[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 12786-12809]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--Continued

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
return to the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 826, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as is so often the case here in the Senate 
during the course of deliberations, colleagues find a mutual ground by 
which they can resolve such differences as exist. And in this instance, 
the distinguished Senator from California, myself, and the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey have joined together.
  The amendment in the first degree of the Senator from Virginia 
remains in a document that I will shortly send to the desk. And the 
basic report language required in the amendment of the Senators from 
California and New Jersey is, likewise, in this document. They are 
coupled together.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by the Senator from 
Virginia be modified. And I send the modified amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to say, I am 
very supportive of this. I just want to ask if it is the right thing 
for me to withdraw my amendment, or is that not necessary?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would so make that request. That was my 
understanding. I was going to do that after this amendment had been 
modified.
  So if the Chair would rule on the modification of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 826), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . COMPETITIVE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR IRAQI 
                   RECONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Requirement.--The Department of Defense shall 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 shall conduct a full and open 
     competition for performing work needed for the reconstruction 
     of the Iraqi oil industry.
       (b) Report to Congress.--If the Department of Defense does 
     not have a fully competitive contract in place to replace the 
     March 8, 2003 contract for the reconstruction of the Iraqi 
     oil industry 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. A follow-up report shall be submitted to 
     Congress each 60 days thereafter until a competitive contract 
     is in place.

                      Amendment No. 825 Withdrawn

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I respectfully ask the Chair 
to withdraw the amendment by the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have no objection to withdrawing my amendment because 
it has, in fact, been made a part of the Warner amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also ask that this amendment have the name 
of the Senator from California on it, also.
  Mr. WARNER. It is to be known as the Warner-Boxer--and also for the 
Senator from New Jersey, my friend, Mr. Lautenberg. The two of us go 
back many years.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Further than we can remember.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, further back than we can remember.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment of the 
Senator from California is withdrawn.
  Mr. WARNER. And the amendment of the Senator from Virginia is now 
known as the Warner-Boxer-Lautenberg amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Briefly, to explain to the Senate, basically what we have 
done is we have put into law the requirement that the Department of 
Defense shall fully comply with the Competition in Contracting Act for 
any contract awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq and shall 
conduct a full and open competition for performing work needed for the 
reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry.
  Second, a report to Congress. If the Department of Defense does not 
have a fully competitive contract in place to replace the March 8, 2003 
contract for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry by August 31, 
2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to Congress by 
September 30, 2003, detailing the reasons for allowing the sole-source 
contract to continue. A followup report shall be submitted to Congress 
each 60 days thereafter until a competitive contract is in place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague from Virginia.
  I think when the Senate can work together, when we can cross over, 
one side to the other, we do good work. What we did is literally take 
one half of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia and one half of 
mine. What is important to me is, if the Senate will speak in one 
voice, we will have a vote. I trust it will pass with a very wide 
margin, if not unanimously. The Senate will go on record, if we pass 
the Warner-Boxer amendment, as saying the following: We don't approve 
of this sole-source contract continuing, that we want to make sure the 
Army Corps, which says it is going to end this contract, is held 
accountable; that they are going to have to let us know if by August 30 
they don't end the sole-source contract, and every 60 days thereafter 
they are going to have to let us know why they are continuing a $7 
billion sole-source contract.
  That is all I wanted when I stood up a couple hours ago. That is all 
I want now. I am grateful to my friend for being openminded. It was a 
good debate.
  I also say to my leader on the Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Levin, the ranking member, how helpful he has been to me. When I 
started, I had a proposal that might never have seen the light of day. 
He worked with me to make it relevant, make it work. Again, to Senators 
Graham and Lieberman and Clinton and Durbin and Lautenberg, before we 
looked like we had a winner here, they were with me. This is really 
very nostalgic for me. In my time in the House, I worked on the Armed 
Services Committee on military procurement before. I had hoped I 
wouldn't have to be standing here worried about military procurement, 
but it looks like it comes back like a bad dream.
  I am hopeful the action we take this afternoon, just to let the Army 
Corps know we are all watching, Republicans and Democrats, will have a 
salutary effect on the termination of the sole-source contract and fair 
and open bidding. The taxpayers deserve no less. The business community 
deserves no less. Consumers deserve no less. Frankly, the people of 
Iraq deserve no less because we are trying to rebuild their country in 
the most efficient way we can.
  I thank my friend again, Senator Warner. I urge a yea vote on the 
Warner-Boxer amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the manager yield a moment?
  Mr. WARNER. Take such time as you need.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just a minute, because I want to second what we just 
heard from the Senator from California

[[Page 12787]]

about my friend and colleague from Virginia. We have our policy 
differences. But when there is something that strikes the right note, I 
know for the many years we have served together, now about 20, 
including a 2-year lapse, we were able to agree on things here and 
there that meant a lot in terms of the process of our functioning.
  I commend the Senator from Virginia for coming to a negotiated 
settlement and consensus view that accomplishes what we all wanted. I 
thank him for his willingness to listen and for me to be able to 
participate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Wyden and 
other colleagues in sponsoring this amendment on contracting in Iraq 
and in support of the Warner-Boxer amendment No. 826. One of our key 
objectives for our work in Iraq is to convince the Iraqi people, other 
nations in the Mideast, and our allies that we are not occupying Iraq 
to get their oil and benefit big American corporations. We are there to 
provide the Iraqi people with basic services and infrastructure, human 
rights, and a more representative government. Given the massive 
problems we are having there, it is equally important to enable 
oversight by--and provide information for--Congress and the American 
people as well.
  So it is unfortunate that we have started the reconstruction in Iraq 
on exactly the wrong note. Contracts have been let in secrecy, without 
open competition, to friends of the administration. The Army Corps of 
Engineers gave a contract that they thought was potentially worth $7 
billion to Halliburton with no competition at all. The contract is 
classified, and I have been told the reason it is classified is 
classified too. And information about it has only dribbled out. First 
we were told it was just to put out oil well fires. Later it slipped 
out that production and distribution of oil were included as well. Was 
this in the interest of the Iraqi people? Did they consider 
investigations suggesting excessive charges in previous Halliburton 
contracts? How can we tell?
  The Agency for International Development, under guidance from the 
Pentagon, has also let contracts in secrecy with only limited 
competition between hand-picked companies. Bechtel, with its own ties 
to the administration, got the largest one. Again we don't know how 
they chose these companies.
  These practices must end if we are to obtain the trust of people at 
home or abroad. And I have to say it is not clear that results so far 
justify this unusual way of doing things.
  This modest amendment simply says that if the administration is going 
to let contracts for Iraqi reconstruction without full and open 
competition, it has to tell Congress and the American people what it is 
doing. They have to give the amount of the contract, the scope, a 
description of who was allowed to compete and why, and documents on why 
they did not allow full competition. Classified information could be 
redacted, but would still be given to appropriate Congressional 
committees.
  Similarly, the Warner-Boxer amendment requires competitive 
contracting for reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry. If the 
administration does not cut off the Halliburton contract by August 31 
and allow full competition for that work, as it has said it would, the 
amendment requires report to Congress.
  The amendments will not ensure open competition, but at least they 
will bring daylight to shine on the administration's activities, and 
will allow the American and Iraqi people to see what is being done with 
our money and their future.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand the yeas and nays are going to 
be requested. I thank my good friend from California for her kind words 
and, as always, the Senator from Virginia for his willingness to work 
to try to advance the Senate's proceedings in a fair and thoughtful 
way. I thank him as always for his willingness to try to find some way 
to bring together diverse views.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, by way of concluding remarks, we have set 
forth a joint statement which hopefully will be enacted into law. I 
commend my two colleagues for their work. I don't fully share some of 
the allegations raised with regard to the suspicions connected with 
this contract. It is for that reason the contract should see the full 
rays of sunlight and be explored. Committees of Congress will 
eventually be exploring this same issue.
  This document simply establishes a procedure by which this can be 
done. It is my expectation we will recognize that those in authority in 
the Department of Defense, recognizing the urgency of time following 
the basic cessation, not the full cessation but basic cessation of 
hostilities, have to move with swiftness. That is the underlying 
reason. Eventually this contract can be substantiated as in compliance 
with the law.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been previously 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 826, as modified. 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 ``aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Are there any 
other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerry
       
  The amendment (No. 826), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. My distinguished ranking member, working in conjunction 
with our leadership, is of the view that we are rapidly approaching the 
point at which we can seek third reading and have final passage. I hope 
that within a matter of a few minutes we can determine that option and 
its availability.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are almost there, Mr. President, but not quite.
  Mr. WARNER. Unless there are further matters that the Senators wish 
to address with regard to the underlying bill, 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 806, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member and I 
will

[[Page 12788]]

now proceed to continue with amendments that have been agreed to on 
both sides.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 806 be modified 
with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 806), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 17, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 108. REDUCTION IN AUTHORIZATION.

       The total amount authorized to be appropriated under 
     section 104 is hereby reduced by $3,300,000, with $2,100,000 
     of the reduction to be allocated to SOF rotary upgrades and 
     $1,200,000 to be allocated to SOF operational enhancements.

  Mr. WARNER. The amendment has been agreed to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 806), 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. 828

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kerry and Kennedy, I 
offer an amendment which would authorize transportation of dependents 
to the presence of members of the Armed Forces who are retired for 
illness or injury as a result of active duty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerry, for himself and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 828.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the transportation of dependents to the presence 
of members of the Armed Forces who are retired for illness or injury as 
                        a result of active duty)

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

     SEC. 634. TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS TO PRESENCE OF MEMBERS 
                   OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO ARE RETIRED FOR ILLNESS 
                   OR INJURY INCURRED IN ACTIVE DUTY.

       Section 411h(a) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) Under the regulations prescribed under paragraph (1), 
     transportation described in subsection (c) may be provided 
     for not more than two family members of a member otherwise 
     described in paragraph (3) who is retired for an illness or 
     injury described in that paragraph if the attending physician 
     or surgeon and the commander or head of the military medical 
     facility exercising control over the member determine that 
     the presence of the family member would be in the best 
     interests of the family member.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1) or (2)''.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been agreed to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 828) 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. 829

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Voinovich, I offer an 
amendment which ensures that personnel who attend the Air Force 
Institute of Technology from the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, have the 
costs of their education paid for similarly to the naval postgraduate 
school.
  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. Voinovich, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 829.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide that requirements on coverage of the costs of 
  instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School shall also apply with 
     respect to costs of instruction at the Air Force Institute of 
                              Technology)

       On page 103, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(3) The Department of the Army, the Department of the 
     Navy, and the Department of Transportation shall bear the 
     cost of the instruction at the Air Force Institute of 
     Technology that is received by officers detailed for that 
     instruction by the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and 
     Transportation, respectively. In the case of an enlisted 
     member permitted to receive instruction at the Institute, the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall charge that member only for 
     such costs and fees as the Secretary considers appropriate 
     (taking into consideration the admission of enlisted members 
     on a space-available basis).''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
  Mr. WARNER. This has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 829) 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. 830

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I offer an 
amendment which ensures that Impact Aid continues for military 
dependents at installations that have been conveyed to local 
communities such as Brooks Air Force Base but the military continues to 
reside in the base housing.
  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 830.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To amend the section 351 funding authority to include 
authority for the funds to be used for making Impact Aid basic support 
payments to local educational agencies affected by the Brooks Air Force 
Base Demonstration Project, including amounts computed on the basis of 
        Federal property that is converted non-Federal property)

       On page 71, strike lines 12 through 21, and insert the 
     following:
       (d) Availability of Funds for Local Educational Agencies 
     Affected by the Brooks Air Force Base Demonstration 
     Project.--(1) Up to $500,000 of the funds made available 
     under subsection (a) may (notwithstanding the limitation in 
     such subsection) also be used for making basic support 
     payments for fiscal year 2004 to a local educational agency 
     that received a basic support payment for fiscal year 2003, 
     but whose payment for fiscal year 2004 would be reduced 
     because of the conversion of Federal property to non-Federal 
     ownership under the Department of Defense infrastructure 
     demonstration project at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, and 
     the amounts of such basic support payments for fiscal year 
     2004 shall be computed as if the converted property were 
     Federal property for purposes of receiving the basic support 
     payments for the period in which the demonstration project is 
     ongoing, as documented by the local educational agency to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary.
       (2) If funds are used as authorized under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall reduce the amount of any basic support 
     payment for fiscal year 2004 for a local educational agency 
     described in paragraph (1) by the amount of any revenue that 
     the agency received during fiscal year 2002 from the Brooks 
     Development Authority as a result of the demonstration 
     project described in paragraph (1).
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``educational agencies assistance'' means 
     assistance authorized under section 386(b) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 
     102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note).
       (2) The term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 8013(9) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)).
       (3) The term ``basic support payment'' means a payment 
     authorized under section 8003(b(1)) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(1)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 830) 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. 831

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Domenici which expresses the sense of

[[Page 12789]]

the Senate on the reconsideration of the decision to terminate the 
border and seaport inspection duties of the National Guard as part of 
its drug interdiction and counterdrug mission. 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. Domenici, 
     for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. 
     Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 831.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on the reconsideration of 
 the decision to terminate the border and seaport inspection duties of 
 the National Guard as part of its drug interdiction and counter-drug 
                                mission)

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

     SEC. 1039. SENSE OF SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO 
                   TERMINATE BORDER SEAPORT INSPECTION DUTIES OF 
                   NATIONAL GUARD UNDER NATIONAL GUARD DRUG 
                   INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG MISSION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The counter-drug inspection mission of the National 
     Guard is highly important to preventing the infiltration of 
     illegal narcotics across United States borders.
       (2) The expertise of members of the National Guard in 
     vehicle inspections at United States borders have made 
     invaluable contributions to the identification and seizure of 
     illegal narcotics being smuggled across United States 
     borders.
       (3) The support provided by the National Guard to the 
     Customs Service and the Border Patrol has greatly enhanced 
     the capability of the Customs Service and the Border Patrol 
     to perform counter-terrorism surveillance and other border 
     protection duties.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Secretary of Defense should reconsider the decision of 
     the Department of Defense to terminate the border inspection 
     and seaport inspection duties of the National Guard as part 
     of the drug interdiction and counter-drug mission of the 
     National Guard.
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 831) 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.


      environmental restoration of the former eaker air force base

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's 
attention to a matter important to Blytheville in Mississippi County, 
AR. Blytheville is the former home of Eaker Air Force Base. In 1992, 
Eaker closed and ended a 50-year legacy between the U.S. Air Force and 
the people of Blytheville. During Eaker's 50 years, the Air Force 
benefited from local support of Eaker--support that ensured an 
atmosphere where the Air Force could complete critical missions.
  Today, a decade following Eaker's closure, the folks at Blytheville 
are trying to move forward and locate new businesses at the former 
base. Regrettably, abandoned, decaying buildings with asbestos siding 
and pipe insulation were left behind after the Air Force's departure 
and this environmental hazard is preventing any potential economic 
development on these lands. Our Federal Government regulations are 
clear concerning these types of hazards and the required remediation 
thereof. It is my understanding that many of these buildings were 
scheduled for demolition by the Air Force prior to the base closure. It 
is further my understanding that there is a potential for the asbestos 
to become airborne as these building begin to collapse.
  Mississippi County currently has the highest unemployment rate in the 
State. It was not the intent of the base closure process to leave a 
local community with environmentally hazardous waste, however, this is 
precisely what has occurred. The county cannot relocate new business in 
the facilities until the cleanup is complete.
  I want to bring closure to this issue and I hope that Chairman Warner 
and Senator Levin will join me in looking into this matter. I plan on 
contacting the Air Force to get a formal response to the environmental 
issues at the former Eaker Air Force Base. Again, I thank my colleagues 
for any support that they might provide in helping the people of 
Blytheville, AR.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks made by Senator Pryor. This is a matter that I discussed with 
Senator Inouye last year during the consideration of the Defense 
appropriations bill. For reasons unknown, environmental restoration of 
the former Eaker Air Force Base has languished for over a decade. It is 
past time to address this issue. It is time to clean up this land and 
enable the people of Blytheville to find new tenants that can 
contribute to the local economy.
  The people of Blytheville deserve Federal assistance to clean up the 
asbestos left behind by the Air Force. For 50 years, residents of 
Blytheville proudly supported Eaker Air Force Base as home to a group 
of strategic air command B-52 bombers and more than 3,000 military 
personnel, before its closure in 1992. Before the closure, the military 
accounted for 15.2 percent of personal earnings, the largest of any 
industry in the county.
  Through industrial expansion at the Arkansas Aeroplex, I believe 
significant strides can be made to turn the economic situation in 
Blytheville around. The Aeroplex is home to a 2-mile runway. In fact, 
the runway could serve as an alternate landing site for the NASA space 
shuttle. The potential for new business is abundant, but the 
opportunities are hampered because of the asbestos-filled buildings.
  I look forward to working with Senator Pryor on this matter, and I 
hope our colleagues from the Senate Armed Services Committee will 
assist us on this issue.
  Mr. LEVIN. I also would be glad to help the Senator get this issue 
addressed and will work with you in contacting the Air Force.


              house provision on meals ready to eat (mre)

  Mr. BAYH. As the chairman knows, I am a strong supporter of Buy 
American requirements, and am generally open to strengthening current 
law, but the House Armed Services authorization bill contains a 
provision that could impact our ability to produce MREs. This provision 
specifically deals with the packaging requirements for MREs procured by 
DOD.
  Mr. WARNER. I have not seen the provision but it sounds like it might 
be a concern.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the distinguished Senator from Virginia would yield, 
Mr. Chairman, I also have concerns about this provision and the effects 
it would have on our ability to meet production needs to get necessary 
meals to our service men and women in the field.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, it is my understanding the implementation of 
the House provision could seriously impact the industry's production 
capacity and relegating MRE restocking to old, slower technology 
producing less desirable meal options.
  Mr. WARNER. I was unaware of this matter, but want to assure the 
Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Oklahoma that the Senate will 
give this provision a thorough review in conference with the House.
  Mr. BAYH. I thank the distinguished chairman and the Senator from 
Oklahoma for their interest in the matter and look forward to working 
with them to resolve this issue.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairman and the Senator from Indiana and 
look forward to working with them on this issue as we proceed with the 
bill.


                  the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have in the Senate repealed the ban 
on low-yield nuclear weapons, specifically, section 3136 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994, Public Law 
103-160.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have included, however, a requirement for the specific 
authorization for low-yield warhead development beyond phase 2A or 
6.2A. With this amendment, Congress and this committee, will continue 
to play an important oversight role on nuclear weapons development.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I have submitted an amendment which has been accepted, 
that requires the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Energy, 
and State, to provide Congress by March 1,

[[Page 12790]]

2004, an assessment of the effects, if any, that such a repeal will 
have on the ability of the United States to achieve its 
nonproliferation objectives, and whether or not, changes in programs or 
activities would be required to achieve these objectives. I have asked 
that this report be submitted in an unclassified form with a classified 
annex, if needed.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe a careful, systematic study is needed by the 
executive branch on the effects of such a repeal, and especially, how 
it affects nations such as Russia, where we are cooperatively working 
to reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator is correct. There is concern on the signal 
that this repeal could send to other nations, especially those we are 
working with to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In 
particular, my intent in submitting this amendment was the effect that 
the repeal would have on the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, 
which was started by Senators Nunn, Lugar, and Domenici. I want to be 
assured that we do not send any bad-faith signals to Russia, and other 
countries, that participate in the program. The United States spends 
over a billion dollars a year in this effort; the repeal of the low-
yield ban must not negatively affect this investment of the taxpayers' 
money.
  Mr. LEVIN. I share this concern. I will work with the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, through our important oversight role, to insure 
that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program continues to be carried 
out effectively by the Departments of Defense and Energy, especially 
now that we have repealed the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the committee's help in this important 
matter.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with 
the administration's approach to competitive sourcing and the revisions 
to Circular A-76 currently under consideration by the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. 
Currently, ``competitive sourcing'' as defined and interpreted through 
Circular A-76 is biased against work performed by Government employees. 
Some examples of this are: 1, there are very limited provisions for 
work, including work that has been previously outsourced, being 
competed and returned to the Government, and, 2, any function that has 
ever been studied for outsourcing is required to be restudied for 
outsourcing every 5 years.
  With this in mind, I urge the administration to incorporate 
provisions in the revised A-76 to be released in the coming months. The 
following items must be included for our support:
  One, remove all barriers to moving previously outsourced or 
``inherently governmental'' work into Government facilities and develop 
clear provisions for competing previously outsourced work. The spirit 
of A-76 should be to have an even flow of workload between public and 
private facilities and a level playing field for public and private 
entities upon which they can compete for work.
  Two, encourage public-private partnerships and establish clear 
provisions for allowing public-private partnerships to compete for work 
competitively sourced under A-76.
  Three, more explicitly define ``inherently governmental'' so that it 
will be clear which activities are not subject to A-76 studies.
  Four, eliminate the requirement once an A-76 competition has been 
awarded to the Government, for the work to be reviewed again every 5 
years and subject to recompetition. The option to restudy should remain 
but the requirement to restudy should be eliminated.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I strongly agree with the Senator from 
Georgia. I truly believe our depots are a national asset and we should 
address the basic question of ``core'' requirements. Currently, there 
is no acceptable definition of ``inherently governmental'' functions or 
``core'' which can guide the administration and the Department of 
Defense as they decide which functions should be competed for 
outsourcing. As we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the United 
States does not have the luxury of time in addressing the threats of 
tomorrow. Before we start making short-term decisions, we need to look 
at the long-term effects and requirements in support of national 
defense.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments 
and add my own.
  Last November, the Office of Management and Budget proposed the most 
sweeping changes to the rules on outsourcing of Government work since 
the last 1950s. Now, the administration wants to use the proposal to 
privatize at least 225,000 Department of Defense civilian jobs over the 
next several years.
  The proposed changes have received strong criticism from the General 
Accounting Office, GAO, executive branch agencies, and Federal employee 
organizations. The CIA wrote that they will be unable to meet their own 
statutory requirements to protect their intelligence sources and 
methods if they fully implemented the revision. The Department of 
Transportation raised concern about the adverse impact of the changes 
on women and minorities employed by the Federal Government.
  The proposed revisions could undermine public-private competition. 
Under the plan, if an agency is unable to complete public-private 
competitions in 1 year, it could automatically privatize the work. 
After an outcry from agencies and the public, OMB indicated that it 
would consider changes, but it is far from clear what the changes will 
be.
  In addition, the proposal allows so-called ``streamlined'' 
competitions for activities involving 65 or fewer employees and lasting 
no more than 90 days. Under current rules, the Federal employee or the 
contractor must be at least 10 percent or $10 million more efficient to 
win a bid. Under this ``streamlined'' method, there would be no such 
requirement. Clearly, the potential savings and efficiency created by 
competition would be threatened and would be contrary to the 
recommendation of the Commercial Activities Panel, the panel charged 
with reviewing outsourcing policies, for which all of the contractor 
and administration representatives voted.
  The proposal would also include an automatic bias in favor of 
contractors. It imposes a 12 percent overhead cost on all Federal 
employee bids, and then imposes a superfluous charge for indirect labor 
costs, but it does not impose the same charges on contractor bids, even 
though both Federal employees and contractors would have similar 
overhead costs. The DoD inspector general has said that the 12 percent 
overhead factor is ``unsupportable.''
  In addition, the proposal is likely to reduce the standard of living 
for tens of thousands of Americans. By artificially inflating the costs 
of in-house personnel, contractors have incentives to reduce costs by 
providing unfair compensation packages for those who perform Government 
work. Good jobs with fair wages and opportunities for advancement would 
be turned into lower wage jobs with no benefits and no security. 
According to the Economic Policy Institute, more than one in 10 Federal 
contract workers already earns less than a living wage.
  The proposed revisions also apply different competition requirements 
to Federal employees and contractors in other ways that raise serious 
fairness concerns. Contractors have an incentive to low-ball their 
proposal, since there is relatively little likelihood of real private 
sector competition. The inspector general of the Department of Defense 
has reported that over three-fifths of the contracts he and his staff 
surveyed suffered from ``inadequate completion.''
  Clearly, the proposed revisions will have significant implications 
for undermining competition and reducing opportunities for Federal 
employees to compete fairly for their own jobs.
  Today, there is far too little real competition for contacts to 
provide goods and services of Federal agencies. We should be getting 
the most out of every taxpayer dollar. But, less than 1 percent of 
Department of Defense service contracts are subject to full public-
private competition.

[[Page 12791]]

  Government procurement should be based on what is best for taxpayers 
and our national defense. We face great challenges to the Nation's 
security in these difficult times. More than ever, we rely on the 
Department of Defense and its dedicated employees. As the military 
budget grows rapidly, we must see that taxpayers and our men and women 
in uniform obtain the benefits too. True competition is more critical 
today than ever.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from 
Massachusetts for their comments. I agree that we should not make 
short-term decisions on these issues, that more precise definitions of 
``inherently governmental'' and ``core'' are required to guide 
competitive sourcing decisions and public-private partnerships, and 
that the ``streamlined'' procedure OMB is advocating are a step in the 
wrong direction. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the 
administration to ensure any revision to A-76 are done carefully and do 
not discriminate against our Federal workforce.


                           biobased products

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, Senator 
Warner, in a colloquy.
  As we know, Executive Order 13101 provides guidance to the head of 
each executive agency, including the Secretary of Defense, regarding 
the use and procurement of recycled and biodegradable products. In 
fact, the Order states each agency head ``. . . shall incorporate waste 
prevention and recycling in the agency's daily operations and work to 
increase and expand markets for recovered materials through greater 
Federal Government preference and demand for such products.''
  I think that now is a great opportunity to once again encourage the 
Department of Defense to procure products that both reduce waste and 
enhance recycling. I am aware that biobased products have been 
developed using a new composite material consisting primarily of 
limestone and renewable starch for the production of food serviceware. 
Manufacturers of these products maintain that they have proven to be 
strong, provide good insulation, and biodegrade in marine and 
composting environments. I am told that in recent years, biobased 
products have become more prevalent and more cost competitive. 
Moreover, I believe that these products have been tested in the 
Pentagon cafeterias and are being considered for use in other Defense 
facilities.
  I support environmentally friendly products such as biobased 
products. In my home State of Missouri, we have a manufacturing plant 
in the City of Lebanon that produces equipment for manufacturing 
biobased products. The plant has already produced eight machines. By 
the end of the year, the plant will have produced 50 additional 
machines. Buy 2004, the plant will have built 100 additional machines. 
In addition, due to the high demand for biobased products, the plant is 
also producing biobased food serviceware. The plant takes up 50,000 
square feet and requires 90 full-time and temporary workers. I 
appreciate the jobs and business created by this multimillion-dollar 
endeavor, and I am proud that we have a Missouri-manufactured product 
that reduces the impacts of waste on our environment.
  Mr. WARNER. I appreciate the Senator's concerns and support his 
efforts in this area.
 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, military planning is about balancing 
risk and cost. Resources will always be limited. And actions will 
always incur costs, whether financial or political. In the fiscal year 
2004 Defense Authorization Bill, the Bush administration sought to 
develop a new generation of nuclear weapons that would risk blurring 
the distinction between conventional and nuclear arms. While the 
financial cost of this decision would not be insignificant, the 
political costs internationally--and the costs to America's security--
could be enormous.
  Since the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States has sought to 
limit the spread of nuclear weapons. We have signed treaties, we have 
cajoled allies, we have threatened adversaries, and, in the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty, we made it the stated goal of the United 
States to pursue real nuclear disarmament. The President has stated 
that the spread of nuclear weapons, when taken with the global danger 
posed by terrorism, represents the greatest threat to America's 
security. We have fought one war over weapons of mass destruction in 
Iraq. We are locked in a perilous stalemate with North Korea over their 
nuclear weapons program. We remain concerned about the pursuit of 
nuclear weapons in places like Iran. And we worry that the Indian-
Pakistan border might witness the first exchange of nuclear arms.
  We find ourselves in an increasingly contradictory position. On the 
one hand the Bush administration says that it will pursue whatever 
measures might be necessary to stop the spread of nuclear weapons 
around the world. Ye in our own affairs, the administration has broken 
dangerous new ground. Their Nuclear Posture Review urged the 
development of new nuclear weapons in order to target deeply buried, 
hardened targets or chemical and biological agents on the battlefield. 
Earlier this year, the president signed an order raising the prospect 
of American first-use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. 
These are dangerous and sobering developments. They underscore the 
perils of this new age. But these policies do not make us safer. 
Indeed, I would argue they risk making us less secure.
  The greatest challenge to the security of the United States is the 
threat of terrorist armed with weapons of mass destruction. There is 
little debate of this assertion. At a time when stopping the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and securing those that 
already exist is the principal security challenge of our time, it is 
inconceivable to me that the Bush administration would seek the 
authority to develop new weapons of our own. It is another example of 
the administration acting unilaterally and damaging America's long-term 
interests in the process.
  The most effective means to thwart the nuclear ambitions of others is 
our own moral leadership backed by unquestioned military might. That 
moral leadership is predicated on the way we conduct ourselves. In 
short, our efforts to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of others will 
lack international credibility and support--and ultimately success--if 
we are determined to develop new nuclear weapons of our own. Without 
international support, our best efforts to prevent the spread of 
nuclear weapons will be greeted with cynicism and, quite simply, fail.
  Our unquestioned military might is not predicated on the development 
of new nuclear weapons or our ability to target underground bunkers 
with nuclear bombs; rather it flows from our investment in conventional 
arms, our ability to project power around the world, our demonstrated 
capability to strike any point on the planet with precision, and the 
investment we make in the men and women of our armed forces.
  In fact, the United States alone has demonstrated the ability to 
achieve near-strategic effects through the use of conventional 
precision munitions. No other country can do that. No other country is 
even close. Given that fact, it is not clear why this administration is 
willing to bear the international costs of developing a weapon that 
will raise new questions about America's intentions and hinder our 
leadership in the fight against proliferation without providing any new 
military utility.
  The two most likely scenarios in which United States military might 
use these new weapons, whether low-yield nuclear weapons or larger 
bunker-busters, are in striking deeply buried, hardened targets and in 
defeating chemical and biological agents on the battlefield. In both 
cases, there are conventional alternatives to the use of nuclear 
weapons. Deeply buried and hardened facilities can be disabled by using 
conventional munitions to seal their entrances. Other munitions such as 
incendiary and thermobaric bombs have proven effective in Afghanistan. 
A nuclear detonation, in contrast, would eject a plume of radioactive 
debris that

[[Page 12792]]

would contaminate the surrounding region, sickening civilians in the 
area and endangering the well-being of American military personnel. 
Crossing the nuclear threshold to accomplish these missions would be 
overkill, it would violate accepted norms of behavior, and it would 
produce a damaging political backlash against the United States and our 
interests.
  There has emerged in recent years an American way of war. Different 
observers have ascribed different characteristics to it, but nearly all 
recognize that among its features is a concern and respect for non-
combatants. The Secretary of Defense has even noted the additional risk 
taken by our aircrews to avoid civilian casualties in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. The use of nuclear weapons, however, would imperil anyone near a 
target with exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, introducing a 
new horrific possibility to the euphemism ``collateral'' damage.
  Some have contended that a low-yield nuclear weapon, detonated at 
some depth, would provide shielding from the dangerous fallout 
associated wit nuclear detonation. According to Rob Nelson, a nuclear 
physicist at Princeton University, however, a nuclear bunker buster 
with a yield of one-tenth of one kiloton--about two hundred times 
smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima--would need to penetrate to 
a depth of 230 feet prior to detonation for the earth to absorb the 
totality of the blast. To provide some perspective, the Pentagon's only 
current nuclear earth penetrating weapon can reach a depth of only 
about 20 feet in dry earth. At this depth, a 0.1 kiloton weapon would 
eject hazardous debris and likely fail to damage a robust, deeply 
buried, hardened structure.
  Finally, by pursuing new, ``usable'' nuclear weapons designs, this 
administration underscores to every rogue regime in the world the value 
of nuclear arms, whether that value is real or not. This is the wrong 
message for the United States to send. In its place, we must find new 
ways to demonstrate to countries around the world that these weapons 
are affordable, unusable, and undesirable.
  Now is the wrong time to consider developing a new class of American 
nuclear arms. Instead of researching and developing new weapons, we 
must redouble our efforts to secure the nuclear weapons already in the 
world's inventories and safeguard the stores of nuclear materials 
scattered in unsecured facilities around the world. There is simply no 
compelling need for a new generation of nuclear weapons. They will not 
add any meaningful value to our arsenal. But they will undermine our 
efforts to stem the growth of nuclear stockpiles around the world while 
making America less secure and the risks of war and catastrophic 
terrorism even greater.
  The future is not about a return to the city-busting bombs of the 
past, nor smaller yield nuclear weapons that might blur the 
distinction--in some minds--between conventional and nuclear arms. 
Rather, the future is about eliminating the threat posed to us all by 
such weapons. Our strength and our power at this moment in history is 
unrivaled. Now is the time for bold leadership that makes the world 
safer from nuclear dangers, not more eager for new weapons.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. I commend Chairman Warner and 
Ranking Member Levin for their skillful stewardship.
  I believe the committee completed its mark-up in near record time, 
with one of the fastest subcommittee marks in history occurring at the 
panel I currently chair, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities.
  Nonetheless, Senator Jack Reed and I were able to provide funding for 
a number of important programs. We focused not only on enhancing the 
capabilities of our men and women in uniform, but also on those 
initiatives that address threats we face right now here at home.
  In fact, since Chairman Warner established the subcommittee in the 
Winter of 1999, most of the ``emerging threats'' have become current 
realities. I am talking in particular about the use and potential use 
by terrorists of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
  I am certainly thankful for the leadership of President Bush as we 
try to navigate through this environment, one that includes apocalyptic 
terror groups acquiring and employing WMD.
  Let us remember, day to day, it is the President of the United states 
who is responsible for preventing terrorism where we live and work. I 
am confident President Bush is doing all he can to protect us.
  He may not be popular in European cafes, universities, or newspapers, 
but he gets results for us here at home. Foreign actors, be they 
governments, individuals, or groups, know our President will hold them 
accountable for terrorism against us. Perhaps more than any policy 
action or innovation, this posture contributes to success in achieving 
a secure environment in which we find ourselves right now.
  Up against the most asymmetric, organized, determined, and merciless 
enemy the United States has ever faced, we have not had a major terror 
attack in the homeland since beginning the Global War on Terrorism 
shortly after 9/11. In this urgent threat warning atmosphere, knock on 
wood, Mr. President.
  Indeed, there have been recent attacks in Saudi Arabia, Israel and 
North Africa. At the same time, however, the State Department reports 
that, globally, 2002 saw the lowest number of incidents of terrorism 
since 1969, a 44 percent drop from 2001. That is the lowest number of 
attacks since the birth of modern terrorism.
  I recall these facts because the nature of recent comments from 
certain Members who suggest virtually every act of terrorism is somehow 
the fault of our Commander in Chief. That is not only inaccurate but 
counterproductive to the war against terrorism.
  In closing, I would like to briefly summarize the funding 
authorizations achieved by the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats & 
Capabilities for fiscal year 2004 include the following:
  $88.4 million to field an additional 12 Weapons of Mass Destruction-
Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST), resulting in a total of 44 teams by the 
end of 2004.
  $76,6 million to the Chemical Biological Installation/Force 
Protection Program, doubling the number of bases, from 15 to 30, that 
will be fully equipped with a highly effective suite of manual and 
automated chemical and biological detection equipment.
  $147.0 million in innovative technologies to combat terrorism and 
defeat asymmetrical threats.
  $135.0 million to rapidly accelerate the development and acquisition 
of unmanned systems such as UAVs.
  $1.5 billion in university based research for transformational 
defense technologies.
  $10.7 billion for the Defense Science and Technology program, 
including an additional $515.0 million for critical, high-payoff 
science and technology programs, including approximately $150.0 million 
for technologies to combat terrorism.
  $6.7 billion for the Special Operations Command, including an 
additional $107.0 million for weapons systems, psychological operations 
capabilities, and enhanced intelligence.
  $450.8 million for the Department of Defense's Cooperative threat 
Reduction (CTR) Program, as well as authorization for CTR projects and 
activities outside the states of the Former Soviet Union, and one year 
authority to waive the conditions that must be met before continuing 
the Russian chemical demilitarization program at Schuch'ye.
  Again, I commend Senators Warner and Levin. I also thank Senator Reed 
for being an outstanding partner in completing the tasks given to our 
panel this year. We believe we are continuing the committee's 
investment in science and technology, cutting-edge systems, and efforts 
to prevent the proliferation of WMD.
  I thank the Chair and I urge my colleagues to support the Fiscal Year 
2004 National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am going to support this national 
Defense authorization bill, S. 1050, but I would like to speak candidly 
about my reservations about it.

[[Page 12793]]

  When I left the Senate in early 2001, weapon development and troop 
deployment concerns indeed, even the idea of serious national security 
threats seemed to be fading into the obscurity of our cold war past. 
Over the past 2\1/2\ years, this has changed. We now live in a world of 
multiple and continuously emerging threats, emanating not only from 
states but also from nonstate transnational groups.
  What's more, we live in a time when America's superior armed services 
have been called up for missions that embody the essence of defense 
transformation. Defense transformation means that our country can 
overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan 6,000 miles away almost 
solely from the air. It has allowed special operations forces to train 
antiterrorist units in places such as Georgia and the Philippines. 
Finally, defense transformation has meant that military commanders can 
direct precision-guided weapons at specific office buildings in 
downtown Baghdad from a command room in Florida.
  Today we debate the merits of this national defense bill and the 
important issues it raises regarding the future of weapons control and 
military research, technology, and development. Let us first 
acknowledge and express gratitude to the men and women of our armed 
services. We are proud of their successful wartime mission to liberate 
Iraq. We wish them continued success in their peace time mission to 
secure stability for the Iraqi people.
  As we support our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, we must 
keep in mind that their ultimate mission is to defend not only 
America's security interests but also the cause of global security. I 
have spoken about a new set of threats that require a transformation of 
our defense budget and priorities. I believe, however, that it is 
incumbent upon Congress to conceive of defense transformation--indeed 
our near-and short-term defense needs--in a way that will also seek to 
protect world peace.
  I am concerned about elements of S. 1050 that allow the Pentagon 
greater flexibility in developing, testing, and producing new types of 
nuclear weapons. The diplomatic and security costs of even beginning 
research on these new types of nuclear weapons far outweigh any 
marginal benefits of such weapons.
  These new nuclear weapon initiatives will further weaken the already 
struggling international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. 
U.S. influence with the international community will erode if it seeks 
to upgrade U.S. nuclear weapons while demanding that other countries, 
such as Iran and North Korea, disarm.
  Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Director of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, recently said that instead of developing new nuclear weapons, 
the U.S. should send a message to potential proliferators that, ``Even 
though we have nuclear weapons, we are moving to get rid of them. We 
are going to develop a system of security that does not depend on 
nuclear weapons because that's the way we want the world to move.''
  I agree with Dr. Baradei; I believe the best way to deter nations 
trying to develop nuclear capabilities is to send the signal that the 
prospect of nuclear warfare is an idea confined to science fiction 
movies.
  I have supported the amendments offered by Senators Reed, Feinstein, 
and others intended to modify rather than repeal the 1994 Spratt-Furse 
prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. 
Secretary Rumsfeld has argued that these mini-nukes could be the ideal 
weapon for going after deeply buried stashes of chemical and biological 
weapons--the sort roguish regimes and terrorist groups like al-Qaida 
might attempt to conceal.
  But at the same time, the Pentagon is considering adapting existing 
conventional warheads for such bunker busting jobs. We don't need both 
types of weapons to do the same job. By dangerously treating nuclear 
weapons as just another explosive in the arsenal, rather than as a 
deterrent weapon of last resort, researching low-yield nukes threatens 
to blur the line between conventional and non conventional weapons. 
Given our interest in preserving the seriousness with which the world 
regards the nonproliferation treaty, we should not be doing anything in 
our own arsenals that would confuse this distinction.
  I would also like to call attention to my amendment, S. 722, that 
will help protect many endangered species. I am pleased that this 
amendment passed.
  I would also like to call attention to an amendment that I have 
sponsored along with Senator Boxer and Senator Warner regarding a 
noncompetitive contract granted by the Department of Defense to 
Halliburton Co. for the reconstruction of Iraq. This amendment will 
ensure that this no-bid contract gives way to a competitively bid 
contract expeditiously. I am pleased by the bipartisan cooperation and 
Senator Warner's leadership in the passage of this amendment.
  In recent weeks, I have become concerned with the lack of 
transparency regarding this particular contract--worth up to $7 
billion--awarded in a no-bid process to Halliburton and Co.'s 
subsidiary. The scope of the contract--both the actual task order and 
the dollar amount--were not fully disclosed by the administration, and 
information leaked out about it piecemeal, when the Army was pressed 
for it. It is extremely important that the Pentagon divulge information 
about the contracts it awards in a public and systematic fashion.
  I believe that this Defense authorization bill has merits and 
provides comprehensive funding for the Department of Defense's needs. 
It will effectively meet the needs of our men and women in the armed 
services. I am, frankly, very concerned about its authorization of low-
yield nuclear weapons research, ballistic missile development, and its 
reduction of the constraints on nuclear weapons testing.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on June 6, 2000, the National D-Day 
opened in New Orleans, LA. This museum was the culmination of a vision 
of the late Stephen Ambrose. Dr. Ambrose dedicated his life to 
chronicling American heroes, including Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was 
President Eisenhower who mentioned to Dr. Ambrose that World War II was 
won in New Orleans because of the Higgins landing craft, designed by 
Andrew Jackson Higgins, which enabled Allied Forces to launch 
successful amphibious invasions.
  The National D-Day Museum has been an unquestioned success as a 
tourist attraction, meeting place for veterans, and teaching tool for 
men and women, young and old, wishing to learn more about World War II. 
Already, over 1 million people have come through the museum's turn-
styles.
  America has a need to preserve its historical accounts and mementos 
from World War II. The National D-Day Museum is committed to such 
preservation. As a result of its mission, the museum has already had to 
expand and is building a 250,000 square-foot addition. We must preserve 
the stories and artifacts of the ``Greatest Generation.''
  Accordingly, I submitted an amendment to designate the National D-Day 
Museum as ``America's National World War II Museum.'' We owe it to the 
Great Generation to maintain a museum that pays tribute to their great 
sacrifices so that we may live today in freedom.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to add my thoughts to the debate 
on the defense budget for fiscal year 2004.
  First and foremost, I want to thank the members of the United States 
Armed Forces for the excellent work that they are doing in the ongoing 
fight against terrorism, their efforts in Iraq, and the many missions 
they have been assigned elsewhere at home and abroad. These dedicated 
men and women do an exemplary job in every mission that they have been 
asked to undertake, often at great personal sacrifice. They spend time 
away from their homes and families in different parts of the country 
and the world, and are placed into harm's way in order to protect the 
American people and our way of life. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to 
all our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and members of the Coast 
Guard for their selfless service.

[[Page 12794]]

  I am pleased that this bill authorizes a 3.7-percent pay raise for 
our men and women in uniform, and that it includes a provision 
authorizing additional pay for members of the Guard and Reserve who 
have been called to active duty multiple times.
  The men and women of our National Guard and Reserve are a cornerstone 
of our national defense, and we should ensure that they have adequate 
pay and benefits. I am pleased that the Senate adopted an amendment to 
give guardsmen and reservists the opportunity to enroll in TRICARE, the 
military's health care program, whether or not they are on active duty. 
The provision also would enable these personnel to elect to keep their 
civilian health insurance for their families while on active duty with 
a federal reimbursement program. We owe it to our guardsmen and 
reservists to give these options to help to ensure that they and their 
families have access to affordable, stable health care coverage.
  I have long advocated for the creation of an additional 23 Weapons of 
Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, which are staffed by full-time 
members of the National Guard. These important teams play a vital role 
in assisting local first responders in investigating and combating 
these new threats. As the events of September 11, 2001, so clearly and 
tragically demonstrated, local first responders are on the front lines 
of combating terrorism and responding to other large-scale incidents. 
The tragic events of September 11, the ongoing threat of terrorist 
activities, and the ongoing military action in Iraq make the presence 
of at least one WMD-CST in each State all the more imperative.
  Currently, there are 32 full-time WMD-CSTs and 23 part-time teams. As 
a Senator representing one of the states without a full-time team, I 
was pleased that last year's DoD authorization bill included a 
statutory requirement that 23 additional full-time teams be 
established, and that at least one team be located in every State and 
territory. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee for working with me to ensure that resources 
for 12 of these 23 teams are provided in this bill. I look forward to 
working with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee to ensure that the resources authorized in this bill for the 
new WMD-CSTs are appropriated.
  I am also pleased that the committee report contains language asking 
the Pentagon to include funding for the remaining 11 full-time WMD-CSTs 
in its fiscal year 2005 budget request. I urge the Secretary of Defense 
to do so, and to make every effort to select and begin staffing, 
training, and equipping the 12 new teams authorized by this bill as 
expeditiously as possible. These teams will improve the overall 
capability of Wisconsin and other States with part-time teams to 
respond to potential WMD threats in the future.
  On a related matter, as I noted on the floor earlier this week, I 
share the concern expressed by many of our colleagues about a provision 
in the Committee-passed bill that would repeal the 10-year ban on 
research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, or so-called 
``mini-nukes.'' Lifting this ban could be the first step in a 
resumption of nuclear testing and the creation of new classes of 
nuclear weapons, which I oppose. I regret that the Senate failed to 
pass an amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, of which I 
was a cosponsor, that would have reinstated this ban. While proponents 
of lifting the ban argue that it will permit only study into the 
development of mini-nukes, I am concerned that such study will be the 
first step toward the eventual resumption of an active nuclear program 
by the United States.
  Nuclear weapons, low-yield or otherwise, are relics of the cold war. 
Instead of a true transformation during which outdated systems are 
replaced with new technology geared toward combating emerging threats, 
this bill regrettably continues the process of piling on expensive new 
versions of the weapon systems that we used to fight and win the cold 
war. We cannot keep adding on to this behemoth defense budget. There 
are projects and programs that can and should be subtracted.
  As an editorial in the May 20 New York Times points out:

       [G]ood ideas for reforming the military are included [in 
     this bill]. But so are outdated submarines and jet fighters 
     designed for combat against the defunct Soviet threat. There 
     is a reasonable $1.7 billion for the next generation of 
     unmanned aerial drones and an unreasonable $42 billion for 
     anachronistic fighter planes. As social, education and health 
     care programs are being squeezed, the Pentagon is asking for 
     $9.1 billion to build a missile defense system that does not 
     work yet.

  On that last point, I am deeply concerned about the $9.1 billion 
included in this bill for missile defense. We continue to pour billions 
and billions of taxpayer dollars into this still unproven program year 
after year, despite the fact that DoD has not developed performance 
criteria for this system and does not have an operational testing 
program in place to verify whether such criteria can be met.
  I remain concerned about the President's December 2002 decision to 
field a ground-based interceptor system by October 2004, despite the 
fact that the system has not yet been fully tested. I am troubled that, 
despite this accelerated scheduled, the Pentagon has proposed cutting 
the number of tests that were slated to be conducted on this costly 
program. While not everyone agrees on whether we actually need a 
missile defense system, I think we can all agree that such a system 
should work.
  I was pleased to support an amendment offered by the Senator from 
Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, that will require the Pentagon to develop 
performance criteria for the missile defense system and an operational 
test plan for these criteria. I am pleased that the Senate adopted a 
modified version of the amendment, and I look forward to reviewing 
these performance criteria.
  I will support this flawed bill, but with some reluctance. While it 
provides a well-deserved pay increase and other benefits for our men 
and women in uniform, it clings to the hardware of the cold war. Our 
military personnel deserve top-notch equipment that will help them to 
combat the threats of the 21st century. I regret that there is little 
in the way of true transformation in this bill, and I will continue to 
work to change the cold war mentality of the Pentagon.
  I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the New York Times 
editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, May 20, 2003]

                    The Defense Budget Spills Forth

       Mammoth defense spending bills bloated with both new 
     military technology and obsolescent weaponry are being rushed 
     to breakneck approval this week as the administration 
     exploits Congress's weakness for leaving no defense 
     contractor unrewarded. The costliest defense budget since the 
     cold war--more than $400 billion and counting--is being 
     gaveled through by the Republican leadership in a 
     breathtaking few days of glancing debate. Good ideas for 
     reforming the military are included. But so are outdated 
     submarines and jet fighters designed for combat against the 
     defunct Soviet threat.
       There is a reasonable $1.7 billion for the next generation 
     of unmanned aerial drones and an unreasonable $42 billion for 
     anachronistic fighter planes. As social, education and health 
     care programs are being squeezed, the Pentagon is asking for 
     $9 billion to build a missile defense system that does not 
     work yet.
       The waste easily runs into the tens of billions of dollars, 
     making Congress's haste this week all the more outrageous. 
     The armed forces obviously deserve decent pay, better housing 
     and the most effective new technologies and weapons. But 
     these bills provide windfalls for the military, for defense 
     contractors and, not incidentally, for lawmakers who need the 
     hometown pork and fat-cat contributions being subsidized by 
     the new double-dip military-industrial complex. For all his 
     tough talk, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not taking 
     on the generals and Congress to challenge the voracious old 
     ways of military budgeting.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, over 220,000 Guardsmen and Reservists 
were mobilized as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Additionally, 
over 100,000 were activated as part of Operations Noble Eagle and 
Enduring Freedom. While the Soldiers and Sailors Civil

[[Page 12795]]

Relief Act and the Uniformed Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment 
Rights Act, provide a number of protections of our Guard and Reserve 
personnel, there are no Federal protections for the educational status 
of Guardsmen and Reservists involuntarily activated while participating 
in higher education.
  Currently, over 30 percent of Guard and Reserve personnel are 
enrolled in post-high school education. If they are activated while 
enrolled in higher-education, there are no safeguards to ensure that 
their academic status is preserved during activation; that they receive 
refunds or credits for the portion of the school year they paid for but 
could not complete to mobilization; that college grants and 
scholarships are preserved; or that they have a right to re-enroll in 
the educational institution upon their return from active duty.
  I submitted an amendment whereby involuntarily called up student 
Reservists and Guardsmen would be able to take a leave of absence 
during the activation and for 1 year after the conclusion of such 
military duty from their institutions of higher education. Furthermore, 
the student shall be entitled to be restored to the same educational 
status, without loss of credit, and offered a right to re-enroll at the 
same educational institution where the student was enrolled prior to 
activation. Grants and scholarships shall be reinstated. Moreover, 
students shall be entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for classes 
they could not complete due to activation or be allowed to enroll in 
such classes subsequent to their re-enrollment at no cost.
  Soon, thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists will be coming home from 
Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be eager to re-enroll in colleges, 
universities, and trade schools. Let's help these heroes get back to 
the classroom as effortlessly as possible.
  Mr. BOXER. Mr. President, I support passage of the fiscal year 2004 
Defense Authorization bill.
  Our military men and women can rest assured that the Congress of the 
United States stands behind them--especially when they are doing so 
much for this country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout world. I 
appreciate their dedication and service to this grateful nation.
  That is why it is important to support the many good provisions that 
are in this bill--especially a well-earned pay raise and improved 
benefits for our uniformed men and women. I applaud the work of Senator 
Warner and Senator Levin on these quality of life issues and am 
especially pleased that they supported my amendment to study how we can 
provide additional benefits to those who are so frequently deployed 
that they are only home for hours at a time. This bill also includes a 
provision to address the issue of children who are left behind when 
both military parents are deployed to a combat zone--an important 
priority of mine since I was a member of the House of Representatives.
  I am also pleased that the Congress passed my amendment to provide 
fairness to taxpayers and businesses by making sure that the Department 
of Defense replaces its sole source contract with Halliburton to 
provide oil related services in Iraq with a contract that is subject to 
full and open competition.
  However, this does not mean I support everything in this bill. Most 
alarmingly are the provisions in the legislation that advance the 
research and development of new high-tech nuclear weapons. These 
weapons will not make us more secure, but instead encourage other 
nations to join us in a new nuclear arms race. I urge the President to 
reverse his dangerous policy of advocating the development of new 
``usable'' nuclear weapons.
  I am also disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to 
address the issue of a future round of base closures. California was 
disproportionally impacted by previous rounds of the base closure 
process. Even years later, my state continues to wait for the 
Department of Defense to meet its responsibility and provide funding 
for the environmental cleanup of former military installations. For 
these reasons, I believe the next round of base closures should not go 
forward in 2005 as scheduled.
  It is my hope that these unfortunate shortcomings in the bill can be 
addressed either in a conference committee with the House or during 
consideration of the fiscal year 2004 defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as the war in Iraq demonstrated, our 
troops are the finest in the world. Through their mastery of precision-
guided weapons, they minimized casualties of noncombatants and 
effectively contained war's inevitable destruction. In just 21 days, 
they liberated Iraq, a country almost the size of California, from a 
brutal tyranny.
  Many factors contributed to the success of the Iraq war. In my view, 
the most important--and this, I believe, is true of any war--was 
training. To be strong in battle, soldiers must train as they fight. On 
U.S. training ranges, our troops engage in highly realistic, combat 
ready exercises, preparing them to fight and protect themselves in 
battle. This is what they deserve.
  But gradually, those readiness exercises--so critical to the 
military's training mission--are steadily being constrained and 
inhibited. Slowly, but surely, training simulations bear little 
connection with the true-to-life. The cause is straightforward but very 
disturbing: the extreme agenda of some environmental groups, whose 
hostile lawsuits are precipitating a crisis in training .
  Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council 
and the Center for Biological Diversity have launched an unconscionable 
war on the military. They believe there are no compromises, even when 
the issue involves protecting and preparing our troops for battle. They 
would rather file lawsuits--something they are quite good at, 
incidentally--than find commonsense solutions to balance environmental 
protection with the best military training available.
  These lawsuits are gradually eroding not just the land available for 
training and readiness, but are gravely diminishing the actual training 
exercises and live-fire simulations that are so critical to prepare for 
real-life combat.
  Despite the claims made by environmental groups, the Pentagon has 
demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental stewardship. The 
evidence is overwhelming. But land development is fast encroaching upon 
military facilities, driving wildlife and endangered species into the 
relative sanctuary of training ranges.
  The military has made environmental accommodations time and time 
again, but there is only so much it can do. The flood of environmental 
lawsuits is diverting the military away from its all-important training 
mission. As a result, training slowly but surely is dying a death of a 
thousand cuts.
  There are too many egregious examples to recount here. The situation 
facing Camp Pendleton in California bears special mention. Camp 
Pendleton is considered the premier training base for the Marines. 
Because of a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council to 
list the gnatcatcher as endangered, 57 percent of the base may become 
``critical habitat,'' which in effect means no training and readiness 
exercises in that area.
  Also, there are 17 miles of beach at Camp Pendleton--because of 
environmental restrictions, only 200 yards of beach are available to 
practice amphibious landings. All military vehicles that come ashore 
during an amphibious landing are restricted to designated roads. Troops 
can only come ashore in single file columns, which is hardly a good 
simulation of actual warfighting conditions.
  To address these problems, the Pentagon has a reasonable, commonsense 
proposal to clarify existing environmental laws. Contrary to statements 
by some of my colleagues, the Pentagon is not seeking blanket 
exemptions from current laws. To say otherwise is simply false.
  Take, for example, the provision clarifying how the Endangered 
Species Act applies to training bases. DoD

[[Page 12796]]

wants to continue a policy first implemented by the Clinton 
administration's Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposal would codify 
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, INRMPSs, in place of 
critical habitat designations.
  INRMPs, which are required to provide for, among other things, fish 
and wildlife management, land management, forest management, fish and 
wildlife-oriented recreation, and wetland protection, allow the 
military to balance species protection and training needs.
  DoD's proposal explicitly requires DoD to consult with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under 
section 7 of ESA. Also, the Interior Secretary must approve INRMPs in 
writing. Other provisions of ESA, as well as statutes such as the 
National Environmental Policy Act, also would continue to apply.
  Thus it is simply unconscionable that this is characterized as a 
``sweeping exemption.'' My Democratic colleagues also contend that such 
a clarification isn't necessary because ESA already contains national 
security exemptions. Ironically, while complaining about a proposed 
provision that, in effect, continues to subject DoD to ESA, my 
colleagues want to pursue exemptions under current law. In practice, 
those exemptions mean DoD could ignore existing statutory requirements 
altogether under ESA.
  Yesterday, 51 Senators voted for an amendment sponsored by Senators 
Lautenberg and Jeffords that effectively guts the ESA provision in the 
fiscal year 2004 Defense reauthorization bill. The amendment upsets the 
balance stuck between species protection and training. It tilts 
irresponsibly in favor of species protection, which is not the mission 
of DoD.
  The amendment says DoD must ``conserve the species,'' rather than, as 
stated in the bills original language, provide ``conservation 
benefits.'' The distinction is significant because ``conserve' means 
DoD must recover species. This is an unacceptably high threshold, one 
that even Fish and Wildlife has been unable to meet under ESA.
  According to original 1973 ESA, conserve means ``to use and use all 
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered 
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to this act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include but are not limited to all activities associated 
with scientific resources and management, such as research, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance promulgation, live 
trapping, and transplanting.'' As is obvious, the burdens on DoD 
training and readiness would be enormous.
  DoD opposes the amendment because it could have perverse and 
unintended consequences, such as removing the Fish and Wildlife 
Service's flexibility to make decisions based on the differing 
circumstances facing each training range. Also, DoD and the Department 
of the Interior believe it will lead to more lawsuits, not less--
exactly what DoD is trying to prevent.
  The question remains: What should DoD's most important focus be, 
training or recovering the gnatcatcher?
  I am also very disturbed by statements an characterizations of DoD's 
training predicament. Some Senators alluded to the March 13 testimony 
of EPA Administrator Christie Whitman before my committee. Governor 
Whitman, said, ``I don't believe that there is a training mission 
anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place 
because of the environmental protection regulations.'' With all due 
respect to Governor Whitman, the EPA does not have jurisdiction over 
the Endangered Species Act, which, of all the existing laws addressed 
in the Pentagon's proposal, is responsible for the most serious 
training restrictions.
  Moreover, I am extremely troubled by the way some Senators have 
summarized a General Accounting report on military encroachment. To say 
``the GAO found the military has presented no evidence that the 
Endangered Species Act has impaired training'' is utterly false and 
irresponsible.
  Here is what the GAO said about encroachment in its report:

       Over time, the impact of encroachment on training ranges 
     has gradually increased. While the effect varies by service 
     and individual installation, in general encroachment has 
     limited the extent to which training ranges are available or 
     the types of training that can be conducted. This limits 
     units' ability to train as they would expect to fight and/or 
     requires units to work around the problem.

  Barry Holman, director of the GAO's Defense Capabilities and 
Management section, and author of the June 2002 encroachment report, 
stated in his testimony before the House Government Reform Committee on 
May 16, 2002:

       One thing I want to make clear, I would not want anyone to 
     conclude from looking at that report that GAO is saying `no 
     data, no problem.' We're not saying that. I think it's very 
     clear . . . that there are limitations on training.

  In addition to the ESA clarification in the base bill, I filed an 
amendment to clarify how the Superfund law applies to military training 
and readiness. Though it appears this issue will not be addressed as 
part of the Defense authorization bill this year, it does deserve some 
explanation.
  Live-fire training, which is the ``capstone event of a unit's 
training cycle,'' has come under heavy fire from environmental groups. 
The Army at Fort Richardson is engaged in a lawsuit that could shut 
down firing munitions at Eagle River Flats range. If environmentalists 
succeed, live fire operations at every Army range--more than 400 
sites--could be severely constrained, seriously threatening training 
and readiness for our men and women in uniform.
  This suit is not an isolated incident--there is another one much like 
it regarding the range at Vieques in Puerto Rico. The pattern is clear, 
and the Committee on Environment and Public Works received testimony as 
to the real agenda behind this pattern of lawsuits.
  Describing yet another lawsuit by an eco-radical group against the 
Department of Defense, witness Frank Gaffey, president and CEO of the 
Center for Security Policy, stated illuminatingly ``a plaintiff in the 
lawsuit was Melanie Dutchen who was described in the New York Times as 
an Anchorage activist with Greenpeace who said, `Obviously the hope of 
this litigation is that delay will lead to cancellation.' She went on 
to say, `That is what we always hope for in these suits.' I believe 
this is sort of an instructive insight into why the Defense Department 
is concerned, not only about the circumstances that you personally 
observed, in terms of limitations and impediments to training, but the 
train wreck that is coming. It is not something that is coming up by 
accident. It is coming about, I believe, by people, at least some of 
whom, have very little interest in the readiness of our military.''
  My amendment will try to stop this by clarifying how RCRA and CERCLA 
apply to live-fire training ranges. I worked closely with the Pentagon 
and State officials--in particular, Doug Benevento of Colorado's 
Department of Public Health and Environment--in drafting compromise 
language that will balance training needs with environmental 
protection.
  This amendment would codify and confirm longstanding regulatory 
policy of EPA and every State concerning regulation of munitions on 
operational ranges under RCRA and CERCLA. The amendment excludes 
military munitions from the definition of ``solid waste'' under CERCLA. 
That way, the military can perform live fire training exercises without 
having to break up those exercises with extensive, time-consuming 
clean-up operations.
  But this change would still offer environmental protections under 
existing law. Again, as stated previously, this is not an exemption. 
Cleanup of operational ranges is not required so long as material stays 
on range, but if such material moves off range, it still must be 
addressed under existing law. Also, if munitions cause an ``imminent 
and substantial endangerment on range, EPA will still retain its 
authority to address it on range under CERCLA.
  If we fail to address these and other issues the Pentagon has put 
before us, we are doing a great disservice to our

[[Page 12797]]

men and women in uniform. Unfortunately, it appears that Congress will 
pass only a few pieces of the Pentagon's proposal this year. I think it 
is imperative, for the sake of our troops, that we address the 
remaining pieces next year.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Senate version of 
the fiscal year 2004 national Defense authorization bill.
  First, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee for their work on this vital 
legislation. As a former member of the committee, I am acutely aware of 
the intense effort required to bring the National Defense Authorization 
Act to the floor every year. For the chairman and ranking member to be 
able to bring this bill to the floor with a unanimous vote out of 
committee is a testament to their leadership. I would also like to 
thank each of my colleagues who are members of the committee for their 
invaluable contributions to this bill.
  I will take a few moments and discuss some of the provisions of the 
bill that I believe are important to providing the men and women of our 
armed services the tools they need to protect our Nation.
  First and foremost, I am encouraged that the committee has supported 
the President's shipbuilding budget that will provide the Navy with an 
additional seven ships. As the former Chair of the Seapower 
Subcommittee, I have been concerned for many years about the downward 
trend in naval shipbuilding that was moving us inexorably towards a 
250-ship Navy or less. The administration proposed in its budget to 
procure seven new Navy ships in fiscal year 2004 and a total of 52 new 
Navy ships through fiscal year 2009. While this results in an average 
build rate of 8.6 ships, almost at the 8.9 ships per year necessary to 
maintain a 310-ship fleet, this average is skewed by the 14 ships the 
Navy says it intends to build in fiscal year 2009. Fourteen ships is 
twice the number of ships we have in the bill for fiscal year 2004.
  Indeed, if we just look at the proposed shipbuilding plan for the 
next 5 years, from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2008, there are only 
38 ships in the plan, an average of 7.6 ships per year. This is an 
improvement but still results in the inability to maintain a 310-ship 
Navy, much less the 360- to 375-ship Navy the current Chief of Naval 
Operations has said is required to support his Sea Power 21 vision.
  We can't afford to risk this essential component of our worldwide 
defense force. After all, 80 percent of the planet's population lives 
along the coastal plains of the world, and it is the Navy that has the 
capability to project power in regional coastal flashpoints around the 
globe--a capability that is imperative if we are to maintain military 
superiority and defend America's national interests in the 21st 
century.
  It is the Navy we increasingly rely on to engage the enemy away from 
our shores. As we saw during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Navy provides 
our only means of assured access. Today we are engaged in Southwest 
Asia and other littoral areas of the world away from our cold war bases 
in Europe, Japan, and Korea. Our inability to land troops in Turkey 
during Operation Iraqi Freedom and our withdrawal from bases in Saudi 
Arabia only highlight the need for a flexible, mobile sea-based 
defense.
  The strength of those surface action groups and carrier battle groups 
are our major surface combatants. They provide air defense, launch 
Tomahawk missiles to strike the enemy, interdict opposing naval 
forces--they truly are the backbone of the fleet. We must do everything 
we can to ensure that we maintain a strong and healthy shipbuilding 
base particularly with respect to major surface combatants, for it is 
only through healthy competition that fresh ideas and reduced costs can 
be achieved.
  To maintain a 116-ship surface combatant force, given the projected 
service life of 35 years for DDG-51 Class ships, requires a sustained 
replacement rate of over three ships per year. If you assume a 30-year 
service life, which is more realistic historically, sustaining even the 
116-ship surface combatant force would require annual procurement of 
almost 4 DDGs each year.
  I believe it is in the vital national interest of America to procure 
a minimum of three major surface combatants a year, not just this year 
or next, but in every year. I am encouraged that this bill supports 
that level of procurement.
  We must also look to the future and work to increase the warfighting 
capability and operating efficiency of these Aegis destroyers as they 
age. We must embark on a modernization program now to incorporate new 
technologies and systems that will allow us to operate these vessels 
more effectively with reduced manpower. This bill begins that process 
by authorizing $20 million for the design, nonrecurring engineering and 
installation planning of DDG-51 modernization and optimized manning 
upgrades for incorporation on fiscal year 2004 and/or fiscal year 2005 
new construction ships.
  The bill also supports the President's request for $158 million for 
the Littoral Combat Ship in the R&D accounts. However, just as the 
committee is, I am concerned about counting on an undeveloped ship 
concept to provide the 375-ship force structure called for by the Chief 
of Naval Operations and its concomitant impact on the major surface 
combatant force. I support the bill's call for a determination, through 
a cycle of analysis and experimentation, of the ship's ability to 
deliver the expected capabilities.
  Furthermore, the bill correctly identified the looming gap in attack 
submarines by noting that decommissioning the USS Jacksonville, rather 
than refueling her, would put the Navy below the QDR recommended attack 
submarine force of 55 submarines. In fact, the Navy also recognized 
this gap and placed the refueling of the USS Jacksonville on the Navy's 
Unfunded Program List to support near term submarine force structure. 
This bill authorizes $248 million for that refueling overhaul, noting 
the need for the refueling as ``compelling.''
  I cannot express strongly enough my belief that we must fund 
shipbuilding to reflect the increasing demands we place on the Navy. 
The $12 billion included in this bill is needed and appreciated, but it 
only represents about 3 percent of the total defense budget. For all we 
expect of our Navy in today's world, we must do everything we can to 
provide them with the ships and weapons systems they need.
  In regard to the homeland security role of the Department of Defense, 
the bill authorizes an additional $400 million over the President's 
budget request to expand unit capabilities, field additional sensor 
systems, and prepare to engage the threat here and abroad. For example, 
the bill contains an additional $107 million for those special 
operations forces that have been so effective in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. At home, DoD will be able to 
deploy an additional 12 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams 
with the funds provided in this bill. In addition, it also provides 
$173 million for chemical and biological detection and protection 
technologies such as those being developed in my home State of Maine.
  The University of Maine system has been on the forefront of the 
development of chemical and biological sensors and decontamination 
systems. The bill provides them with $1 million this year to begin the 
development of an environmentally friendly photocatalytic 
decontamination agent that holds much promise for the safe and rapid 
decontamination of exposed personnel as well as for the remediation of 
chemical agent and manufacturing and storage facilities.
  It is this type of investment in new science and technology efforts 
that will provide our forces with the advanced capabilities we saw used 
so effectively over the past 2 months. I am encouraged that this bill 
provides $10.7 billion for the science and technology accounts which 
brings us close to the goal of setting aside 3 percent of the defense 
budget to invest in the ``seed corn'' of our future military 
capability. From that investment we see the expansion in our research, 
development

[[Page 12798]]

and test and evaluation efforts as evidenced by the commitment of $63.2 
billion toward those activities, including over a billion in DD(X) 
destroyer R&D.
  The bill also addresses the need to modernize our military 
infrastructure by authorizing over $9.0 billion in military 
construction, an increase of $373 million over the budget request 
including the addition of $200 million for quality-of-life projects for 
members and their families. This bill wisely increases investments in 
stateside facilities while reducing investments overseas while the 
United States assesses its long-term overseas basing requirements.
  Finally, and most importantly, the bill continues our commitment to 
the men and women in the Armed Forces and their families through the 
enactment of several important pay and benefits provisions. First, it 
institutes a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay raise and once again 
provides an additional targeted pay raise for the senior 
noncommissioned officers and midcareer personnel who are the backbone 
of our military. The bill contains several provisions which will 
directly aid the families of service members such as an increase in the 
family separation allowance and a high-tempo allowance of $1,000 per 
month for those troops and sailors deployed away from home for extended 
periods of time.
  Can any of us who watched the poignant homecoming of the USS Abraham 
Lincoln earlier this month after 10 months at sea, the longest carrier 
deployment since Vietnam, doubt that those dedicated sailors and 
marines had earned every penny?
  In closing, let me say that I hope that as we move this bill towards 
final passage, we do everything we can to strengthen the bill for those 
brave young men and women who defend our Nation each and every day. We 
must do no less.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment to 
the Defense Authorization bill which Senator Voinovich and I have 
submitted. Our amendment would, among other things, provide for the 
creation of a National Security Personnel System encompassing the 
Defense Department's 735,000 civilian employees.
  In April, the Department delivered to Congress a proposal to grant 
the Secretary of Defense authority to dramatically restructure the 
Department's civilian personnel system. The proposal was designed to 
provide the Department with the flexibility and agility it needs so it 
can respond to sudden changes in our security environment. To 
accomplish this objective, the Department's proposal would give 
Secretary Rumsfeld not only the personnel flexibilities Congress 
granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security, but also additional 
authority to unilaterally waive many personnel regulations.
  Of primary importance to the Department of Defense were the following 
three personnel flexibilities: First, the authority to replace the 
current General Schedule, 12-grade pay system with a performance-based 
pay system in which workers would no longer be awarded an automatic, 
across-the-board pay increase; second, the authority to conduct on-the-
spot hiring for hard-to-fill positions; and third, the authority to 
raise collective bargaining to the national level rather than 
negotiating with more than 1,000 local units.
  Our proposal would grant the Secretary these authorities. It would 
provide the Secretary of Defense with the three pillars of his 
personnel proposal and thus would allow for a needed overhaul of an 
antiquated system. But we do not give the Secretary all he asked for; 
instead, we have attempted to strike the right balance between 
promoting a flexible system and protecting employee rights.
  Over the past 3 weeks, Senator Voinovich and I have repeatedly 
reached out to a wide variety of interested parties in an attempt to 
put together a bipartisan proposal. As of today, I believe we have made 
a considerable amount of headway toward forging a consensus.
  For example, in certain areas, such as employee appeals, I am not 
prepared to support granting the Secretary the authority to immediately 
do away with the Merit System Protection Board in order to create an 
internal appeals process. Instead, my amendment allows for a gradual 
transition from the MSPB to a new appeals process. During the 
transition, the Department will consult with MSPB while it develops and 
tests a new appeals process.
  I am also not prepared to grant the Secretary the authority to waive 
the collective bargaining rights of employees. Instead, my amendment 
places statutory deadlines of 180 days on the amount of time any one 
issue can be under consideration by one of the three components of the 
Federal Labor Relations Authority. This alone should make a significant 
difference in the timeliness of the bargaining process, and prevent the 
occasional case from dragging on for years.
  The bottom line is, we believe that our amendment would give the 
Secretary the authorities he needs to manage and sustain a civilian 
workforce some 735,000 strong. Our amendment would grant the 
administration's request for a new pay system, on-the-spot hiring 
authority, and collective bargaining at the national level, not 
individually with 1300 local union affiliates. In addition, our 
amendment would enable the Secretary to offer separation pay incentives 
for employees nearing retirement; to contract with individuals for 
services performed outside the United States in support of the Defense 
Department; to offer special pay rates for highly qualified experts 
like scientists, engineers and medical personnel; and to help mobilized 
Federal civilian employees whose military pay is less than their 
Federal civilian pay.
  The House Armed Services Committee has already included a personnel 
amendment in their own authorization bill. For that reason, I was 
dismayed to learn that our amendment was not deemed ``relevant'' to the 
underlying legislation, and therefore shall not be made part of the 
Senate's bill.
  But I have worked hard to find a consensus approach, and I don't 
intend to stop until this goal has been achieved. I believe that the 
House approach can be improved upon. This is why, on Friday, I plan to 
re-introduce this legislation as a free-standing bill and to hold a 
hearing on it the first week of June. Quite simply, I believe civil 
service personnel reform of this magnitude is too important an issue 
for the Senate to remain silent.
  I urge my colleagues to work with Senator Voinovich and me as we 
continue our efforts on this very important issue. In addition, I would 
like to thank Senators Warner and Levin for all the advice and input 
they have already provided. In addition to serving as ranking member of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin is a senior member of the 
Governmental Affair Committee, which I chair. As such, he brings 
expertise to the process from both perspectives. I hope that the bill I 
introduce on Friday will enjoy his support and that of the chairman.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I will join my colleagues in voting to 
approve the 2004 Defense authorization bill. This legislation provides 
a significant increase to our defense budget, a total of $400.5 
billion, $17.9 billion more than was authorized for this year. This is 
the largest defense budget in our Nation's history, and, for the most 
part, it could not come at a more important time.
  This bill is good for our armed services, and crucial for the 
security of our country. Above all else, it makes a substantial 
investment in our military's most important assets--our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines. It provides a 3.7 percent across-the-
board pay raise for all men and women in uniform and introduces a new 
health care benefit to Reserve and National Guard personnel. In 
addition, it funds important national security programs to curb the 
spread of weapons of mass destruction, with $450 million going towards 
the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to safeguard 
nuclear stockpiles and fissile material within the former Soviet Union. 
It ramps up research and development accounts for counterterrorism 
technologies as well as for intelligence and Special Operations 
resources.

[[Page 12799]]

  To respond to emerging threats to our country, these investments are 
crucial components of the Defense authorization bill. I am also 
especially pleased that the Senate accepted without dissent, my 
amendment to establish a new initiative to assist States and 
communities in hiring firefighters. As we saw so vividly on September 
11, our firefighters play an integral part in responding to and 
protecting our people from terrorist attacks. No homeland security 
strategy can ignore the crucial role that firefighters play in keeping 
our Nation safe. My amendment, which was approved by the Senate, 
authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to invest over $3 
billion over the next 3 years in partnership with States and local 
governments to hire firefighters so that communities are better 
prepared to respond to potential acts of terrorism.
  As this amendment underscores, our States play crucial roles in 
protecting our security. And the underlying bill supports a number of 
military initiatives that are particularly supported by the State of 
Connecticut. Since the days of the Revolutionary War, Connecticut has 
rightly taken pride in its disproportionately large role in 
contributing to the U.S. arsenal, earning it the nickname the 
``Provision State.''
  The 2004 Defense authorization bill continues this strong tradition, 
greatly outfitting the Nation's armed services and provisioning 
advanced technology from Connecticut. The projects funded in this bill 
from Army helicopters and Air Force fighters to new advances in 
submarine technology, will allow America's military to prosecute its 
war on terror from every corner of the globe. Included in this bill is 
$1 billion to fund the procurement of 36 additional UH-60 Blackhawk 
helicopters, manufactured by one of my State's leading manufacturers, 
Sikorsky. These aircraft have proven themselves repeatedly in combat on 
air assault and medical evacuation missions, as well as in peacekeeping 
missions providing important cargo and personnel transport.
  This bill also authorizes a multiyear procurement and $2 billion in 
2004 for a Virginia class submarine, manufactured in Groton. Production 
of this next generation ship will further enable the Navy to extend its 
reach to the coasts of every continent, staying undetected as it 
performs various missions from special operations and intelligence-
gathering to precision guided missile strikes.
  The bill also funds our force's next-generation fighter aircraft, the 
F/A-22 and Joint Strike Fighter, which will be outfitted with the 
finest engines in the world, developed at Pratt and Whitney. 
Procurement of these planes will maintain U.S. air superiority--
equipping pilots with unprecedented speed, stealth, and advanced 
munitions, and transforming the Nation's military into a 21st century 
force.
  I believe these investments will save lives in both the near and long 
term, and they will strengthen the military industrial base that is so 
crucial to the long-term viability of our military. I am pleased that 
this authorization bill continues Secretary Rumsfeld's initiative to 
transform the military and respond to terrorist threats to our Nation. 
But I would be remiss if I did not enter into this record the serious 
reservations I have with this bill.
  In particular, I am deeply concerned about the steps this legislation 
takes toward developing new tactical nuclear weapons. Despite the good-
faith efforts of some of my colleagues, this Chamber failed to act as a 
check on an Executive bent on rolling back decades of strategic arms 
control and nonproliferation policies. At the President's 
recommendation, this bill repeals the 1993 Spratt-Furse provision that 
barred the Government from developing low-yield nuclear weapons. It 
also funds the study of a high-yield bunker-busting nuclear earth 
penetrator. Both weapons are part of the administration's long-term 
plan to field tactical nuclear weapons in war, as outlined in the 2001 
Nuclear Posture Review.
  The defenders of these provisions believe that such weaponry will 
enhance America's security by enabling the United States to devastate 
terrorist targets in a more contained environment. They claim that the 
U.S. use of nuclear weapons during a war will not set an egregious 
precedent for other nations to begin fielding their own tactical 
nuclear arsenal. And they claim that by lifting the ban simply on 
research, we are not opening a new chapter of the nuclear era.
  They are dead wrong. And I am gravely disturbed by this shift in U.S. 
nonproliferation policy. In 2000, the United States joined the other 
permanent U.N. Security Council members in a declaration of an 
``unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a complete 
elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on general and complete 
disarmament under strict and effective international control.''
  This declaration was not made on a whim. This was the culmination of 
decades of diplomacy that has led to the worldwide movement in arms 
control. But today, with this legislation, we are taking a considerable 
step away from the goal stated at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty 
Conference. While we insist that others disarm and cease their 
development of weapons of mass destruction, we are initiating plans to 
use new atomic weapons on the battlefield.
  As our Armed Forces hone their conventional abilities to surgically 
strike with increasingly explosive force, it seems peculiar that the 
United States would now take steps backwards, and devote precious 
resources to expanding our nuclear arsenal. Our most recent operations 
in Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated that the United States far 
exceeds any other nation in its ability to strike with nonnuclear 
weapons anywhere in the world with great precision, and minimal 
collateral damage. Rather than capitalizing on these new advantages in 
warfare, the administration's tactical nuclear policy, would actually 
leave the Nation less secure, and undercut our government's 50-year 
attempts at averting nuclear war.
  But all in all, in spite of these provisions, I believe that this 
bill's passage is critical to sustaining our national security. 
Although major combat operations have ended in Afghanistan and Iraq, 
our military continues to be engaged in low-intensity conflict in this 
highly unstable region of the world. Our Armed Forces--both Active Duty 
and Reserve--stand ready to complete their missions in this Nation's 
ongoing campaign against terror, to stabilize the region, and win the 
peace.
  To do this, they will need the resources provided in this bill. For 
that reason, I have supported this legislation, and hope that the House 
and Senate Conferees move quickly toward a final version, so that this 
Congress will swiftly approve necessary authorizations for America's 
men and women in uniform.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support S. 1050, 
the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. This legislation funds 
$400.5 billion for defense programs, which is 3.2 percent or $17.9 
billion above the amount appropriated by Congress last year. The 
Defense Authorization bill would authorize appropriations to purchase 
new weapons systems and funds research and development for new weapons 
systems, funds operations and maintenance for the services, provides 
pay and quality of life improvements for service members and funds 
military construction projects at military bases.
  A number of provisions in this bill go a long way to ensure our 
service members get the benefits they deserve. I am pleased the Senate 
included a provision which I offered as an amendment that was adopted 
by the committee that would eliminate the remaining so-called ``pay 
comparability gap'' between military pay and civilian pay. This 
amendment would tie subsequent military pay raises after 2006 with 
increases in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). As a former ranking 
member and long-time member on the Personnel Subcommittee when Senator 
John Glenn was the chairman, my experience with capping military raises 
below ECI during the last three decades shows that such caps inevitably 
lead to significant retention problems among

[[Page 12800]]

second-term and career service-
members.
  Those retention problems cost our Nation more in the long run in 
terms of lost military experience, decreased readiness, and increased 
training costs. Since military pay was last comparable with private 
sector pay in 1982, military pay raises have lagged a cumulative 6.4 
percent behind private sector wage growth--although recent efforts by 
Congress have reduced the gap significantly from its peak of 13.5 
percent in 1999. Our efforts in 1999 increased pay raises, reformed the 
pay tables, took 12,000 servicemembers off of food stamps, and 
established a military Thrift Savings Plan.
  A key principal of the all volunteer force (AVF) is that military pay 
raises must match private sector pay growth, as measured by ECI. The 
Senate's action in this area will send a strong message of support to 
our ser-
vicemembers and women and their families that will continue to promote 
high morale, better quality-of-life, and ultimately a more ready 
military force.
  For the past 12 years, I have offered legislation on concurrent 
receipt. This matter is of great significance to many of our country's 
military retirees, because it would reverse existing, unfair 
regulations that strip retirement pay from military retirees who are 
also disabled, and costs them any realistic opportunity for post-
service earnings. Last year, I was pleased that the committee, for the 
first time, included an authorization to begin to address a 
longstanding inequity in the compensation of military retirees' pay 
over previous attempts in the past.
  I am disappointed that Senator Harry Reid was unable to offer his 
amendment on concurrent receipt, because the amendment was not ruled 
relevant under an unanimous consent agreement that was passed by the 
leadership of the Senate. We must do more to restore retirement pay for 
those military retirees who are disabled. I have stated this before, 
and I am compelled to reiterate now--retirement pay and disability pay 
are distinct types of pay. Retirement pay is for service rendered 
through 20 years of military service. Disability pay is for physical or 
mental pain or suffering that occurs during and as a result of military 
service. In this case, members with decades of military service receive 
the same compensation as similarly disabled members who served only a 
few years; this practice fails to recognize their extended, more 
demanding careers of service to our country. This is patently unfair, 
and I will continue to work diligently with the committee to correct 
this inequity for all career military servicemembers who are disabled.
  We have a military force that continues to rely more on the Reserve 
Components--men and women in the National Guard and Reserves--to go to 
war and to perform other critical military tasks abroad and at home. 
Many combat, combat support and other support missions are being 
carried out on the backs of our active and Reserve Component forces--
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
  National Guard and Reserve servicemembers are performing many vital 
tasks: direct involvement in military operations to liberate Iraq in 
the air, on the ground, and on the sea; guarding nuclear power plants, 
our borders, and our airports in the United States; providing support 
to the War on Terrorism through guarding, interrogating, and extending 
medical services to al-Qaida detainees; rebuilding schools in 
hurricane-stricken Honduras and fighting fires in our western states; 
overseeing civil affairs in Bosnia; and augmenting aircraft carriers 
short on active duty sailors with critical skilled enlisted ratings 
during at-sea exercises, as well as during periods of deployment.
  I believe that the civilian and uniformed leadership of our Armed 
Forces and the Congress must recognize this involvement, and, at a 
minimum, provide equal benefits for reserve component servicemembers 
when they put on the uniform and perform their weekend drills or other 
critical training evolutions. Reservists, on duty, who resemble their 
active duty counterparts during training evolutions and are deployed at 
times around the world, should be treated equally when the 
administration and Congress provide for quality of life benefits.
  I am pleased at the inclusion of language authorizing a Selective Re-
enlistment Bonus (SRB) for National Guard and Reserve service members 
when they are mobilized under a Presidential Select Reserve Call-up and 
they re-enlist during that period. National Guardsmen and Reservists 
are prohibited from receiving SRB payments until they get off active 
duty or mobilization status, sometimes 1 or 2 years later.
  The Senate has also authorized Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, benefits 
to survivors of National Guard and Reserve service members who die 
while performing inactive duty training or weekend drills. This 
legislation provides equity with active duty ser-
vicemembers and is consistent with Defense Department regulations when 
National Guardsmen and Reservists are mobilized under a Presidential 
Select Reserve Call-up.
  Since January, there have been 13 Reserve Component deaths during 
weekend military training while their units were preparing for 
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom where families of 
National Guard and Reservists did not receive the Survivor Benefit 
payments.
  The Senate has also authorized Commanders' pay for National Guardsmen 
and Reservists, similar to the pay that active duty commanding officers 
and commanders receive.
  Additionally, the Senate Authorization bill removes and arbitrary cap 
on commissary privileges for drilling reservists and National 
Guardsmen, making the benefit similar to the benefit similar to the 
benefit of authorized for active duty servicemembers.
  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) continue to be of interest to me. 
Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have been watershed events for 
military utilization of UAVs. Increased use in the future as new war 
fighting capabilities come on line is key to our militaries strategy 
for future conflicts. During the 1999 Yugoslav air campaign only three 
UAV systems were used. There are nine UAV systems currently deployed 
and in extensive use in Iraq. The Army's Shadow, Hunter, and Pointer, 
the Marine Corps' Pioneer and Dragon Eye; the Air Force's Global Hawk, 
Predator and the Force Protection Surveillance System; and, the Navy's 
Silver Fox.
  The Silver Fox is a small, inexpensive UAV with tremendous 
application, particularly in downed pilot search and air rescue, border 
patrol operations, tactical support for ground troops and SOF, 
submarine detection, marine mammal detection efforts and other critical 
reconnaissance missions. Ninety Silver Fox systems were deployed for 
Operation Iraqi Freedom with great success. Additional resources should 
be afforded to the unmanned aerial vehicle programs. Low cost, 
innovative systems, like the Silver Fox, deserve considerable support 
by the committee and I strongly support this effort. I am extremely 
please the Senate included a UAV pilot program to study the potential 
uses of UAVs on our borders.
  As part of its consideration of this bill, the Senate approved an 
amendment I sponsored with Senators Session, Lindsey Graham, and Bayh 
creating a reporting requirement that should shed light on how to 
improve decision-making within NATO. As a lifelong Atlanticist, my 
interest is in keeping NATO relevant and effective as it adapts its 
mission to the new threats we face today. Doing so will require a hard 
look at what works well within NATO, and what we can do to streamline 
decision-making processes to improve the effectiveness of the Alliance.
  Our amendment would build on a reporting requirement related to NATO 
is in the underlying bill. Our intention is to make NATO work better by 
taking a close look at how some of its decision-making structures have 
recently evolved, for expressly political reasons, in ways that I 
believe have weakened NATO, but which we, NATO's full members, can 
rectify in order to ensure that our Alliance remains strong.

[[Page 12801]]

  Our amendment would require the Secretaries of Defense and State to 
assess whether certain new NATO military initiatives are within the 
jurisdiction of NATO's Defense Planning Committee, which has 
historically overseen NATO's core defense and security missions. The 
report would relate how NATO defense, military, security, and nuclear 
decisions traditionally made in the DPC came to be made in other bodies 
within NATO. It would discuss the extent of France's contributions to 
each of NATO's component committees, and specifically the degree of 
French involvement in specific military and security issues within the 
competence of the DPC, on which the French do not sit. The report would 
examine how NATO could make greater use of the DPC, by assuming its 
traditional role of managing NATO's core defense mission, and how to 
otherwise streamline NATO decisionmaking to make NATO more effective. 
NATO is actively engaged in discussions on how to reform and improve 
NATO decisionmaking, and I strongly believe our amendment will play a 
useful role in animating that discussion.
  In February, Turkey requested assistance from the Alliance to improve 
its defenses in the event of war with Iraq. Given Turkey's status as a 
key member of NATO and the Alliance's only front-line state with Iraq, 
Turkey's routine request for defensive reinforcements under the terms 
of the NATO charter should not have been controversial in any way. 
Regrettably, France denied Turkey's request, and the Alliance spent 3 
weeks in crisis trying to overcome French objections. France's position 
was initially supported by Germany, Luxembourg, and Belgium, but these 
nations ultimately sided with every other member of the Alliance, 
leaving the French isolated but refusing to relinquish their effective 
veto over a fundamental Alliance commitment to the defense of a member 
state. Ultimately, Turkey's Article Four request for defensive 
assistance was approved by the Defense Planning Committee (DPC), a 
component committee of NATO which does not include France. But the 
singular French obstructionism over the course of nearly a month caused 
the gravest crisis NATO has known in a generation and raised real 
questions about whether NATO was going the way of the U.N. Security 
Council or, more ominously, the League of Nations.
  In the wake of this debacle, Atlanticists in Europe and the United 
States have pondered ways to reform and improve decision-making within 
NATO. In the interests of avoiding another such near-calamity within 
NATO that threatens the Alliance itself, Secretaries Wolfowitz and 
Feith have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that 
the DPC could be used more frequently for decision-making within NATO, 
thereby circumventing the French veto.
  Since the mid-1990s, NATO's North Atlantic Council has been the 
primary venue within the Alliance for decisions to be taken on Alliance 
operations. But for most of NATO's existence, the NAC was not 
preeminent. The Defense Planning Committee was created in 1963 and was 
co-equal to the NAC. The DPC was charged with NATO's core defense and 
security business, including questions relating to Article Five, the 
mutual defense clause that is at the heart of NATO's charter. In 1966, 
when France withdrew from NATO's integrated military structure, the DPC 
assumed responsibility for the Alliance's core defense business. This 
allowed the Alliance to continue to function effectively without 
France's military involvement, and to avoid a French veto over matters 
related to NATO's core defense mission, in which France did not then 
and does not now participate.
  The Defense Planning Committee was surprisingly active from its 
creation in 1963 until 1995. It became less prominent following the end 
of the cold war because the use of NATO forces appeared less likely in 
Article Five scenarios and more probable in non-Article Five scenarios. 
The role of the DPC diminished when the North Atlantic Council rose to 
pre-eminence in the 1990s with NATO peacekeeping scenarios, in the 
aftermath of the dismal failure of UNPROFOR in Bosnia. In the 1990s, 
looking for new roles, the NAC endorsed NATO peacekeeping missions in 
the Balkans.
  The process of relying on the North Atlantic Council was also rooted 
in the futile effort to woo France back into full membership in NATO. 
Starting with a 1992 decision to support peacekeeping operations and 
the desire to involve France in Balkans operations, defense issues 
during the 1990s came to be addressed in the North Atlantic Council. 
The inclusion of France in NATO Defense Ministerials began in 1993 at 
Travemunde and has continued. Although they have not rejoined NATO's 
intergrated military structure, and are therefore not full contributing 
members of the Alliance, the French have very effectively shifted NATO 
decision-making into the North Atlantic Council and other bodies in 
which they have a voice and a vote. Although France does not 
participate, or participates only selectively, in command structure, 
infrastructure budget, and defense planning, it has successfully 
transferred these issues to NATO committees on which it has a seat. 
France does not participate in 60 percent of NATO budget areas, but 
participates in 100 percent of the development of resource policy and 
contribution ceilings.
  The upcoming issues for the June NATO Defense Ministerial are of a 
military and security nature. They include the Capabilities Initiative, 
the Command Structure Review, and the NATO Response Force. These are 
military and security issues within the core competence of the DPC. Our 
amendment is therefore not backward-looking, but would anticipate 
possible reforms to improve NATO's effectiveness in light of issues 
currently on the Alliance's agenda.
  France unilaterally withdrew from NATO's military structure in 1966--
at the height of the Cold War. France has since chosen to remain 
outside NATO's military structure. If France wants to return to NATO's 
military structure, NATO should discuss it, debate it on the merits and 
make a decision--among the 18 full members of NATO.
  What we need now is a better understanding of why NATO came to rely 
on the NAC, and what can be done to make NATO more effective. We need 
to understand what we can do to limit France's ability to manipulate 
NATO, and oppose American foreign policy goals. The report required by 
our amendment should shed light on how to make our Alliance work as it 
should, in defense of the supreme national interests of the democracies 
it protects and nurtures.
  I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on 
bilateral trade relations with our allies of the domestic source for 
instance, ``Buy America'', restrictions enacted in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. I am extremely concerned that 
an amendment was proposed that would impose ``Buy America'' 
restrictions on the Department of Defense. From a philosophical point 
of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free 
trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations 
and essential to economic growth. Moreover, from a practical 
standpoint, the added ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously 
impair our ability to compete freely in the international markets and 
could also result in loss of existing business from long-standing 
trading partners. Although, I fully understand the need to maintain 
certain critical industrial base capabilities, I find no reason to 
support a ``Buy America'' requirement for a product, like marine pumps, 
that is produced by no fewer than 25 U.S. companies or a bullet-proof 
vest made from fabric by a U.S. manufacturer which is inferior and more 
expensive than a bullet-proof vest made in the U.S. from a fabric 
produced overseas.
  There are many examples of the trade imbalance that I can point to. I 
would like to review one example for you. The Dutch government, between 
1991 and 1994, purchased $508 million in defense equipment from U.S. 
manufacturers, including air-refueling planes, Chinook helicopters, 
Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter equipment, missiles, combat radios and 
various training equipment. During that same period, the United States 
purchased only

[[Page 12802]]

$40 million of defense equipment from the Dutch. Recently, the Defense 
Ministers of the United Kingdom and Sweden pointed to similar 
situations in their countries. In every meeting regarding this subject, 
I am told how difficult it is to buy American defense products because 
of our protectionist policies and the strong ``Buy European'' sentiment 
overseas. Our protectionist practices will hurt us nationally and 
internationally.
  Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the 
effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain 
product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to 
``buy European,'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD 
and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. DOD 
should have the ability to make purchases from a second source in an 
allied country covered by a defense cooperation MOU or Declaration of 
Principles agreement when only one domestic source exists. This would 
ensure both price and product competition.
  Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces with 
which we are increasingly likely to operate in coalition warfare or 
peacekeeping missions. They increase our influence over recipient 
country actions, and in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to 
terminate support for equipment. Exports also lower the unit costs of 
systems to the U.S. military, and in recent years have kept mature 
lines open while the U.S. has developed new systems that will go into 
production around the turn of the century.
  Finally, these exports provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. 
as all other exports--higher paying jobs, improved balance of trade, 
and increased tax revenue. ``Buy America'' restrictions on procurement 
will hurt funding for readiness, personnel land equipment 
modernization. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not 
appropriations matters. During debate on this legislation, I offered a 
second degree amendment with the intention of striking the 
protectionist amendment proposed by one of my colleagues. I thank my 
colleagues who successfully supported my amendment that worked to 
protect not only our allies but the American taxpayer and most 
importantly our servicemen and women who depend on the Department of 
Defense to train them and Congress to equip them with the best 
equipment irrelevant of its country of origin. Why is it that our 
special forces servicemembers routinely procure equipment without ``buy 
America'' requirements?
  In all my years on the committee, I have never seen anything like the 
proposed leasing scheme of the KC-767 aerial tankers. In my efforts and 
those of others on the Senate Armed Service Committee, to get 
information on this proposed deal with Boeing, there has been 
obfuscation. There has been delay. There is withholding of information 
from me and this committee. Senior Air Force officials have even 
mislead the committee, according to the DoD Inspector General. It is 
incumbent upon all of us to provide the men and women of the Armed 
Forces with the most capabilities in return for our expenditures.
  In several hearings this year, we have heard the Air Force Secretary 
and the Air Force Secretary of Acquisition testify that they have not 
completed an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) on aerial tankers. The KC-
767 aerial tanker effort requires the Secretary of Defense to do an 
AOA. Authorized funding should come from Air Force aviation programs 
which would have originally funded AOA if the program was appropriately 
planned and programmed like other DoD program. Moreover, the AOA is 
required by Air Mobility Command (AMC) & DoD documents, TRS-05 and KC-
135 ESLS. I am pleased the Senate is requiring the Secretary of Defense 
to undertake an AOA on aerial tankers.
  In the Air Force's fiscal year 2004's budget request the Air Force 
proposed eliminating 68 KC-135E aerial tankers. The Tanker Requirement 
Study (TRS-05) was conducted by the Air Mobility Command and the 
Secretary of Defense Program, Analysis, and Evaluation Division--OSD 
PA&E. TRS-05 identified the need for approximately 500 to 600 
operational KC-135 equivalents to meet air refueling requirements. No 
other program has received so much attention by the Air Force 
Secretary. Yet, in direct contrast to his own Air Force studies, he 
seems relentless in exaggerating aerial tanker shortfalls in order to 
win approval of his KC-767 leasing scam. I am pleased the committee has 
included language reducing the number allowed to be retired to 12, but 
I still feel the Air Force should be prohibited from retiring the 
requested number of tankers until the AOA is completed and we have 
determined the best way to replace these national assets. It is 
foolhardy to begin retiring planes without a plan to replace them.
  I am pleased the Senate included a provision that will save millions 
down the road. The Senate directs the Air Force to provide adequate 
funding for aviation depots for the purpose of correcting corrosion for 
the KC-135 aerial refueling fleet. The Armed Services Committee has 
heard testimony that every $1 spent in preventive maintenance saves $7 
in repair or replacement costs. This action to add funding to KC-135 
aviation depot level facilities would meet a top objective in the Chief 
of Staff of the Air Force's fiscal year 2004 Unfunded Priority List.
  Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom demonstrated to the 
world what we saw just 12 years ago. We went to war as the most combat-
ready force in the world. The value of that readiness is clear. We won 
a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss 
of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with 
minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce 
the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens.
  In order to understand the issues involved, it is necessary to 
recognize just how difficult it is to achieve the kind of readiness we 
had during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Readiness is 
not solely a matter of funding operations and maintenance at the proper 
level. It is not only a matter of funding adequate numbers of high 
quality personnel, or of funding superior weapons and munitions, 
strategic mobility and propositioning, high operating tempos, realistic 
levels of training at every level of combat, or of logistics and 
support capabilities.
  Readiness, in fact, is all of these things and more. A force beings 
to go hollow the moment it loses its overall mix of combat capabilities 
in any one critical area. Our technology edge in Afghanistan and Iraq 
would have been meaningless if we did not have men and women trained to 
use it. Having the best weapons system platforms in the world would not 
have given us our victory if we had not had the right command and 
control facilities, maintenance capabilities, and munitions.
  The military forces that we sent to participate in Operation Desert 
Storm, Kosovo and Serbia, and Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi 
Freedom, trained for their missions on military ranges here in the 
United States. Perhaps the premier range in the continental United 
States is the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona. This nearly 3 
million acre range comprises portions of the Sonoran desert and the 
Cabeza Prieta wilderness.
  It is estimated that the military spends approximately $77 million a 
year on conservation efforts on the Barry M. Goldwater Range. There are 
nearly 80 employees dedicated to continued protection of the Goldwater 
Range, including archaeologists, biologists, ornithologists and other 
natural resources experts. In my view, the Air Force and the Marine 
Corps are very good stewards of this critical habitat.
  Efforts are ongoing among environmental agencies, the Department of 
Defense, and the various land management agencies to further clarify 
and define the use and management of the Goldwater Range land and the 
airspace above it, While I applaud these efforts, I must affirmatively 
state my strong support for preserving the military use of this land 
and associated airspace. Every service has approached me to convey 
their deep concern that the military maintain its ability to train in 
this one-of-a-kind training range.
  The Barry M. Goldwater Range is one of the last open-space ranges 
available

[[Page 12803]]

to our Armed Forces for realistic, integrated, joint training 
exercises. I am glad the Senate has included language to help ensure 
that this training ``jewel'' remains available to our military for 
training purposes.
  I am very concerned with the trend in the services to curtail live 
fire opportunities in training. As weapon systems become more expensive 
and are manufactured in fewer quantities, we are creating a military 
force that often fires a weapon for the first time in combat. In the 
Navy, aviators used to fire one radar-guided and one heat-seeking 
annually. This was reduced to one missile each during a single tour of 
duty, and has now been further reduced to a single missile each during 
an entire career.
  Luke Air Force Base (AFB) is home to the 56th Fighter Wing and 228 F-
16, single engine, high performance aircraft. Luke AFB, similar to the 
situation at Nellis AFB, that the committee has previously addressed, 
has significant urban development encroachment issues that impact 
training at the base. Armed aircraft are no longer permitted to take 
off to the north of Luke AFB and over the past several years, there 
have been 16 serious aircraft accidents due to catastrophic engine 
failure. It is critical that land use along the southern departure 
corridor (SDC) remain compatible with armed aircraft weapons training, 
to preserve access to the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), to prevent 
land use or encroachments that are incompatible with activities at Luke 
AFB in the SDC and to increase the margin of safety associated with the 
Live Ordnance Departure Are (LODA) southwest of Luke AFB.
  The Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act provided $10 
million to the Air Force for land acquisition at Luke AFB intended to 
prevent encroachment from residential development and to ensure safe 
operations for flight departures and munitions storage.
  The Air Force identified an immediate requirement to purchase 234 
acres around the munitions storage and is in the process of executing 
this purchase to correct the most serious safety deficiencies. 
Furthermore, other parcels have been identified to be purchased to 
protect surrounding communities from impeding upon explosive blast 
distance arcs and the danger of single-seat F-16 Falcon jets with live 
ordnance that overfly land areas in the Southern Departure Corridor 
headed to the BMGR.
  A land compatibility use study is currently ongoing to identify 
potential additional real estate to be purchased in the Southern 
Departure corridor of the airfield overflown by F-16's headed to the 
BMGR. I am pleased the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and 
Management Support included in the chairman's mark, $14.3 million as a 
modification to the Fiscal Year 2003 authorization to facilitate the 
quick acquisition of additional parcels around the munitions area and 
in the Southern Departure corridor once they are identified. The Air 
Force has identified significant encroachment problems hindering safe 
flight operations at Luke AFB and will be able to protect accident 
potential zones from residential development through additional land 
acquisitions. The Senate Armed Services Committee expects the Air Force 
to send the committee the results of the land compatibility use study 
by June 1st, as promised by the Office of the Secretary of the Air 
Force. The project is a modification to a current requirement 
previously considered by this committee, authorized, appropriated, and 
now being executed by the Air Force.
  For too long, we have asked our Armed Forces to do more with less. 
Now it is time to provide them with the funding they need, and to 
ensure that it is spent more wisely. The American people must also be 
assured that their tax dollars are being spent to provide for their 
defense--for the national interest, not for special interests.
  More must be done to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative work and 
military installations. More effort must be made to turn over 
nonmilitary functions to civilian contractors, to reduce the continuing 
bloat of headquarters staffs, and to decentralize the Pentagon's 
labyrinth of bureaucratic fiefdoms.
  The base realignment and closure (BRAC) legislation that Congress 
authorized in 2000 will make available from $4 to $7 billion per year 
by eliminating excess defense infrastructure. There is another $2 
billion per year we can put to better purposes by privatizing or 
consolidating support and maintenance functions, and an additional $5.5 
billion per year by eliminating ``Buy America'' restrictions that 
discourage U.S. competition and raise costs.
  Similar attention is required to wean our political system of its 
highly developed taste for pork. I identified $5.2 billion in items 
that the Appropriations Committee, not the Defense Department, added to 
the budget last year. We should not tolerate the sacrifice of limited 
defense resources to special interests masquerading as improvements to 
our defense. These total savings in the Defense Department amount to 
almost $20 billion per year--$20 billion that must be reallocated 
within the defense budget to higher priority military personnel and 
modernization requirements.
  While I am pleased that amount of member adds in this year's 
legislation has been reduced to around $1 billion, I am still troubled 
by the amount of unrequested spending on this legislation. Year after 
year, funding for the same unrequested, unnecessary projects are 
included in this legislation. For example, the 21st century truck has 
received $17.5 million dollars in this legislation. I wonder how many 
veterans Concurrent Receipts benefits would be funded by the total 
amount we have sunk into the development of the 21st century truck over 
the years? In the wisdom of the Senate, we have provided $35 million 
more than the President requested to buy the JPATS Texan. That is a lot 
of money for an aircraft the Navy does not need or even want. We have 
provided $10 million for the High Temperature Supercon-
ducting Alternating Current HRSAC Synchronous Motor. We have provided 
$60 million for Advanced Extra High Frequency Spare Parts. Also on the 
member adds list is $50 million for the Los Alamos National Lab.
  The fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill adds $60 million for 
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). This project is one of the 
largest additions in the bill. This is in addition to the $609.3 
million that was included in the President's defense budget request.
  With this funding the Air Force will provide a $669.3 million boost 
to defense companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin to keep both companies 
in the rocket-launch business, easing the impact of a steep falloff in 
commercial orders for such services in the commercial-satellite market, 
where orders have all but dried up.
  I am opposed to the ``assured access to space program'' as it is 
currently designed. I believe the Committee should hold hearings to 
review whether to drop one company. I do not believe that two companies 
are providing adequate competition in this critical program. I believe 
that a proper accounting of the EELV program will result in a report 
that more rocket launches and additional weather, communications, 
reconnaissance, eavesdropping and global position satellites would be 
launched if the Department of Defense would simply choose a single 
source for military rocket launches.
  I could continue in this vein, but it is sufficient to say that the 
military needs more money and should spend it more wisely to address 
the serious problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets. I 
have included a copy of the fiscal year 2004 Member Add List which I 
ask unanimous consent be printed in the record.
  I will continue to fight for additional support of increases to the 
Department of Defense budget. I also will continue to examine with a 
keen eye all congressional marks that take money away from needed 
military programs and instead buy political support through favoritism 
in awarding contracts. In addition, I will persist in placing the men 
and women who fight for our flag and country at the top of my priority 
list where they belong; we owe them our gratitude, respect, and 
unwavering support. They keep us free.

[[Page 12804]]

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

     Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act Member Adds
Emerging Threats:
    Collective Protection Chem-bio Protective Shelter......          2.0
    Army R, D, T & E:
        Low-temperature technology.........................          2.0
        Desert terrain analysis............................          4.0
        University and Industry Research Center                      4.0
         Infrastructure Protection Research................
        Materials Technology:
            Advanced Materials Processing..................          3.0
            Multifunctional Composite materials............          3.0
        Missile Technology:
            E-Strike Radar & Powertransmission Technologies          8.0
            Maneuver Air Defense System....................          6.5
            Multiple Component Flight Test.................          2.5
        Advanced Concepts and Simulation: Advanced                   5.0
         Photonics Detection Research......................
        Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology:
            Rapid Prototyping Technologies.................          2.0
            Digital Executive Officer for UAVs.............          2.5
            Advanced Energy and Manufacturing Technology...          3.0
            Advanced Electric Drive........................          3.0
        Weapons and Munitions Technology: Single Capital             3.0
         Tungsten Alloy Penetrators........................
        Countermine Systems:
            Chemical Vapor Sensing Technologies............          2.5
            Small SAR Mine Detection.......................          2.0
            RAPID and Reliable Countermeasure Capabilities.          5.0
        Environmental Quality Technology: Environmental              1.0
         Response and Security Protection System...........
        Military Engineering Technology: Geosciences and             3.0
         atmosphere research...............................
        Warfighter Technology: Embedded Optical                      4.8
         Communication for Objective Force Warrior.........
        Medical Technology: Genomics Research..............          2.0
        Medical Advanced Technology:
            Electronic Garments............................          5.0
            Stable Hemostat Research.......................          5.0
        Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology:
            21st Century Truck.............................         17.5
            Fuel Cell Technology...........................          5.0
            Advanced Collaboration Environments............          2.0
            Fastening and Joining Technologies.............          1.5
            Tactical Vehicle Design Tool...................          2.0
            Advanced Thermal Management Controls...........          1.5
            Advanced Composite Materials for Future Combat           5.5
             System........................................
        Medical Systems Advanced Development:
            Automated Detection for Biodefense.............          5.0
            Topically Applied Vector Vaccines..............          1.0
    Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
        Chemical Detection on UAVs.........................          2.0
        Advanced Fusion Processing.........................          5.0
        Fiber Reinforced Polymer for Ship Structuring......          4.0
        Rapid Prototype Polymeric Aircraft Components......          4.8
        Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research:
            Bioagent Diagnostic Tool.......................          4.0
            Biowarfare Agent Detector......................          4.0
            Low Observable Materials for Stealth                     6.0
             Application...................................
            Formidable Aligned Carbon Thermo Sets (FACTS)..          1.5
            Step-AIRSEDS (tether technology on UAVs and              1.0
             electrodynamic propulsion capabilities).......
        RF Systems Applied Research:
            High Brightness Electron Sources...............          3.0
            Advanced Semiconductor Research................          2.0
        Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research:              6.0
         Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System
         (SEACOOS).........................................
        Undersea Warfare Applied Research: Low Acoustic              2.8
         Signature Motors & propulsors.....................
        Common Picture Advanced Technology:
            Consolidated Undersea Situational Awareness              4.0
             Capabilities..................................
            Shipboard Automated Reconstruction Capability..          6.0
        Joit Warfare Experiments:
        Modeling and Simulation for Homeland Defense                 1.5
         USJFCOM...........................................
        Mine Expeditionary Warfare Advanced Technology               3.5
         Augmented Reality Research........................
        Studies and Analysis Support for Navy Fire                   1.0
         Retardant Fibers..................................
        Management, Technical & International Support                3.5
         Warfare Analysis and Education....................
        Modeling Simulation Support........................          2.0
    Air Force Research, Development, Test & Evaluation:
        Materials:
            Low-cost Components for UAVs...................          4.0
            Fabrication of Microelectronic Components......          6.0
            Closed Cell Foam Fire Retardant Materials......          2.0
            Nanotechnology Research for Aerospace Materials          4.5
        Space Technology:
            Elastic Memory Composites Materials............          4.0
            Rigid Silicone Thin Film Solar Cells...........          3.5
            Parallel Datacon Network for Satellite                   4.0
             Communication.................................
            Microsatellite Duster Technology...............          3.0

[[Page 12805]]

 
        Command Control & Communication: MASINT Warfighter           7.0
         Visualization Tools...............................
        Advanced Materials for Weapons Systems: Materials            7.0
         Affordability Initiative for Aerospace Materials..
        Aerospace Technology Development Demonstration:
            Advanced Aluminum Aerostructure................          6.5
            Life Cycle Extension Assessment for Tactical             2.0
             Aircraft......................................
            Fly-by-light Photonictechnology................          3.0
        Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology:
            Fuel Lubrication and Turbine Engine Technology.          7.0
            Advanced Turbine Gas Engine Generator..........          6.0
        Support System Development: Aging Aircraft.........          3.5
    Defense-Wide, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation:
        Nano and Micro-electro Mechanical Systems..........          5.0
        Neural Engineering Research for Autonomous Control.          4.0
        Govt Industry Cosponsorship of University Research          10.0
         Program...........................................
        University Research Initiatives:
            Photonics Research.............................          3.5
            Advanced Remote Sensing Software...............          5.0
            Bioterrorism Response Analysis.................          2.0
            Carbon Nanotechnology Research.................          6.0
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program:
            Bacteriophage Amplification....................          1.5
            Cell and Tissue Culture and Bacterial Growth             2.0
             Cell Research.................................
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program:
            Acoustic Wave Sensor Technology................          2.0
            Water Quality Sensor...........................          3.5
            Mustard Gas Antidote...........................          3.0
            Bioinformatics.................................          6.5
            Sensor Technologies............................          2.0
            Food Security Technologies.....................          3.0
            Nerve Agent Decontamination Technology.........          1.0
        Counterproliferation Advanced Development                   10.0
         Technologies: Portable radiation search tool......
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program: Advanced            5.0
         Technologies......................................
        SensorNet Cell Phone Infrastructure for Chemical             5.0
         and Biological Defense Pilot Program..............
        General Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations:             9.0
         Multi-state Manufacturing Extensions Partnership
         Identify Requirements for Product Delivery Time...
        DMS Data Warehouse.................................          7.0
        Vehical Fuel Cell Program for JP-8 research........          7.0
        Command Control and Communications Systems All               3.0
         Optical Switching System..........................
        Joint Robotics Program Semi-autonomous Unmanned              3.0
         Ground Vehicle....................................
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program Anthrax and          6.0
         Plague Oral Vaccine Development...................
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program Wide Area            5.7
         Decontaminate and Applicators.....................
        Joint Robotics Program Semi-autonomous small UGV...          4.0
        General Support to C3I See and Avoid UAV                     3.0
         Technologies......................................
        Industrial Preparedness Laser Additive                       3.0
         Manufacturing Technology..........................
        Information Systems Security Program: Collaboration          2.0
         between industry, government, and academia to
         share lessons learned and improve cooperation to
         solve common defense information systems security
         challenges........................................
                                                            ------------
            Sub-total......................................        445.6
                                                            ============
Airland
    Army Aircraft Procurement: OH-58D Kiowa Warrior GAV-19          12.3
     Machine Gun...........................................
    Army Communications Procurement:
        Single Shelter System for Army Common User System           25.0
         (ACUS)............................................
        Multiband Radios...................................          6.2
    Army Training Equipment Procurement: Military Operation          4.8
     on Urbanized Terrain Intrumentation...................
    Navy Aircraft Procurement: JPATS Texan.................         35.0
    Air Force Aircraft Modification: Ku-Band Satellite               6.8
     Communication Intergration Capability.................
    Air Force Special Communications Electronics Projects:           5.0
     Joint Threat Emitter (JTE) System.....................
    Air Force Personal Safety and Rescue Equipment:
        Aircrew Survivable Radio Test Equipment............          7.0
        Fixed Aircraft Standardized Seats for C-130 & KC-            4.8
         135...............................................
    Air Force Base Support Equipment: Expeditionary Medical          3.0
     Support Packages (EMEDS)..............................
    Army Research, Development, Test & Evaluation:
        Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology Close-in              6.0
         Active Protective.................................
        Logistics and Engineer Equipment Advanced
         Development:
            Mobile Parts Hospital Development..............          6.0
            Theater Support Vessel Development.............          7.5
        Weapons and Munition:
            Abrams Tank Track Improvement..................          4.7
            Full Authority Digital Engine Control                    5.0
             Improvement Program...........................
    Air Force Research, Development, Test & Evaluation:
        EW Development Loitering Electronic Warfare Killer           6.0
         (LEWR)............................................
        Armament/Ordinance Development Passive Attack                5.0
         Weapon............................................
        F-15 Eagle C/D AESA Radar upgrade..................         16.5
        Eagle Vision Commercial Imaging Program............          8.0
        Joint Air-to-Surface Missile Extended Range                 17.0
         (JASSME--ER.......................................
        KC-135 Simulator Upgrades (boom)...................          3.4
                                                            ------------
            Sub-total......................................        195.0
                                                            ============
Readiness:
    Navy Research, Development, Test & Evaluation:                   2.0
     Environmental Protection Wireless Sensor-network
     Technology............................................
    Army Operation and Maintenance:........................
        Quadruple Shipping Containers......................          4.0

[[Page 12806]]

 
        Satellite Communication Language Training (SCOLA)            2.0
         USSOCOM...........................................
        Corrosion Prevention and Control Program...........          8.0
    Navy Operation and Maintenance: Condition-based                  6.5
     Maintenance Photonic Sensors for Marine Gas Turbine
     Engines...............................................
    Air Force Operation & Maintenance: Manufacturing                 3.0
     Technical Assistance Production Programs (MTAAP)......
    Army Reserve Operation & Maintenance: Equipment Storage          1.0
     Site Initial Operations...............................
    Army National Guard Operation & Maintenance: Test                1.5
     Support Program.......................................
                                                            ------------
            Sub-total......................................         28.0
                                                            ============
Seapower:
    Army, Other Procurement: Causeway Systems Modular               25.0
     Causeway Systems......................................
    Navy, Aircraft Procurement: H-1 Series Navigational              5.5
     Thermal Imaging System (NTIS).........................
    Navy, Weapons Procurement: ABL Facilities Restoration..         20.0
    Navy Other Procurement:
        Submarine Training Performance Support Systems.....          5.0
        Supply Support Equipment: Serial Number Tracking             8.0
         Systems (SNTS)....................................
    Navy RDT&E:
        Force Protection Advanced Technology:
            Project M......................................          4.7
            High Temperature Superconducting Alternating            10.0
             Current HRSAC synchronous motor...............
            Laser Welding for shipbuilding.................          4.1
        Warfighter Sustainment Advanced Technology:                  6.5
         Automated Container and Cargo Handling System.....
        Shipboard System Component Development: Improved             3.0
         Surface Vessel Torpedo Launcher...................
        Surface Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): ASW Risk               2.5
         Reduction.........................................
        P-3 Modernization Program P3 AIP Phased Capability          12.3
         Upgrade (Integrated tactical picture, Link-16,
         Tactical Common data link, electro-optic geo-
         location..........................................
        SSN-688 and Trident Modernization:
            Submarine antenna technology improvements:               2.0
             Expandable two-way satellite communications
             buoy..........................................
            Tethered communication and sensor platform.....          3.0
        Submarine Tactical Warfare System: Submarine                10.0
         Weapons Control System............................
        Navy Energy Program: Uninterruptible Proton                  3.5
         Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell.......................
        Airborne Reconnaissance Systems: Podded Sensors for          5.1
         Air Reconnaissance................................
                                                            ------------
            Sub-total......................................        130.2
                                                            ============
Strategic
    Air Force Missile Procurement: Evolved Expendable               60.0
     Launch Vehicle (EELV).................................
    Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
        Army Missile Defense Systems Integration (Non-
         Space):
            Advanced Laser Electric Power..................          2.9
            Integrated Composite Missile Systems...........          5.0
            AMD Architecture Analysis (A3) Program.........          3.0
        Army Security and Intelligence: Base Protection and          8.0
         Monitoring System.................................
    Navy Research, Development, Test & Evaluation:
        Space and Electronic Warfare Architecture:
            Advanced Wireless Network NAVCIITI.............          5.0
            Strategic Sub & Weapons System Support (TPPL)            1.5
             Thin plate pure lead batteries for submarines.
    Air Force Research, Development, Test & Evaluation:
        Advanced Spacecraft Technology:
            Satellite Hardening Technologies...............          6.8
            Thin Film Amorphous Silicon Solar Arrays.......          7.0
            Maui Space Surveillance System (MSSS), Hawaii:          10.0
             High Accuracy Network Detection System........
        Space Control Technology:
            Kinetic Energy Antisatellite Program (KEASAT)..          4.0
            Space Control Test Bed.........................          2.5
        Global Hawk Lithium Battery Demonstration..........          3.5
        Applied Research: Air Force Research Lab Materials.          1.0
        Materials, electronics and Computer Technology:              2.0
         Coastal Area Tactical Mapping System..............
    Defense Wide Research, Development, Test & Evaluation:
        Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment          10.0
         Arrow, US/Israel Ballistic Missile Defense........
        Ballistic Missile Defense Sensors E-2 Hawkeye                3.8
         Infrared Search and Track.........................
        Defense Research Sciences Nanophotonic Systems               2.0
         Fabrication.......................................
    Department of Energy National Security Programs:                50.0
     Replacement, Los Alamos National Lab Albuquerque, NM..
                                                            ------------
            Sub-total......................................        184.0
                                                            ============
        Grand Total........................................        982.8
 

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to indicate to my 
distinguished colleague we are prepared to move to third reading.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is my understanding. I don't know of any other 
matters that can be resolved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I don't 
want you to lose the floor, but if I had the floor I would suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  Mr. WARNER. If that is your wish, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to make a brief speech on the bill. 
Are we under a time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mine will not be a lengthy speech.
  Mr. President, just weeks ago, our Armed Forces once again 
demonstrated--demonstrated--the overwhelming might of the United States

[[Page 12807]]

military. Due to the sustained commitment of our country to invest a 
substantial proportion of our national wealth into our national 
defense, our military is faster, more agile, more lethal, better 
equipped, better protected, and better compensated than any other in 
the world.
  Make no doubt about it, the sums that we invest in defense are 
enormous. According to the most recent CIA World Factbook, the world 
spent about three-quarters of a trillion dollars on arms in 1999, the 
latest year for which statistics are available. That same year, the 
United States spent $292 billion on its military that is nearly 40 
percent of all military spending on Earth. Our country spends more on 
defense than all the other 18 members of NATO, plus China, plus Russia, 
and plus the six remaining rogue states combined.
  Yet our defense budget continues to increase. This bill authorizes 
$400 billion for our national defense in the next year.
  In an age when we talk about smart bombs, smart missiles, and smart 
soldiers, any talk of smart budgets has gone out the window.
  It was not that long ago that Secretary Rumsfeld conducted an 
extensive series of top-to-bottom reviews of the Defense Department. I 
supported him in those exercises, and said so, as did many other 
Members of Congress. Those reviews were supposed to eliminate old 
weapons systems, field new ones, and cut the fat at the Pentagon, all 
for the purpose of getting more bang for our defense buck.
  I understand that a huge bureaucracy like the Defense Department 
cannot turn on a dime. But any hopes of containing military spending 
increases while preparing our forces for the 21st century seem to be a 
distant memory. Two years into what was supposed to be a major 
overhaul, the Pentagon's budget has grown by 24 percent, not counting 
any of the billions of dollars that we have spent on the war on 
terrorism and the war in Iraq. Our defense budget seems more the same 
than ever: not more bang for the buck, just more bucks.
  The administration has charted a course now to increase defense 
budgets to $502.7 billion within the next 5 years. At the same time, 
Congress has passed one tax cut of $1.35 trillion, and the Senate is 
headed at flank speed to pass another $350 billion in tax cuts before 
this week is over. Budget deficits are soaring--soaring--out of 
control, while our economy is in the doldrums.
  Instead of saving money by skipping a generation of military weapons, 
we are sending our country even deeper into debt a debt that will have 
to be borne by yet another generation of Americans who will be expected 
to pay for our defense largess.
  Let there be no doubt that we can and must provide first-rate 
fighting capability for our troops. But we can do so without committing 
to defense budgets that are set to spiral ever, ever higher. I know of 
no one who would seriously propose to give our troops second-rate 
equipment or to cut their pay and benefits. The size of our defense 
budget is not a good measure of our support for our troops.
  We have plenty of headroom in which to maintain our overwhelming 
military superiority without bowing to every request by the powerful 
defense industry for more and more and more money for more and more and 
more programs that are all too often over budget and behind schedule. 
Propping up unproven weapons systems through infusions of taxpayer cash 
is the surest means to short change our men and women in uniform.
  There remains much to be done regarding the business practices at the 
Pentagon. Secretary Rumsfeld has made a commitment toward improving 
DOD's financial management and accounting systems, and he appears to be 
making an earnest effort toward that end, but progress is painfully 
slow. Untangling the mess of unreliable accounting entries will take 
years to solve. The bottom line is that the Pentagon still has no way--
none--no way of knowing how much it spends, how much it owns, or what 
its real budgetary needs are. It makes little sense to keep piling more 
money on a Department that does not know how it spent last year's 
funds.
  The DOD proposed a transformation package that was said to be able to 
make the Department more efficient. ``Flexibilities''--and I use that 
word in quotation marks--``flexibilities'' are held up as the cure-all 
to what ails the Pentagon's management. The answer to problems like the 
Pentagon's accounting system clearly is not more flexibility--what is 
needed is more accountability. Accountability within the Department, 
accountability to Congress, which means accountability to the 
Constitution and accountability to the American people.
  It is a good sign that this bill does not include most of the 
``flexibilities'' requested by the Department of Defense. Senator 
Warner and Senator Levin acted wisely in crafting a bill that upholds 
the prerogatives of Congress in this respect.
  Now, we owe a great debt of gratitude to both of these managers, 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin, because they went against the grain 
when they opposed those ``flexibilities'' and when they took them out. 
It is a good sign that this bill does not include most of the 
``flexibilities'' requested by the Department of Defense.
  But we remain on the wrong track when it comes to defense spending. 
Instead of truth in budgeting, Congress cannot even get a straight 
answer about how much it will cost to occupy Iraq. Congress could not 
get a straight answer as to what it would cost to wage the war in Iraq. 
And Congress still cannot get a straight answer about the costs of 
reconstructing Iraq or how long we will be there. Instead of choosing 
priorities for our military and skipping a generation of weapons, 
defense spending is through the roof while our Government is swimming 
in red ink.
  Instead of holding the Pentagon accountable for what it spends, we 
are kept busy fighting off legislative proposals that would reduce 
oversight of the Department of Defense.
  Here again, I compliment Senator Warner and Senator Levin. They put 
the foot down and said no; this far but no further. They took out those 
various and sundry so-called flexibilities that the Department wanted.
  We are living in a time when the greatest threat to our national 
security is the threat of asymmetrical warfare. We learned that on 
September 11, 2001. We are in no danger of being outmatched militarily 
by any nation on Earth, but as the current orange alert status reminds 
us, we remain vulnerable to the very real threat of terrorists. Yet our 
Department of Defense is on a track to be the instrument--get this--to 
be the instrument of a doctrine of preemptive attacks: Ready and 
willing to invade and take over sovereign states that may not even pose 
a direct threat to our security. The name ``Department of Defense'' is 
increasingly a misnomer for a bureaucracy that is poised to undertake 
conquests at the drop of a hat.
  Senator Warner and Senator Levin have done an excellent job of 
managing this bill and of stripping some of the most egregious 
provisions from the President's request.
  I have been on the Armed Services Committee a good many years. I 
first came to the Armed Services Committee when the late Senator 
Richard Russell, who stood at this desk and who sat in this chair, was 
chairman of that great committee. I have been a supporter of our 
national defense. I supported the war in Vietnam until most everyone 
else had left the field. I held up President Nixon's hand when others 
on my side and the then majority leader--God rest his soul--were 
opposed to an amendment that I offered which said in essence that if 
the President sends our boys, our young men--young men for the most 
part at that time--to Vietnam, then the President has a responsibility 
to protect those men to the best of his ability and to enable them to 
return home safely. I lost on the amendment. I received a call from 
Camp David from the late President Nixon complimenting me on that 
amendment.
  I don't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to national defense, 
but I think we are going too far. I commend Senator Warner and I 
commend

[[Page 12808]]

Senator Levin for their hard work, but I believe this bill is still too 
costly and steers our Nation in exactly the wrong course for the 
future. I hope they will not think that I in any way am criticizing 
them or the other members of my Armed Services Committee. I believe it 
is time to just say no to Pentagon excesses. I believe it is time to 
force the Defense Department to work smarter and waste less. I believe 
it is time to demand accountability for our enormous investment in 
defense.
  For these reasons I will vote against this bill.
  We will revisit this subject in the Defense Appropriations Committee 
and the Appropriations Committee as a whole, votes on Defense 
appropriations bill. But we will meet that challenge when it comes. I 
thank both the managers for their patience and for their good work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our distinguished colleague, former 
majority leader of the Senate, has been on the Armed Services Committee 
for 25 years, the quarter of a century Mr. Levin and I have been on 
there.
  The Senator invoked the name of Richard Russell. When I was Secretary 
of the Navy, I used to come up and testify before him. I don't think 
anybody--maybe Senator Stennis--could match his skill. It was 
remarkable. Senator Tower, Senator Goldwater idolized him as we all 
did. But I thank the Senator for his remarks about this Senator. I do 
respectfully disagree with some of his conclusions, but that is the 
nature of the magnificence of the Senate. We have argued and expressed 
to the people of this country our own views.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the chairman will yield a minute, I join in thanking 
Senator Byrd. He has a unique role in this institution and in this 
Nation. He makes a huge contribution in ways sometimes which are 
visible but often in ways which are not visible and are not known. One 
of those ways has been on the Armed Services Committee with so many 
issues. The issues he pointed out where the so-called flexibility was 
being sought but was not incorporated in this bill is in significant 
measure a tribute to his strength in defending the role of the 
legislative branch. It is a reflection of what is not only a big part 
of him but what he has instituted in so many others as a role model in 
this institution for fighting for a branch of government which is truly 
coequal to the executive branch. We have sustained that in this bill.
  While the Senator from West Virginia will be voting no for the 
reasons he gave, the fact that he noted and welcomed the effort we made 
to keep out the excess power and flexibility in the executive branch to 
me is very heart warming indeed. I thank him for it.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both the very distinguished managers 
of the bill. May I say once again, to the distinguished Senator and to 
his comrade, the ranking manager, you have indeed properly upheld the 
role of the Senate and the principle of the separation of powers when 
you insisted that those various requests for ``flexibility'' be 
dropped. I hope you will be able to maintain that position in 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Levin and I, at the 
concurrence of the distinguished leadership on both sides, are prepared 
to proceed to a third reading and final passage.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
passage of S. 1050, the Senate proceed to executive session for the 
consideration of calendar No. 171, the nomination of Consuelo Maria 
Callahan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; further, there 
then be 10 minutes equally divided for debate on the nomination prior 
to the vote on the confirmation of the nomination, without intervening 
action or debate; further, I ask unanimous consent that following that 
vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and 
the Senate then resume legislative session.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would that be the 126th judge we have 
approved during the Bush years?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order.
  Mr. WARNER. I am unable to give an answer to that, I say to my 
distinguished colleague. I am sure in the course of the colloquy 
preceding the vote on that jurist, that could be answered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as we are proceeding, I first want to 
acknowledge my profound gratitude to my colleague and almost lifetime 
friend of 25 years in this Chamber, Senator Levin, for his support and 
that of his staff and indeed to my staff who, under the tutelage of 
Judy Ansley, have done a magnificent job, and for the support of our 
respective leaderships in making this bill pass, particularly the two 
whips, the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, very briefly, let me thank Senator Warner, 
our chairman, for his usual courtesy, his indomitable spirit, and his 
willingness to try to find ways in which we can resolve differences. He 
has done a masterful job. We thought it was going to get done in record 
time. It probably didn't end up quite that way, but not because of any 
failure on the part of our good friend from Virginia.
  I thank Rick DeBobes and all the staff on this side, Judy Ansley and 
all the staff on the Republican side, all the members of our committee 
who contributed so much, as members of the committee, as chairmen and 
as ranking members of the subcommittee. I think we have produced a good 
bill.
  Let me add my thanks to Senator Reid in particular. I want to single 
out Senator Reid, if I may. All the leaders help us, but I must say 
what a unique whip we have in Harry Reid. He really makes things happen 
around here which otherwise simply could not happen.
  I want to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the minority staff 
members of the Committee on Armed Services for their extraordinary work 
on S. 1050, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004. To arrive at final passage of this important legislation requires 
hours and hours of hard work and many personal sacrifices. The 
committee and the Senate are so fortunate to have men and women of 
their expertise and dedication so ably assisting us on this bill. Rick 
DeBobes leads our minority staff of fifteen. Although small in numbers, 
they all make huge contributions to the work of the Committee each and 
every day. As a tribute to their professionalism, I thank Chris Cowart, 
Dan Cox, Madelyn Creedon, Mitch Crosswait, Rick DeBobes, Evelyn Farkas, 
Richard Fieldhouse, Creighton Greene, Jeremy Hekhuis, Maren Leed, Gary 
Leeling, Peter Levine, Arun Seraphin, Christy Still, Mary Louise 
Wagner, and Bridget Whalan.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the 
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, that they be permitted 
before the close of business tonight to file such statements as they 
wish relative to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I express my profound gratitude to the 
members of the committee and, most notably, the Presiding Officer. I 
ask that the bill be read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on passing of 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 12809]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Byrd
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kerry
       
  The bill (S. 1050), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I wish to thank all of our colleagues for their patience. 
I ask unanimous consent that S. 1050, as amended, be printed as passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed 
immediately to the consideration, en bloc, of S. 1047 through S. 1049, 
Calendar Order Nos. 93, 94, 95; that all after the enacting clause of 
those bills be stricken and that the appropriate portion of S. 1050, as 
amended, be inserted in lieu thereof according to the schedule which I 
am sending to the desk; that these bills be advanced to third reading 
and passed, the motions to reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table, 
and that the above actions occur without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________