[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 12758-12785]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1050, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1050) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2004 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Murray Amendment No. 691, to restore a previous policy 
     regarding restrictions on use of Department of Defense 
     medical facilities.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
pending amendment is set aside.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 791

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 791.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Daschle and Mr. 
     Johnson, proposes an amendment No. 791.

  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:

  (Purpose: To set aside an amount for reconstituting the B-1B bomber 
                    aircraft fleet of the Air Force)

       On page 21, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 132. B-1B BOMBER AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Amount for Aircraft.--(1) Of the amount authorized to 
     be appropriated under section 103(1), $20,300,000 shall be 
     available to reconstitute the fleet of B-1B bomber aircraft 
     through modifications of 23 B-1B bomber aircraft otherwise 
     scheduled to be retired in fiscal year 2003 that extend the 
     service life of such aircraft and maintain or, as necessary, 
     improve the capabilities of such aircraft for mission 
     performance.
       (2) The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report that specifies the 
     amounts necessary to be included in the future-years defense 
     program to reconstitute the B-1B bomber aircraft fleet of the 
     Air Force.
       (b) Adjustment.--(1) The total amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 103(1) is hereby increased by 
     $20,300,000.
       (2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 104 is hereby reduced by $20,300,000, with the amount 
     of the reduction to be allocated to SOF operational 
     enhancements.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
distinguished leader and ranking member, my understanding is that 
amendment requires a further amendment, and then it is in an acceptable 
form. Am I not correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could ask the Senator to yield, it is my 
understanding that the amendment has been agreed to but the paperwork 
has not yet been completed to accomplish the agreement.
  Mr. REID. If the Chair would allow me, Senator Daschle agreed to the 
modification of the amendment. That could be handled either later today 
or in the managers' package.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. Perhaps 
in the course of the debate this morning we can reach that agreement 
quickly.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  (Mr. Fitzgerald assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I first express to colleagues in the 
Senate our appreciation for their patience. We have achieved remarkable 
results, in my judgment, under the guidance of the distinguished 
Democratic whip and the Republican whip on this side, helping the two 
managers.
  Mr. President, my colleague Senator Levin and I wish to turn to a 
package of some 30 agreed-upon amendments. At the conclusion of that, 
we will entertain a unanimous consent request which should pretty well 
keep us in motion here.


                           Amendment No. 804

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Smith which will authorize land exchange at the Naval and Marine Corps 
Reserve Center in Portland, OR.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Smith, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 804.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize a land exchange, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve 
                       Center, Portland, Oregon)

       At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 2825. LAND EXCHANGE, NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE 
                   CENTER, PORTLAND OREGON.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may 
     convey to the United Parcel Service, Inc. (in this section 
     referred to as ``UPS''), any or all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real 
     property, including improvements thereon, consisting of 
     approximately 14 acres in Portland, Oregon, and comprising 
     the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center for the purpose of 
     facilitating the expansion of the UPS main distribution 
     complex in Portland.
       (b) Property Received in Exchange.--(1) As consideration 
     for the conveyance under subsection (a), UPS shall--
       (A) convey to the United States a parcel of real property 
     determined to be suitable by the Secretary; and
       (B) design, construct, and convey such replacement 
     facilities on the property conveyed under subparagraph (A) as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (2) The value of the real property and replacement 
     facilities received by the Secretary under this subsection 
     shall be at least equal to the fair market value of the real 
     property conveyed under subsection (a), as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (c) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--(1) The Secretary may 
     require UPS to cover costs to be incurred by the Secretary, 
     or to reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred by the 
     Secretary, to carry out the conveyance under subsection (a), 
     including survey costs, costs related to environmental 
     documentation, relocation expenses incurred under subsection 
     (b), and other administrative costs related to the 
     conveyance. If amounts are collected from UPS in advance of 
     the Secretary incurring the actual costs, and the amount 
     collected exceeds the costs actually incurred by the 
     Secretary to carry

[[Page 12759]]

     out the conveyance, the Secretary shall refund the excess 
     amount to UPS.
       (2) Amounts received as reimbursement under paragraph (1) 
     shall be credited to the fund or account that was used to 
     cover the costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out the 
     conveyance. Amounts so credited shall be merged with amounts 
     in such fund or account, and shall be available for the same 
     purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations, 
     as amounts in such fund or account.
       (d) Condition of Conveyance.--The Secretary may not make 
     the conveyance authorized by subsection (a) until the 
     Secretary determines that the replacement facilities required 
     by subsection (b) are suitable and available for the 
     relocation of the operations of the Naval and Marine Corps 
     Reserve Center.
       (e) Exemption From Federal Screening.--The conveyance 
     authorized by subsection (a) is exempt from the requirement 
     to screen the property for other Federal use pursuant to 
     sections 2693 and 2696 of title 10, United States Code.
       (f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the property to be conveyed under this section 
     shall be determined by surveys satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyances under this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have no objection to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 804) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 805

  Mr. LEVIN. I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Sarbanes that 
would provide for the conveyance of 33 acres of land in Fort Ritchie, 
MD.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside for all the amendments which Senator Warner and 
I will now be offering.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Sarbanes, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 805.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of land at Fort Ritchie, 
                               Maryland)

       On page 370, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 2825. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT RITCHIE, MARYLAND.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
     convey, without consideration, to the PenMar Development 
     Corporation, a public instrumentality of the State of 
     Maryland (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Corporation''), all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to a parcel of real property, including 
     improvements thereon, at former Fort Ritchie, Cascade, 
     Maryland, consisting of approximately 33 acres, that is 
     currently being leased by the International Masonry Institute 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Institute''), for the 
     purpose of enabling the Corporation to sell the property to 
     the Institute for the economic development of former Fort 
     Ritchie.
       (b) Exemption from Federal Screening Requirement.--The 
     conveyance authorized by subsection (a) shall be exempt from 
     the requirement to screen the property concerned for further 
     Federal use pursuant to section 2696 of title 10, United 
     States Code, under the Defense Base and Realignment Act of 
     1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 
     2687 note) or under any other applicable law or regulation.
       (c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by 
     the Corporation.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 805) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 707, as Modified

  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senator Inhofe, I offer an amendment that 
supports Army research and development funding for human tissue 
engineering. It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 707, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To add an amount of Army RDT&E funding for human tissue 
 engineering, and to provide offsets within the same authorization of 
                            appropriations)

       On page 25, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 213. HUMAN TISSUE ENGINEERING.

       (a) Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 201(1), $1,700,000 may be available in PE 
     0602787 for human tissue engineering. The total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 201(1) is hereby 
     increased by $1,700,000.
       (b) Offsets.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 301(4) for operations and maintenance, Air 
     Force, is hereby reduced by $1,700,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 707), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 791, As Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I offer a modified amendment on behalf of 
Senator Daschle that would add an additional $20.3 million for B-1B 
bomber modifications. I believe it has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator intend this to be a 
modification of the pending Daschle amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am not sure I can hear the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan intend this to 
be a modification of the pending Daschle amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. We do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 791, previously proposed by the Senator from Nevada, 
     Mr. Reid, for Mr. Daschle, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To set aside an amount for reconstituting the B-1B bomber 
                    aircraft fleet of the Air Force)

       On page 21, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 132. B-1B BOMBER AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Amount for Aircraft.--(1) Of the amount authorized to 
     be appropriated under section 103(1), $20,300,000 may be 
     available to reconstitute the fleet of B-1B bomber aircraft 
     through modifications of 23 B-1B bomber aircraft otherwise 
     scheduled to be retired in fiscal year 2003 that extend the 
     service life of such aircraft and maintain or, as necessary, 
     improve the capabilities of such aircraft for mission 
     performance.
       (2) The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report that specifies the 
     amounts necessary to be included in the future-years defense 
     program to reconstitute the B-1B bomber aircraft fleet of the 
     Air Force.
       (b) Adjustment.--(1) The total amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 103(1) is hereby increased by 
     $20,300,000.
       (2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 104 is hereby reduced by $20,300,000, with the amount 
     of the reduction to be allocated to SOF operational 
     enhancements.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate will soon adopt a new national 
Defense authorization bill. I commend Senators Warner and Levin, the 
distinguished managers of this bill, for their excellent work. They 
have worked well together on an important piece of legislation.
  This crucial legislation, the fiscal year 2004 National Defense 
authorization bill, provides funds for our troops,

[[Page 12760]]

their training, and their equipment. Coming as it does on the heels of 
the end of the fighting in Iraq, it also provides the Senate with its 
first opportunity to act on some of the lessons we have learned in that 
conflict.
  Although the hostilities ended a short time ago and much more needs 
to be done in Iraq, I do not believe it is premature to begin drawing 
some conclusions about which forces and equipment performed well. Based 
on the Pentagon's assessments as well as media reports, it appears the 
B-1B aircraft and their crews performed magnificently.
  Just as in Afghanistan, we had few air bases in adjacent countries. 
Fortunately the B-1's long operating range overcame that problem. Just 
as in Afghanistan, our air tankers were straining to keep up the demand 
for midair refueling--but B-1s were part of the solution, with their 
ability to cover long distances and strike 24 targets on a single 
mission. Just as in Afghanistan, we needed the ability to carry out 
strikes around the clock, on a moment's notice, regardless of weather 
conditions and B-1s did the job, day after day, until the Iraqi 
military was routed and its leadership was no more.
  All of this served to reinforce what many have believed to be true 
for quite some time now; namely, that the Pentagon acted too hastily a 
few years ago when it decided to retire one-third of our B-1B bomber 
fleet.
  The plan to retire one-third of the B-1 fleet was developed before 
the September 11th attacks, before the war on terrorism, before the 
fighting in Afghanistan, and before Iraq. Given the proven record of 
performance of the B-1, the age of our current heavy bomber fleet, the 
lack of a next-generation bomber, and the fact that it took 20 years 
before our Nation's last bomber-development program could field 
planes--it seems incredible that we are consigning 23 of our most 
capable aircraft, a plane referred to by those who know it best as the 
``backbone of the bomber fleet,'' to the Arizona desert.
  My amendment would begin the process of rolling back the decision to 
retire those 23 planes. It would rebuild our bomber fleet toward the 
level recommended in our last comprehensive review of bomber needs, the 
U.S. Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers. That report 
determined that 93 B-1s were needed to protect U.S. national security 
interests until a replacement capability is available. My amendment 
would put us on the path to 83 B-1s--the most we can muster, given 
decommissioning work that is already well underway on some aircraft.
  Senator Johnson and I have consulted with the Air Force about the 
timing and funding requirements to regenerate 23 planes and have 
determined that an appropriate first-year effort would be $20.3 
million. This is also the level of effort being recommended by the 
House Armed Service Committee in the bill being taken up this morning 
on the House floor. This fiscal year 2004 funding would launch a 
multiyear program to provide these 23 planes the same capabilities as 
the rest of the B-1 fleet.
  To begin with, these planes would require the Block E upgrade to B-1 
offensive systems that almost all of our B-1 fleet has already 
received. Additional assorted upgrades will also be required, and my 
amendment would begin that work--configuration to accommodate towed 
decoys, installation of new datalink capabilities, and modifications to 
improve the dependability and capability of the plane's electronic 
countermeasure system and its central integrated test system.
  Finally, my amendment would require the Air Force to report back to 
congressional defense committees on additional funding requirements 
needed in the Future Years Defense Plan, (FYDP) to fully restore these 
aircraft to operational levels.
  This is our last chance to halt the retirement of B-1s, since many 
are scheduled to be sent to Arizona by the end of this fiscal year. In 
light of what we know now about the hasty manner in which the B-1 
retirement decision was made, the B-1's proven combat effectiveness, 
and our Nation's anticipated security requirements, it is time to begin 
bringing back these 23 planes.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I support the Daschle-Johnson amendment 
to the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. This amendment will 
provide the funding necessary to maintain a strong and reliable B-1 
bomber fleet.
  Over the past week, the B-1 bombers, crews, and support staff of the 
28th Bomb Wing have begun to return to Ellsworth Air Force Base from 
their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. As they did in Kosovo and 
Afghanistan, the B-1 bombers performed superbly in the war in Iraq. 
They have once again demonstrated that they are the backbone of 
America's bomber fleet. The B-1's unique ability to linger over the 
battlefield and provide responsive firepower at the time and place 
required by military commanders was an integral part of our victory in 
Iraq.
  Although B-1s flew fewer than 2 percent of the combat sorties in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, they dropped more than half the satellite 
guided Air Force Joint Direct Attack Munitions, (JDAMs). The B-1s were 
tasked against the full spectrum of potential targets in Iraq, 
including command and control facilities, bunkers, tanks, armored 
personnel carriers, and surface-to-air missile sites. They also 
provided close air support for U.S. forces engaged in the field. The 
bombers and crews accomplished all of this while maintaining over an 80 
percent mission capable rate. This record of success proves B-1 is a 
vital, versatile, and potent component of our military force structure.
  The Daschle-Johnson amendment would provide the funding needed to 
start regenerating, modernizing, and returning 23 B-1s to our bomber 
fleet. The Department of Defense is in the process of implementing its 
plan to retire all but 60 B-1s, this is despite a U.S. Air Force White 
Paper on Long Range Bombers that determined it was in our national 
security interests to maintain the full B-1 fleet. Furthermore, since 
the Pentagon announced its decision to consolidate the fleet, the B-1s 
have been instrumental in the military success of both Operation 
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Given the demonstration of its unique capabilities in both these 
campaigns, it makes little sense to continue forward with the 
retirement of one-third of the B-1 fleet. With the funding provided in 
the Daschle-Johnson amendment, and planned increases in the Air Force's 
budget in future years, additional modernized B-1s could enter service 
in fiscal year 2005. The B-1's ability to carry a large payload of 
satellite guided weapons and to strike from long distances will make it 
an important part of our Nation's defense for many years.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the long-term 
viability of the B-1 fleet by voting in favor of the Daschle-Johnson 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. It is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 791), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 787, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an amendment to 
support naval research and development for nonthermal imaging systems. 
The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 787, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available $2,000,000 for non-thermal imaging systems)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 213. NON-THERMAL IMAGING SYSTEMS.

       (a) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(2) for research, development, 
     test,

[[Page 12761]]

     and evaluation for the Navy and available for Power 
     Projection Applied Research (PE 602114N), $2,000,000 may be 
     available for research and development of non-thermal imaging 
     systems. The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201(2) is hereby increased by $2,000,000.
       (b) Offsets.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for operations and maintenance, Air Force, is 
     hereby reduced by $1,000,000 and the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 104 for Defense-Wide Activities, is 
     hereby reduced by $1,000,000 for SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. It has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 787), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 806

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden, I send an 
amendment to the desk which would increase by 30 the personnel end 
strength of the Air National Guard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Biden, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 806.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase by 30 personnel the personnel end strength of the 
 Air National Guard of the United States as of September 30, 2004, to 
 provide personnel to improve the information operations capability of 
              the Air National Guard of the United States)

       (a) In section 411(a)(5), relating to the authorized 
     strength for Selected Reserve personnel of the Air National 
     Guard of the United States as of September 30, 2004, strike 
     ``107,000'' and insert ``107,030''.
       (b) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 104 is hereby reduced by $3,300,000, including 
     $2,100,000 from SOF rotary wing upgrades and $1,200,000 from 
     SOF operational enhancements.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 806) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed.


                     Amendment No. 788, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. I offer an amendment to make available funds for 
operation and maintenance for the Army Reserve for information 
operations for Land Forces Readiness-Information Operations 
Sustainment. This amendment has been modified to provide offsets.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 788, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $3,000,000 for operation 
  and maintenance for the Army Reserve for information operations for 
       Land Forces Readiness--Information Operations Sustainment)

       At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 313. INFORMATION OPERATIONS SUSTAINMENT FOR LAND FORCES 
                   READINESS OF ARMY RESERVE.

       (a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations for Army 
     Reserve.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(6) for operation and maintenance for the Army Reserve is 
     hereby increased by $3,000,000.
       (b) Availability for Information Operations Sustainment.--
     (1) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(6) for operation and maintenance for the Army Reserve, as 
     increased by subsection (a), $3,000,000 may be available for 
     Information Operations (Account #19640) for Land Forces 
     Readiness-Information Operations Sustainment.
       (2) The amount available under paragraph (1) for the 
     purpose specified in that paragraph is in addition to any 
     other amounts available under this Act for that purpose.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for operation and maintenance for the Air 
     Force is hereby reduced by $3,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 788), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 807

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an 
amendment which authorizes $2.1 million to conduct research and 
development activity for the Holloman Air Force Base high-speed test 
track.
  I believe it has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 807.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $2,100,000 from amounts 
 available for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air 
     Force for Major T&E Investment (PE 0604759F) for research an 
development on magnetic levitation technologies at the high speed test 
             track at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 213. MAGNETIC LEVITATION.

       (a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(3) for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force 
     is hereby increased by $2,100,000, with the amount of the 
     increase to be allocated to Major T&E Investment (PE 
     0604759F).
       (b) Availability.--(1) Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Air Force and available for 
     Major T&E Investment, as increased by subsection (a), 
     $2,100,000 may be available for research and development on 
     magnetic levitation technologies at the high speed test track 
     at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
       (2) The amount available under paragraph (1) for the 
     purpose specified in that paragraph is in addition to any 
     other amounts available under this Act for that purpose.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for operation and maintenance, Air Force, is 
     hereby reduced by $2,100,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 807) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 808

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an 
amendment that adds $2 million for the Army for the procurement of 
rapid infusion pumps.
  The matter has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 808.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $2,000,000 for other 
 procurement for the Army for medical equipment for the procurement of 
                       rapid infusion (IV) pumps)

       In subtitle B of title I, add after the subtitle heading 
     the following:

     SEC. 111. RAPID INFUSION PUMPS.

       (a) Availability of Funds.--(1) Of the amount authorized to 
     be appropriated by section 101(5) for other procurement, 
     Army, $2,000,000 may be available for medical equipment for 
     the procurement of rapid infusion (IV) pumps.
       (2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 101(5) is hereby increased by $2,000,000.
       (b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(1) for operations and maintenance, Army, the 
     amount available is hereby reduced by $2,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.

[[Page 12762]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 808) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 743, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham, I offer an 
amendment which adds $8 million to Marine Corps research and 
development funds for development of the collaborative information 
warfare network in the critical infrastructure protection center.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Graham of 
     South Carolina, proposes an amendment numbered 743, as 
     modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To set aside an increased amount for the Collaborative 
 Information Warfare Network at the Critical Infrastructure Protection 
              Center at the Space Warfare Systems Center)

       On page 40, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 235. AMOUNT FOR COLLABORATIVE INFORMATION WARFARE 
                   NETWORK.

       (1) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(2), for research and development, Navy, $8,000,000 may be 
     available for the Collaborative Information Warfare Network.
       (2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201(2) is hereby increased by $8,000,000.
       (3) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(4) for operation and maintenance, Air Force, the 
     amount is hereby reduced by $8,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 743), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 723, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an 
amendment which would add $2 million in Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation funding for the development and fabrication of composite 
submarine sail test articles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 723, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To set aside an amount of Navy RDT&E funding for the 
    development and fabrication of composite sail test articles for 
           incorporation into designs for future submarines)

       On page 25, between lines 11 and 12, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 213. COMPOSITE SAIL TEST ARTICLES.

       (a) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201(2) for Virginia-class submarine development may 
     be increased by $2,000,000 for the development and 
     fabrication of composite sail test articles for incorporation 
     into designs for future submarines.
       (b) Defense-Wide Activities.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under section 104 may be reduced by $2,000,000, 
     to be derived from the amount provided for SOF operational 
     enhancements.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 723), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 809

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an 
amendment to support Army research and development for portable mobile 
emergency broadband systems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 809.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $2,000,000 for research, 
 development, test, and evaluation for the Army for the development of 
           Portable Mobile Emergency Broadband Systems (MEBS)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 213. PORTABLE MOBILE EMERGENCY BROADBAND SYSTEMS.

       (a) Availability of Funds.--(1) Of the amount authorized to 
     be appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Army, $2,000,000 may be 
     available for the development of Portable Mobile Emergency 
     Broadband Systems (MEBS).
       (2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201(1) is hereby increased by $2,000,000.
       (b) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 104 for Procurement, Defense-wide activities, SOF 
     Operational Enhancements is hereby reduced by $2,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 809) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 810

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an 
amendment which would add funds for research and development of boron 
energy cell technology.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 810.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide, with an offset, an additional $5,000,000 for 
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force for boron 
                        energy cell technology)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 213. BORON ENERGY CELL TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Increase in RDT&E, Air Force.--The amount authorized to 
     be appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby increased by 
     $5,000,000.
       (b) Availability for Boron Energy Cell Technology.--(1) of 
     the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(3) 
     for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air 
     Force, as increased by subsection (a), $5,000,000 may be 
     available for research, development, test, and evaluation on 
     boron energy cell technology.
       (2) The amount available under paragraph (1) for the 
     purpose specified in that paragraph is in addition to any 
     other amounts available under this Act for that purpose.
       (c) Offset from Operations and Maintenance.--The amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 301(1), for 
     operations and maintenance for the Army is hereby reduced by 
     $5,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 810) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 760

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cochran and others, I 
offer an amendment which makes available funds for the Arrow ballistic 
missile defense system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Cochran, 
     Mr. Reed, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. 
     Mikulski, and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 760.

  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page 12763]]



    (Purpose: To set aside an amount for coproduction of the Arrow 
                   ballistic missile defense system)

       On page 40, between lines 7 and 8 insert the following:

     SEC. 235. COPRODUCTION OF ARROW BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 
                   SYSTEM.

       Of the total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 201 for ballistic missile defense, $115,000,000 may 
     be available for coproduction of the Arrow ballistic missile 
     defense system.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a 
cosponsor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, likewise, I ask unanimous consent to be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 760) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 790, As Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an 
amendment that would add a reporting requirement to section 3131.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 790, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a report assessing the effects of the repeal of 
 the prohibition on the research and development of low-yield nuclear 
                                weapons)

       In section 3131, add at the end the following:
       (c) Report.--(1) Not later than March 1, 2004, the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly 
     submit to Congress a report assessing whether or not the 
     repeal of section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1994, will affect the ability of the 
     United States to achieve its non-proliferation objectives and 
     whether or not any changes in programs and activities would 
     be required to achieve these objectives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 790), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 811

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would amend 
section 2611 of the United States Code title X to allow the Secretary 
of the Navy to accept guarantees as gifts for the construction of a 
United States Marine Corps Heritage Center, enabling the center to be 
completed in time for the 230th anniversary of the United States Marine 
Corps in November of 2005.
  It has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 811.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the acceptance of guarantees with gifts for the 
 development of the Marine Corps Heritage Center at Marine Corps Base, 
                          Quantico, Virginia)

       On page 278, beginning on line 16, strike ``FOR ASIA-
     PACIFIC CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES''.

       On page 280, after the matter following line 7, insert the 
     following:
       (c) Acceptance of Guarantees with Gifts in Development of 
     Marine Corps Heritage Center, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, 
     Virginia.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may utilize the 
     authority in section 6975 of title 10, United States Code, 
     for purposes of the project to develop the Marine Corps 
     Heritage Center at Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia, 
     authorized by section 2884 of the Military Construction 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of the 
     Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2001; as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 
     Stat. 1654A-440).
       (2) The authority in paragraph (1) shall expire on December 
     31, 2006.
       (3) The expiration under paragraph (2) of the authority in 
     paragraph (1) shall not effect any qualified guarantee 
     accepted pursuant to such authority for purposes of the 
     project referred to in paragraph (1) before the date of the 
     expiration of such authority under paragraph (2).

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the Warner amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 811) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 
period throughout the remainder of the day for those who wish to be 
added as cosponsors of this amendment to so indicate to the Presiding 
Officer their desire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 737

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida, I 
offer an amendment that would authorize travel and transportation 
allowances for dependents of service members who have committed 
dependent abuse against a spouse or dependent child.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Nelson of 
     Florida, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 737.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize certain travel and transportation allowances for 
dependents of members of the Armed Forces who have committed dependent 
                                 abuse)

       At the end of subtitle G of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 565. CERTAIN TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR 
                   DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO 
                   HAVE COMMITTED DEPENDENT ABUSE.

       Section 406(h) of title 37, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) If the Secretary concerned makes a determination 
     described in subparagraph (B) with respect to the spouse or a 
     dependent of a member described in that subparagraph and a 
     request described in subparagraph (C) has been by the spouse 
     or on behalf of such dependent, the Secretary may provide any 
     benefit authorized for a member under paragraph (1) or (3) to 
     the spouse or such dependent in lieu of providing such 
     benefit to the member.
       ``(B) A determination described in this subparagraph is a 
     determination by the commanding officer of a member that--
       ``(i) the member has committed a dependent-abuse offense 
     against the spouse or a dependent of the member;
       ``(ii) a safety plan and counseling have been provided to 
     the spouse or such dependent;
       ``(iii) the safety of the spouse or such dependent is at 
     risk; and
       ``(iv) the relocation of the spouse or such dependent is 
     advisable.
       ``(C) A request described in this subparagraph is a request 
     by the spouse of a member, or by the parent of a dependent 
     child in the case of a dependent child of a member, for 
     relocation.
       ``(D) Transportation may be provided under this paragraph 
     for household effects or a motor vehicle only if a written 
     agreement of the member, or an order of a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, gives possession of the effects or vehicle to 
     the spouse or dependent of the member concerned.
       ``(E) In this paragraph, the term `dependent-abuse offense' 
     means an offense described in section 1059(c) of title 10.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 737) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 812

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer an 
amendment to provide emergency and morale communications programs.

[[Page 12764]]

  The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 812.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 43, strike lines 4 through 9 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 311. EMERGENCY AND MORALE COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS.

       (a) Armed Forces Emergency Services.--Of the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 301(5) for operation 
     and maintenance for Defense-wide activities, $5,000,000 shall 
     be made available to the American Red Cross to fund the Armed 
     Forces Emergency Services.
       (b) Department of Defense Morale Telecommunications 
     Program.--(1) As soon as possible after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall establish and 
     carry out a program to provide, wherever practicable, prepaid 
     phone cards, or an equivalent telecommunications benefit 
     which includes access to telephone service, to members of the 
     Armed Forces stationed outside the United States who are 
     directly supporting military operations in Iraq or 
     Afghanistan (as determined by the Secretary) to enable them 
     to make telephone calls to family and friends in the United 
     States without cost to the member.
       (2) The value of the benefit provided by paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed $40 per month per person.
       (3) The program established by paragraph (1) shall 
     terminate on September 30, 2004.
       (4) In carrying out the program under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall maximize the use of existing Department of 
     Defense telecommunications programs and capabilities, private 
     entities free or reduced-cost services, and programs to 
     enhance morale and welfare. In addition, and notwithstanding 
     any limitation on the expenditure or obligations of 
     appropriated amounts, the Secretary may use available funds 
     appropriated to or for the use of the Department of Defense 
     that are not otherwise obligated or expended to carry out the 
     program.
       (5) The Secretary may accept gifts and donations in order 
     to defray the costs of the program. Such gifts and donations 
     may be accepted from foreign governments; foundations or 
     other charitable organizations, including those organized or 
     operating under the laws of a foreign country; and any source 
     in the private sector of the United States or a foreign 
     country.
       (6) The Secretary shall work with telecommunications 
     providers to facilitate the deployment of additional 
     telephones for use in calling the United States under the 
     program as quickly as practicable, consistent with the timely 
     provision of telecommunications benefits the program, the 
     Secretary should carry out this subsection in a manner that 
     allows for competition in the provision of such benefits.
       (7) The Secretary shall not take any action under this 
     subsection that would compromise the military objectives or 
     mission of the Department of Defense.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 812) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Th motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 813

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I offer an 
amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that United States air 
carriers should offer reduced fares and flexible terms of sale to 
members of the United States Armed Forces. This is a timely message to 
the airlines of a way in which they can show their support to military 
members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mrs. Hutchison, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 813.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that air carriers should 
         provide special fares to members of the armed forces)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. AIR FARES FOR MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that each United States air 
     carrier should--
       (1) make every effort to allow active duty members of the 
     armed forces to purchase tickets, on a space-available basis, 
     for the lowest fares offered for the flights desired, without 
     regard to advance purchase requirements and other 
     restrictions; and
       (2) offer flexible terms that allow members of the armed 
     forces on active duty to purchase, modify, or cancel tickets 
     without time restrictions, fees, or penalties.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 813) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 814

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Chambliss, I offer an 
amendment to modify the program element of the Army's short range air 
defense radar research and development program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Chambliss, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 814.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the program element of the short range air defense 
                       radar program of the Army)

       At the end of subtitle B of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 213. MODIFICATION OF PROGRAM ELEMENT OF SHORT RANGE AIR 
                   DEFENSE RADAR PROGRAM OF THE ARMY.

       The program element of the short range air defense radar 
     program of the Army may be modified from Program Element 
     602303A (Missile Technology) to Program Element 603772A 
     (Advanced Tactical Computer Science and Sensor Technology).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 814) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 815

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, I offer an 
amendment that would authorize the Department of Defense and the VA 
jointly to conduct a program to develop and evaluate integrated healing 
care practices for members of the Armed Forces and veterans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Mikulski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 815.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide additional duties for the DOD-VA Joint Executive 
Committee relating to integrated healing care practices for members of 
                     the Armed Forces and veterans)

       On page 169, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       (d) Integrated Healing Care Practices.--(1) The Secretary 
     of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may, acting 
     through the Department of Veterans Affairs-Department of 
     Defense Joint Executive Committee, conduct a program to 
     develop and evaluate integrated healing care practices for 
     members of the Armed Forces and veterans.
       (2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301(21) for the Defense Health Program may be available for 
     the program under paragraph (1).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 815) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 816

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bennett, I offer an 
amendment to require a Department of

[[Page 12765]]

Defense study of the adequacy of the beryllium industrial base.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Bennett, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 816.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a Department of Defense study of the adequacy of 
                     the beryllium industrial base)

       On page 276, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 1025. STUDY OF BERYLLIUM INDUSTRIAL BASE.

       (a) Requirement for Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     conduct a study of the adequacy of the industrial base of the 
     United States to meet defense requirements of the United 
     States for beryllium.
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 30, 2004, the Secretary 
     shall submit a report on the results of the study to 
     Congress. The report shall contain, at a minimum, the 
     following information:
       (1) A discussion of the issues identified with respect to 
     the long-term supply of beryllium.
       (2) An assessment of the need, if any, for modernization of 
     the primary sources of production of beryllium.
       (3) A discussion of the advisability of, and concepts for, 
     meeting the future defense requirements of the United States 
     for beryllium and maintaining a stable domestic industrial 
     base of sources of beryllium through--
       (A) cooperative arrangements commonly referred to as 
     public-private partnerships;
       (B) the administration of the National Defense Stockpile 
     under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act; 
     and
       (C) any other means that the Secretary identifies as 
     feasible.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 816) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 817

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators McCain, Sessions, 
Lindsey Graham, and Bayh, I offer an amendment which would add 
reporting requirements to a report on the NATO Prague Capabilities 
Commitment and the NATO Response Force.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain, for 
     himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, and Mr. 
     Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 817.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a report on decisionmaking by the North Atlantic 
                          Treaty Organization)

       On page 310, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (D) A discussion of NATO decisionmaking on the 
     implementation of the Prague Capabilities Commitment and the 
     development of the NATO Response Force, including--
       (i) an assessment of whether the Prague Capabilities 
     Commitment and the NATO Response Force are the sole 
     jurisdiction of the Defense Planning Committee, the North 
     Atlantic Council, or the Military Committee;
       (ii) a description of the circumstances which led to the 
     defense, military, security, and nuclear decisions of NATO on 
     matters such as the Prague Capabilities Commitment and the 
     NATO Response Force being made in bodies other than the 
     Defense Planning Committee;
       (iii) a description of the extent to which any member that 
     does not participate in the integrated military structure of 
     NATO contributes to each of the component committees of NATO, 
     including any and all committees relevant to the Prague 
     Capabilities Commitment and the NATO Response Force;
       (iv) a description of the extent to which any member that 
     does not participate in the integrated military structure of 
     NATO participates in deliberations and decisions of NATO on 
     resource policy, contribution ceilings, infrastructure, force 
     structure, modernization, threat assessments, training, 
     exercises, deployments, and other issues related to the 
     Prague Capabilities Commitment or the NATO Response Force;
       (v) a description and assessment of the impediments, if 
     any, that would preclude or limit NATO from conducting 
     deliberations and making decisions on matters such as the 
     Prague Capabilities Commitment or the NATO Response Force 
     solely in the Defense Planning Committee;
       (vi) the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense on 
     streamlining defense, military, and security decisionmaking 
     within NATO relating to the Prague Capabilities Commitment, 
     and NATO Response Force, and other matters, including an 
     assessment of the feasibility and advisability of the greater 
     utilization of the Defense Planning Committee for such 
     purposes; and
       (vii) if a report under this subparagraph is a report other 
     than the first report under this subparagraph, the 
     information submitted in such report under any of clauses (i) 
     through (vi) may consist solely of an update of any 
     information previously submitted under the applicable clause 
     in a preceding report under this subparagraph.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 817) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 818

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I offer an 
amendment that requires the Comptroller General to submit a report 
regarding the adequacy of special pays and allowances for service 
members who experience frequent deployments away from their permanent 
duty stations for periods less than 30 days.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 818.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       GAO Study.--Not later than April 1, 2004, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit a report regarding the adequacy of 
     special pays and allowances for service members who 
     experience frequent deployments away from their permanent 
     duty stations for periods less than 30 days. The policies 
     regarding eligibility for family separation allowance, 
     including those relating to required duration of absences 
     from the permanently assigned duty station, should be 
     assessed.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the matter is cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 818) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 819

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I offer an amendment 
which supports the network centric operations at minority colleges and 
universities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 819.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To set aside an amount for initiating a capability in 
  historically Black colleges and universities to support the network 
            centric operations of the Department of Defense)

       On page 25, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 213. AMOUNT FOR NETWORK CENTRIC OPERATIONS.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 
     201(1) for historically Black colleges and universities, 
     $1,000,000 may be used for funding the initiation of a 
     capability in such institutions to support the network 
     centric operations of the Department of Defense.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will be added 
as a cosponsor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior 
Senator from the State of Virginia, Mr. Allen, be added as a cosponsor 
of the amendment.

[[Page 12766]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 819) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 789, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bunning, I offer an 
amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate about upgrading the 
chemical agent sensors at the chemical stockpile disposal sites in the 
United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Bunning, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 789, as modified.

  The amendment, as modified is as follows:

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the deployment of 
 airborne chemical agent monitoring systems at the chemical stockpile 
                  disposal sites in the United States)

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1039. SENSE OF SENATE ON DEPLOYMENT OF AIRBORNE CHEMICAL 
                   AGENT MONITORING SYSTEMS AT CHEMICAL STOCKPILE 
                   DISPOSAL SITES IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Millions of assembled chemical weapons are stockpiled 
     at chemical agent disposal facilities and depot sites across 
     the United States.
       (2) Some of these weapons are filled with nerve agents, 
     such as GB and VX and blister agents such as HD (mustard 
     agent).
       (3) Hundreds of thousands of United States citizens live in 
     the vicinity of these chemical weapons stockpile sites and 
     depots.
       (4) The airborne chemical agent monitoring systems at these 
     sites are inefficient or outdated compared to newer and 
     advanced technologies on the market.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Secretary of the Army should develop and deploy a program 
     to upgrade the airborne chemical agent monitoring systems at 
     all chemical stockpile disposal sites across the United 
     States in order to achieve the broadest possible protection 
     of the general public, personnel involved in the chemical 
     demilitarization program, and the environment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection on this side.
  Mr. WARNER. We have no objection. This has been cleared on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 789), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 820

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sessions, I offer an 
amendment which directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on 
the adequacy of the benefits for survivors of military personnel who 
die on active duty. This amendment, and the study it directs, I am 
confident, will provide a catalyst for necessary evaluation and change 
in the manner in which families are compensated after the death of 
loved ones serving in uniform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Sessions, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 820.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a study of the military death gratuity and other 
death benefits provided for survivors of deceased members of the Armed 
                                Forces)

       On page 155, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (c) Death Benefits Study.--(1) It is the sense of Congress 
     that--
       (A) the sacrifices made by the members of the United States 
     Armed Forces are significant and are worthy of meaningful 
     expressions of gratitude by the Government of the United 
     States, especially in cases of sacrifice through loss of 
     life;
       (B) the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and subsequent 
     worldwide combat operations in the Global War on Terrorism 
     and in Operation Iraqi Freedom have highlighted the 
     significant disparity between the financial benefits for 
     survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces and the 
     financial benefits for survivors of civilian victims of 
     terrorism;
       (C) the death benefits system composed of the death 
     gratuity paid by the Department of Defense to survivors of 
     members of the Armed Forces, the subsequently established 
     Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program, and 
     other benefits for survivors of deceased members has evolved 
     over time, but there are increasing indications that the 
     evolution of such benefits has failed to keep pace with the 
     expansion of indemnity and compensation available to segments 
     of United States society outside the Armed Forces, a failure 
     that is especially apparent in a comparison of the benefits 
     for survivors of deceased members with the compensation 
     provided to families of civilian victims of terrorism; and
       (D) while Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) 
     provides an assured source of life insurance for members of 
     the Armed Forces that benefits the survivors of such members 
     upon death, the SGLI program requires the members to pay for 
     that life insurance coverage and does not provide an assured 
     minimum benefit.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a study of the 
     totality of all current and projected death benefits for 
     survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to 
     determine the adequacy of such benefits. In carrying out the 
     study, the Secretary shall--
       (A) compare the Federal Government death benefits for 
     survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces with 
     commercial and other private sector death benefits plans for 
     segments of United States society outside the Armed Forces, 
     and also with the benefits available under Public Law 107-37 
     (115 Stat. 219) (commonly known as the ``Public Safety 
     Officer Benefits Bill'');
       (B) assess the personnel policy effects that would result 
     from a revision of the death gratuity benefit to provide a 
     stratified schedule of entitlement amounts that places a 
     premium on deaths resulting from participation in combat or 
     from acts of terrorism;
       (C) assess the adequacy of the current system of Survivor 
     Benefit Plan annuities and Dependency and Indemnity 
     Compensation and the anticipated effects of an elimination of 
     the offset of Survivor Benefit Plan annuities by Dependency 
     and Indemnity Compensation;
       (D) examine the commercial insurability of members of the 
     Armed Forces in high risk military occupational specialties; 
     and
       (E) examine the extent to which private trusts and 
     foundations engage in fundraising or otherwise provide 
     financial benefits for survivors of deceased members of the 
     Armed Forces.
       (3) Not later than March 1, 2004, the Secretary shall 
     submit a report on the results of the study under paragraph 
     (2) to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives. The report shall include the 
     following:
       (A) The assessments, analyses, and conclusions resulting 
     from the study.
       (B) Proposed legislation to address the deficiencies in the 
     system of Federal Government death benefits for survivors of 
     deceased members of the Armed Forces that are identified in 
     the course of the study.
       (C) An estimate of the costs of the system of death 
     benefits provided for in the proposed legislation.
       (4) The Comptroller General shall conduct a study to 
     identify the death benefits that are payable under Federal, 
     State, and local laws for employees of the Federal 
     Government, State governments, and local governments. Not 
     later than November 1, 2003, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit a report containing the results of the study to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 820) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 821

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I offer an 
amendment that would increase the maximum Federal contribution to the 
National Guard Challenge Program in States from the current 60 percent 
to 65 percent for fiscal year 2004.

[[Page 12767]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 821.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To amend title 32, United States Code, to increase the 
maximum Federal share of the costs of State programs under the National 
Guard Challenge Program for fiscal year 2004, and to provide an offset)

       On page 291, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1039. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE PROGRAMS UNDER THE 
                   NATIONAL GUARD CHALLENGE PROGRAM.

       (a) Maximum Federal Share.--Section 509(d) of title 32, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (1);
       (3) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated, by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph (2);
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2004 (notwithstanding paragraph (1)), 
     65 percent of the costs of operating the State program during 
     that year.''.
       (b) Study.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a 
     study to evaluate (a) the adequacy of the requirement under 
     section 509(d) of title 32, United States Code, for the 
     United States to fund 60 percent of the costs of operating a 
     State program of the National Guard Challenge Program and the 
     State to fund 40 percent of such costs, and (b) the value of 
     the Challenge Program to the Department of Defense.
       (2) In carrying out the study under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary should identify potential alternatives to the 
     matching funds structure provided for the National Guard 
     Challenge Program under section 509(d) of title 32, United 
     States Code, such as a range of Federal-State matching 
     ratios, that would provide flexibility in the management of 
     the program to better respond to temporary fiscal conditions.
       (3) The Secretary shall include the results of the study, 
     including findings, conclusions, and recommendations, in the 
     next annual report to Congress under section 509(k) of title 
     32, United States Code, that is submitted to Congress after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Amount for Federal Assistance.--(1) The amount 
     authorized to be appropriated under section 301(10) is hereby 
     increased by $3,000,000.
       (2) Of the total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 301(10), $68,216,000 shall be available for the 
     National Guard Challenge Program under section 509 of title 
     32, United States Code.
       (3) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 301(4) is hereby reduced by $3,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 821) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 727

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bunning, I offer an 
amendment which would authorize a multiyear procurement for the Phalanx 
Close In Weapon System program, Block 1B, for the Navy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Bunning, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 727.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To authorize the use of multiyear procurement authority for 
the Navy for procurement of the Phalanx Close In Weapon System program, 
                               Block 1B)

       On page 17, after line 25, add the following:
       (5) The Phalanx Close In Weapon System program, Block 1B.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 727) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 822

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment that would provide an 
equitable offset for any fee charged the Department of Defense by the 
Department of State for maintenance, upgrade, or construction of United 
States diplomatic facilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 822.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide an equitable offset for any fee charged the 
   Department of Defense by the Department of State for maintenance, 
    upgrade, or construction of United States diplomatic facilities)

       On page 69, line 5, strike ``AIRLIFT''.
       On page 70, between the matter following line 9 and line 
     10, insert the following:
       (c) Costs of Goods and Services Provided to Department of 
     State.--For any fee charged to the Department of Defense by 
     the Department of State during any year for the maintenance, 
     upgrade, or construction of United States diplomatic 
     facilities, the Secretary of Defense may remit to the 
     Department of State only that portion, if any, of the total 
     amount of the fee charged for such year that exceeds the 
     total amount of the costs incurred by the Department of 
     Defense for providing goods and services to the Department of 
     State during such year.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is no objection to the amendment on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 822) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 823

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Landrieu, which would provide for a feasibility study of the 
conveyance of the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant at Doyline, LA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 823.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To proivde for a feasibility study of the conveyance of the 
          Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Doyline, Louisiana)

       At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, add the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 2825. FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONVEYANCE OF LOUISIANA ARMY 
                   AMMUNITION PLANT, DOYLINE, LOUISIANA.

       (a) Study Required.--(1) The Secretary of the Army shall 
     conduct a study of the feasibility, costs, and benefits for 
     the conveyance of the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant as a 
     model for a public-private partnership for the utilization 
     and development of the Plant and similar parcels of real 
     property.
       (2) In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consider--
       (A) the feasibility and advisability of entering into 
     negotiations with the State of Louisiana or the Louisiana 
     National Guard for the conveyance of the Plant;
       (B) means by which the conveyance of the Plant could--
       (i) facilitate the execution by the Department of Defense 
     of its national security mission;
       (ii) facilitate the continued use of the Plant by the 
     Louisiana National Guard and the execution by the Louisiana 
     National Guard of its national security mission; and
       (C) evidence presented by the State of Louisiana of the 
     means by which the conveyance of the Plant could benefit 
     current and potential private sector and governmental tenants 
     of the Plant and facilitate the contribution of such tenants 
     to economic development in Northwestern Louisiana;
       (C) the amount and type of consideration that is 
     appropriate for the conveyance of the Plant;
       (D) the evidence presented by the State of Louisiana of the 
     extent to which the conveyance of the Plant to a public-
     private partnership will contribute to economic growth in the 
     State of Louisiana and in Northwestern Louisiana in 
     particular;
       (E) the value of any mineral rights in the lands of the 
     Plant;
       (F) the advisability of sharing revenues and rents paid by 
     current and potential tenants of the Plant as a result of the 
     Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Program; and

[[Page 12768]]

       (b) Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant.--In this section, the 
     term ``Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant'' means the Louisiana 
     Army Ammunition Plant in Doyline, Louisiana, consisting of 
     approximately 14,949 acres, of which 13,665 acres are under 
     license to the Military Department of the State of Louisiana 
     and 1,284 acres are used by the Army Joint Munitions Command.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House or 
     Representatives a report on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a). The report shall include the results of the 
     study and any other matters in light of the study that the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 823) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 824

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Reid, and Senator Boxer, I offer an amendment that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a 2001 survey on potential 
perchlorate contamination at Department of Defense sites prepared by 
the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     for herself, Mr. Reid, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 824.

  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To require the submittal of a survey on perchlorate 
             contamination at Department of Defense sites)

       At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 332. SUBMITTAL OF SURVEY ON PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION AT 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITES.

       (a) Submittal of Perchlorate Survey.--Not later than 30 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress the 2001 survey to identify the 
     potential for perchlorate contamination at all active and 
     closed Department of Defense sites that was prepared by the 
     United States Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace 
     Expeditionary Force Technologies Division, Tyndall Air Force 
     Base and Applied Research Associates.
       (b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. There has been a clearance on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 824) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 785

  (Purpose: To strengthen the authority under section 852 to provide 
     Federal support for the enhancement of the emergency response 
              capabilities of state and local governments)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I offer an 
amendment to establish a grant program to support increasing the number 
of firefighters to address emergencies and terrorist threats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator please submit the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I apologize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 785.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 2003, under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will be added 
as a cosponsor.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 785) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be added as 
a cosponsor of the amendment. And I ask if we can leave the roll open 
for cosponsors until 6 o'clock tonight--until we go out--for additional 
people to be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 821

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I can think of few better uses of 
Federal dollars than the benefits derived from our commitment to the 
National Guard's Youth Challenge Program. Every year, over 500,000 boys 
and girls drop out of school. High-school dropouts face a much more 
difficult life after leaving school than their peers who continue their 
educations to finish high school. Drug use and run-ins with the law 
often plague high school dropouts for a life-time.
  The Youth Challenge Program has reclaimed the lives of over 45,000 
children through the instillment of discipline, self-respect, 
commitment to citizenry, and the renewed pursuit of a diploma. It costs 
over $40,000 a year for a child to be detained in a juvenile detention 
center. On the other hand, Youth Challenge can reclaim a child from a 
life of wrong-turns for $14,000 a child.
  I am pleased the President and the Senate have committed $65.2 
million to the Youth Challenge Program. Youth Challenge is funded on a 
formula basis, whereby the Federal Government contributes 60 percent of 
the funds and States contribute 40 percent. Regrettably, many States 
are facing steep budget shortfalls, and they are having difficulty 
meeting the 40 percent match. Already, New York and Missouri have 
closed their Youth Challenge programs.
  This amendment authorizes the Department to increase the Federal 
match, temporarily, until the States get their financial houses in 
order. For fiscal year 2004, the Federal match would increase to 65 
percent. For fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 the Federal match 
would increase to 70 percent. However, it is expected the States will 
have recovered from budgetary difficulties by fiscal year 2007; 
therefore, the Federal match would fall back to 65 percent in all 
subsequent years.
  There is no more effective program to make high school dropouts 
contributors, rather than anchors, to society. I hope you will join me 
in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, without losing 
his right to the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Tremendous progress has been made in the last few hours, as 
we have seen by these amendments. We are very close to being able to 
issue a consent we hope will be agreed upon to finalize the bill, but 
we need just a minute to do that. There is a call in the cloakroom we 
have to resolve before we do that.
  Mr. WARNER. May I suggest we put in a quorum call.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator from Virginia do that, please.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia suggests the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now resume consideration of the Murray amendment, No. 691, and there 
then be 60 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior 
to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to 
the amendment prior to the vote.

[[Page 12769]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may interrupt, I failed to mention this 
to my friend a second ago. Our leader has asked that the vote occur at 
2:15, rather than an hour from the time it begins. We would still only 
have an hour of debate. There are other things we can do during that 
period of time. So I ask for that modification.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, that is acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
amendments, that only amendments in order are relevant under the 
original agreement and subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. We have a package of amendments. There are additional 
amendments, all of which must be in conformity with the unanimous 
consent, pending relevancy at the desk. All have to be checked through 
that system. They are: First, Durbin; second, Domenici; third, 
Landrieu; fourth, Kerry. Further, Senator Grassley has an amendment. 
All of these have to be passed through the parliamentary unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. REID. These are subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my distinguished colleague, there is a Boxer 
amendment regarding contracting, subject to a relevant second degree.
  Mr. REID. We just got a call from Senator Byrd. We are going to have 
to wait.
  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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 691

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again I proceed to a unanimous consent 
request as follows: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume 
consideration of the Murray amendment No. 691, and there then be 60 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in 
relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the 
vote; I ask consent that the following amendments be the only 
amendments in order and be relevant as under the original agreement and 
subject to relevant second degrees: A package of amendments that have 
been cleared and are being cleared by both managers; the Boxer 
amendment regarding contracting and subject to relevant second degree; 
Domenici amendment on border security, to be resolved; Kerry, air 
travel; Landrieu, subject to being relevant; Grassley, ground systems, 
subject to relevancy.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Domenici, Kerry, Landrieu, 
Grassley also have the same language, that they be subject to relevant 
second-degree amendments. We have stated that twice. I want to make 
sure that is clear.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the 
above amendment, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then 
proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that at a time 
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the 
Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1104, 
introduced by Senator Brownback, relating to parental notification, 
provided that immediately upon the reporting of the bill, the majority 
leader or his designee be recognized in order to file a cloture motion 
on the bill. I further ask consent that there then be 60 minutes for 
debate only, equally divided between Senators Brownback and Murray, and 
that following that debate time, notwithstanding the provisions of rule 
XXII, the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on the underlying bill, without intervening action or debate; 
provided further that if cloture is not invoked, the bill be placed on 
the calendar. If cloture is invoked, I would ask consent that it be in 
order to file first-degree amendments up to the cloture vote, and 
second-degree amendments up to 3 hours after the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this took just a 
few minutes to read. It took hours to accomplish.
  We are now going to a situation where Senator Murray and Senator 
Brownback will debate for 1 hour. Following that, there will be a vote 
on or in relation to the Murray amendment. Following that, we will work 
our way through these other amendments that have been declared to be in 
order on this bill. Some of them, I hope, will be resolved.
  I personally extend my appreciation to the two managers of this bill 
for their patience, their understanding, and also Senator Murray and 
Senator Brownback. The issue about which we are going to debate for an 
hour is very sensitive to everyone, those two Senators especially. They 
have also been courteous to each of us and each other. I think this is 
a fair way to proceed.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader. He has been 
too modest to say he, together with the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky on this side, has been an integral part of enabling this 
agreement to be formulated.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 691

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now there are 60 minutes evenly divided on the 
Murray amendment. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, is the Murray amendment called up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is pending.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to add cosponsors 
as follows: Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, 
Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate now has before it a very 
important amendment. I think all of us know that women have played a 
critical role in all of our country's recent military actions.
  In Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in missions throughout the world, women 
have demonstrated their skill, their sacrifice, and their courage. We 
can all be very proud of the women who have served in our military. 
They are our mothers, our daughters, they are our sisters, and they are 
our neighbors. They put themselves in harm's way to protect our 
freedom. They live and work in hostile combat zones under very 
dangerous conditions. They make sacrifices every day to defend our 
Nation.
  But today, military women are forced to sacrifice their own 
constitutional rights, as they risk their lives to protect our freedom. 
No woman----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend just a moment, 
please. Could we have order so the Senator from Washington can be 
heard?
  Thank you very much. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, no woman should be forced to surrender her 
constitutional rights when she puts on a military uniform and 
volunteers to serve our country overseas. But that is exactly what 
happens today, and it must stop. The women of our military risk their 
lives to protect our rights, but if they serve abroad they are being 
denied access to safe, legal, constitutionally protected health care.
  Today I am on the floor of the Senate to offer an amendment to ensure 
that our military women when they serve overseas have access to the 
same health care as they get here at home. I again thank all my 
cosponsors, Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, 
Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.

[[Page 12770]]

  Before I go into detail, I want to clarify what this is about and 
what it is not about. There are four very important aspects to 
understand.
  First of all, this amendment does not require any direct Federal 
funding of abortion-related services. My amendment simply requires 
these women to pay for any costs associated with an abortion in a 
military facility. So no direct Federal funding is involved.
  Second, my amendment does not compel a medical provider to perform 
abortions. All branches of the military allow medical personnel who 
have moral or religious or ethical objections to abortion not to 
participate. So this amendment does not change or alter conscience 
clauses for military medical personnel.
  Third, this will not create any significant burden on the military. 
It will not hinder the military's ability to carry out its missions or 
to provide medical services.
  Finally, do not believe anyone who tells you that our military, the 
finest military in the world, is not capable of providing these health 
services or that our military is unable to determine the cost. The 
truth is that today the Defense Department allows for privately funded 
abortions in the case of rape or incest. The ultimate proof that this 
is something our military can do is that, prior to 1988, the Department 
of Defense did allow privately funded abortions at overseas military 
facilities.
  So, clearly, this can be done. So let's make sure we are all straight 
on those four points. There is no direct Federal funding. No medical 
provider would be required to do anything they oppose. No significant 
burden would be placed on the military. And there is no doubt that our 
military can do this because it has done it before, prior to 1988, and 
does it today in cases of rape or incest.
  Anyone who comes to the Senate floor and makes any of those claims I 
have just rebutted is raising red herrings as a distraction from the 
real issue. The real issue is the health of women who serve our country 
and respect for their rights and freedom.
  The current policy on the books today is an insult to women. It is a 
rejection of their rights and it is a threat to their health. Under 
current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their 
country, and female military dependents, are not allowed to exercise 
their legally guaranteed right to choose, simply because they are 
serving overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as 
free citizens. Yet they are denied one of the most basic rights 
afforded all women in this country. This is an important women's health 
amendment.
  Women should be able to depend on their base hospital and military 
health care providers to meet all of their health care needs. To single 
out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health. The 
current policy does not ensure the access women need for four reasons.
  First of all, a woman today must seek the approval of her commanding 
officer for transport back to the United States. That could be very 
humiliating and can be a deterrent to a woman to getting the care that 
she needs. We know, from a GAO report that was issued in May of 2002, 
that many commanding officers--and I quote:

       . . . have not been adequately trained about the importance 
     of women's basic health care. Department of Defense officials 
     said that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be 
     reluctant to allow active duty Members, both men and women, 
     time away from their duty station to obtain health care 
     services.

  So women have to face the humiliation of asking a superior officer 
for permission over something that the GAO found many commanders do not 
understand or appreciate.
  Second, the current policy jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy 
because she must disclose her medical condition to her superiors with 
no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept confidential. That 
is a very important point. She would have to disclose her medical 
condition to her superiors in the Air Force or the Army, in the 
service, with no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept 
confidential.
  Third, the woman is not afforded medical leave, so she is further 
penalized under the current policy.
  And fourth, because of these unfair restrictions, many women are 
forced to seek care off the base, in a foreign country. That country 
may have different cultural and religious norms and different standards 
of health care. Many women have little or no understanding of the laws 
or restrictions in a host country, and there may also be significant 
language and cultural barriers as well. So let's be honest. Some of the 
countries our military operates in are not very progressive when it 
comes to women's issues, and that could threaten our service women.
  In addition, these countries may not have adequate safety and medical 
standards. Here in the United States, we take for granted the safety of 
our health care service. When we seek care in our doctors' offices or 
in a clinic, we assume all safety and health standards are adhered to. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case in many countries.
  Under current conditions, we are subjecting women to standards in a 
foreign country where they may not be safe, where they may not be 
health standards where we can assure that their basic health care is 
taken care of.
  Finally, because of all these barriers, women may delay getting the 
care they urgently need. Many women are forced to delay the procedure 
for several weeks until they can travel to a location where safe, 
adequate care is available. Each week that an abortion is delayed there 
are greater risks to a woman's health.
  So the current policy is humiliating. It is a threat to women's 
privacy. It is punitive. It is a threat to women's safety, and it is a 
threat to women's health. Those are not the types of burdens we should 
be putting on women who volunteer to serve our country and defend our 
freedoms.
  The current policy is unfair to women. It denies them their 
constitutional rights. My amendment before the Senate today will 
correct that.
  This amendment is supported by the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists. It is supported by the American Medical Women's 
Association. It is supported by Physicians for Reproductive Choice in 
Health. And it is supported by the National Partnership for Women and 
Families.
  The Senate agreed to this amendment. The Department of Defense has 
followed this policy before. And, finally, let me just say, after the 
inspiring and courageous work our military women have done in Iraq and 
in Afghanistan, we owe them nothing less than the same rights they are 
fighting to protect for all of us.
  This is a test for every Senator. Every Senator is going to have to 
answer to the women who serve our country overseas. Will you stand up 
for the rights of women who, today, are standing up to ensure your 
freedom? Either you respect the women who serve our country overseas 
and you agree that they deserve the same rights and freedoms as women 
here at home or you do not. That is the choice. Either you respect the 
women who serve our country overseas and you agree that they deserve 
the same rights and freedoms as women here at home or you do not. That 
is the case.
  If you vote against the Murray-Snowe amendment, you are simply 
telling American servicewomen that when they serve overseas protecting 
our country and risking their lives that they can't be trusted with the 
constitutional right to health care that women here at home in the 
United States have. They deserve more respect than that.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for the Murray-Snowe amendment.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to, first, thank the Senator 
from Washington for bringing up this issue. I think there was a 
relevancy issue associated with it. There was a big debate about this 
last night. It was eventually deemed relevant.
  I then proposed a second-degree amendment that would require parental 
notification of the type which is involved with 43 of our States. 
Forty-three States have parental notification--that a minor on a 
military base,

[[Page 12771]]

a dependent, could not get an abortion until either parent was 
notified--just notified, not consent, just notified--within 48 hours 
before the abortion or that there be a judicial oversight. So that if 
either parent were not available or accessible, or the child didn't 
want to notify the parent, they could get the court to rule that the 
abortion go ahead and the parent not be notified or, if it were a 
catastrophic situation and the life of the minor was in jeopardy, the 
doctor could go forward and provide the abortion without a notification 
period.
  That was the second degree that was being proposed. We had a spirited 
discussion here privately about this.
  I thank the managers of the bill. I thank particularly the two whips 
on either side for pushing this forward to get us to resolve the issue; 
that what we are going to do today is take up the Murray amendment and 
take up the parental notification issue at a later date--I hope a week 
or two after we get back from the break. I think it is an important 
issue as well.
  The parents in 43 States are notified if their minor child is seeking 
to have an abortion. We would extend this right to parents of military 
personnel as well. That is what is considered in the second degree.
  I appreciate the Senator from Washington working that out with us so 
we are able to take up both of these difficult issues.
  I also thank the Senator from Washington for her passion and caring 
for women in the armed services. She stands up strongly for women's 
rights, particularly for women's rights in the military. I appreciate 
that. I have no qualms about her passion or her heart at all. I 
recognize and applaud both.
  But we have a narrow specific issue here that goes to the very core 
of what we are about as a society today. It goes to the very core issue 
of culture of life and culture of death that is being broadly discussed 
in the culture today. And that is being played out here on the issue of 
military bases. It goes to the issue of the legal status of the child 
in utero.
  I certainly recognize the passion of the Senator from Washington for 
women's rights. I applaud that. But there is also another person 
involved here and there are other issues involved here.
  On February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1996 was signed into law by then-President Clinton with a 
provision to prevent Department of Defense medical treatment facilities 
from being used to perform abortions except for when the life of the 
mother is in danger or in the case of rape or incest.
  That is the current status for the use of military base health 
facilities to provide for abortion. They can be provided at military 
bases in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother or 
military personnel is endangered. This would be obviously women in the 
military or a female dependent in the military.
  This provision--10 United States Code 1093(b)--reversed a Clinton 
administration policy instituted on January 22, 1996, permitting 
abortions to be performed at military facilities, period.
  In other words, all abortions on demand could be provided according 
to the Clinton administration policy that was put into place 
immediately after President Clinton became President.
  Previously--from 1988 to 1993--the performance of an abortion was not 
permitted at military hospitals except when the life of the mother was 
endangered.
  I think you can start to see the progression here that was taking 
place.
  Under President Reagan, there was a provision that you could provide 
an abortion on a military base if the life of the mother was in danger. 
That continued through President Reagan and President Bush 1. Then 
President Clinton came into office and immediately opened up all 
military facilities for all abortions and said they could be performed.
  In February 1996, that was limited. Abortions could be provided in 
cases of rape and incest and when the life of the mother was 
endangered, but it was an expansion from where it was in the Reagan 
administration.
  That is the law of the land as it is today.
  The Murray amendment, which would repeal this pro-life provision, 
attempts to turn these taxpayer-funded DOD medical treatment facilities 
into facilities that provide abortion on demand for military personnel 
and their dependents. The Senate should reject this amendment. This is 
what the issue is about.
  When a similar amendment passed last year, Secretary of Defense 
Donald Rumsfeld warned that the President's senior advisers would 
recommend the President veto the Defense authorization bill on this 
issue. So you are talking about an abortion issue of providing 
abortions in medical military facilities, a narrow, overall issue 
bringing down the entire Defense authorization bill--on this issue 
where abortions are provided for rape, incest, life of the mothers, but 
not on demand for all abortions. That could bring down the whole bill.
  Using the coercive power of Government to force American taxpayers to 
fund health care facilities where abortions are performed would be a 
terrible precedent that would put many Americans in a difficult 
position of saying: They are using my taxpayer money to fund something 
that I don't agree with--abortion on demand. Yes, I can understand it 
in cases of life of the mother, certainly, and of rape and incest, but 
not on demand.
  When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was 
first promulgated, military physicians, as well as many nurses and 
supporting personnel, refused--refused--to perform or assist in 
elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire 
civilians to do abortions. That should tell us something about what is 
taking place here. The military personnel themselves--the physicians--
do not want to do these elective abortions.
  Therefore, if the Murray amendment were adopted, not only would 
taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but 
resources would be used to search for, hire, and transport new 
personnel simply so that the abortions could be performed outside of 
this narrow scope of rape, incest, life of the mother that would be on 
all other abortions.
  In fact, according to CRS, a 1994 memorandum from the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs--this would be under the 
Clinton administration--``direct[ed] the Military Health Services 
System to provide other means of access if providing pre-paid abortion 
services at a facility was not feasible''--how outside individuals 
performed abortions on military bases.
  One argument used by supporters of abortions in military hospitals is 
that women in countries where abortion is not permitted will have 
nowhere else to turn to obtain an abortion. However, DOD policy 
requires military doctors to obey the abortion laws of the countries 
where they are providing services, so they still could not perform 
abortions at those locations.
  Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and 
nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the 
most innocent human life: the child in utero--and this as an elective, 
on demand, not in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, which are 
currently provided under the law concerning the Department of Defense.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this Murray amendment and free 
America's military and the Department of Defense authorization bill 
from abortion politics. American taxpayers should not be forced to fund 
facilities that destroy innocent human life. I urge my colleagues to 
reject that amendment.
  I would also urge my colleagues, when we bring up the parental 
notification bill, that they would support such a provision. The 
parental notification bill would--and that is one parent, not both--one 
parent is simply notified 48 hours in advance of an abortion being 
provided to their minor child if that is going to take place on a 
military base. And if either parent cannot be reached, or if the child 
believes this would endanger, somehow, him or herself, there is a 
judicial override or the doctor could go ahead and even perform and

[[Page 12772]]

note in the record as to why, for health reasons, he did not notify. 
This isn't consent, it is notifying the parent.
  It is not the issue up, but thanks to the Senator from Washington, to 
help get this agreed to, to work this out, we will be considering that 
parental notification provision.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  We do have other speakers to present. If it would be appropriate for 
the Senator from Washington, we could bounce back and forth. I do have 
a speaker who is here.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on our side on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen minutes, 20 seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my 
colleague from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray 
amendment.
  We worked hard on this bill. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. 
We are still in a state of conflict in Iraq. We have hostilities and 
dangers around the world. We made a commitment, as a Senate, to move 
forward, to move this Defense bill early this year, not wait until the 
last minute, to do our work properly.
  This bill is endangered now by a highly controversial amendment, 
which I oppose, and which I think a majority in this body will oppose. 
It could affect adversely our ability to conduct a harmonious 
conference with the House of Representatives. It could even result in a 
veto by the President of the United States.
  I know there is a strong abortion agenda still out here, even though 
the polling numbers continue to show erosion for that position.
  This side of the aisle--Senator Brownback and others who care about 
the issue--has not injected abortion into the Defense debate, but it 
has been raised by the pro-abortion agenda groups. I think that is not 
healthy. I wish it had not happened. I know there has been a debate 
over whether or not it is even relevant, but the Parliamentarian had 
ruled that it is, so we will have this vote today.
  I will just note, as an example of the reality of the problem, we had 
a bankruptcy bill that I worked on in the Judiciary Committee--and 
others did--for several years. We voted on it on the floor of this body 
and got 87 votes for it. Yet it died in committee because a pro-
abortion amendment had been placed on it. The conference committee 
could not break the deal, and eventually the entire bill failed.
  Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. On your time, Mr. President.
  Mr. CARPER. I just want 1 minute, if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama controls the time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield for 1 minute, if he would use Senator Murray's 
time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, on the issue the Senator raises in 
relation to the bankruptcy legislation, I make a point of 
clarification. This is an issue I care about as much as the Senator 
from Alabama. The language that died, after having been reported out to 
the conference committee, was language that said when a person commits 
a violent act for which they are convicted and fined, they cannot 
discharge that fine in a court of bankruptcy.
  It does not say anything about abortion. It does not say anything 
about abortion clinics. It says if you have been convicted of a violent 
act, you cannot go to a court of bankruptcy and discharge that claim 
for which you have been convicted and fined. That is what it said.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator 
yield?
  Mr. CARPER. I just wanted to make that clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do not think the Senator, who is a great colleague, 
would dispute the fact that language resulted in the failure of that 
bill.
  People care about this issue. It is a big deal to people. It is a 
personal and emotional issue that I don't think needs to be pressed at 
this point.
  Our military physicians and nurses are not happy with it. It would 
require us to utilize military hospitals as facilities to carry out 
abortions. It would make our hospitals a part of the abortion process. 
It would utilize Federal property and resources to that degree. It 
covers not just foreign hospitals but every hospital in America.
  Yes, it is legal--clearly legal--that a woman can have an abortion 
and can use her own money to that effect, but we have sort of reached 
an understanding and compromise in the Congress that it is legal but 
because of respect for people with differing views, we just will not 
use taxpayers' money to fund it. There is just sort of a truce, in a 
way, that has been reached. I think it is probably something we just 
have to live with at the present time.
  I don't see any need to pressure or embarrass doctors and nurses who 
do not feel comfortable doing this. We know this. There was a survey 
done of the Army, Navy, and Air Force obstetricians; 44 of them were 
surveyed. All but one said they adamantly opposed doing abortions. One 
later said that physician was opposed to abortions. Some of these were 
women physicians. Nurses are not comfortable with it. I don't believe 
we ought to be requiring military hospitals to go out and hire other 
physicians to come in on Government taxpayer funded property to conduct 
these procedures. It is just not necessary.
  President Bush has made clear he opposes using taxpayers' money to 
fund abortions. Passage of this amendment would threaten that.
  I believe women are playing an increasingly valuable role in our 
military. I spent over 10 years as a reservist and served with many 
fine women officers. The unit I was a part of in Mobile, AL, is now in 
Kuwait commanded by a woman officer. I can't tell you how proud I am of 
them. I am not hearing from the women I know in the military that this 
is something they are demanding, frankly. I don't think the American 
people are.
  I will just point out some numbers that deal with this subject. If 
anybody cares, a January 2003 poll of ABC News/Washington Post--not 
conservative groups--showed that only 23 percent were for abortion to 
be legal in all cases. That is less than a fourth. The same poll found, 
when asked this question, should we make abortion harder to get, 42 
percent said yes; easier to get an abortion, 15 percent said yes. So 42 
percent thought it ought to be harder to get an abortion and 15 percent 
thought it should be easier.
  In January of 2003, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked this 
question: should abortion be generally available, 39 percent; stricter 
limits, 38 percent; not permitted, 22 percent. Sixty percent favored 
either stricter limits or not permitted. A CNN Gallup poll in 2003 
asked, should parental consent be required for an abortion? Yes, 73 
percent.
  Regardless of how we personally feel about this issue, it ought not 
to be on this bill. It is not what we need to be debating now. We need 
to be focused on our men and women in harm's way, providing them with 
the necessary funding and resources and equipment needed to do their 
job. We don't need to jeopardize this bill in conference or subject it 
to a possible Presidential veto as a result of this amendment.
  I thank Senator Brownback for his leadership and yield back such time 
as I may have.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Murray has 18 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Washington. I listened to a 
description of her amendment by the Senator from Alabama. It did not

[[Page 12773]]

sound like the amendment she described. I want to ask a few questions 
so it is clear.
  Does this amendment in any respect require the Federal Government to 
pay for an abortion?
  Mrs. MURRAY. This amendment does not require the Federal Government 
to pay for an abortion. In fact, it will allow the woman herself to pay 
out of her own personal private funds for an abortion in a military 
hospital overseas.
  Mr. DURBIN. So under this amendment, women in the U.S. military who 
seek, through their constitutional right, an abortion service would 
have to pay for it out of their own pocket?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Secondly, there has been a suggestion made that if your 
amendment passes, it will require doctors, for example, in medical 
facilities connected with the armed services, to perform an abortion if 
they object to performing that procedure under their own conscience; is 
that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is not correct. The amendment, as I have offered, 
has a conscience clause for all doctors overseas.
  Mr. DURBIN. So if a doctor at a military hospital says, even though 
this young woman who is in the armed services comes to me for an 
abortion procedure and I object to it on religious and moral grounds--
that doctor is not going to be compelled to perform an abortion under 
this amendment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is absolutely correct. This amendment does not 
compel any medical provider to perform an abortion.
  Mr. DURBIN. There has also been a suggestion that in U.S. military 
hospitals around the world, there is no provision for abortion 
services; is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Senator restate the question?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that under certain circumstances, 
such as rape or incest, at military hospitals around the world today, 
abortions are being performed; is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. In all military facilities, 
women who are victims of rape or incest do have the opportunity to 
receive abortions.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Washington. That clarifies some 
of the things that have been said. The Federal Government will not be 
paying for the abortion. The woman in the military who seeks it must 
pay out of her own pocket. The doctors involved in this procedure will 
not be compelled to do so if it violates their own morality or their 
own conscience by the Murray amendment. And military hospitals serving 
U.S. personnel around the world today already provide abortions in 
emergency circumstances involving rape or incest.
  We have to be honest about what the amendment does and does not do. 
This is what it does. It says to women who have volunteered--and we are 
now dealing with an All-Volunteer Force--to join the U.S. military and 
to lay their lives on the line, to risk their lives and their future 
for their country, that they will not be compromised. They will not be 
surrendering their constitutional right to make a choice to control 
their own reproductive freedom.
  There are some on the other side who say, no, they may have that 
constitutional right in the United States, but once they have taken the 
oath to serve the U.S. Army or Navy, in that situation they have given 
up their constitutional right. Is that what we want to say?
  After going through the Iraqi war where women in uniform were 
captured as prisoners of war, put their lives on the line, are we 
saying to those women and thousands like them that if you join the U.S. 
military you give up your constitutional right? Is that what we are 
saying to those who we are trying to recruit to join the military? I 
hope not.
  I hope we are saying that we recognize the reality of service, 
particularly overseas. A woman finds herself in a difficult 
circumstance, where she wants to seek, under her constitutional right 
guaranteed by the Supreme Court, the right to terminate a pregnancy in 
the first, second, and third month. Now in the military she has to go 
ask permission of the commanding officer and may be forced into a 
situation where she has to find a way back to the United States in 
order to protect her own health and make her own decision.
  This comes down to a fundamental question: Are women serving in the 
U.S. military to be treated as second-class citizens? Those who oppose 
the Murray amendment say, yes, once you have said, as a woman, that you 
will serve in the military, you have given up your constitutional right 
to control your own body and your own reproductive freedom.
  That is a terrible thing to say. Frankly, it says that we denigrate 
the contribution and the heroism of the women who joined the U.S. 
military.
  What Senator Murray is asking for is perfectly reasonable. A woman in 
the military at her own expense can go to a military hospital which 
already provides abortion services as a normal course for victims of 
rape and incest, can go to a doctor who has willingly and voluntarily 
agreed to be part of this counseling and part of this procedure, and 
pay out of her own pocket for the procedure to take place. That is not 
a special privilege. In fact, it says to that woman, you are just as 
much an American citizen as your sister back home.
  If we go the opposite course, frankly, it sends a very sobering 
message to recruiters around America that you have to be honest with 
the women you are seeking to recruit and tell them that once they take 
that oath to the United States to serve in the military, they have 
given up a constitutional right protected by the laws of the land.
  I commend the Senator from Washington for her leadership, and I 
support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes fifty-six seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could engage and ask the Senator from Washington, 
to make sure I am on the same amendment--I have her amendment here. 
What I read here is that the amendment does two things: It says:

       Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b); and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Restriction on Use of 
     Funds.''

  So it strikes those on two words. That is the only thing I have of an 
amendment. Am I correct? Is that the actual text of the amendment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. By striking subsection (b), that section reads: 
Restriction on use of facilities: No medical treatment facility or 
other facility of the Department of Defense may be used to perform an 
abortion except for--the life of the mother will be in danger if the 
fetus was carried to term or in the case in which the pregnancy is the 
result of an act of rape or incest.
  That provision will be stricken.
  That is what I have got of what the amendment is. Is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will hold a second, I will check and then 
respond.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I will make my full point. We are talking about 
overseas facilities. In actuality, the striking says ``no medical 
treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense. . . 
.'' So you are talking about overseas facilities and domestic 
facilities. These would be facilities overseas and in the U.S. that 
could both be used to provide abortion on demand. This is removing this 
restriction that it would just be in the case of the life of the 
mother, rape, and incest, is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct only in that it would strike the 
language in the bill which would put us back to the previous language 
that is in the statute today, which I am happy to provide him, which I 
accurately described in my statement.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Maybe the Senator can answer this. This would open up 
both domestic and overseas facilities because the language as stricken

[[Page 12774]]

says that no medical treatment facility or other facility of the 
Department of Defense may be used--it has no limitation saying this is 
just overseas facilities. It is any DOD facility.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. I remind the Senator that 
domestically in the service, a woman has the right to receive health 
care services at a hospital. So where this affects a woman is when they 
are serving overseas and they don't have the same access.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Still, she would have access to DOD facilities in the 
U.S.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, and she would have to pay for it out of her own 
money.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I also note the Senator from Illinois talked about 
conscience clause protection, where somebody would not have to provide 
this. That is not in your amendment. You are talking about the base 
portion of any Department of Defense medical doctor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Under current law, all medical providers in the 
Department of Defense have a conscience clause.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you. Your amendment does not have conscience 
clause protection. That is already part of the base if you are a 
military physician, to be able to provide that.
  I want to hone in on what the amendment is about. It is about opening 
up DOD medical facilities, domestically and internationally--the 
Senator argues there won't be that much demand domestically, but it 
opens it up both ways to provide abortion on demand in the United 
States to U.S. military personnel and their dependents. So you are 
talking about a broad array of taxpayer-funded facilities you are 
opening up to provide abortions in Kentucky, Washington, Kansas, or 
wherever.
  I want to agree with the Senator from Washington that we are talking 
about the use of the facilities here--taxpayer-funded facilities--that 
provide abortions and not necessarily the doctor. The doctor may be 
recruited from outside and paid for privately, but you are using 
taxpayer-funded facilities to provide abortions. So you can see a 
situation in this country where you would have a military facility in 
Kentucky or in the State of Washington being protested by people who 
are pro-life because their taxpayer-funded facility is being used to 
provide abortions on demand--not just for the life of the mother, rape, 
and incest.
  Again, I recognize the strong support Senator Murray puts forward for 
the rights of women, and I applaud that. But we are talking about a 
very sensitive issue for a number of people when you talk about the use 
of taxpayer dollars to do something they really don't agree with. I 
don't think it is wise to do that, one. Two, I don't think we should be 
tying up the DOD authorization bill on probably the central most 
difficult issue of our day for people to really wrestle with. That is 
what this amendment would do.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to look at the actual text of 
the amendment and oppose the Murray amendment.
  I yield the floor and retain the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 25 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will make a couple of points. Under 
current law, in the case of rape or incest, at a military facility an 
abortion can be performed. No one is protesting that today. I again 
advise my colleague that a woman who is in this country has this right, 
anyway. Where we are concerned, rightfully, is for women who are 
serving overseas. They don't have a constitutional right today to have 
an abortion.
  Let me tell you what happens to a woman if she finds herself in 
difficult circumstances and is serving overseas. She has to go to her 
commanding officer. Believe me, that is very difficult for a woman to 
do, go to a commanding officer and describe the circumstances she finds 
herself in, and ask for permission to fly home to have an abortion 
performed, where it is legal.
  Mr. President, that is humiliating, but it is also difficult. She 
then has to wait for a C-17 to be available. Think about this. We have 
just seen the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have to make a 
C-17 available for a woman to fly home. That is ridiculous. They have 
the medical facilities there already, and the facilities are available. 
So we are putting the services at risk when we have to fly them home. 
This is humiliating and she has to ask her commanding officer. A woman 
serving in the country doesn't have to do that. It is difficult and 
cumbersome.
  This also really jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy because in 
order to go to her commanding officer, she has to disclose her medical 
condition. We all would think the officer would respect her rights, but 
that is not always the case. She has to put that question in her head 
when she goes to ask them. I don't think it is fair to the women 
overseas when they disclose their medical condition with no guarantees 
that they will be kept confidential. Think of the potential of using 
that against a woman in the service. I think that is something none of 
us want to place a young woman in the position of having to do.
  We need to remember a woman is not given any medical relief and she 
is penalized under this policy. She has to wait for a C-17 to be 
available, fly home, take the time to have the procedure done, and then 
return to military service. We are taking her out of service when we 
need her, and we are causing her a tremendous amount of distress, too.
  Remember, we are talking about a service that is protected 
constitutionally for any woman who is here in this country. But these 
are women who have volunteered to serve us overseas in the military.
  Finally, let us not forget what we have done to women today who are 
serving us in the military and fighting for our freedom. We have put 
them--if they don't want to ask their commanding officer, wait for a C-
17, and all of the other conditions we put on them--today, they can go 
to a hospital in a foreign country. Well, think of the difficulties of 
that, where they don't have the same culture, don't speak the same 
language, if a woman has a health care procedure done and the doctor 
cannot tell her what she needs to do in the following 24 hours or weeks 
to make sure she is taking care of herself correctly, and she cannot 
understand him because she doesn't understand the language.
  Why would we do that to a woman serving us overseas? I think we ought 
to go back and put in place a provision in the law that has worked 
before that simply gives women who serve us the same constitutional 
right women in this country have today. That is what this amendment is 
about. That is what this vote is about. I hope our colleagues will vote 
with us in a few minutes when the vote is called.
  I retain the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes on the time of the Senator 
from Kansas and 8 minutes on the time of the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple comments in 
regard to what Senator Murray has just put forward. She said we are 
talking about international facilities, but the amendment covers 
international and domestic facilities, which we have established here, 
so it would be domestic facilities. It is going to be abortion of all 
types. It could be abortion on demand at domestic facilities.
  If the Murray amendment is adopted, it would be for not just military 
personnel but also for minors, dependents who would be able to use 
these same facilities for abortion on demand. The reason I wanted to 
put forward a parental notification amendment is we will have a 
situation, if the Murray amendment is adopted and the amendment I would 
put forward is not accepted, we will have a situation at military bases 
throughout the United States of minors of military personnel seeking 
abortions and not notifying their parents and not having to notify 
their parents, even though State laws require a different situation.

[[Page 12775]]

  I want to check that point to make sure we would be able to do things 
differently on a military base than in State law.
  The point being we are talking about a massive expansion of the use 
of medical facilities in a very troubling area of the law. There is the 
issue the Senator from Washington raised about how this would actually 
work. I submit this is working fairly well right now. We are not 
receiving a huge level of complaints from women in the military saying: 
I want to be able to receive an abortion in any medical facility the 
military has anywhere in the world in cases outside of rape, incest, 
and life of the mother, which are currently provided. This is quite an 
expansive position on a very tense subject, and it is one that 
threatens to bring down the whole Department of Defense bill. I urge my 
colleagues, this is not the time and place for us to do this. It would 
be inappropriate to do so.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes and 13 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I have 5 minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I also thank the 
Senator from Washington. I think she is doing a great service to the 
women of our country in pointing out what the problem is here.
  I was sitting in my office doing work, and I heard the statement that 
this is abortion on demand. I thought it might be useful for me to read 
into the Record one letter I received last year from a woman on this 
very subject that indicates the difficulty of the circumstances women 
can find themselves in while living overseas.
  I am about to read the story of Holly Webb. Holly is the wife of a 
staff sergeant in the Air Force stationed in Misawa, Japan. I would 
like you to hear her story:

       My husband was stationed in Misawa, Japan, and I moved over 
     in September 2001 to join him. I was pregnant for the first 
     time. Prior to my arrival in Japan, I felt like something was 
     wrong with my pregnancy, and at 6 weeks I went to the 
     emergency room at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida where 
     we had been stationed.
       My doctor there told me that everything seemed OK from what 
     they could tell. At 16 weeks, I was in Japan with my husband, 
     and I started bleeding. I would bleed weekly for 5 days and 
     then the bleeding would subside. I went to the military 
     hospital at Misawa and they told me I had a placenta previa 
     and that this was a normal side effect and they sent me home.

  Just so everybody knows, placenta previa is a serious problem some 
women confront which can impact their pregnancy. It can cause severe 
problems for the woman including hemorrhaging both during delivery and 
post-partum.
  Continuing the letter:

       At 20 weeks, I started bleeding heavily, and I went back to 
     the hospital. I thought that my water had broken but the 
     hospital told me it was not an emergency and kept me 
     overnight. My OB/GYN did not visit me until the next morning. 
     They told me that the results of my triple screen blood test 
     showed possible spina bifida which necessitated an 
     ultrasound. When they did the ultrasound, they discovered, as 
     I had thought, that there was no amniotic fluid surrounding 
     the fetus. They were unable to detect whether or not the 
     fetus had spina bifida.
       For the next day, I was administered IV fluids, and my 
     doctor mentioned that I might be dehydrated. My cervix 
     remained closed, however, and they told me there was still a 
     fetal heartbeat. I was told I might deliver spontaneously 
     within weeks or months, but if the baby survived, it would 
     have serious health complications due to the fact I was at 
     risk for infection as well and because there was no amniotic 
     fluid surrounding the baby.
       When I asked the hospital what my options were, they told 
     me they could not induce labor or dilate my cervix to deliver 
     because it would be considered an abortion, but that I was at 
     risk for infection. My doctor told me that in order to have 
     an abortion, they would have to have my situation reviewed by 
     a medical board and that she didn't know how long this would 
     take. She told me that during her 7 or 8 years of practice in 
     a military hospital, no matter what the situation was, a 
     woman's request for an abortion was always denied.
       My doctor told me the only way I could receive additional 
     medical treatment was if I became ill. I was told to go home 
     and monitor my temperature and to return when I had a fever 
     or was in pain. I asked if there was any other option because 
     I was worried about dying.
       At that point, I felt like my choices were either to go 
     home and wait for a life-threatening infection so that my 
     labor could be induced or go to an outside hospital where I 
     didn't speak the language and could not be sure that the 
     treatment would be safe.
       When I got to the private Japanese hospital, the doctor 
     told me there was a serious risk for infection and that he 
     needed to put me on antibiotics immediately. If I didn't get 
     antibiotics through IV immediately, I would die. I contacted 
     my grandmother in the United States who wired me $2,000 to 
     pay for the hospital visit.
       I checked into the hospital about 4 hours later. They 
     dilated my cervix over a period of 2\1/2\ days and induced 
     labor. I delivered a stillborn baby. The military hospital 
     told me that this was an elected abortion and not a stillborn 
     birth.
       I am now 17 weeks pregnant again, and my only option is to 
     use the military hospital for my OB/GYN treatment. I have 
     begged them to let me off the base to go to a private doctor 
     because of my experience last year. I believe that my 
     pregnancy puts my health at risk. I would again be prevented 
     from making decisions I need to about my pregnancy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Let me just make a point.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the Senator such time as she needs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is just one example of what a 
women living abroad might go through. We can think of all kinds of 
other situations in foreign countries that might necessitate the 
termination of a pregnancy. Many of these women are living in countries 
that don't have good health care systems in place, skilled providers, 
or access to safe or clean hospitals.
  This ban is a huge mistake. It is in fact a double standard. I do not 
know of a health situation a man could encounter that would be dealt 
with at a military hospital in quite the same manner. Nor do I know of 
a health situation a man could encounter that a military hospital would 
not treat.
  I thank the Senator from Washington for her amendment and for her 
leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support the Murray-Snowe amendment. I 
comment Senator Murray for her strong and unflagging leadership on this 
issue, and am pleased to once again join with her on the critical 
amendment to the Department of Defense authorization. I am pleased to 
join my colleague in support of this amendment to repeal the ban on 
abortions at overseas military hospitals, an amendment whose time has 
long since come.
  Year after year, time after time, debate after debate, we revisit the 
issue of women's reproductive freedoms by seeking to restrict, limit, 
and eliminate a woman's right to choose. While at times we are able to 
take one step forward we end up taking two steps back. Last year we 
were able to garner a majority of the Senate only to have this language 
removed in conference. I believe that ultimately, we will prevail, that 
my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol will realize that this is a 
policy change that makes sense, and I hope that will occur on this 
reauthorization.
  When we last considered this amendment, almost 11 months ago to the 
day, we had more than 378,000 troops stationed overseas, today we have 
over 10,000 more. Of those more than 35,000 of these troops were women 
as of April 2002 and women make up almost 36,500 of the troops today. 
We recognize the impact that the failure to repeal this ban has on so 
many of these women.
  Since last year's reauthorization debate, the Commander-in-Chief has 
called our Nation's military into action on another front. As we 
watched the 24 hour news stations' broadcasting reports from their 
embedded reporters, we saw more female faces amongst the troops than 
ever before. We are considering this Defense authorization during

[[Page 12776]]

a time of war when Americans, both civilian and military, are fighting 
terrorism and tyranny all across the globe, both men and women. These 
women, these soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines, deserve access to 
the same health services that women here in the States have.
  As I think about this last conflict, it occurs to me how ironic it is 
that the very people who are fighting to preserve our freedoms, those 
who are on the front lines defending this war on terrorism or other 
parts of the globe, are supporting those who are fighting, are 
currently the least protected in terms of the right to make choices 
about their own personal health and reproductive decisions.
  ``That is why I stand to join my colleague, Senator Murray, once 
again in overturning this ban on privately funded abortion services in 
overseas military hospitals, for military women and dependents based 
overseas, which was reinstated in the fiscal year 1996 authorization 
bill, as we all know. It is a ban without merit or reason that put the 
reproductive health of these women at risk.
  Specifically, as we know, the ban denies the right to choose for 
female military personnel and dependents. It effectively denies those 
women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the armed 
services safe and legal medical care simply because they were assigned 
duty in another country. It makes me wonder why Congress would, year 
after year, continue to leave these women who so bravely serve our 
country overseas with no choice by denying them the rights that are 
guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution?
  Our task in this debate is to make sure that all of America's women, 
including those who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces and military 
dependents, are guaranteed the fundamental right to choose. Our task is 
not to pay for abortions with Federal funding--contrary to what our 
opponents may claim, after all, since 1979 the Federal law has 
prohibited the use of Federal funds to perform abortions at military 
hospitals. This amendment would not change that. However, what it would 
do is reinstate the policy that was in place from 1979 to 1988, when 
women could use their own personal funds to pay for the medical care 
they need.
  In 1988, the Reagan administration announced a new policy prohibiting 
the performance of any abortions at military hospitals even if it was 
paid for out of a woman's private funds--a policy which truly defies 
logic.
  President Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993, by Executive order, 
restoring a woman's right to pay for abortion services with private, 
non-Defense Department funds. Just when we had thought that logic would 
prevail, in 1995, through the very bill we authorize today, the House 
International Security Committee reinstated this ban which was then 
retained in the conference. And here we are 8 years later trying to 
undo this unnecessary threat to our female servicewomen.
  Let me take a moment to reiterate a very important point. President 
Clinton's Executive order did not change existing law prohibiting the 
use of Federal funds for abortion, and it did not require medical 
providers to perform those abortions. In fact, all three branches of 
the military have conscience clauses which permit medical personnel 
with moral, religious, or ethical objections to abortion not to 
participate in the procedure. I believe that is a reasonable measure 
and one I do not take issue with.
  Opponents of this amendment argue that changing current law means 
that military personnel and military facilities are charged with 
performing abortions, and that this, in turn, means that American 
taxpayer funds will be used to subsidize abortions. This is a wholly 
and fundamentally incorrect. Every person who has ever been in a 
hospital for any type of procedure knows full well that the hospital 
and the physician is able to account for every charge, the cost of 
every minute, every physician, every nurse, each aspirin, the supplies, 
the materials, the overheads, the insurance, anything that is part of 
the procedure. Under this amendment, every expense is included in the 
cost that is paid by private funds. Public funds are not used for the 
performance of abortions in this instance. That is an important 
distinction to reinforce today. I know it is easy to confuse the 
debate, to obfuscate the issues. What we are talking about here is 
restricting how a woman using her own private insurance or money in 
support of that procedure. We are not talking about using Federal 
funds.
  This amendment we are fighting for is to lift the ban on privately 
funded abortions paid for with a woman's private funds. That is what 
this issue is all about. Proponents of this amendment believe that a 
woman would have the ability to have access to a constitutional right 
when it comes to her reproductive freedom to use her own funds, her own 
health insurance, for access to this procedure.
  Congress works hard at times of war, and at times of peace, to 
support our American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as 
their dependents, our armed services and our armed forces have no 
better friend and ally than the Congress. I would argue that is the 
case in most situations, but obviously there is a different standard 
when it comes to the health of a woman and her reproductive decisions.
  This is especially confounding when we all completely agree that our 
military members and their families have sacrificed a lot, including 
their lives, for the sake of our Nation and what we believe. For those 
women overseas we are asking them to potentially, and unnecessarily, 
sacrifice their health under this ban. Making this type of decision is 
perhaps the most fundamental, personal, and difficult decision a woman 
can face. It is a very personal decision. It is a decision that should 
be made between a woman, her doctor, her family. It is a constitutional 
right. It is a constitutional right that should extend to women in the 
military overseas, not just within the boundaries of the United States.
  I think it is regrettable that somehow we have demeaned women, in 
terms of this very difficult decision that they have to make. There has 
been example upon example given to us, to my colleague Senator Murray, 
about the trying circumstances that this prohibition has placed on 
women who serve in the military abroad. I do not think for one moment 
anybody should minimize or underestimate the emotional, physical 
hardship that this ban has imposed, a ban that prohibits a woman from 
using her own private health insurance, her own private funds to make 
her own constitutional decision when she happens to be in the military 
serving abroad.
  The ban on abortions in military hospitals coerce the women who serve 
our country into making decisions and choices they would not otherwise 
make. As one doctor, a physician from Oregon, recalls his days as a 
Navy doctor stationed in the Philippines, he describes the experiences 
and hardships that result unnecessarily from this policy. Women have to 
travel long distances in order to obtain a legal abortion--not 
necessarily a safe abortion, but a legal one. Travel arrangements that 
are difficult and expensive. Not to mention the fact that in order to 
take leave, they had to justify taking emergency leave to their 
commanding officer. Imagine that circumstance. Forcing women to make a 
very personal decision so well known.
  However, for those women who choose to find an alternative, their 
only option is to turn to local, illegal abortions. In other 
circumstances, their dignity was offended and often their health was 
placed at risk, which was certainly reinforced by the letter that was 
sent to both Senator Murray and from now retired, Lt. Gen. Kennedy, the 
highest ranking woman in the military. She speaks with great 
perspective about the humiliation and the demeaning circumstances in 
which many women were placed, not to mention putting their health at 
risk.
  I hope we can overturn this prohibition in law and grant women in the 
military the same constitutional right that is afforded women who live 
within the boundaries of the United States of America. No one should 
leave their

[[Page 12777]]

constitutional rights at the proverbial door, but that is what this ban 
has done. Our constitutional rights are not territorial and women who 
serve their country should be afforded the same rights that women here 
in America have. I think this ban is not consistent with the principles 
which our Armed Forces are fighting to protect, and which the American 
people so overwhelmingly support. I hope we move forward, and I hope we 
would understand that women in the military and their dependents 
overseas deserve the same rights that women have here in this country. 
They have and should have the protections of the Constitution, no 
matter where they live.
  I hope the Senate will overturn that ban and will support the 
amendment offered by Senator Murray and myself.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
amendment offered by Senators Murray and Snowe to the Department of 
Defense reauthorization bill to repeal the ban on privately funded 
abortions sought by U.S. servicewomen, spouses, and dependents in 
military hospitals overseas.
  The Supreme Court acknowledges a woman's right to choose as a 
constitutionally protected freedom. That right is not suspended simply 
because a woman serves in the U.S. military or is married to a U.S. 
service member and living overseas.
  Women based in the United States and using a U.S.-based military 
facility are not prohibited from using their own funds to pay for an 
abortion. Having a prohibition on the use of U.S. military facilities 
overseas creates a double standard, and discriminates against women 
service members stationed overseas.
  Banning privately funded abortions on military bases endangers a 
woman's health. Service members and their dependents rely on their 
military base hospitals for medical care. Private facilities may not be 
readily available in other countries.
  For example, abortion is illegal in the Philippines. A woman 
stationed in that country or the spouse of a service member would need 
to fly to the U.S. or to another country--at her own expense--to obtain 
an abortion. We don't pay our service members enough to assume they can 
simply jet off to Switzerland for medical treatment.
  If women do not have access to military facilities or to private 
facilities in the country they are stationed, they could endanger their 
own health by the delay involved in getting to a facility or by being 
forced to seek an abortion by someone other than a licensed physician.
  We know from personal experience in this country that when abortion 
is illegal, desperate women are often forced into unsafe and life-
threatening situations. If it were your wife, or your daughter, would 
you want her in the hands of an untrained abortionist on the back 
streets of Manila or Argentina? Or would you prefer that she have 
access to medical treatment by a trained physician in a U.S. military 
facility?
  Not only would these women be risking their health and lives under 
normal conditions, but what if these women are facing complicated or 
life-threatening pregnancies and are unaware of the seriousness of 
their condition?
  The ban on privately funded abortions on military bases overseas 
affects more than 100,000 active service members, spouses, and 
dependents of military personnel.
  One such woman this ban impacts is Holly Webb.
  Holly Webb is the wife of a staff sergeant in the Air Force stationed 
in Misawa, Japan. She tells the following story of her struggle to find 
adequate reproductive health care overseas:

       My husband was stationed in Misawa Japan, and I moved over 
     in September 2001 to join him. I was pregnant for the first 
     time. Prior to my arrival in Japan, I felt like something was 
     wrong with my pregnancy and at 6 weeks I went to the 
     emergency room at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida where 
     we had been stationed.
       My doctor there told me that everything seemed OK from what 
     they could tell. At 16 weeks I was in Japan with my husband 
     and I started bleeding. I would bleed weekly for 5 days and 
     then the bleeding would subside. I went to the military 
     hospital at Misawa and they told me I had placenta previa and 
     that this was a normal side effect and they sent me home.
       At 20 weeks, I started bleeding heavily and went back to 
     the hospital. I thought that my water had broken but the 
     hospital told me that it was not an emergency and kept me 
     overnight. My ob/gyn did not visit me until the next morning. 
     They told me that the results of my triple screen blood test 
     showed possible spina bifida which necessitated an 
     ultrasound. When they did the ultrasound they discovered, as 
     I had thought, that there was no amniotic fluid surrounding 
     the fetus.
       They were unable to detect whether or not the fetus had 
     spina bifida. For the next day I was administered IV fluids 
     and my doctor mentioned that I might be dehydrated. My cervix 
     remained closed, however, and they told me that there was 
     still a fetal heartbeat. I was told that I might deliver 
     spontaneously within weeks or months, but that if the baby 
     survived, it would have serious health complications due to 
     the fact that I was at risk for infection as well as because 
     there was no amniotic fluid surrounding the baby.
       When I asked the hospital what my options were they told me 
     that they could not induce labor or dilate my cervix to 
     deliver because it would be considered an abortion but that I 
     was at risk for infection. My doctor told me that in order to 
     have an abortion, they would have to have my situation 
     reviewed by a medical board and that she didn't know how long 
     this would take.
       She told me that during her 7 or 8 years of practice in a 
     military hospital, no matter what the situation was, a 
     woman's request for an abortion was always denied.
       My doctor told me that the only way I could receive 
     additional medical treatment was if I became ill. I was told 
     to go home and monitor my temperature and to return when I 
     had a fever or was in pain. I asked if there was any other 
     option because I was worried about dying.
       At that point, I felt like my choices were either to go 
     home and wait for a life-threatening infection so that my 
     labor could be induced, or to go to an outside hospital, 
     where I didn't speak the language and could not be sure that 
     the treatment would be safe.
       When I got to the private Japanese hospital, the doctor 
     told me that there was serious risk for infection, and that 
     he needed to put me on antibiotics immediately and that if I 
     did not get antibiotics through IV immediately I would very 
     likely die. I contacted my grandmother in the U.S. who wired 
     me $2,000 to pay for the hospital visit.
       I checked into the hospital about 4 hours later. They 
     dilated my cervix over a period of 2\1/2\ days, then induced 
     labor. I delivered a stillborn baby. The military hospital 
     told me that this was an elected abortion and not a stillborn 
     birth.
       I am now 17 weeks pregnant again and my only option is to 
     use the military hospital for my ob/gyn treatment. I have 
     begged them to let me off the base to go to a private doctor 
     because of my experience last year. I believe that if my 
     pregnancy puts my health at risk, I would again be prevented 
     from making the decisions I need to about my pregnancy.

  I hope that we have learned something from Mrs. Webb's story. No 
woman should have to go through the obstacles Mrs. Webb faced. If Mrs. 
Webb had been living in the U.S. she would have had a choice. She could 
have gotten an abortion and avoided the emotional trauma associated 
with giving birth to a stillborn, and not had to put her own life at 
risk.
  Current law does not force any military physician to perform an 
abortion against his or her will. All branches have a conscience clause 
that permits medical personnel to choose not to perform the procedure. 
A doctor can simply say, ``I won't perform such a procedure.'' And then 
that woman must just find another doctor.
  What we are talking about today is providing equal access to military 
medical facilities, wherever they are located, for a legal procedure 
paid for with one's own money.
  Abortion is legal for American women. These women would pay for the 
service with their own funds. This amendment does not involve the use 
of federal funding.
  We ask these service members to risk their lives in the service of 
their country but we are not willing to grant them access to the same 
services they would receive if they were stationed in the U.S. This is 
especially troubling since September 11 since more Americans have 
decided to serve their country.
  Service members and their dependents must have access to safe, legal, 
and comprehensive reproductive health care.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask unanimous 
consent that my statement appear in the Record.

[[Page 12778]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for her effort 
to repeal the unfair ban on privately-funded abortions at overseas U.S. 
military facilities. This amendment rights a serious wrong in our 
policy, and guarantees that women serving overseas in the armed forces 
are able to exercise their constitutional right to choose.
  This is an issue of fundamental fairness for the many women who make 
daily sacrifices to serve our Nation. It is wrong to deny them the same 
medical care available in the United States. Women serving overseas 
should be able to depend on military base hospitals for their medical 
needs. They should not be forced to choose between lower quality care 
in a foreign country, or returning to the United States for the care 
they need. Congress has a responsibility to provide the best possible 
medical care for those serving our country at home and abroad.
  Such care is essential. Our dedicated servicewomen should not be 
unfairly exposed to risks of infection, illness, infertility, and even 
death, when appropriate care can easily be made available to them. 
Servicewomen overseas deserve the same access to all medical services 
as their counterparts at home.
  This amendment will also ease the heavy financial burden on 
servicewomen who make the difficult decision to have an abortion. The 
cost of returning to the United States from far-off bases in other 
parts of the world often imposes significant financial hardship on 
women. Those serving in the United States do not have the same burden, 
since nonmilitary hospital facilities are readily available. It is 
unfair to ask women serving abroad to suffer this financial penalty.
  If the cost of a separate trip to return to the United States is too 
high, servicewomen may face significant delay before military 
transportation is available. Each week, the health risks faced by these 
women become increasingly serious. Long delays in obtaining a military 
flight can force women to rely on questionable medical facilities 
overseas. As a practical matter, they are being denied their 
constitutionally-protected right to choose.
  A woman's decision to have an abortion is very difficult and 
extremely personal. It is wrong to impose this heavy additional burden 
on women who serve our country overseas.
  Every woman in the United States has a constitutionally-guaranteed 
right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. It is long 
past time for Congress to stop denying this right to women serving 
abroad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
will be charged equally. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I think perhaps we are ready to proceed 
with a vote on the bill. I do not know if the Senator from Washington 
is ready to yield back her remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back her remaining 
time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 1 minute 38 
seconds, and the Senator from Kansas has 3 minutes 9 seconds and 
counting.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I am prepared to yield back my time. The issue has 
been well debated. People know the issue. It has been voted on before. 
I hope we can proceed with the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from California has given a 
very clear reason to vote for this amendment. We have heard no 
disagreement that this current policy toward women service members is 
not humiliating. We have heard no disagreement that it is not a threat 
to privacy, and it is punitive. What this issue is about is whether 
women in the service overseas have the same constitutional rights, 
protections, and safety in their health care as those women who are in 
this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington yields back time.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 691. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Kerry
      
  The amendment (No. 691) was rejected.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: At this point the 
bill is open to further amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Presiding Officer advise the Senate with regard 
to the order that currently controls the next amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a limited list of amendments offered.
  Mr. WARNER. Could the Presiding Officer recite those amendments in 
their standing order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A package of amendments has been cleared by 
both managers: A Boxer amendment on contracting subject to a relevant 
second degree, a Domenici amendment on border security, a Kerry 
amendment on air travel, a Landrieu amendment, and a Grassley amendment 
on the industrial enterprise.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, therefore, it would be in order at this 
time for any of those amendments to be taken up by the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished managers of 
the bill to allow a very brief colloquy and a unanimous consent request 
by the Senators from Massachusetts and New York, and maybe a couple of 
others, we would take no more than 2 minutes for the Senator from 
Massachusetts and 3 minutes for the Senator from New York.

[[Page 12779]]


  Mr. WARNER. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 923

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to 
provide help for 3.2 million Americans who are out of work and need 
Congress to extend unemployment insurance. Soon the checks will no 
longer be in the mail for millions of Americans and New Yorkers who 
depend on unemployment benefits to provide for their families at this 
time.
  In New York alone, over 100,000 people have exhausted their 
unemployment insurance benefits and are still without a job. Starting 
on May 31, unless we act, more than 80,000 Americans will begin 
exhausting their unemployment every single week.
  These Americans and New Yorkers need and deserve our action. We knew 
we had to take steps at the beginning of this year to extend 
unemployment compensation. We need to do it again.
  I hope none of us will turn our back on these hard-working, 
struggling Americans--people who have mortgages to pay, people who have 
car payments to make, people who have children to raise.
  In April 2000, there were 176,000 long-term unemployed parents. Last 
month, there were 607,000 long-term unemployed parents, an increase of 
245 percent.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 923, a bill to provide a 6-month extension 
of unemployment compensation, including 13 weeks of benefits for the 
long-term unemployed--exhaustees--and that the Senate then proceed with 
its immediate consideration; that an amendment at the desk to remove 
the ``Temporary Enhanced Regular Unemployment Compensation'' provisions 
be considered and agreed to; that the bill be read three times, passed, 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. 1079, Senator Murkowski's bill to extend the 
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, provided that 
the Senate proceed to its consideration, the bill be read a third time 
and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, does this 
include the workers who have contributed into the fund and whose 
benefits have expired? It has been standard and it has been used in the 
Senate and supported by the Senate five different times during the 
1990s. Does this include those workers?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call upon the proponent of the 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, if we can't get an answer 
to that.
  Mr. WARNER. We are about to get an answer, I advise the Senate.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am sorry.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts to 
repeat the question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does this include the more than 1 million workers whose 
unemployment benefits have expired and who otherwise would be eligible 
to receive unemployment compensation under the proposals that have been 
offered here by the Senator from New York and our own proposal, and 
that were also included in the proposal that was passed in a bipartisan 
way on five different occasions during the 1990s? Does this amendment 
include those individuals?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may respond, my bill is a clean 6-
month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act 
of 2002.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, further holding the right to object, does 
it include any ability to give flexibility to the States so that they 
can take care of part-time workers as included in the Democratic 
proposal? Does it include those provisions as well?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I repeat that this is a clean 6-month extension of the 
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is a very clear reason the request 
of the Senator from New York and the request I will make should be 
respected on the floor of the Senate. We are facing a crisis with 8 to 
9 million Americans unemployed. More than 1.5 million of those have 
seen their unemployment compensation expire. Starting next week, 80,000 
workers are going to lose their unemployment compensation.
  This is an issue about fairness. On the one hand, we have an 
opportunity to return to these workers what they have paid over a 
lifetime of work, in many instances, into a trust fund that is in 
excess of $20 billion, and the reason it is in surplus is that these 
workers have paid into it. Now they are entitled to get that money out.
  We have had objection to the request of the Senator from New York.
  I am going to give the Senate one more opportunity to see whether 
they are going to be responsive, whether this body is going to 
understand the issue of fairness. Tomorrow we are going to pass 
billions of dollars for the wealthiest individuals in this country. We 
are trying to look out after hard-working Americans.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by 
the majority leader, following consultation with the Democratic leader, 
the Senate consider S. 1079, extension of the unemployment 
compensation, considered under the following limitations: General 
debate of an hour equally divided, with only one amendment in order, 
the amendment by Senator Kennedy, on which there be an hour of debate 
equally divided, and no other amendments be in order, and any points of 
order be considered waived by this agreement; that upon the disposition 
of the amendment and the use and yielding back of all time, the Senate 
vote on passage of the bill, without further intervening action or 
debate, as amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. President, I compliment our colleague from Alaska for trying to 
pass a clean, simple extension. This is the same language Senator 
Clinton and I passed last January. It is the same language Senator 
Fitzgerald passed with us, I believe January 7 or 8. It is the same 
language we passed a couple of times for a clean extension. It is not a 
doubling of the program. It is not taking a 13-week Federal program and 
turning it into a 26-week program. It is not expanding the definition 
of uninsured or unemployed to include part-time workers, or to include 
a whole variety of people who, frankly, the States don't now cover.
  I will tell my colleagues that we are not going to double the 
program. We are not going to triple the program. The Senator from 
Alaska offered to extend the current program which we have been using 
for the last 2 or so years. That is the proposal she will make today 
and, I would expect, the proposal she will make tomorrow. That is the 
only proposal, in my opinion, that will pass.
  People want to try to make political statements. We had a vote on it 
in the budget.
  I will not yield.
  We had a vote on it in the budget. It didn't pass. We had a vote on 
it last week on the tax bill. It didn't pass. Some people want to 
double or triple this program. It is not going to work.
  The Senator from Alaska says she is trying to extend the program so 
people won't lose their benefits beginning next month. A clean 
extension of the Federal program of 13 weeks can pass, or rather may 
pass. But colleagues who want to continue to double or triple the 
program jeopardize helping the very people they say they want to help.

[[Page 12780]]

  I compliment my colleague from Alaska. I hope our colleagues will 
give fair consideration and ultimately agree to a simple extension of 
the program for 6 months, as proposed by our colleague from Alaska.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Republican leader: Why don't we 
then just have the two different alternatives placed before the Senate 
and let the Senate express itself on whether it favors our proposal or 
favors the Republican proposal?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these proposals 
be laid before the Senate and, at a time suitable to the majority and 
minority leaders, we have a 10-minute, evenly divided, discussion, and 
we let the Senate vote on whether it prefers the proposal of the 
Senator from Alaska or the proposal of the Senators from New York and 
Massachusetts.
  I think that is a fair way to proceed.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will not yield.
  We talk about fairness. Our proposal is basically a similar proposal 
to what was passed five times, and which the Senator from Oklahoma 
supported in the 1990s. Why don't we give the Senate a chance to vote 
on either one of them? That would be fairest to the workers in this 
country.
  If you are able, then, to persuade Members to vote for yours, so be 
it; we will accept it. And if they vote for ours, we would hope you 
would accept it. That is what I think is fair.
  I ask whether the Senator from New York would think that is fair?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. I think the Senator from Massachusetts--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TALENT). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
making a unanimous consent request.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts retains the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think this is a pretty clear indication 
about where our Republican friends are on this issue. They are denying 
us--or denying the Senate--in the final hours prior to the expiration 
of coverage for workers--denying us an opportunity to get a vote in the 
Senate.
  Basically, they say: Either take ours or leave it--take ours or leave 
it--and that is being unfair to workers, particularly at a time when 
the Republican Party is about to recommend tax breaks of billions of 
dollars for the wealthiest individuals in this country, and they refuse 
to give fairness to workers in this country.
  That is what is going on here. Workers in this country understand 
what is happening here in the Senate. It is a clear indication of the 
priorities: Just open up the Federal Treasury. Give the wealthiest the 
highest amount of tax breaks and give short shrift to hard-working 
Americans.
  The Republican leader refuses to permit the Senate of the United 
States, in a time set by our leaders, to make a judgment on which they 
would prefer. The workers in the United States are clearly getting 
short-shrifted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just for the information of our 
colleagues, to make sure we make the record straight, my very good 
friend from the great State of Massachusetts has mentioned: Let people 
have a vote.
  Well, we have not had one vote--we have had three votes this year. We 
had a vote on the appropriations bill earlier this year. We had a vote 
on the budget. We had a vote on the tax bill.
  They did not win. They tried to double the program two or three 
times, unsuccessfully, and so they are now trying again.
  Frankly, we have a DOD authorization bill, we have a tax/economic 
growth package, we have a debt limit extension, and we need to pass UI. 
We have a lot of work to do in the next few hours.
  Some of us--let me rephrase that--this Senator is going to do what I 
can to make sure we are not going to double or triple this program. We 
have already had three votes on the proposal to double it. We are not 
going to do that. I don't know how many votes people think they need. 
They may think they are winning on the votes, but they are not winning 
on the issue. I think we may have consent to pass a clean extension. It 
takes unanimous consent. I tell my colleagues on the other side, who 
are playing this game, this will not work legislatively. And it may 
jeopardize a clean extension.
  So I would be very cautious, especially when you get late in the 
game, and close before a break, and people want to go home, I would not 
take for granted that you can pass a clean extension--but I compliment 
my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for trying to do so. I 
believe we can do so.
  We have had three votes already, and it did not win. It will not win 
on the fourth vote. So I urge my colleagues: The way to do this is 
let's pass a clean extension, the same extension that my colleague from 
New York and I passed one or two times on the floor of the Senate. 
Let's do that again, and let's help the people who need the help.
  If people play other games, they jeopardize even a clean extension. I 
think people should be on notice of that not everybody might want a 
clean extension. So the effort to double the program may mean that some 
people will get zero. Instead of getting 13 weeks, they might get zero 
because of this effort to double the program.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wanted to ask my friend from Oklahoma 
to yield to me, but he yielded the floor.
  The dilemma, of course, is one that is very difficult for us to 
confront. I appreciate greatly the wonderful cooperation that I 
received in working out the extension of unemployment compensation for 
those who needed to complete their 13 weeks who were unemployed, and 
for those who were going onto unemployment for the first time.
  Our problem is--and this is where I think the nub of our difference 
is--we have this growing number of literally millions of people who 
have exhausted their benefits and are looking for work and cannot find 
it.
  I understand and I respect the argument from the other side, although 
I disagree that the tax package that is about to be passed today or 
tomorrow is going to generate jobs and economic growth. I do not think 
it will. I think it will, in fact, make our economic situation worse 
and continue to put people out of work. But we will get a chance to 
find out who is right about that.
  But, unfortunately, there are a lot of innocent people caught in the 
middle of this debate, people who are not sitting here on the floor of 
the Senate, people who are not going to get a big tax break, people who 
are out of work and cannot find a job in this economy.
  At some point we have to take responsibility for these people. I 
appreciate the author on the other side. And I appreciate the good work 
of the Senator from Alaska to have a straight extension, but we did not 
have a vote on that specifically. We had votes attached to other 
items--appropriations, tax cuts, et cetera. At some point, we are going 
to have to face the reality that this economy is losing private sector 
jobs at the fastest rate in our history. At some point, we have to take 
responsibility for these people.
  We reformed welfare, which I supported. We said to people, go out and 
get a job; support yourself and your children because we expected that 
we would have a good economy, because we would have good, sensible, 
responsible, fiscally sound policies at the Federal level that would, 
hand in hand, help the private sector create those jobs. That is not 
happening, for a lot of reasons. The economy continues to get worse. We 
have lost half a million jobs in the last 3 months alone.
  So I simply ask my friends, my colleagues on the other side: If not 
now, when? When do we take responsibility, as previous 
administrations--Republican and Democrat--previous Congresses--
Republican and Democrat--

[[Page 12781]]

did in previous recessions? At some point, we cannot any longer pretend 
that the economy is going to generate the jobs that all of those 
unemployed people who have no means of support are desperate to have.
  So I hope we will get to that point sooner than later because I have 
thousands and thousands of these people--some of whom have been out of 
work since 9/11, 2001--and I believe we should help them. And it is 
good for the economy. We ought to take that action as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent 
request.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be recognized in order to 
offer her amendment regarding contracting. I further ask that 
immediately following the reporting by the clerk, the Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment 
regarding the same subject; provided further that there be 30 minutes 
under the control of Senator Boxer and 15 minutes under the control of 
Senator Warner. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Warner 
amendment, to be immediately followed by a vote in relation to the 
Boxer amendment, with no amendments in order to either amendment prior 
to the votes.
  Before the Chair rules, I think we can make the second vote a 10-
minute vote.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have no 
objection. I think that would be appropriate. I also ask that there be 
recorded votes on both the Boxer and Warner amendments; further, that 
between the two votes, there be 5 minutes equally divided under the 
control of Senator Boxer and Senator Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the two votes, both the 
Warner amendment and the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order at this time 
to simply order the yeas and nays on the two amendments, which will be 
done if there is no objection.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Chair repeat that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order at this time 
to request the yeas and nays on the amendments despite the fact neither 
has been offered.
  Mr. WARNER. I request the yeas and nays on the Warner amendment and 
the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 825

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid and Senator Warner 
for working out this arrangement whereby we can have a definite vote on 
two alternatives that deal with, in my opinion, competitive bidding--
that is what we are talking about--in the rebuilding of Iraq.
  I send my amendment to the desk, and I ask that the amendment be 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 825:
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) On March 8, 2003, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded a 
     sole-source Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract 
     for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry.
       (2) The Department of Defense has characterized this 
     contract as a short-term ``bridge'' contract that will be 
     used for an interim period until a contract can be awarded on 
     a competitive basis.
       (3) However, the estimated date of completion for this 
     contract is March 2005 and the value is estimated by the 
     Department of Defense to be $57 billion.
       (4) The Department of Defense has established a goal of 
     completing the follow-on competition and having a fully 
     competitive contract in place by August 31, 2003. This goal 
     was stated in a letter dated May 2, 2003.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) The taxpayers deserve fairness.
       (2) Businesses deserve fairness.
       (3) The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 establishes 
     a preference for the award of competitive contracts.
       (4) The Department of Defense should meet its goal of 
     having a fully competitive contract in place by August 31, 
     2003 and performing work needed for the reconstruction of the 
     Iraqi oil industry after such date under that competitive 
     contract.
       (c) Report to Congress.--If the Department of Defense fails 
     to meet its own stated goal of having a fully competitive 
     contract in place by August 31, 2003, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit a report to Congress by September 30, 
     2003, detailing the reasons for allowing this sole source 
     contract to continue.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at this time, does my friend want to bring 
his second-degree amendment to the desk or, rather, his substitute?


                           Amendment No. 826

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment which is 
in the first degree to protect the Senator from California, unless she 
would like to have it as a second-degree amendment. We can do that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I prefer to have it as a first-degree amendment. It will 
be much better, and I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 826.

  Mr. WARNER. 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:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COMPETITIVE AWARD OF 
                   CONTRACTS FOR IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Department of 
     Defense should fully comply with the Competition in 
     Contracting Act (10 U.S.C. 2304 et seq.) for any contract 
     awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq and should 
     conduct a full and open competition for performing work 
     needed for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry as 
     soon as practicable.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will later advise the Senate with regard 
to the content of this amendment. For the moment, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the spirit of my amendment is very clear. 
I am very resolute about it. I appreciate the fact we are going to have 
a vote on the Warner first-degree amendment and the Boxer amendment.
  All the years I was in the House of Representatives, part of the time 
I served on the Armed Services Committee. I am pleased to see my friend 
from Illinois here because together during the years I served on the 
Armed Services Committee, we took on the issue of procurement reform. I 
am very pleased to say that as a result of the work that many of us 
did, we were able to--and it was Berkley Bedell, if my colleague 
remembers; there were a number of us--we were able to make sure there 
was competition at the Pentagon.
  Competition is the name of the game. It is supposed to be the name of 
the game in America. When I see any agency turning away from 
competitive bidding, unless there is a good reason to do so--and I 
might say, if it is an emergency, this is a good reason, but beyond 
that, there is no reason to award a contract without going to bid, 
without considering competitive bids.
  What happens--and I feel really deeply about this--when the taxpayers 
of this country and the businesses of this country that are playing by 
the rules see such a contract given to one special company, it is very 
bad, in my opinion, for our country. It is very bad for our fighting 
men and women who risk their life and limb.

[[Page 12782]]

  Let me tell you what I mean. As a result of a sole-source contract 
that was given to a subsidiary of Halliburton, these are some of the 
headlines that appeared across the country. I will let my colleagues 
judge, and I will let the people judge whether these kinds of headlines 
are good for our country and good for the morale of our troops.
  Here is one from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

       Secret Halliburton deal endangers U.S. credibility.

That is May 8, 2003, in a southern paper.
  Here is one from the Montreal Gazette:

       Halliburton contract bigger than reported; Linked to 
     Cheney; Role has grown beyond fighting Iraq oil fires.

  This one was in the Houston Chronicle on May 8, 2003:

       Halliburton contract stokes new controversy.

  Here is one from the L.A. Times, May 8:

       Shadow over the oilfields; The administration's no-bid 
     contract with Halliburton subsidiary gives the impression of 
     a grab at Iraqi resources for American business.

  Another headline in the L.A. Times on April 11:

       More flack on Halliburton deal; The revelation that the 
     Pentagon contract is worth up to $7 billion is more fuel for 
     critics who say it should have been open to bidding.

  And USA Today, April 11:

       Halliburton oilfield deal raises questions.

  The point is, we should do everything we can for the taxpayers of 
this country to make them feel comfortable that when there is work at 
home or abroad, every business in this country gets a chance to compete 
for the work. Why? Because we all know if there is no competition, the 
price could soar.
  I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to my amendment Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Lautenberg, and 
Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am proud to have their support. There can be no 
stronger advocate of the strongest possible military than Senators 
Lieberman and Graham. We know that. We have seen them here. They are 
supporters because they understand, as I do, that it weakens our 
country when we do these kinds of deals.
  The amendment that my friend has offered is fine; there is nothing 
wrong with it, but it does not get to the heart of this particular 
contract. It is general, whereas the amendment I have offered--and, by 
the way, it is just a sense of the Senate. It is nice. But what I have 
offered says that if the Secretary of Defense finds that the Army Corps 
has not, in fact, put the rest of this contract out for bid by the date 
of September 30--and they have promised to do so by August 31--then 
they have to tell us why they did not bid out this contract.
  I am going to put up a chart that shows a copy of the congressional 
notification of this contract. It looks scary when one sees it because 
there is lots in it, but I have highlighted in yellow the things my 
colleagues ought to know, because maybe they do not know this.
  I want to compliment the minority ranking member of the Committee on 
Government Reform in the House, Henry Waxman, for doing so much of the 
research.
  I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet called the Bush 
Administration's Contracts with Halliburton, put out by the minority 
staff of the Committee on Government Reform, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Fact Sheet: The Bush Administration's Contracts With Halliburton

       The Bush Administration has awarded several extremely large 
     contracts and task orders to Halliburton. Of particular 
     concern are the contracts awarded to a Halliburton 
     subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root. GAO reports and other 
     investigations have documented a history of Brown & Root 
     overcharging the taxpayer. Yet despite this history, the 
     Administration has awarded Brown & Root lucrative government 
     contracts--including a recent contract for oil-related work 
     in Iraq that is worth up to $7 billion and that was awarded 
     secretly and without any competition. The Administration has 
     also awarded contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars 
     for work in Iraq to a select group of U.S. companies, with 
     only limited competition.
       Halliburton has a unique relationship to this 
     Administration. When Dick Cheney left his position as 
     Halliburton's CEO in 2000 to run for Vice President, he 
     reportedly received company stock worth over $33 million.\1\ 
     He continues to receive deferred compensation payments of 
     over $160,000 a year from Halliburton.\2\


                    history of brown & root problems

       GAO has found serious problems with contract work that 
     Brown & Root did for the Army in the Balkans. In 1997, it 
     found that the Army ``was unable to ensure that the 
     contractor adequately controlled costs.''\3\ For example, 
     Brown & Root was charging the Army $86 to fly in $14 sheets 
     of plywood from the United States. The Army official in 
     charge was ``shocked'' when he found that out.\4\
       In 2000, GAO found more evidence that Brown & Root was 
     inflating the government's costs--and its profits--by, for 
     example, overstaffing work crews and providing more goods and 
     services than necessary.\5\
       Brown & Root was the subject of a criminal investigation 
     for overbilling the government on another contract. According 
     to a former employee, the company routinely and 
     systematically inflated contract prices it submitted to the 
     government for work at the former Fort Ord military base in 
     California.\6\ Brown & Root paid $2 million to settle that 
     case in 2002.\7\
       Brown & Root's parent company, Halliburton, has its own 
     problems. The SEC is investigating accounting practices of 
     the company dating back to the Vice President's tenure at its 
     CEO.\8\ The company recently restated its earnings for the 
     4th quarter of 2002.\9\ And Halliburton has admitted paying 
     $2.4 million in bribes to a Nigerian official in an attempt 
     to gain favorable tax treatment in the country.\10\


             defense department contracts with brown & root

       Despite this troubled history, the Administration has 
     awarded Brown & Root three very lucrative Defense contracts. 
     In 2001, Brown & Root won a $300-million contract to provide 
     support services to the Navy--despite a bid protest by a 
     rival bidder that GAO upheld.\11\ Later that year, it won a 
     ten-year contract with no cost ceiling to provide support 
     services to the Army.\12\ Under these contracts, Brown & Root 
     has been asked to do work in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan and 
     to build prison cells for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo 
     Bay, Cuba--even though much of this work could be done more 
     cheaply using Army and navy personnel.\13\
       In March 2003, the Administration awarded Brown & Root a 
     contract to repair and operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. 
     Normally, federal contracting rules require public notice and 
     full and open competition. But the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers awarded the contract secretly and without any 
     competition.
       The Administration has been reluctant to provide complete, 
     or even basic, information about the contract. While the 
     contract was signed March 8, it was not disclosed publicly 
     until March 24. Moreover, the Corps did not reveal until 
     April 8, in response to a letter from Rep. Waxman, that the 
     contract had a potential value of up to $7 billion.\14\ And 
     it was not until May 2, in response to another request from 
     Rep. Waxman, that the Corps disclosed that the scope of the 
     contract was significantly broader than previously provided 
     information had suggested.\15\
       Based on what the Corps has revealed to date, the contract 
     is worth up to $7 billion, with the potential profit for 
     Brown & Root worth up to $490 million. The Corps has said the 
     actual value of the contract may end up being less than that 
     (according to the Corps, it may be ``only'' around $600 
     million). Nonetheless, the fact that the Corps would issue 
     such a large contract without competition is highly unusual.
       Moreover, the contract is far broader than had been 
     initially suggested. Information provided by the Corps and 
     Halliburton had indicated that the contract was for work 
     putting out oil well fires and repairing damage. Halliburton 
     issued a press release on March 24 entitled ``KBR Implements 
     Plan for Extinguishing Oil Well Fires in Iraq,'' which 
     described the contract work as ``assessing and extinguishing 
     oil well fires in Iraq and evaluating and repairing, as 
     directed by the U.S. government, the country's petroleum 
     infrastructure.''\16\ The Corps also released information 
     stating that it was in charge of ``implementation of plans to 
     extinguish oil well fires and to assess oil facility damage 
     in Iraq'' and that it would be contracting with Brown & Root 
     to perform these functions.\17\
       On May 2, however, the Corps revealed that the contract 
     also includes ``operation of facilities'' and ``distribution 
     of products.'' It thus appears that Brown & Root may be asked 
     to operate Iraqi oil facilities and distribute oil products. 
     This raises significant questions about the Administration's 
     intentions regarding Iraqi oil. The Administration has 
     previously drawn a bright line on Iraqi oil: according to 
     White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, ``[t]he oil fields 
     belong to the people of Iraq, the government of Iraq, all of

[[Page 12783]]

     Iraq.''\18\ Those sentiments were echoed by Secretary of 
     State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 
     among others.\19\ It now appears that Halliburton or another 
     similar company--and not the Iraqi people--may be making 
     fundamental decisions about how much oil should be produced 
     and who should produce it.
       The Corps has also claimed that the contract is only for 
     short-term emergency work. But the Corps revealed in their 
     April 8 letter that the contract has a two-year term. The 
     Corps also indicated that they are planning to replace the 
     contract with a new, competitively bid contract. In their May 
     2 letter, however, the Corps disclosed that the Halliburton 
     contract will be in place until at least late August 2003, 
     and possibility until January 2004.
       According to the May 2 letter from the Corps, the new, 
     longer-term contract the Corps is planning to issue will 
     again involve operating facilities and distributing oil. This 
     raises further questions about how much say the Iraqi people 
     will have in making decisions about the country's natural 
     resources.
       The Corps contract is ``cost plus.'' This means that the 
     contractor receives its costs plus an additional percentage 
     of those costs as its profit. These kinds of contracts are 
     particularly susceptible to abuse as they give the contractor 
     an incentive to pad its profits by increasing its costs. As 
     noted above, Brown & Root has a record of overcharging the 
     taxpayer on cost-plus contracts.


                          other iraq contracts

       Halliburton is not the only company to benefit from secret, 
     noncompetitive contracts. The U.S. agency for International 
     Development hand-picked U.S. companies to bid secretly on 
     contracts for work in Iraq. Like the Army Corps contract, the 
     AID contracts for Iraqi reconstruction have been handled with 
     unusual secrecy. AID secretly hand-picked a select few 
     domestic companies to bid on nine contracts for services 
     including airport administration, education, public health, 
     and personnel support. The eight contracts that have been 
     awarded are together worth up to $1 billion. And they may be 
     worth much more, depending on whether and how they are 
     renewed.
       Halliburton was one of five companies asked by AID to bid 
     on a $680 million contract to rebuild Iraq. Like Halliburton, 
     the other companies bidding--including Parsons, Fluor, and 
     the eventual winner, Bechtel--are heavy Republican 
     contributors. Between them, these companies reportedly 
     contributed $3.6 million over the past two election cycles, 
     two-thirds of which went to Republicans.\20\ After the 
     controversy over the Army Corps contract, Halliburton 
     announced that it would not bid on the AID contract. It has 
     indicated it may instead opt for a still lucrative but lower-
     profile subcontracting role.
       AID has not identified all of the companies that were 
     selected to bid on its contracts and it has given shifting 
     and at times contradictory explanations of why it did not use 
     full and open competition.
       For example, AID has said that it limited the eligible 
     companies to those with a security clearance. But it turns 
     out that some of the companies that were asked to bid did not 
     actually have security clearances. In fact, in one case, AID 
     found out after choosing a contractor that the contractor did 
     not have a clearance.\21\ AID awarded the contract to the 
     contractor anyway.\22\
       AID has also said that it is required by federal law to use 
     U.S. companies. However, AID can waive this requirement. In 
     fact, it did so with respect to subcontractors on the Iraq 
     contracts. But AID declined to invite any non-U.S. firms to 
     bid on the actual contracts.

       More information about the Administration's contracts with 
     Halliburton and other companies can be found at 
     www.reform.house.gov/min/inves_admin/admin_contracts.htm.


                                endnotes

     \1\Cheney Gets $33 Million Exit Package from Dallas-Based 
     Energy Services Firm, Dallas Morning News (Aug. 17, 2000).
     \2\White House, Vice President Dick Cheney and Mrs. Cheney 
     Release 2002 Income Tax Return (Apr. 11, 2003).
     \3\General Accounting Office, Contingency Operations: 
     Opportunities to Improve the Logistics Civil Augmentation 
     Program (Feb. 1997) (GAO/NSIAD-97-63).
     \4\Id.
     \5\General Accounting Office, Contingency Operations: Army 
     Should Do more to Control Contract Cost in the Balkans (Sept. 
     2000) (GAO/NSIAD-00-225).
     \6\Complaint for Damages under False Claims Act and Demand 
     for Grand Jury at 7, U.S. ex rel. Dammen Grant Campbell v. 
     Brown & Root Service Corp. (E.D. Cal.) (No. CIV-97-
     1541WBSPAN).
     \7\Department of Defense, Criminal Investigative Service, 
     Press Release (Feb. 7, 2002).
     \8\Halliburton, Halliburton Reports SEC Investigation of 
     Accounting Practice (May 28, 2002); Halliburton, Halliburton 
     Updates SEC Status (Dec. 19, 2002).
     \9\Halliburton, Halliburton 2002 Fourth Quarter Adjustments 
     (Mar. 27, 2003).
     \10\Securities and Exchange Commission, Halliburton Company 
     Form 10-Q (Mar. 31, 2003).
     \11\The rival bidder also claimed that Brown & Root had an 
     unfair advantage because its proposed program manager was an 
     active-duty Navy officer in the command that conducted the 
     acquisition. GAO concluded that there was ``no evidence that 
     any impropriety or unfair competitive advantage resulted'' 
     from the apparent conflict of interest. General Accounting 
     Office, Matter of Perini/Jones Joint Venture (Nov. 1, 2000) 
     (GAO Decision B-285906).
     \12\In Tough Times, a Company Finds Profits in War, New York 
     Times (July 13, 2002).
     \13\Id.
     \14\See Letter from Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers to Rep. Henry 
     A. Waxman (Apr. 8, 2003).
     \15\See Letter from Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers to Rep. Henry 
     A. Waxman (May 2, 2003).
     \16\Halliburton, KBR Implements Plan for Extinguishing Oil 
     Well Fires in Iraq (Mar. 24, 2003).
     \17\U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Corps of Engineers' 
     Role in Combatting Iraqi Oil Fires (undated).
     \18\White House, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer (Feb. 6, 
     2003).
     \19\Powell Says U.S. Not after Iraqi Oil, Los Angeles Times 
     (Jan. 23, 2003); NewsHour, PBS (Feb. 20, 2003).
     \20\Center for Responsive Politics, Rebuilding Iraq: The 
     Contractors (undated) (online at www.opensecrets.org/news/
rebuilding_iraq/index.asp).
     \21\Letter from Bruce N. Crandlemire, Office of Inspector 
     General, U.S. Agency for International Development, to 
     Timothy T. Beans, U.S. Agency for International Development 
     (Apr. 25, 2003).
     \22\Id.

  Mrs. BOXER. When we look at this congressional notification, which 
was very late in getting there because there were already five task 
orders under this Halliburton contract, finally they gave this 
information over: They have obligated first $17 million, then $6.7 
million, $22 million, $5 million, and $24 million, with no competitive 
bidding.
  Originally it was, oh, they have to put out the oil fires. Okay. We 
understand that. But what about the rest? The estimated face value of 
this contract is $7 billion. What do we spend on all of our afterschool 
programs, I say to my colleagues, in 1 year? A billion dollars. How 
many kids are waiting in line to get into that program? Millions.
  We cannot afford it, but we can afford to give a sole-source $7 
billion to one company named Halliburton. We all know the power of that 
company.
  I want my colleagues to see I am not making this up when I say this 
was a sole-source contract. Estimated face value, $7 billion. Bids 
solicited, sole-source procurement; bids received, one. What a happy 
day for Halliburton that was.
  The subsidiary of Halliburton is Brown & Root. That is the 
corporation that is the subsidiary of Halliburton that received this 
contract. One might say, well, maybe this is such a great company, 
maybe there is a reason why we would go sole source with this company.
  Well, GAO has found serious problems with contract work that Brown & 
Root did for the Army in the Balkans. In 1997, GAO found that the Army 
was unable to ensure that the contractor adequately controlled costs. 
For example, Brown & Root was charging the Army $86 to fly in $14 
sheets of plywood from the United States of America. The Army official 
in charge was shocked when he found out.
  In 2000, GAO found more evidence that Brown & Root was inflating the 
Government's costs and its products by, for example, overstaffing work 
crews and providing more goods and services than necessary. And how 
about this: Brown & Root was the subject of a criminal investigation 
for overbilling the Government on another contract. According to a 
former employee, the company routinely and systematically inflated 
contract prices it submitted to the Government for work it performed on 
a military base in California, and Brown & Root paid $2 million to 
settle that case.
  Brown & Root's parent company Halliburton has its own problems. The 
SEC is investigating accounting practices of the company. The company 
recently restated its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2002 and 
Halliburton has admitted paying $2.4 million in bribes to a Nigerian 
official in an attempt to gain favorable tax treatment in the country.
  So I say to my colleagues, why on Earth would the Army Corps give 
this company this incredible sole-source contract to the tune of $7 
billion?
  We have had a series of answers to that question. At first we were 
told this was just for emergencies. Remember those newspaper articles, 
just for emergencies? Now we are finding out it goes well beyond 
emergencies.
  In March 2003, the administration awarded Brown & Root a contract to 
repair and operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. The administration has 
been reluctant to provide complete or even basic information about the 
contract. Remember, the contract was awarded March 8 but it was not 
publicly disclosed until March 24. The Corps did not reveal until April 
8, in response to a letter from Representative Waxman,

[[Page 12784]]

that the contract had a potential value of up to $7 billion.
  It was not until May 2, in response to another request from 
Representative Waxman, the Corps disclosed the scope of the contract 
was significantly broader than previously provided information had 
suggested.
  We have a chance to end this embarrassment today. If we have a strong 
vote on the Boxer-Lieberman-Lautenberg-Durbin-Graham of Florida-Clinton 
amendment--and I hope many other colleagues will join. I hope many on 
the other side will join--what are we saying? We are saying if they do 
not correct the problem as they have stated they would do--and they 
have stated they would in fact end this sole-source contract and they 
would go out for bid by the end of August--all we are saying is send us 
a report, tell us the reason why you are carrying on.
  Under Senator Warner's amendment, which I have no objection to at 
all, and I am going to vote for it, let's hear what it says. It says it 
is the sense of the Senate--which, by the way, has no force of law--
that the DOD should fully comply with the Competition in Contracting 
Act for any contract awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq and 
should conduct a full and open competition for performing work needed 
for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry as soon as 
practicable.
  I am not a lawyer, but I can tell my colleagues when we see the words 
``as soon as practicable,'' get nervous.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would be so happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am a lawyer, and those are known as weasel words 
because if that phrase can be included, it has no meaning. The question 
is whether we are going to hold the Department of Defense accountable. 
I ask the Senator from California this question: The sense-of-the-
Senate resolution which she offers not only raises a question of 
whether this is evidence of profiteering, evidence of a sweetheart 
arrangement, evidence of the kind of sole-source agreement that frankly 
is not in the best interest of either American taxpayers or America's 
national defense, is she specific in the accountability she is holding 
the Department of Defense to in terms of when they will report as 
opposed to as soon as practicable?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. My particular amendment that will be voted on 
is more than a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate plus it 
is a requirement that if the Department of Defense does not meet its 
own stated goal of having a fully competitive contract in place by 
August 31, 2003, to replace this boondoggle, the Secretary of Defense 
shall submit a report to Congress by September 30, 2003, detailing the 
reasons for allowing this sole-source contract to continue.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Chair if the Senator would yield for this 
question. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. In this situation, has the Department of Defense made any 
statements that they are planning on making some sort of a revision to 
this $7 billion Halliburton contract?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct, they have. In a letter to Representative 
Waxman, who has kind of uncovered this entire matter--if it was not for 
him, this thing might be buried somewhere in somebody's drawer--they 
said, we are now completing--this is the Department of the Army: We are 
now completing the competitive acquisition strategy and plan, preparing 
the statement of work, and preparing the solicitation that will request 
proposals to perform work. The solicitation will be advertised on the 
Federal Business Opportunities Web site by late spring or early summer 
and the estimate for the award of the contract is approximately the end 
of August.
  So they have given a date by which they say they will be able to take 
the rest of this contract and bid it out.
  By the way, there is nothing to say that the Halliburton subsidiary, 
Brown & Root, can't compete on the rest of the contract when it goes 
out. It ought to be open.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will further yield for a question, what 
the Senator from California is asking the Senate to do, is hold the 
Department of Defense to their own promise to the Congress that they 
will put an end to this $7 billion Halliburton sole-source contract and 
actually open this up to bidding. The Senator is only asking Congress 
to hold the Department of Defense accountable for written promises they 
have already made to Congress.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is all I am doing.
  I say to my friend, I can tell from the sound of his voice, he is a 
little incredulous that this has not been accepted by the other side. 
This is such a simple, straightforward commonsense kind of approach.
  We are saying that this was not right. The Army Corps has said they 
will fix it. They have given us a date; they will fix it. All we are 
saying is, if you do not, we want to hold you accountable. We want a 
report.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, in most 
instances, when you are considering this kind of arrangement--here we 
have a major company, sole-source contract for $7 billion, without 
anyone else competing with them. The question it raises is whether it 
is improper or has an appearance of impropriety.
  I say on its face there is an appearance of impropriety, that one 
company, without competitive bidding, would end up with a $7 billion 
contract. Is the Senator from California saying that if Halliburton is 
that good, that this is the only company in America that can possibly 
bid on it, Halliburton will have its chance?
  The Department of Defense is going to say to all the companies in 
America that might provide the services, you have your chance to 
compete with Halliburton. If it is that good, Halliburton can win this 
contract fair and square on the up and up and eliminate any appearance 
of impropriety. Is that what the Senator from California is trying to 
achieve?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am trying to say what you stated. If Halliburton or 
subsidiaries wish to do more work in Iraq, let them stand shoulder to 
shoulder, toe to toe with every other company in this country.
  I have heard from so many businesspeople who are outraged at this. 
That is why the amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator 
Lautenberg and you and others is a probusiness amendment; it is a 
protaxpayer amendment and a proconsumer amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question? This could be 
described as ``business unusual.''
  Mrs. BOXER. I think my friend, a very successful businessman, has put 
his finger on it: It is business unusual.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. Often we say business as usual; this is business 
as unusual.
  Does the Senator, in the resolution proposed, talk about terms or 
performance? Is it not worth noting if this contract were done, if not 
in the dark of night, certainly at dusk--we do not know the terms--that 
not only means price could be many times over, there are no performance 
standards, either, which is pretty darn unusual?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, it is very unusual. When we ask them, 
they say: We are just going to use this contract to put out the fires.
  Then it turned out, thank God, there were not that many fires; and we 
thought, OK, fine, it was a sole source.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It turned out to be a fire sale.
  Mrs. BOXER. Another excellent point.
  I am happy my friend from New Jersey is back. I was losing my sense 
of humor. I am glad he is back.
  This chart shows the congressional notification of this contract. The 
light of day never came to this until way after it was issued. Now we 
finally got it after the fifth task order. Estimated value, $7 billion.
  They called it a bridge contract, by the way, when they started out, 
and they started to let out these task orders.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
  Does it say the maximum amount the Government could spend?

[[Page 12785]]


  Mrs. BOXER. The estimated face value.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So if $7 billion became $10 billion--is there any 
limitation?
  Mrs. BOXER. Legally, as I look at it, it says estimated face value.
  Here it says ``bids received: One.''
  ``Bids solicited, sole source.''
  This is stunning.
  I ask the President how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes twenty seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Jersey and retain 
the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend and colleague from California. I 
support Senator Boxer's amendment regarding the questionable--and it is 
questionable; friends here know I spent a lot of my time, most of my 
life, in business, more than I have in the Senate. No-bid contracts are 
practically nonexistent when they have significant value to either the 
company, the government, or otherwise.
  The contract given to Halliburton in early March regarding Iraq's oil 
infrastructure, this no-bid contract, has raised serious concern. There 
is good cause. There is no accusation here. It is just a question of 
what is a good, sensible business practice.
  I ask every Senator in this body to take a look and ask if they would 
give out a contract to cut the lawn at their house or cut down trees or 
paint the house without getting some formal response as to what it 
might cost. We have a strange happening: no-bid contract. It could be 
as much as $7 billion, with no ceiling on it. That is the interesting 
aspect. For whatever reason, the administration has attempted to 
conceal the scope and the terms of the contract. This attempt to hide 
information has generated plenty of suspicion.
  Initially, it was announced that the contract with Halliburton was 
for the specific and limited purpose of extinguishing Iraqi oil fires. 
That could be described as emergency and repairing equipment. The 
initial value of the contract, the initial value, was $50 million. We 
are now talking about approximately $7 billion, give or take $2 billion 
or $3 billion--mostly take; I guarantee there is no give, in the hope 
that no one would ask any questions.
  This was a no-bid contract given to a company that has strong ties to 
the administration. Then the details began to change. Six weeks after 
the contract was originally disclosed, the Army admitted that the 
contract was not only for putting out the fires and making some 
repairs--repairs, $7 billion?--suddenly the Army Corps revealed that 
the contract called for Halliburton to operate the oil wells and 
distribute Iraqi oil. That is a huge difference.
  There is the issue of the no-bid process. Perhaps we ought to have a 
Senate resolution to see how our friends would vote if we said let's go 
to all no-bid contracts for Government purchases. Sound like a good 
idea? I doubt it.
  Asked why the Halliburton contract was awarded in a no-bid fashion, 
the Army Corps asserted that there was no time for a competitive 
process and this contract would be of short duration. You can spend $7 
billion in a hurry, I guess.
  We now learn the contract could be worth up to $7 billion. For the 
past 6 weeks, each time the Army Corps has been questioned about the 
contract, we hear a different story.
  I recently have written a letter to Senator Collins and Senator 
Lieberman, the chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee of which I sit, asking them to hold a hearing to 
investigate this contract. I believe the hearing will allow us to 
finally determine the true scope of this contract and why the 
administration chose not to have a bidding process and why the 
information was withheld.
  Something here is not right. Not only do we need to investigate the 
process under which this contract was awarded, but we also need to put 
a competitive contracting process in place for this work in Iraq. We 
need to ensure for the American people that the Government is not 
engaged in sweetheart deals for its corporate friends.
  The amendment of Senator Boxer encourages that the current no-bid 
Halliburton contract be replaced shortly through a competitive process, 
and I congratulate the Senator from California for that thought. That 
is the way it ought to work.
  The reconstruction of Iraq, particularly the rebuilding of the Iraqi 
oil industry, is an extremely sensitive endeavor. I believe it is 
vitally important for the Pentagon to divulge information as to how it 
awards contracts in a public and systematic fashion. The Halliburton 
contract and the cloak of secrecy around it must not set a precedent 
for future contracts in the reconstruction process.
  In this time of budget difficulties, with our inability to finance 
programs that have been an important part of the structure of the 
United States--whether it is education, whether it is prescription 
drugs or otherwise--for us to go ahead and spend $7 billion without 
knowing how, why, and when this work is going to be performed is an 
outrage. I don't think the American public ought to stand still for it.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side will agree. Many of them are 
good business-people who have been out there and understand what has 
been appropriate process in business.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Boxer amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment. I will send the modification to the desk.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I don't know whether I 
will object. I would like a chance to look at it. I just got a chance 
to look at it a minute ago. So if you could put the unanimous consent 
off for a couple of minutes so I can take a look at it?
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. Let me just explain to the Senator what it is. The 
Senator, in the course of her comments, more or less criticized the 
amendment by the Senator from Virginia as not having in it the full 
force and effect of law. So, acting upon the suggestion of the good 
Senator from California, I have now provided that this amendment will 
have the full force of law. Let me read it to you.
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator wants to give me 2 minutes, I am just 
looking at it now. You can read it to me or I can get a copy and read 
it myself. Either way is fine. I do not have it in front of me.
  Mr. WARNER. Let me read it.

       The Department of Defense shall fully comply with the 
     Competition in Contracting Act (10 U.S.C. 2304 et seq) for 
     any contracts awarded for reconstruction activity in Iraq and 
     shall conduct a full and open competition for performing work 
     needed for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry. . . 
     .''

  It is straightforward.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I am 
just going to chat with my friend for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed as 
if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  

                          ____________________