[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23301-23307]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2658, which the clerk will state by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2658) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by all of the conferees on the part of both Houses.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 24, 2003.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate, on 
behalf of myself and the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, who is 
currently chairing the Indian Affairs Committee, the Defense 
appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004.
  This conference report was approved by the House of Representatives 
by a vote of 407 to 15. It has overwhelming bipartisan support. The 
agreement provides for a total of $368.7 billion for the Department for 
fiscal year 2004. Throughout our conversations with the House over the 
past months, Senator Inouye and I have sought to strike a balanced 
agreement that we believe addresses key requirements for readiness, 
quality of life, and reconstitution of our defense force.
  As we take up this conference report on the floor today, there are 
hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform deployed and serving 
our country at home and abroad. They are performing superbly, and we 
are extremely proud of what they are accomplishing. This agreement is a 
demonstration of our support, the Congress's support, for our men and 
women in uniform.
  It provides a 4.1 percent average pay raise for all military 
personnel. It funds an increase in basic allowance for housing to 
reduce average out-of-pocket expenses from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent 
for our military people. It provides an additional $128 million for the 
continuation of increased rates for imminent-danger pay and family-
separation allowances.
  This agreement honors the commitment we have made to our Armed 
Forces--one we will maintain. It helps ensure they will continue to 
have good leadership, first-rate training, modernized equipment, and 
quality infrastructure. The agreement provides $115.9 billion for 
operation and maintenance, $74.7 billion for procurement, and $65.2 
billion for research and development.
  Defense is a very expensive concept for our country. That is so not 
only because we have a volunteer service but because we are modernizing 
our force for the future. This agreement is the result of a bicameral, 
bipartisan approach. I urge the Senate to adopt this conference report.
  Let me once again thank my co-chairman, Senator Inouye, for his 
support and invaluable counsel on this bill. I would also like to note 
the dedicated work of his chief of staff Charlie Houy, Betsy Schmid, 
and Nicole DiResta.
  I thank my hard-working staff led by Sid Ashworth and including Tom 
Hawkins, Kraig Siracuse, Bob Henke, Lesley Kalan, Jennifer Chartrand, 
Menda

[[Page 23302]]

Fife, Brian Wilson, Mazie Mattson, Nicole Royal, and Alycia Farrell. 
They have helped put together this conference report and worked with us 
through the year to bring us where we are today with the largest 
defense budget in history and the best bill we have ever presented to 
the Senate.
  I yield to my good friend from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, before I proceed, I wish to commend my 
chairman, Mr. Stevens, for bringing this conference report to the 
Senate. In doing so, I commend him for his leadership. I realize 
Members of the Senate may not be aware of this, but because of the 
leadership skills and because of the hard work of the staff, the 
conference committee concluded its work on this important measure in 2 
hours. In 2 hours, we concluded a bill that was filled with controversy 
and issues. At the end, the vote was unanimous.
  The conferees recommend $368.7 billion in mandatory and discretionary 
appropriations for the coming year. It is a huge sum, but it is a sum 
that is absolutely necessary.
  This is nearly half a billion less than recommended by the Senate and 
$3.6 billion less than requested by the President. We have tried our 
best to trim what some would call ``fat.''
  The reduction to the President's request is not an indication that we 
believe Defense is overfunded. Instead, it is because we realize that 
there are so many other underfunded areas of the budget that we had to 
reduce defense to accommodate these needs. This was a tough conference. 
Our chairman did an exceptional job--I emphasize ``exceptional''--
representing the Senate position. This is especially true given the 
reduced allocation.
  This agreement provides the funds necessary for the military. It 
fully funds the pay and allowances for our troops and thereby ensures 
that we have taken care of the crown jewel of our Defense capability--
the men and women who put on the uniform.
  In the interest of time, I will not present all of the details of 
this massive bill. However, I would like to address two important 
subjects that the managers of the House and Senate spent many hours 
discussing.
  First, the conferees agreed to include an amended version of House 
language that would close down the Navy Station at Roosevelt Roads, 
Puerto Rico.
  As we looked into this matter we found that the Navy no longer needed 
or wanted the base and it could save $300 million annually by closing 
it. As such, we agreed to close the base. However, the conference 
agreement ensures that the base will be closed in accordance with 
existing base closure laws. We did not agree to a new procedure which 
would have given the Navy all the benefits of the closure and the local 
population none of the safeguards included in the BRAC legislation.
  Second, the Senate bill include language terminating the 
controversial Terrorism Information Awareness program, TIA. The 
conferees have agreed to terminate the program and close the Office of 
Information Awareness in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 
DARPA.
  Language has been included that precludes any successor version of 
this program to be reinstated or developed by any Federal agency. 
However, I must inform my colleagues that in our review, we learned 
that there are some classified elements that are related to this 
program. These have all the safeguards of programs under the 
jurisdiction of the National Foreign Intelligence Program to protect 
civil liberties of U.S. citizens. These are very important to the 
ongoing war on terrorism overseas. The conferees have agreed to allow 
this effort to continue.
  In addition, there were some worthwhile programs in the Office of 
Information Awareness unrelated to the TIA program. The Statement of 
the managers lists these programs and funds their continuation. This is 
a good compromise. It kills TIA and on-line betting, and other 
questionable DARPA programs, but ensures that beneficial parts of 
information awareness can continue. Finally, I want to express my 
strong support for this measure.
  My colleagues should know this was a fully bipartisan accord. There 
are no parts of this bill that I oppose. While it is a compromise, it 
is a very good bill.
  The chairman and his staff, led by Sid Ashworth, have done great 
work. I thank all the staff who worked so hard on this: Mazie Matson, 
Nicole Royal, Jennifer Chartrand, Kraig Siracuse, Tom Hawkins, Bob 
Henke, Lesley Kalan, Menda Fife and Brian Wilson of the majority, and 
Nicole Diresta, Betsy Schmid and Charlie Houy of the minority staff.
  This is a good bill, and I urge all my colleages to support it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today we are considering the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2658, the Department of Defense appropriations 
bill by FY 2004.
  I commend the distinguished chairman and the ranking member on their 
successfully reporting and conferencing this bill.
  The pending bill provides $368.7 billion in total budget authority 
and $389.2 billion in total outlays for fiscal year 2004. The Senate 
bill is $3.5 billion in BA and $4.6 billion outlays below the 
President's budget request. These funds were shifted to other non-
defense spending bills consistent with an agreement with the 
administration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     H.R. 2658, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 2004: SPENDING COMPARISONS:
                            CONFERENCE REPORT
                    [Fiscal Year 2004, in $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        General
                                        purpose    Mandatory     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
  Budget Authority..................    368,183         528     368,711
  Outlays...........................    388,642         528     389,170
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget Authority..................    368,572         528     369,100
  Outlays...........................    389,306         528     389,834
2003 level:
  Budget Authority..................    426,621         393     427,014
  Outlays...........................    393,835         393     394,228
President's request:
  Budget Authority..................    371,699         528     372,227
  Outlays...........................    393,222         528     393,750
House-passed bill:
  Budget Authority..................    368,662         528     369,190
  Outlays...........................    388,836         528     389,364
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget Authority..................    368,637         528     369,165
  Outlays...........................    389,371         528     389,899
 
                     CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO--
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget Authority..................       (389)  ..........       (389)
  Outlays...........................       (664)  ..........       (664)
2003 level:
  Budget Authority..................    (58,438)        135     (58,303)
  Outlays...........................     (5,193)        135      (5,058)
President's request:
  Budget Authority..................     (3,516)  ..........     (3,516)
  Outlays...........................     (4,580)  ..........     (4,580)
House-passed bill:
  Budget Authority..................       (479)  ..........       (479)
  Outlays...........................       (194)  ..........       (194)
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget Authority..................       (454)  ..........       (454)
  Outlays...........................       (729)  ..........       (729)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, 9/24/2003.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, it is interesting to note that Senator 
Nickles says this bill complies completely with the requirements of the 
Budget Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we only have notification of one person 
who wishes to speak. If that is the case, I believe we will have a vote 
on this conference report sometime around noon. It is my hope that we 
will have it before lunch if possible. So I put the Senate on notice 
that we will be voting around noon.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 23303]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I rise to address the conference 
report for fiscal year 2004, the Department of Defense appropriations 
bill. As has become a standard practice for appropriations matters, 
this legislation is loaded with porkbarrel spending catered to the 
parochial needs of the Members and special interests and not to the 
interests of the men and women in the military.
  I feel it is important that I come to the floor of the Senate to draw 
attention to this legislation, especially at a time when American 
troops are stretched across the globe, including major commitments in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. I notice in this morning's paper it is very 
likely that more National Guardsmen and Reserve Forces will have to be 
called up. We should be devoting critical defense dollars to urgent 
defense priorities. Apparently, that philosophy is not shared by all.
  In this year's version of the legislation, there is over $6.5 billion 
in Member add-ons. I must say I congratulate the committee because last 
year it was $8.1 billion. So we have experienced a $1.6 billion 
reduction. I want to point out that these add-ons were not in the 
President's budget, not on the unfunded priority list, and not on the 
Pentagon's long-range defense budget.
  Nowhere--nowhere--was there a priority for any of these items that I 
will be talking about and listing. One of the remarkable things about 
it is our disabled veterans are now trying to receive what we call 
concurrent receipt-- in other words, to be treated, when they are 
disabled, the same way that nonmilitary members of the Federal 
Government are treated. As it is now, they are prohibited against 
receiving both retirement and disability pay, as are other men and 
women who work for our Federal Government. Full concurrent receipt 
would cost the Government $3.5 billion annually, which is approximately 
half the total pork that is in this bill.
  So I am announcing to my colleagues today I was trying to work out 
some way of ameliorating the cost of this concurrent receipt. When we 
spend money like this--when we will spend $5.9 billion more by leasing 
Boeing tankers rather than buying them, it seems to me that taking care 
of the men and women who have served with honor and distinction in the 
military deserve full concurrent receipt.
  Once again, we are considering the Defense appropriations conference 
report prior to the consideration of the Defense authorization 
conference report. I remind my colleagues again of the role of the 
Appropriations Committee. The responsibility of the authorizers and the 
appropriators are expected to be distinct. The role of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee is to establish policy and funding levels and 
oversee the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the 
Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies 
provided by authorization bills. The appropriators' function and role 
today, however, is expanded dramatically, and they now engage in 
significant policy decisionmaking and micromanagement, usurping the 
role of the authorizing committees.
  I recognize the failure of authorizing committees to pass authorizing 
legislation contributes to this broken system and that often, as is 
probably the case now, appropriators have no choice but to fund 
unauthorized programs and take it upon themselves to make policy 
determinations. That is why, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, I 
have tried to reauthorize every program and bureaucracy that falls 
under the responsibilities of the Commerce Committee. I think I have 
done this with some success. But we still find, for example, in the 
Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill--which has not been 
considered yet on the floor--significant policy changes, laws written--
it is rather remarkable. Entire departments of Government are dissolved 
without debate--by the way, with the strong objections of the executive 
branch.
  So one of the reasons the authorization bills are held up is because 
Members know that authorization measures don't really have to pass, and 
we know that the appropriations vehicles are always available to carry 
legislative riders. I have testified before the Rules Committee on the 
need for change, and I think at some point in time we will be faced 
with a choice: We either do away with the Appropriations Committee or 
with the authorizing committees.
  The authorizing committees, to some degree, have become rather 
engaging and sometimes interesting debating groups when the real 
changes and policy decisions are made by the appropriators.
  I also want to point out, last week I saw one of the most remarkable 
things I have ever seen in all the years I have been here. The energy 
and water appropriations bill was voted on and passed last Tuesday 
night. We voted. It was a recorded vote. Everybody went home. The next 
morning--and I mention this because the Senator from Nevada is on the 
floor--the next morning the Senator from Nevada stood and asked 
unanimous consent that $65 million be added for water projects for the 
Corps of Engineers.
  I understand there was some technical reason for it and there was 
some technical change that was made, but I have to tell you, Mr. 
President, I have never, in all the years I have been here, seen a bill 
passed and voted on and the next day, many hours after the bill was 
passed, a Member come to the floor and ask unanimous consent that 
millions of dollars be added to an appropriations bill. If that is the 
way we are going to do business around here, then, I say to my friends, 
there is no fiscal discipline.
  On September 17, the Comptroller General of the United States David 
Walker delivered a speech at the National Press Club. According to the 
head of the General Accounting Office, ``We must begin to come to grips 
with the daunting fiscal realities that threaten our Nation's, 
children's and grandchildren's future.''
  In his speech, Mr. Walker cited CBO estimates at that time--they have 
since gone up $401 billion and $480 billion for the unified budget 
deficits for the fiscal years 2003 and 2004 respectively. If we take 
out the Social Security surpluses, these numbers jump to $562 billion 
and $644 billion respectively. More importantly, the costs of the $87 
billion war supplemental are not even factored into these numbers.
  In addition to this money, there are a number of financial 
liabilities the Federal Government has to pay out but are not counted 
against the budget, such as Medicare trust funds and health care 
benefit costs provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This 
leads Mr. Walker to state:

       We are starting off in a financial hole we don't really 
     have a very good picture of how deep it is.

  His suggestion:

       It is time to admit that we are in a fiscal hole and ``stop 
     digging.''

  I would like us to take seriously the advice of the top Government 
watchdog and quit digging. It seems to me if everybody in this country 
is watching reality television these days, I say to my good friends 
watching the Senate proceedings on C-SPAN, you are not watching reality 
television here. What you are watching is unreal. You are watching 
Members who don't care about the budget deficit we are running. In the 
face of huge deficits, we can still find enough money to blow on some 
of the items I will describe today.
  Mr. President, I am tired of fighting these bills. I don't enjoy 
arousing the animosity of my friends on both sides of the aisle. I 
don't pretend to judge these projects. Many of them are worthwhile. 
Many of them are worthy causes. The hundreds of millions of dollars 
that are spent out of the Defense appropriations bill for breast cancer 
research is a worthy cause. My question remains, What in the world is 
it doing in a Defense appropriations bill when we have men and women 
who are still on food stamps and living in quarters that were built in 
World War II?
  I am dismayed by the lack of attention we focus on these bills. Aside 
from scouring the bills to see if their projects are included, not much 
time is devoted to considering the conference report.
  This legislation passed the House of Representatives without a copy 
of the

[[Page 23304]]

bill text or explanatory report being available to all who want to look 
at it. In fact, a member of my staff called the House committee while 
they were voting on final passage of this conference report to inquire 
if the committee had the report available. The House appropriations 
staffer said they had a copy but were only allowing one staff member at 
a time to look at it. Staff was not allowed to make copies or remove 
the bill from the appropriator's office.
  It took the House of Representatives 7 minutes to pass a bill that 
appropriates $368 billion for projects that appear on the Defense 
appropriations add-on list of items requested by Senators and were not 
included in the President's budget request. They did not appear on the 
Joint Chiefs unfunded priority list and were not authorized in the 
Defense authorization bill.
  This criteria has been useful in identifying programs of questionable 
merit and determining the relative priority of projects that are 
requested by Members, often at the expense of the readiness of our 
Armed Forces.
  The fact remains that in the years I have created these lists, no 
offsets have been provided for any project. The Joint Chiefs provided a 
list of critical requirements above what was provided for in the 
President's budget request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for 
the year 2004. We should provide additional funding for defense for 
items and programs which the Joint Chiefs need, not for programs that 
are important because of the State they come from or because of the 
seniority of the Member of Congress.
  My point is, we cannot do business as usual. There is an ever-growing 
proportion of our Federal budget that is in these appropriations. While 
the cost of each program or project may not seem like a good deal of 
money, collectively, earmarks, such as the ones in this legislation, 
significantly burden American taxpayers.
  Let me point out some of the more egregious examples in this 
legislation:
  $135 million for advanced procurement of the LPD-17;
  $8.1 million for the 21st century truck. Mr. President, $8.1 million 
for the 21st century truck, not requested by the Department of Defense, 
not on any list the Joint Chiefs of Staff might feel is important, but 
the 21st century truck finds its way into the Defense appropriations 
bill each year;
  $4.3 million for the Army's smart truck. One would think after all 
these years on the pork list if this truck was so smart, it would find 
a way to fund itself by now;
  $1.0 million for the Young Patriots Program. It is a wonderful name. 
It is a program by the National Flag Foundation to expand the Young 
Patriots Program to include a video which promotes the significance of 
national patriotic holidays. I love our patriotic holidays, but $1 
million to watch a video on national patriotic holidays?
  One of my favorites that has come up--it is interesting, once they 
are in, they continue year after year--$1.0 million for Shakespeare in 
American Military Communities. Shakespeare in American Military 
Communities has found its way in again. I guess it all is a matter of 
priorities.
  $1.8 million for the canola fuel cell initiative. I think canola is 
cooking oil. I am not sure. But $1.8 million for the canola fuel cell 
initiative not requested by the President or the Department of Defense;
  $1 million for Lewis and Clark bicentennial activities. If this was 
in the Interior appropriations bill, I would support celebrating the 
Lewis and Clark bicentennial activities. I think it was a monumental 
series of events in American history, but we are taking it out of 
defense.
  $7.5 million for the Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies 
Programs. I can hardly wait to see the commercials that come from this 
money.
  $3 million for U.S.-made bayonets. Nobody else has made bayonets. 
Once again, Buy America provisions have found their way into the bill.
  $6.5 million for the procurement of lightweight armor for CH-46. The 
conferees mention use of Kevlar, a DuPont product, making this another 
Buy America provision.
  I congratulate again the Senator from Alaska for a large number of 
appropriations that are earmarked for the State of Alaska ranging from 
$8 million and up to $26 million for railroad track alignment at Air 
Force-managed ranges to $8.9 million for hybrid electric vehicle 
testing only at the cold region testing facility. $9 million for the 
Fort Wainwright Utilidor. I apologize I keep displaying my ignorance on 
some of these items. I do not know what a utilidor is. Kentucky, they 
did OK. Then there is $1.2 million for the Fort Knox University of 
Mounted Warfare Campus Area Network Infrastructure. One of my favorites 
that was in the bill last year, a half million dollars for a hangar at 
Griffis Air Force Base in New York. The only problem with that is that 
Griffis Air Force Base has been closed for many years. It no longer 
belongs to the military or the Federal Government.
  Of course, language preventing that has been in for several years, 
language which clearly falls under the purview of the authorizing 
committee, preventing the disestablishment of the 53rd Weather 
Reconnaissance Squadron of the Air Force Reserve stationed in 
Mississippi. That is clearly a policy decision and has nothing to do 
with appropriations.
  Then there is $45.7 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System; 
$23 million for the Hawaii Federal health care network, $2.5 for the 
Alaska Federal health care network. If I were from Alaska, I would be a 
little upset at that disparity: $23 million for the Hawaii Federal 
health care network, and only $2.5 million for the Alaska Federal 
health care network.
  Our old friend, the brown tree snake, is back, another $1 million for 
the brown tree snake, the best funded snakes in the United States and 
certainly in the world; $1.4 million for the minimally invasive surgery 
program for Ohio; $4.5 million, Pacific Island health care network; $3 
million for complementary and alternative medicine.
  Again, I want to point out there are a number of excellent programs. 
The legislation provides a pay raise to our soldiers, sailors, and 
airmen, as well as a targeted raise for midcareer officers and selected 
noncommissioned officers. The legislation also provides $128 million 
for the continuation of increased rates for imminent danger pay and 
family separation allowances. Of course, my question is: Why is that 
not permanent?
  I have a serious concern that extended deployments will lead to 
retention problems if we do not work to ensure that we take care of our 
soldiers and sailors. By providing our servicemembers with adequate 
benefits, we help ensure that our military will not face retention 
problems.
  In this morning's Washington Post there is a quote from an unnamed 
National Guardsman who said that with these recent strains, the Guard 
in particular, and Reserves, are going to have significant 
difficulties. 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 
powerplants, our borders and 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; 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 look forward to the day when I do not have to criticize the 
unrequested spending in appropriations bills. Yesterday, the House and 
Senate passed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. I 
was encouraged to see that there was not a great deal of unnecessary 
spending in that legislation. We still have a number of appropriations 
bills and conference reports left to consider in this session. I can 
only hope that the members of the Appropriations Committee will follow 
the

[[Page 23305]]

lead of the Homeland Security appropriators in the future. I think we 
are entering a very serious fiscal crisis in the United States, 
including the fact that the Social Security situation is going to be 
compounded by the retirement of the baby boomers, the Medicare trust 
fund is going to be in a very serious situation, and we are rapidly 
approaching the kind of deficits that were only equaled in the early 
Reagan years and may even exceed them.
  I know of no economist who does not believe that sooner or later the 
deficit will increase interest rates and cause inflation. There are a 
broad range of economists who have many different views on many 
different aspects of economics. I know of none who believe that over 
time burgeoning deficits are bad for America and the people who reside 
in our country.
  Not too long ago, someone said the difference between California and 
Washington is that in California they cannot print their own money. I 
think there is a certain truth to that. What bothers me is that we are 
not making strong efforts to reduce unnecessary spending at this very 
difficult time.
  I thank the Senator from Alaska, our distinguished chairman, as we 
enter a very difficult time, for trying to get approval of the request 
of the President of the United States. I commend him for his heroic 
effort on behalf of the much needed and very critical amounts of money, 
both in terms of defense and in reconstruction funding.
  I just came from a hearing in the Armed Services Committee where 
Ambassador Bremer stated unequivocally, as did General Abizaid, that 
this money, both for the military and reconstruction, is not only vital 
but very time sensitive. Both Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid 
said the war is on for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We 
need to restore the infrastructure. We need to provide for their 
security. Otherwise, we will face, in the words of Ambassador Bremer, 
``the most severe crisis.''
  I thank the Senator from Alaska, our distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, for the heroic effort he is making to get 
that urgent request from the President of the United States to take 
care of our men and women in the military and pursue to success the 
very vital mission and challenges we face in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from Arizona for 
his comments about the supplemental. This bill before us now is what we 
call the peace budget for defense. It does not contain any of the 
monies for Iraq or for Afghanistan. That money is in the separate 
supplemental emergency appropriations bill on which we are working. 
That was handled in that manner because of the request that we have a 
clear delineation of the monies to be spent for Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I will comment on two things, but first I ask unanimous consent that 
the vote on the pending conference report occur at 12:10 today, and 
that Senators be so notified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object. There has been a problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was just notified by staff that we 
received a call and we could have the vote at 1:15.
  Mr. STEVENS. I did not hear the Senator. If there is an objection to 
the time agreement, I will continue with my comments.
  The Senator from Arizona did mention the money in this bill for the 
Alaska railroad. The Alaska railroad goes through two military 
reservations, and this money is to straighten out that railroad as it 
goes through those two military reservations. We have done this for a 
period of years now. We are straightening it out so it does not provide 
a hazard to the people who live on base. It moves the sound as far as 
we can from the military operations. It is much more safe as it is 
straightened out and does not have a circuitous route through those two 
military bases.
  In addition, for the Senator's information, a utilidor is a facility 
that we put into the ground in Alaska to carry our utilities. In 
effect, it is an underground tunnel so that the utilities can all be 
maintained underground during the wintertime. It contains water, sewer, 
electric, all cables, and they are capable of maintenance through the 
winter.
  As a matter of fact, I would welcome the District of Columbia to 
follow our path and put the utilities underground because every time 
there is a storm, all the electric lines, power lines, and cable lines 
come down because they are not buried. We do not just bury them under 
the ground. We bury a long, continuous container that is capable of 
being walked through so we can maintain all of the utilities on our 
military bases. They, at times, need modernization. The money in this 
bill is for modernization.
  I know my friend wants to comment. I have been asked--we do expect a 
vote. We will try to get a vote on the pending bill. We are having a 
communications problem. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, we 
want to have a vote on this most important bill as early as possible. 
It appears now we are not going to be able to do that until a later 
time today because we have a number of people who are going to the 
White House at 2:20. President Bush always meets on time.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, I am informed if I make a 
request for a vote on this conference report at 1:15, that will be 
acceptable. Is that not correct?
  Mr. REID. We would agree to that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the conference report occur at 1:20, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, that would be fine if the 
Senator would modify his request--that we stay on this until 1:15?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is my understanding. We will stay on this bill 
until 1:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the 
greatest admiration and respect--he and I came to Washington together 
in 1982 as new Members of Congress. Of course, at that time I was aware 
of his gallant deeds for our country as a member of the U.S. Navy.
  However, the Senator has tried to indicate that there was something 
wrong with how the energy and water appropriations bill was handled, 
especially the raising of the 302(b) allocations. That is done all the 
time. We worked very hard with the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, this Senator, the chairman of the full committee, and the 
ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee to come up with 
some way to take care of the weather-related problems that had 
occurred, dealing with the Corps of Engineers.
  What we did was, we had an amendment ready to offer, to have an 
emergency appropriation, in effect, for the $125 million that was 
caused by weather-related activities. I have no doubt that would have 
been agreed to. However, after meeting with the Senators about whom I 
spoke, they were able to find money in other appropriations bills that 
was not used. Rather than have the emergency designation, we simply 
raised the 302(b) allocation. The $65 million was just that.
  So anyone who would in any way infer that there was anything wrong 
with that simply is wrong. The chairman of the full committee is in the 
Chamber, and he would acknowledge that, as would the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, as would Senator Conrad.
  Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber, please?

[[Page 23306]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. REID. One reason I asked you to bring the Senate to order was 
there were two conversations going on. They were both interesting. It 
was hard for me to listen to both of those and also try to get my 
thoughts together. I don't know which of the two was the more 
interesting but they were both pretty good.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, the distinguished senior Senator 
from Arizona said the country was in a hole and we should stop digging. 
I respectfully agree with him. But the hole isn't anything the Energy 
and Water Development Subcommittee created. We are struggling to take 
care of the defense needs of this country. You know the Energy and 
Water Development Subcommittee handles the defense nuclear programs of 
this country, in addition to many other programs--university programs 
and other things that go on.
  The situation is simply that the hole the Senator talks about was 
created by the fact that we are spending far more money than we are 
taking in. It is no secret, when President Bush took office, there was 
a surplus of about $7 trillion over 10 years. That is gone. This year's 
deficit will be around $700 billion, when you take out the Social 
Security Program and don't have that mask the deficit. So the hole is 
there, and I acknowledge that. The Senator is right. I am simply saying 
don't pick on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee; we had 
nothing to do with the hole. The hole was dug by others, not by us.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to 
                       be printed in the Record.)

  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, today I commend the Senate for 
addressing and correcting an unfortunate hardship placed on Native 
American veterans.
  For the past decade, VA's Native American Housing Loan Program has 
provided direct loans to eligible Native American veterans who wish to 
purchase, construct, or improve a home on trust lands--lands held by 
the federal government for the benefit of Native Americans. A problem 
arose this year due to a provision included in the fiscal year 2003 
Omnibus Appropriations bill, which set a spending cap for the program 
at $5 million. That figure was deemed reasonable by the administration 
and appropriators because it was taken from previous years' spending 
amounts.
  However, due to historically low interest rates over the past year, 
VA and borrowers have worked together to refinance many loans, loans 
that were counted toward the $5 million cap. The combined costs of 
refinanced loans and new loans led VA to exceed the newly-implemented 
cap. Consequently, last June, VA was forced to cease providing further 
funds for the year. This left many Native American veterans in despair 
as their housing projects sat awaiting completion. With the cessation 
of the program, veterans have been unable to complete construction on 
homes that were already in progress, refinance existing loans, or pay 
contractors.
  The Native American Housing Loan Program originally began as a 5-year 
pilot project in 1993. Congress, recognizing its value, has re-
authorized it twice and extended it through 2005. A recent GAO report 
noted a primary motivating force behind the bill was the fact that the 
home ownership rate among Native Americans is one of the lowest in the 
United States, finding that ``while over 67 percent of Americans own 
their homes, fewer than 33 percent of Native Americans own homes.''
  In the report accompanying a reauthorization of the program in 1998, 
the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs stated that direct loans to 
these Native American veterans are necessary since--even with 
traditional VA guarantees--commercial lenders will not make mortgage 
loans to finance the purchase or construction of housing on Native 
American lands. They decline to do so because Federal law would 
prohibit a lender, in the event of default, from taking possession of 
native trust lands. Recent estimates indicate there are approximately 
190,000 Native American military veterans. Many expert demographers 
recognize that, historically, Native Americans have the highest record 
of service per capita when compared to other ethnic groups. Congress 
realized that they should be allowed to receive the benefits they have 
earned through their service--such as VA home loans--no matter where 
they choose to live in the United States.
  The Native American Housing Loan Program alleviates some of the 
problems faced by Native American veterans in a couple of ways. First, 
the bill lowers barriers for these heroic veterans by encouraging them 
to participate in the privileges and benefits of home ownership in 
America. Secondly, the program provides economic incentives to develop 
thriving and long-lasting Native American communities. According to 
VA's Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 2002, VA closed 62 loans 
during 2002 for a total of 289 loans made under the program from its 
inception through September 30, 2002.
  Mr. President, as ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
I applaud the Congress for working to alleviate this problem in a 
timely manner. I am proud to support a provision in the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill that will eliminate the spending cap 
completely. The legislation ensures that stalled housing projects can 
be continued without stifling future home ownership opportunities for 
Native American veterans. I am glad that we have been able to work in a 
bipartisan manner and I know the Native American veteran community is 
thankful of our efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are 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 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 364 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     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
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     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--5

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Kerry
     Lieberman

[[Page 23307]]


  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________