
growing demand for a workforce trained in materials science and will 
identify best practices for the industry.
  We believe that this will become a model teaching and training 
program for the ever-changing materials technology field, and will 
involve future integration with advanced, cutting-edge basic research 
in composites materials and engineering conducted at the University of 
Washington. Taken together, this collaboration in Puget Sound 
educational resources in the material sciences will maintain and 
strengthen our country's foremost position in aerospace research, 
development and manufacturing.
  This will provide a wealth of opportunities for incumbent aerospace 
workers to update their skills in newly developed processes, and may 
serve to pique the interest of students in material sciences and 
energize future generations to engage in math, science, manufacturing 
and engineering careers.
  So I want to thank the chairman and the subcommittee for their 
recommendation that the Senate provide $500,000 in this bill to 
implement the first phase of this program and confirm that it is the 
committee's intention that the funds provided in the Air Force 
Materials Science account be used for this program at Edmonds Community 
College. I further want to ask the chairman if he will work with me to 
ensure that the funding provided for this program is maintained in 
conference and expanded in future years to further this effort.
  I thank the presiding officer and the chairman, and look forward to 
his response.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator is exactly right, it is the 
intent of the legislation to provide $500,000 for the program in 
Washington.
  I assure the Senator that I will work with my colleagues to support 
these funds.
  Preparing for the use of innovate materials in future aircraft 
designs is critical to enhancing air superiority. I will work with the 
Senator to address these needs in this year's legislation and will 
carefully consider ways to enhance those efforts in years to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the 
Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5010, the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, at 2 p.m., Thursday, August 1; there be 50 minutes 
remaining for debate divided as follows: 10 minutes each for the two 
leaders or their designees and the two managers or their designees, and 
that the only first-degree amendments remaining in order be the McCain 
amendment, No. 4445 and the Committee-reported substitute; that there 
be 10 minutes of debate with respect to the McCain amendment with the 
time equally divided and controlled between the managers and Senator 
McCain; that at the use or yielding back of that time, without further 
intervening action, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment; that 
if the McCain amendment is not tabled, then relevant second-degree 
amendments would be in order to the McCain amendment with no time 
limitation on the relevant second-degree amendments; that upon 
disposition of the McCain amendment the committee-reported substitute 
as amended be agreed to, the bill then be read a third time, and the 
Senate vote on passage of the bill; that Section 303 of the 
Congressional Budget Act be waived; that upon passage the Senate insist 
on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes off the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized 
to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, without further 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 15517]]




                           Amendment No. 4445

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate 
the McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to table the McCain amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before the two managers leave, I don't 
know how enough could be said about the way this bill was managed. This 
is the largest Defense bill in the history of the world and the United 
States. Yet we started this just a few hours ago, and it is finished 
and no one can complain about this not having been scrubbed. Staff from 
all the offices have had the opportunity to come and do what they 
believe is appropriate.
  But the good work on the bill was not only done here on the floor but 
in subcommittee and the full committee--which has just been topped off 
by the remarkable good work of these two sensational Senators.
  I speak for both sides of the aisle that if a chapter had to be 
written on how to manage a bill, it should go to Senators Inouye and 
Stevens because that is how a bill should be managed. I have never seen 
anything like it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank my leader. But I believe that 
much credit should go to the staff. We have one of the finest staff 
members in the whole Senate. I refer to Charlie Houy on the majority 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President. I repeat that. We are blessed with 
probably the hardest working staff in the Congress. I am grateful to my 
great friend and chief assistant, Steve Cortese, for his work.
  But I would say this to the Senator from Nevada. For those of us who 
served in uniform, I think the greatest privilege there is is being 
able to manage this bill because it affects the people who have 
followed us, being willing to take up arms to defend our country. I 
know of no better group to work with and no group that really needs our 
help more than they do.
  I thank the Senator for his kindness.
  We would pay you for the job. It is like flying. I used to tell 
people they are paying me to fly and I would have paid them to let me 
fly. But I would pay for this job.
  It is an amazing, amazing feeling to know we can accomplish some of 
the things we did tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are all very proud of the men and 
women of the military as they have responded to the attacks of 
September 11 and as they continue to protect us here at home and around 
the world.
  As we work on the Defense appropriations bill, we have an obligation 
to the men and women who are defending us to make sure they have the 
resources and the equipment they need.
  Tonight, I rise in strong opposition to the McCain amendment on which 
this body will be voting tomorrow morning. The Senator from Arizona 
persists in his efforts to redefine an issue that this entire Congress 
has already endorsed and that the President has signed into law.
  The McCain amendment addresses both the 767 and the 737 lease 
provisions that were endorsed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin less 
than 1 year ago.
  Frankly, I am puzzled that this issue continues to come up. The 
Appropriations Committee engaged in this issue following consideration 
of the Defense authorization bill last year. The issue came to light in 
part because of the terrorist attack on our country, the global war on 
terrorism, and the tremendous demand placed upon our air refueling 
fleet.
  This issue was not a sleight of hand to undermine the authorizing 
committee. We acted out of necessity as our country responded to 
September 11 and to terrorism. We had a lengthy debate, thanks to the 
Senator from Arizona, and the Congress agreed to go forward using the 
lease option as the vehicle to give our men and women in uniform the 
asset they need.
  Not long ago, the Senate considered the Defense authorization 
legislation. The Senator from Arizona sits on that committee. That was 
the bill to have this debate. The Senator complains that the 
appropriations bill is the wrong place to authorize. Yet here we are 
considering an authorizing amendment offered by the Senator from 
Arizona on an appropriations bill.
  I read his amendment, and I want my colleagues to understand what is 
really at stake.
  The Senator from Arizona wants us to open the doors to the Air Force 
and the Department of Defense to Airbus. It is quite simple to me. One 
U.S. company manufactures commercial aircraft of this type. One, and 
only one, U.S. company can meet the Air Force's needs.
  The issue before the Senate is whether U.S. workers or European 
workers will manufacture U.S. military aircraft. That is the bottom 
line. That is what the vote will be about tomorrow.
  Let me also say that the Senator from Arizona has a broader agenda 
than the language in this amendment. Listen to his rhetoric. He 
interchanges the 737 and the 767 lease programs approved by the 
Congress. The language in his amendment is about the 737 lease, but he 
references, time and again, the larger issue of the 767 tanker lease.
  So let's talk about the 767 tanker lease. Since September 11, one 
piece of equipment has become more critical than ever, air refueling 
tankers. These flying gas stations allow us to project our military 
around the globe. In fact, tankers are the backbone of our air 
capability.
  Just look at the war in Afghanistan. Our B-2 stealth bombers had to 
get from their base in Missouri to Afghanistan and back. They needed to 
be refueled in the air nine times. Our bombers, which left the airbase 
on Diego Garcia, had to be refueled three times to reach their targets 
3,000 miles away. So we needed the tankers to get our aircraft over 
there.
  We also relied on our tankers to keep our planes going during the 
fighting. During the heaviest bombing of the Afghanistan battles, 30 to 
35 tankers were in the air nearly around the clock to refuel 100 
tactical jets. Even carrier-based warplanes needed the aid of air 
tankers to strike their targets in Afghanistan.
  Here at home, many of our cities were protected by combat air 
patrols. Those patrols relied on air refueling tankers.
  As Air Force Lt. Gen. Plummer put it:

       In the opening campaign of this war, every bomb, bullet and 
     bayonet brought into the theater got there thanks to our 
     aging refueling tanker fleet. . . .

  Our reliance on tankers has grown 45 percent from fiscal year 2001. 
So whether it is projecting our force around the world or supporting 
our aircraft in the middle of a fight or keeping our homeland safe, the 
men and women of our military rely on our KC-135 tankers.
  But there are serious problems with these tankers. They are old. In 
fact, they are among the oldest aircraft in the entire service. Because 
they are so old, they are not reliable, they are often down for 
repairs, and they cost a fortune to maintain.
  Just look at the figures. The average age of these tankers is 41 
years. One-third of the fleet is unfit to fly at any given time due to 
mechanical failure. Each plane requires a full year of maintenance for 
every 4 years spent on duty. A 41-year-old aircraft runs on parts that 
are not commercially available. Corrosion is also a significant 
problem. In fact, KC-135s spend about 400 days in major depot 
maintenance every 5 years.
  So what we have are old planes that cost a fortune to keep flying and 
that are often down for repairs. That is not what you want in an 
aircraft that is used to protect your military around the world in the 
middle of a war.
  Some have suggested that we just keep repairing the existing planes, 
and

[[Page 15518]]

we could do that. But it does not make sense financially. It takes 
those planes out of service for a very long time. It would forfeit new 
planes that are more flexible, more reliable, and more efficient.
  Let me share with the Senate something Secretary Rumsfeld said 
earlier this year:

       We needed to begin moving out some of the older pieces of 
     equipment that are--aircraft and various things that require 
     so much upkeep and maintenance and so much on spare parts, 
     that it is unwise to continue to try to maintain them.

  Secretary Rumsfeld also said:

       So you end up trying to take a 1934 Oldsmobile and prop it 
     up for another five, six years, and there's a point beyond 
     which that doesn't make good sense.

  We have reached that point.
  I show you a picture of an old Oldsmobile. I think it is actually a 
1939 Olds, but it proves the same point.
  We could keep repairing them, but it does not make sense to keep 
pumping money into a 41-year-old airframe. It is expensive. If you want 
to keep one of these old planes going, you probably are going to have 
to remove the plane's metal skin because these planes, as I said 
before, have a lot of corrosion.
  I share with my colleagues a photograph showing some of the problems 
with the metal on these aging tankers.
  To ``re-skin'' this airplane costs $26 million. Does it make sense to 
do that to 100 planes? Mr. President, $26 million is an awful lot of 
money to fix one problem with one 41-year-old plane.
  After you have replaced the skin of the aircraft, it is probably 
going to need new engines. That is not cheap. To put a new engine in 
100, 125 tankers is going to cost $3 billion. That is a lot of money 
for a 41-year-old airplane.
  There are other parts that need to be replaced. It would be one thing 
if you could fix them all today, but it takes a long time to overhaul 
these tankers. Right now, we are overhauling four a year. At a certain 
point, it is just not worth dumping money into these old planes.
  K-135s were first delivered to the Air Force in 1957. On average, 
they are 41-year-olds, and we are paying for it. They have been around 
longer than most of the people who are flying them. There is no 
question they must be replaced with new tankers; the only question is 
when.
  I would love for us to be able to buy these new tankers today, but 
there is not enough money in the Air Force's procurement budget. So 
many of us in Congress have worked very hard to work out a more 
flexible approach, an approach that is used with commercial aircraft 
all the time.
  In December, Congress approved, and the President signed, legislation 
to authorize the Air Force to negotiate with Boeing on a 10-year lease 
of 100 new 767 aircraft to use as air tankers. Congress has authorized 
the lease program for both the 767 and the 737 aircraft. My colleagues 
will recall that the bill to authorize these lease programs for the Air 
Force was approved by this Senate 96 to 4.
  I also want to remind my colleagues what the Secretary of the Air 
Force, James Roche, wrote to me in a letter. I will 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 strongly endorse beginning to upgrade this critical 
     warfighting capability with new Boeing 767 tanker aircraft.

  That is from Air Force Secretary James Roche.
  My home State of Washington is home to the 92nd Air Refueling Wing. 
There are approximately 60 air refueling tankers that are based outside 
of Spokane, WA. I have been to Fairchild. I have visited personally 
with the families. I know the difficult missions these crews handle for 
each one of us every single day. And I know the men and women of the 
92nd Air Refueling Wing need these aircraft.
  The Senator from Arizona talks about leasing aircraft as if the lives 
of our men and women in uniform were not at stake. I remind my 
colleagues that we are talking about equipping young American pilots 
and the missions they support to go forward with the greatest 
opportunity to succeed.
  Mr. President, I encourage the Senate, tomorrow, to table the McCain 
amendment.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the events of the past 11 months 
have forced every American to become more vigilant against the threats 
to our nation's security. I want to commend the chairman, Senator 
Inouye, and the ranking member, Senator Stevens, for bringing to the 
floor a bill that responds to such threats by better protecting our 
Nation's citizens as well as our servicemen and women.
  Even before the attacks of September 11th of last year, however, our 
Nation's military began to see that traditional notions of warfare and 
defense would have to evolve to meet new and ever more dangerous 
threats. The bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, for example, made clear 
to us that our naval forces must be equipped with the most advanced 
surveillance and response vessels available.
  It is for this reason that I have an amendment in support of the 
Navy's development and demonstration of the SeaLion craft. This vessel, 
designed for coastal area operations here in the United States and 
abroad, has already begun to prove itself capable of meeting the 
challenges faced by our Navy today, and well into the future.
  Military operations in coastal areas involve significantly different 
challenges from deep water operations, such as reduced operational 
space and environmental clutter. Accordingly, surveillance, weapon 
systems and naval tactics designed for deep water operations are 
inadequate for the complex environmental and dimensional aspects of the 
coastal battle space. In such areas, small boats can effectively 
protect coastal installations, combat blue water navies, and hinder 
freedom of navigation for these navies and their supply ships.
  The rapidly evolving nature of maritime warfare, the threat of 
terrorist activities against our naval forces abroad, and the need to 
protect our own ports here at home: each of these challenges require 
that the United States make a concerted effort to maintain a solid lead 
in the development of advanced technologies for coastal operations.
  The SeaLion craft is perfectly positioned to support this role. It is 
a high speed, low-radar-signature vessel whose unique versatility lends 
itself to a broad spectrum of mission applications, from surveillance 
to interdiction to engagement. The SeaLion has already received strong 
endorsement from the Naval Sea Systems Command for its utility in 
special operations, and is poised for further evaluation as part of the 
Navy's Littoral Combat Ship platform.
  This amendment would allow $8 million of funds appropriated by the 
bill to be used for the continued development, demonstration and 
evaluation of the SeaLion vessel. I ask for my colleagues' support.

                          ____________________