[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12038-12049]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

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

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

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William 
Buhrow, a legislative fellow in the office of Senator George Allen, be 
granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1050.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Hamm, 
of the staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations, be granted the 
privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the fiscal 
year 2004 defense authorization.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff 
members of the Committee on Armed Services, majority and minority, 
appearing on the list I send to the desk be granted the privilege of 
the floor during consideration of S. 1050.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The list is as follows:

       Judith A. Ansley; Richard D. DeBobes; Charles W. Alsup; 
     Kenneth Barbee; Michael N. Berger; June M. Borawski; Leah C. 
     Brewer; Jennifer D. Cave; L. David Cherington; Christine E. 
     Cowart; Daniel J. Cox, Jr.; Madelyn R. Creedon; Kenneth M. 
     Crosswait; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson; Gabriella Eisen; Evelyn 
     N. Farkas.
       Richard W. Fieldhouse; Andrew W. Florell; Brian R. Green; 
     Creighton Greene; William C. Greenwalt; Carolyn M. Hanna; 
     Mary Alice A. Hayward; Jeremy L. Hekhuis; Ambrose R. Hock; 
     Gary J. Howard; R. Andrew Kent; Jennifer Key; Gregory T. 
     Kiley; Maren R. Leed; Gerald J. Leeling; Peter K. Levine.
       Patricia L. Lewis; Thomas L. MacKenzie; Sara R. Mareno; Ann 
     M. Mittermeyer; Lucian L. Niemeyer; Cindy Pearson; Paula J. 
     Philbin; Lynn F. Rusten; Arun A. Seraphin; Joseph T. Sixeas; 
     Christina D. Still; Scott W. Stucky; Mary Louise Wagner; 
     Richard F. Walsh; Nicholas W. West; Bridget M. Whalan; 
     Pendred K. Wilson.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
McCain's legislative fellow, Navy Commander Edward Cowan, be granted 
privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1050.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan on the floor. I advise my good friend and partner on this 
venture that I will proceed for some 10 minutes and then yield the 
floor, on the assumption that he will proceed, and then I will resume 
with the remainder of my statement.
  On behalf of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased and honored 
to bring the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 to 
the Senate for consideration. The bill was reported out of the 
committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. I may say, as a tribute 
to excellent staff work and excellent work by the chairman and ranking 
members of the subcommittees and, indeed, by the full cooperation of my 
distinguished colleague, the ranking member, we achieved this markup in 
what is regarded to be record time. I didn't keep the time, but I 
certainly recognize that we did it in a very brief period; basically 
over a 2-day period, where many times heretofore it has been 3, 4, and 
5 days for markup.
  I think the committee, both members and staff, were aware of the 
tremendous support across this Nation by the people for the men and 
women of the Armed Forces today and a recognition of the 
responsibilities of the Congress of the United States--in this case the 
Senate--to provide for those men and women of the Armed Forces.
  Having said that, I believe that contributed to the swift action we 
had on our bill in committee markup, and I anticipate--I say this 
respectfully--in the Chamber a number of amendments will come forth, 
but I believe we will be able to complete this bill in a relatively 
short period of time, owing again to the support in the Chamber for the 
men and women of the Armed Forces and the desire to have a strong bill 
in place to go to conference with the House.
  As we stand here beginning the debate on this bill today, over 
300,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, Active Guard and 
Reserve, and countless civilians who support them, are serving bravely 
in not just the Persian Gulf region but Afghanistan.
  It is remarkable. I want to mention the civilians. I recently said to 
the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when we talked about the total 
force concept, I remembered so well that that concept was originated 
when Melvin Laird was Secretary of Defense and I was privileged to 
serve as the Secretary of the Navy during the Vietnam war. I said to 
Mr. Rumsfeld recently that we really ought to broaden the term ``total 
force'' now to incorporate the many civilians who quite often are in 
positions of personal risk and other situations not unlike those of the 
men and women of the Armed Forces, right up on the point of the spear 
of military action.
  In my judgment, they are just as much a part of the total force as 
the uniformed contingent, and I think the uniformed contingent would 
want me to state that. This total force is there to secure peace and 
freedom for the people, specifically of Afghanistan and Iraq. Other men 
and women in the Armed Forces, as we all fully recognize, are serving 
in outposts and at sea across this world. How proud we are of our 
forces who are deployed throughout the world. Some of those personnel 
are assuming personal risks as great as

[[Page 12039]]

those who have been fighting in Afghanistan and in the Persian Gulf. 
All Americans are proud of the Armed Forces of the United States.
  We also want to pay recognition to the various nations that have 
joined us in these military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and 
around the world and that stand guard with us to enforce the principles 
of freedom throughout this globe.
  We are engaged in an international war on terrorism. The principal 
battlefronts are Afghanistan and Iraq, but indeed there is no less of a 
challenge in many other parts of the world away. Therefore, we are very 
thankful to all those who make possible this total force in the cause 
of not only combating terrorism but other military objectives we have 
to fulfill in the cause of freedom throughout the world.
  I will pause now a moment to reflect on perhaps the most serious 
consequence of military life. I went back in history and gathered a few 
statistics. We will, throughout the course of this deliberation in the 
Senate, as we go about our daily responsibilities, have in mind those 
who paid the ultimate sacrifice with their loss of life and those who 
were wounded in the course of serving the cause of freedom in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the world. I went back in 
history, and I would like to recite the following figures:
  The total casualties in the Iraq campaign thus far have been 
approximately 612, of whom 117 were killed in direct combat and 495 
were wounded. A total of 151 have lost their lives as part of operation 
Iraqi Freedom. In Afghanistan: Total casualties, 252, of whom 31 lost 
their lives and 221 suffered wounds. I think it is important to bear 
those casualty figures in mind as we think with reference to previous 
engagements. Vietnam: 211,000 casualties, 58,000 killed, 153,000 
wounded. Korea: 139,000 total casualties, 36,000 killed, 103,000 
wounded. World War II: 1,077,000 casualties, 405,000 killed, 671,000 
wounded. We still have missing. I know the Korean conflict alone has 
some 8,000 American individuals who remain unaccounted for.
  Whatever we do, we all join in mourning their loss and resolve to 
forever remember their service. We care for their families as best we 
can. We are blessed truly as a nation to have this new generation of 
great Americans, those who have recently suffered as casualties in the 
Afghanistan and Iraq operations, and indeed many others throughout the 
world in other actions. This new generation of great Americans is so 
committed to the traditions, mindful of the sacrifices of their 
forebears, and they have performed their services in exemplary fashion 
in keeping with the tradition of the military men and women who have 
gone before them--indeed, their values and their ideals and likewise 
the suffering of the families.
  I will bet all of us here in the last few days have attended 
graduations and spoken at them. I have been privileged to do them 
myself. Each time I look at these young graduates, I say the casualties 
in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere around the world are young men 
and young women of the same age basically--from the years 18 through 
24. Some are older, but basically those generations graduating today, 
looking upon the joys of their college or university careers, should 
pause for a moment to reflect on those who are elsewhere in the world 
enabling them to achieve their goals and their respective graduations.
  The stunning and very swift military success we had in Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, achieving the military goals laid out in the plan 
devised by the Commander, U.S. Central Command, General Tommy Franks 
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the joint staffs of 
the coalition nations, and in approval with that of the President and 
the Secretary of Defense primarily, and I expect to some extent the 
Secretary of State--those achievements are a testament to the 
dedication and professionalism of the men and women in the Armed 
Forces. The precision and the skill with which recent operations have 
been conducted are a tribute not only to their bravery and commitment, 
and indeed their sacrifice, but also to the industrial base of America, 
which is providing the weaponry, providing the means by which they pass 
through each day, and the requirements for human existence and human 
protection. So we pay tribute to that industrial base today, for the 
American technology and ingenuity, which has made a definite 
contribution to the welfare and the survival of the men and women in 
the Armed Forces.
  Those statistics I gave about earlier military engagements--obviously 
high in contrast to the current losses--tell a story of how high-tech 
weaponry can save lives--not just the smart bombs and smart ordnance 
but indeed the very uniforms and protection devices the Armed Forces 
wear today. We had, in the course of our update briefings, a visit by 
several soldiers who came in and showed us the armored vests, the night 
vision, the special scopes on their weapons. It is far different from 
what this humble person witnessed in Korea, in World War II, and in 
training commands. Today's weapons bear little resemblance to the basic 
weapons that fought through the battles of World War II and Korea and, 
to a lesser extent, Vietnam, because we had a transition of the basic 
weapon in Vietnam. This is a magnificent tribute to the industrial base 
of this country that has provided this weaponry. That is what this bill 
is about: the need to have ever-changing technology to afford even 
greater protection to the men and women of the Armed Forces as we face 
the uncertain, unchartered, and unknown threats that face us in this 
century.
  Military strategists and historians will study the Afghanistan and 
Iraqi military campaigns for years to come and will recognize them as a 
total new chapter in military history in many ways. Without a doubt, 
the U.S. military is the most capable military force in the world 
today, a model of excellence and the standard by which others are 
measured.
  Senator Levin and I visited Afghanistan on Thanksgiving almost two 
years ago, as those operations were just beginning to get underway. We 
witnessed how small units, anywhere from 15 to 25 individuals, would 
get in their helicopters and go in to the darkness of night, all 
enlisted, save one officer, and perform extraordinary feats of heroism 
and professional courage in achieving their objectives.
  We witnessed it again, just weeks before the start of military 
operations in Iraq, in its full measure, when we both visited Qatar and 
Kuwait in February of this year.
  It is precisely for this reason we must send a strong message of 
support to our men and women in uniform by passing this important bill 
this week. This bill contains much deserved pay raises and benefits for 
our military personnel, for their families, needed increases in family 
housing and quality of life projects on military installations, as well 
as prudent investments in the equipment and technology our military 
needs to deal with the future in uncertain and ever-changing threats.
  I urge my colleagues to participate in the debate of this bill to the 
fullest measure desired, to come forward with such amendments that they 
may have to improve and strengthen this bill, and hopefully to gather 
together and support the final and swift passage of this bill.
  The President's budget request for defense for fiscal year 2004 
continues the momentum of recent years in making real increases in 
defense spending to sustain readiness and enhance the quality of life 
for our military personnel and their families, and to modernize and 
transform the U.S. Armed Forces to meet current and future threats.
  The bill before us would provide $400.5 billion for defense, an 
increase of $17.9 billion, or 3.2 percent in real terms, over the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003.
  Since the beginning of the 108th Congress, the Armed Services 
Committee has conducted 44 hearings and received numerous policy and 
operational briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal year 
2004 and related defense issues. As a result of these deliberations, we 
identified six priorities to

[[Page 12040]]

guide our work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2004.
  First, to enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to fulfill 
its homeland defense responsibilities by providing the resources and 
the authorities necessary for the department to assist in protecting 
this Nation against all current and anticipated forms of attack, 
primarily terrorist attacks, at home.
  I mention at home, and I will repeat it several times because it is 
so important, because our President has quite wisely put as his top 
priority homeland defense. The Congress, and most particularly the 
Senate, went through long debates about the creation of the Department 
of Homeland Security which is now up and running.
  Homeland defense, however, in my humble judgment, does not start here 
at home. It starts on the farflung outposts of the world on land and at 
sea where the men and women of the Armed Forces are serving. To the 
extent they can deter, interdict, and defeat imminent threats to the 
U.S., especially terrorist operations, it lessens the chances of that 
operation finding its way to homeland USA--right here at home.
  That is my definition of homeland defense, and this bill is 
constructed to do everything we can to equip and protect those men and 
women of the Armed Forces in their role of homeland defense beyond our 
shores and, indeed, their role in homeland defense, those who are 
stationed in the continental limits of the United States, Hawaii, and 
Alaska.
  Second, to continue our committee's commitment to improving the 
quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces--Active, 
Reserve, Guard, Retired--and their families.
  Third, to provide the men and women in uniform with the resources, 
training, technology, and equipment they need to safely and 
successfully perform their missions both now and in the future.
  Fourth, to sustain the readiness of our Armed Forces to conduct the 
full spectrum of military operations against all current and 
anticipated threats.
  Fifth, to support the Department of Defense efforts to build the 
innovative capabilities necessary to continue the transformation of the 
Armed Forces to enable them to successfully confront future threats, 
particularly by enhancing technological advances in areas such as 
unmanned systems. That is an initiative on which this committee has 
placed great emphasis for some several years now.
  Sixth, and final, to improve the efficiency of the Department's 
programs and operations to reduce the cost and time required to develop 
and acquire the new capabilities and needed services in the entirety of 
this bill.
  I will yield the floor. This is a suitable point at which I can 
return to my opening remarks. I assume my colleague from Michigan will 
seek recognition.
  I thank my colleague, Mr. President, for all his hard work, not only 
on this bill but for the now quarter of a century we have been together 
working on this committee. How many times we have been on the floor 
together on our respective bills.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I look forward to many more times.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Warner for 
shepherding the Defense authorization bill to the floor again. I do not 
know how many times he has led the effort--I lost count--but each time 
he has handled the very difficult duties with great fairness and, I 
think, timely, perhaps with record dispatch. He is always efficient 
and, it seems to me--and I agree with Senator Warner--this may set a 
record in the committee, for many of the reasons our chairman 
mentioned, including the determination that we be together totally as a 
body in support of the men and women in the Armed Forces who are in so 
many dangerous places in the world as we speak.
  I also join Chairman Warner in commending all of the committee 
members for their hard work; our staffs, for the long hours they put in 
to produce this bill. As always, it is a complicated bill, a detailed 
bill and, more than ever perhaps, a critically important bill.
  As we begin the consideration of this bill this afternoon, our men 
and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve who are 
deployed in harm's way in many areas of the globe, are being subjected 
almost daily to armed attack in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Our Armed Forces have demonstrated extraordinary military prowess. 
Their success is a tribute first and foremost to their own skill, 
dedication, and professionalism, and to the skill of their leaders. It 
is also the result of the investments in national defense that many 
administrations and Congresses have made over the years.
  Our success on the battlefields of the future will depend on the 
investments we make today to prepare, train, and equip our military. 
The bill provides our Armed Forces with the means they need to meet 
today's challenges and it makes the investments that will be needed to 
respond to the challenges of this century.
  It also continues the increases in compensation and quality of life 
for our service men and women and their families.
  Chairman Warner has described in some detail what is contained in the 
bill, and I will not attempt to duplicate his summary, but I would like 
to make a few general comments and point out a couple of matters where 
there is a divergence of view within the committee.
  This is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It is balanced for many 
reasons. It equips the Armed Forces to deal with today's threats and it 
makes the investments necessary to transform our forces to meet the 
threats of the future. It is balanced in that it does not prematurely 
seek to apply lessons some may believe have been learned from Iraq even 
before the Department of Defense has had an opportunity to study and 
analyze that conflict and to report to us on what lessons they believe 
have been learned.
  In his briefing of Senators in S-407 on May 8, General Franks 
specifically noted that it would take some time to identify the lessons 
learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom, and we could do harm to our 
national defense if we sought to apply the wrong lessons from those 
operations or if we too speedily determined what, in fact, were the 
lessons learned.
  The bill is also balanced in that it seeks to incorporate those 
provisions of the Department of Defense's transformation proposals that 
provide appropriate flexibility for the operation of the Department in 
a manner that preserves congressional oversight responsibilities. For 
example, the bill contains provisions that would repeal dozens of 
reporting requirements, establishes a new defense modernization account 
to fund life cycle cost reduction initiatives. It authorizes a pilot 
program to test new procedures for conducting public/private 
competitions. It provides the Department with special pay authority to 
help it fill critical positions.
  It is also balanced because of the provisions it does not include. 
The bill before us does not include provisions that would undermine the 
ability of the uniformed military to provide independent advice to the 
civilian chain of command, and to the Congress. It does not include 
provisions which would undermine congressional oversight by repealing 
the requirement that the Department of Defense provide us with basic 
information on the costs, schedule, and performance of major weapons 
programs.
  The bill before us does not authorize the reorganization of the 
Department of Defense without regard to statutory requirements or 
establish a foreign military assistance program to be conducted by the 
Department of Defense rather than by the Department of State. The bill 
does not authorize the Department to move money from one program to 
another without congressional authorization.
  Perhaps the most pointed evidence of the balanced nature of this bill 
is that it was reported out of committee with the unanimous support of 
all of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a tribute to 
the balance of

[[Page 12041]]

the bill but also to the leadership of our chairman.
  That does not mean there are not any provisions in the bill on which 
there is disagreement, because there are. There are a number of areas 
that are troublesome and on which I expect there will be significant 
debate this week. For example, there are provisions in report language 
that move us in the direction of developing new nuclear weapons and 
modifications of current nuclear weapons. Current U.S. law bans 
research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to 
their production. The specific weapons covered by the ban are so-called 
low yield nuclear weapons which have a nuclear explosive yield of 5 
kilotons or less. Five kilotons is roughly a third the size of the 
nuclear bomb that was used at Hiroshima which immediately killed an 
estimated 140,000 people and left many more injured. The administration 
has asked this ban be repealed. If the ban is repealed, the purpose is 
to make nuclear weapons more usable.
  As stated by Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, in testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

       I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I 
     have the bias in favor of something that is the minimum 
     destruction. . . . I have a bias in favor of things that 
     might be usable.

  The language approved by the majority of the Armed Services Committee 
would repeal the ban on the development of low yield nuclear weapons. 
Without this ban, there is no impediment in law to research, 
development, testing, production, or deployment of new low yield 
nuclear weapons.
  The bill also provides the National Nuclear Security Administration 
with funds the administration requested to continue work on a robust 
nuclear earth penetrator. This effort would modify one of two existing 
high yield nuclear weapons to create a nuclear weapon that will 
penetrate rock. Both weapons being looked at for possible modification 
are high yield nuclear weapons with yields approximating 30 and 70 
times the nuclear explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
  Without a requirement that that nuclear earth penetrator weapon be 
authorized by Congress, there is no legal impediment to its 
development, testing, production, or deployment.
  At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other 
countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we 
strongly oppose North Korea pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation 
treaty, and when we suggest that indeed we may use military force to 
prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, when we are 
spending billions of dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, 
materials, and technology, these proposed actions by the administration 
would send the opposite message we are trying to give to the world. We 
are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons, but 
instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons, we are recklessly driving down that same road.
  The United States should not follow a policy that we do not tolerate 
in others.
  In the area of ballistic missile defense, one of the problems lies in 
what is not in the bill rather than what is in the bill. The missile 
defense program continues to move along, spending billions of dollars 
without performance criteria. Moreover, the Department of Defense has 
cancelled plans for 9 of the 20 ground-based midcourse interceptors 
that have been planned from 2003 to 2007. Surely we have an obligation 
to test the limited ballistic missile defense and to understand the 
extent to which it will or will not work. Yet one of the key tests the 
Department proposed to cancel is the most significant test. It was 
scheduled before the end of the fiscal year 2004. We restored that 
funding in committee.
  If we want a missile defense system that actually works, rather than 
one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should not be 
cancelling tests. The administration actually requested that 
operational testing not be required on a limited missile defense 
system. We refused that request and we struck the language the 
administration had proposed. Again, thankfully, our bill restores an 
intercept test with a missile defense program in 2004. More needs to be 
done to assure that this system is tested adequately and proven to 
really work. The rest of the canceled tests should be restored. There 
will be debate on these and other areas relating to the Department of 
Defense authorization bill.
  I conclude by stating, again, the bill the committee has reported out 
under the leadership of Chairman Warner is a good bill. His leadership 
made it happen. I commend him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan for his very fine statement, for his kind reference to the 
chairman.
  The committee's first priority was to enhance the Department of 
Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities to combat 
terrorism both at home and abroad. In these areas, this bill authorized 
an increase of $400 million over the budget request, including $88.4 
million for 12 additional civil support teams. Now, these are the teams 
that join with the first responders should we have the misfortune of a 
weapon of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, or fissionable, 
utilized in the United States. That is a very important initiative that 
this committee has taken over several years now and the inclusion of 
this in the budget represents our strong unequivocal support of this 
program particularly by adding 12 additional teams, to get us closer to 
the goal of a team in every State and territory.
  Likewise, we added $181 million for the development and fielding of 
chemical and biological agent detection and protection technology. In 
addition, the committee supports the President's request of $9.1 
billion for missile defense, a key component of homeland defense.
  As we all know, our most valuable military asset is our people. We 
will always fulfill our commitment to improve the quality of life of 
the men and women in uniform and their families. This bill authorizes a 
3.7-percent across-the-board pay increase for all uniformed service 
personnel as well as a targeted pay raise of up to 6.25 percent for 
certain senior noncommissioned officers and midcareer personnel. Those 
provisions are necessary in order for the Armed Forces to compete with 
the pay scales and the job opportunities in the private sector.
  This bill also contains several key provisions to recognize unique 
sacrifices of the members of the Armed Forces and their families, 
including increases in the family separation allowance and hostile fire 
pay, designation of assignment incentive pay for those stationed in 
Korea, and approval of a ``high tempo'' allowance for those service 
members deployed away from home for extended periods of time. We have 
experienced this, particularly in the Navy.
  I hope these provisions are acceptable to the Department of Defense. 
We are still working our way through that at this particular time.
  The services all try very hard to limit the time of deployment away 
from home, particularly unaccompanied tours, for our service members, 
but there are isolated cases where you simply go beyond those times. 
One was recent, with a carrier setting one of the longest records in 
contemporary history for the away-from-home deployment of a carrier and 
its crew.
  The administration requested $9 billion for military construction and 
family housing due to pending realignments of overseas bases. This bill 
contains adjustments to the administration program which resulted in 
increased investment in installations in the United States and a 
reduced but prudent investment in overseas locations that will be of 
long-term value to the United States.
  This bill contains an overall increase of approximately $400 million 
in military construction, including increases of over $200 million in 
quality-of-life projects such as barracks, family housing, and child 
development centers.

[[Page 12042]]

  Over the past several years, my colleagues and I have encouraged the 
Department to increase procurement spending to a level that could 
sustain the timely recapitalization, modernization, and transformation 
of the Armed Forces. This year, the bill before the Senate authorizes 
$75.6 billion in procurement funding, a $1.1 billion increase over the 
budget request. Key procurement items include over $12 billion in 
shipbuilding and conversions which will fund seven new ships just for 
the year 2004. That is in keeping with the Chief of Naval Operations's 
commitment to this body last year that he, in conjunction with the 
whole Navy Secretariat, would increase the number of ships--not a very 
large number, but it is an increase over the past.
  Further, we have the continued investment in aircraft programs, such 
as $3.5 billion for 20 F/A-22 Raptor aircraft and over $2 billion for 
11 additional C-17 lift aircraft; and over $1 billion for the Army's 
lighter, high-mobility stryker combat vehicle.
  Additionally, it is critical we invest in future capability. This 
bill authorizes $63.2 billion for research and development, test and 
evaluation, activities, an increase of over $1.3 billion over the 
President's budget request. Key R&D funding items include $1.7 billion 
for the future combat system, the Army's centerpiece of transformation, 
$5.8 billion for development of various tactical aircraft, including 
$4.4 billion for the continued development of the joint strike fighter, 
and $10.7 billion for advanced science and technology initiatives, an 
increase of over $500 million over the budget request.
  This committee has strongly encouraged the Department to invest in 
unmanned systems. This bill fully funds the budget request of $1.7 
billion for major unmanned aerial vehicle programs and adds $130 
billion to enhance unmanned technologies.
  Together, the investments in procurement necessary to sustain current 
capabilities and research and development needed to transform to a more 
capable force would give the men and women of the Armed Forces the 
equipment they need to deter threats, and if deterrence fails, to 
prevail across the full spectrum of military operations both now and in 
the future.
  The sustained readiness of the Armed Forces is what protects America. 
The success of recent military operations represents the real return on 
added investments made by the Congress in recent years in training, 
munitions, maintenance, and spare parts. As the force reconstitutes 
after operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we must closely monitor 
whether additional funds are needed for those items not covered by 
supplemental funding to pay for these operations and to ensure the 
overall readiness of the Armed Forces.
  Readiness accounts funds were increased to address currently 
identified shortfalls such as equipment maintenance and testing, depot 
maintenance, technical assistance, corrosion control, and systems 
testing as well as additional funding for Active and Reserve Forces to 
accelerate fielding and replacing personal and field equipment.
  Transformation of the Department of Defense will depend on effective 
management and stewardship of DOD resources. This bill contains 
numerous legislative provisions to improve the management of the 
Department. Some of these provisions will streamline the acquisition 
process, provide for greater personnel flexibility to manage the 
acquisition workforce, and ensure that joint requirements can be more 
rapidly achieved. Acquisition authorities to facilitate the war on 
terrorism, and support contingency operations were extended, and 
proposed new authorities will give State and local governments rapid 
access to antiterrorism technologies and services available to the 
Department. Again, that is another very important contribution to 
homeland defense.
  The Department of Defense and the Congress have been and must 
continue to be good stewards of the environment. Military readiness and 
prudent conservation can and must be complementary principles. This 
bill assures access to military training ranges in a way that 
safeguards the protection of endangered species and contributes to the 
readiness of the Armed Forces.
  Some will argue we have not covered all the subjects that were 
brought before the committee. Indeed, the committee did delete a number 
of items from the President's request, but that is the judgment that 
the committee must render. We are an independent but coequal branch of 
the Federal Government. While we have great respect for the President's 
budget, some of those provisions were deleted from his budget and not 
incorporated in this bill.
  While I am proud of this legislation and the remarkable spirit of 
bipartisanship that enabled our committee to move this bill to the 
floor, we did have areas of disagreement within the committee, which 
will be revisited during the floor debate.
  With our Armed Forces poised on distant battlefields and countless 
others standing watch at home, we are committed to providing the 
resources needed for the men and women of the armed forces, and their 
families. The Congress's past support for increased defense spending 
has proven to be a wise investment. There is no greater evidence than 
the successes witnessed on the battlefield of Iraq.
  I strongly believe that this National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004 builds on the advances made in recent years. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in sending a strong message of bipartisan support 
for our troops at home and abroad: we honor your service, and we stand 
with you now, and in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I know the Senator from Massachusetts wished to speak. Is 
Senator Collins ready to go? Perhaps the Chair could recognize whoever 
is ready to go.
  Ms. COLLINS. I was trying to defer to my more senior colleague but, 
of course, I would be delighted to have the opportunity to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, 
who, as always, is extremely gracious, and the Senator from Michigan, 
for allowing me to proceed, and the chairman of our distinguished 
committee.
  Madam President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 
National Defense Authorization Act. As a member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation 
to the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary efforts 
in producing this bill. The mark-up of this legislation was conducted 
in a true spirit of cooperation. While certain portions of this bill 
engendered spirited debate, the points of controversy are relatively 
few. It is tribute to both Senator Warner and Senator Levin that we 
completed our mark-up in a remarkably short period of time.
  This legislation includes authorization for the vital resources that 
the young men and women in our military require in defending our 
Nation. With terrorist attacks continuing across the globe, and our 
troops helping the Iraqi people to rebuild their country, this 
legislation will ensure that our military has the tools necessary to 
fight, and ultimately win, the war against terrorism.
  Since joining the Armed Services Committee, I have been a member of 
the Personnel Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over military pay, 
housing, and health care. In recent years, we have made tremendous 
progress in improving the quality of life not just for our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines, but also for their families. That is 
important. The old saying goes: we recruit the soldier but we retain 
the family. When our troops deploy, it's important that they have the 
peace of mind that comes from the knowledge that their families have 
good housing, quality health care, and a support network to help 
address any problems.
  I am proud that the legislation before us builds on the efforts that 
we have made in previous years to ensure that our troops are the best 
paid, best housed, and best equipped in the world. It includes a 3.7 
percent across-the-

[[Page 12043]]

board pay raise for all uniformed personnel, and incorporates a 
targeted pay raise ranging from 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent for mid-
career service members. We want to make an extra effort to retain their 
expertise. It also authorizes a significant increase in the rate of 
family separation allowance, from $100 per month to $250 per month.
  There are two provisions affecting pay and benefits that I believe 
are particularly important. Last month, along with the majority leader 
and a number of my colleagues, I traveled to South Korea to meet with 
our troops at Osan Air Force Base and in the Demilitarized Zone. I was 
privileged to speak with two of my constituents, SS Jennifer Meuth of 
Thomaston and MS Jay Mason of China. As I always do when I meet with 
our troops, I asked if there was anything that the Congress could do to 
support them. Without hesitation, both of them asked me to support the 
establishment of Assignment Pay for troops stationed in Korea. Our 
troops endure many hardships as part of their service in Korea. Most 
are separated from their families, the housing is often substandard, 
and they live under the constant threat of North Korean aggression.
  I am proud to say that the legislation before us mandates the payment 
of $100 per month in assignment incentive pay to the brave men and 
women serving our Nation in Korea. It is a tribute to the leadership of 
Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson, who lead the Personnel 
Subcommittee. Most of all, I want to thank Sergeants Meuth and Mason 
for bringing this important issue to my attention.
  The second provision that I want to highlight is a bill that I 
introduced this year calling for an increase in what is called the 
military death gratuity. Currently, when a servicemember is killed 
while on active duty, his or her family receives a payment of $6,000, 
usually within days after the death. While other long-term financial 
assistance is provided to support the family, this payment helps the 
survivors cover any short term expenses.
  The bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 704, would increase this 
amount to $12,000 and make it retroactive to September 11, 2001. So the 
families of those troops killed in Afghanistan will receive this 
additional benefit. The last time the Congress raised the death 
gratuity was during that last gulf war over a decade ago. Recognizing 
the importance of this issue, the Senate moved very quickly earlier 
this year to pass my legislation as a free-standing bill. The House, 
however, has not yet acted upon it. I am grateful to the Chairman of 
the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator Chambliss, for incorporating this 
increase in the death gratuity in the Defense Authorization bill.
  I would also like to express my congratulations to Senator Talent, 
the new Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee. The shipbuilding portion 
of this year's Defense Authorization represents a significant turning 
point. In previous years, the budget for ship construction proposed by 
the Department of Defense has been inadequate to sustain a large enough 
fleet to meet our Nation's requirements. The legislation before us 
today recognizes the challenge, and provides critically needed 
increases in shipbuilding funds.
  It authorizes the construction of seven new ships, including three 
DDG-51 destroyers. I am pleased to report that two of those destroyers 
will be built at the world famous Bath Iron Works in my home State of 
Maine. Certainly, it will take more than 1 year's progress to address 
years of funding shortfalls. But this bill surely represents 
significant progress.
  The committee also recognized the importance of modernizing the DDG-
51 destroyers currently in the fleet. At my request, $20 million has 
been allocated for a DDG-51 modernization program. This funding will be 
used to examine ways to improve the effectiveness of these ships, while 
at the same time reducing their manpower requirements. That in turn 
will lead to lifetime savings for these ships. It will allow the Bath 
Iron Works to explore initiatives aimed at ensuring that these 
destroyers continue to be the backbone of our surface combatant fleet.
  The seapower portion of the bill also includes $248 million for the 
refueling and overhaul of the USS Jacksonville, a nuclear submarine 
that had been scheduled to be decommissioned by the Navy. If this were 
allowed to occur, the problem is that our submarine force would fall 
below the levels recommended by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. 
Today, the requirements for submarines is increasing, especially given 
the growing role that they play in intelligence gathering. This 
refueling, which will take place at the Kittery-Portsmouth Naval 
Shipyard, will add years of useful life to the Jacksonville. It is good 
news for the Navy, and it is good news for the skilled workers at the 
shipyard.
  Without question, some aspects of the bill reported from the Armed 
Services Committee are somewhat controversial, and I expect that they 
will be debated fully here on the Senate floor. But the overwhelming 
majority of this bill is the product of bipartisan consensus. There is 
an agreement that we should spare no resources in ensuring that the 
brave young men and women who proudly wear the uniform have the highest 
quality training available, the most advanced equipment in the world, 
and receive the best benefits we can offer. I am proud to say this bill 
accomplishes those goals.
  Again, I express my appreciation to our chairman and our ranking 
member for their hard work and for their dedicated leadership. I am 
very proud to serve with them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, on behalf of the whole committee, I 
express appreciation to our colleague from Maine. She no longer will be 
subcommittee chairman on our committee because she is the full chairman 
now of one of the major subcommittees of the Senate as a whole, but she 
is very active.
  I wonder if I might ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, the 
issue of transformation by the Secretary of Defense was addressed in 
the House and to some extent addressed by our committee. But basically, 
the committee over which the distinguished Senator from Maine is 
chairman has the primary oversight responsibilities. In the course of 
the debate on the floor, I hope--if not now at some point--she will 
give some guidance to me as to how this committee can address such 
amendments as may be brought up in the context of responsibilities of 
our committee. If she could find some time to consult with me on that, 
I would be very appreciative, as will the Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, if I could respond to the inquiry of 
the distinguished chairman of the committee, during the past several 
weeks, since the Secretary sent his plan to the Hill, my staff, in 
close cooperation with other staff members on the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, including Senator Levin's committee staff and 
others, have been working to see if we could reach consensus on a 
proposal. Frankly, I believe the Secretary's initial proposal goes too 
far. It is overreaching.
  But there are certain authorities that would be extremely helpful to 
the Secretary as he attempts to make sure we can reward civilian 
employees with higher pay and streamline the personnel process. We came 
up with a proposal. We are still assessing the import that the proposal 
might have. In addition, there may be some procedural barriers in our 
ability to bring forward the amendments. So we are continuing to work 
closely to see if we can come up with a consensus. I hope to have an 
answer shortly for the chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague on this point. But 
bear in mind that there are some in the House bill. We will have to 
deal with them in conference.
  To the extent we can have any interlocking on this bill with those 
provisions of the House bill, which the Senator's committee and our 
committee and the Senate as a whole feels should be incorporated into 
the bill, it would be helpful to do that.
  I think in general the Secretary of Defense is on the right track in 
the

[[Page 12044]]

sense that when you stop to think, today's military is so different 
than it was 2 or 3 years or even a decade ago.
  As I mentioned earlier, before the Senator from Maine joined us on 
the floor, the total force today is not only the uniformed men and 
women of the Armed Forces, they are very much part of the civilian 
force. There are thousands of civilians over in the Iraqi situation and 
in Afghanistan right now taking risks commensurate with those of 
uniformed personnel and performing services to give infrastructure to 
the military to do their missions.
  The Secretary of Defense has to have some flexibility in how he 
assigns and reassigns civilian personnel. I hope we could achieve some 
measure commensurate with what the wisdom of the Congress enabled the 
Secretary of Homeland Defense to have. It seems to me that is sort of 
the bar at which we ought to look.
  Might I inquire, does the Senator share views similar to the Senator 
from Virginia?
  Ms. COLLINS. I do. The Senator from Virginia has put it very well, 
and I am eager to craft legislation--and believe we have done so--that 
would give the Secretary the flexibility he needs for the Department to 
have an efficient, effective, and fair personnel system for the 
civilian employees. I note, however, that the Department has some 
700,000 civilian employees. So we need to make sure we are doing this 
in an appropriate manner. Some of the provisions submitted by the 
Secretary go far beyond the authority that we gave to the new Secretary 
of Homeland Security.
  So we are looking at it, and we have come up with draft legislation 
language that we are sharing and have been sharing with the staff of 
the Senator from Virginia and with other interested parties. My hope--
it may be a vague hope--is that we could have a consensus document that 
would provide bipartisan support and the support of some of the 
employee organizations. I don't know whether that is going to be the 
case. But that certainly is my hope.
  If I might make one other point, I simply point out the obvious to 
all of us--that this legislation is the train moving through at this 
point in time. The probability of its passage by the Chamber is quite 
high. These provisions, as the Senator says, are of great concern to 
those groups, whether they are union or other groups, that act on 
behalf of the very courageous and wonderful cadre of civilians without 
which we couldn't have a defense.
  The likelihood of a separate bill moving forward at a later point in 
this session has a question mark, which is obvious to my colleague from 
Maine and my colleague from Michigan. To the extent we can reach some 
consensus and attach it to this bill is the extent to which maybe we 
can make some progress at this point in a timely likelihood of making 
progress at this point in time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield before yielding 
the floor just for a question?
  First of all, I join my good friend from Virginia in commending the 
Senator from Maine for her great work in both our committee and also as 
chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee where she is doing an 
absolutely superb job. Part of that job is to take a look at proposals 
that are as far-reaching as the one that was very suddenly dropped upon 
us by the Department of Defense.
  This is a far-reaching proposal. We have had very little time, as 
these matters go, to look at it. This Senate is a body which 
deliberates over these kinds of changes. I would hope that we would, 
No. 1, try to fashion a draft for consideration which would give 
greater flexibility--and I know Senator Collins is working extremely 
hard to do just that--but I also commend her for her caution, it seems 
to me, in saying that we are going to put together a draft and then we 
are going to propose it. Because there are some procedures which really 
should be followed here to protect the men and women in our civilian 
force, just the way we have those procedures for our uniformed forces.
  The quality of life, which we talk about all the time and we try to 
protect, is important, surely, for our uniformed men and women, but it 
is also important for the civilians, and they are entitled to have a 
proposal which they can look at, which they can comment on, and not one 
which is just suddenly sprung upon them by the Congress, whether it is 
the House, which acted very quickly on this far-ranging proposal, or by 
the Senate.
  So I want to just suggest that we try to arrive at something which 
does give greater flexibility, but we do so in a way which shows the 
kind of deliberation and the kind of consideration which this body has 
been renowned for and which I know both my colleagues have been very 
supportive of throughout their careers.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues. But before we 
conclude this very valuable and important colloquy, I ask the Senator 
from Maine, who speaks with such conviction if we are going try to do 
something on this bill or is the thought that it is just not 
achievable? Because we have an issue with the House right now.
  And the question is, are we going to address that issue in part--
maybe not all, but in part--in such a way that we can do constructive 
advancements in this field to assist the Secretary and the 
administration in this enormous Department with a diversity of 
responsibilities? Can we conclude we are going to give it a try, and 
that would move it along pretty quickly? Because hopefully this bill 
will be voted on early this week.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could respond to the Senator from 
Virginia, the chairman of the committee, we have been working for many 
weeks. We do have a draft. We have had come forth from the other side 
of the aisle some additional suggestions we are looking at and eager to 
incorporate. I personally think it would be good to add something to 
this bill because I think it would be good for the Senate to go on 
record with its own version which differs from what was done in the 
House.
  So I think it strengthens the position of the Senate in conference 
for us to put forth our own proposal since, as the Senator points out, 
this issue is going to arise in conference given the House provisions. 
So it is not as if it is going to be left to another day. We have 
legislative language drafted. We have been meeting extensively during 
the last few weeks. On Friday we received some additional suggestions 
which we are looking at right now. I cannot predict for certain--I 
realize time is short--whether there will be bipartisan support for the 
final version, but there will be a version I am happy with. I do not 
know if that will be sufficient, however.
  Mr. WARNER. I will have one more word, but I yield--not necessarily 
yield--to my colleague from Michigan if he wishes to reply to the 
Senator from Maine.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think one of the important words in the question asked 
by the Senator from Virginia is the word ``constructively.'' I would 
just add the word ``fairly.'' So if we can do something that is 
constructive and fair for the people impacted----
  Mr. WARNER. Right.
  Mr. LEVIN. It seems to me we ought to give it a try. Those are 
important conditions, in my book.
  Mr. WARNER. Do you think the provisions the Congress provided for in 
the Department of Homeland Security offer certain precedents we should 
achieve in this legislation?
  Mr. LEVIN. There were precedents of many varieties, some good, some 
not so good.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, as both my colleagues recognize, this will be, for 
the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself, our 25th 
conference, and we know full well at this stage of deliberations on 
this bill we cannot predict what is going to come out of conference, 
nor can we take a stance that not one single one of these provisions 
which are in the House bill will not survive the conference. So having 
said that, time is of the essence, I hope, in the reconciliation of 
views.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman. And again I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts.

[[Page 12045]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments in 
the exchange between the Senator from Maine and our chairman and 
ranking member. I have heard through the outreaches of the Senator from 
Maine there has been a good-faith effort to try to deal with this 
issue. I am not carefully briefed on the various proposals, but at 
least there has been an outreach by the Senator from Maine to try to 
develop some common ground in this area. So I think this is important.
  I think the seriousness with which she is addressing this issue, as 
well as the chairman and the ranking member, is, of course, of enormous 
importance because basically we are talking about the 650,000 to 
700,000 civilians who work in the Defense Department. The basic concept 
was the development of the civil service so that we were going to have 
highly skilled, highly motivated, highly trained individuals who were 
going to work for all Americans and not be working for political 
parties, so to speak, not finding out, every time there is a change in 
administration, there could be a change in the way they are compensated 
for their work.
  This is enormously important work. We are finding individuals who are 
going to be involved in the selection of various weapons systems in the 
whole areas of the development of command and control, communication, 
and intelligence. The jobs of many of these civilians are enormously 
important in terms of the security interests of this country.
  So the caution which has been expressed by our chairman and ranking 
member, as well as by the Senator from Maine, is entirely appropriate. 
It is certainly reasonable to always try to find ways of strengthening 
and improving the system. But we do come back to the question that this 
was developed initially with all the kinds of challenges it is facing 
now, with the concept that we would have highly motivated, highly 
trained individuals, who would serve whatever administration was going 
to be successful at the polls. I think that basic and fundamental view 
is still a commendable one.
  But I just want to indicate to the Senator, my friend from Maine, 
that she has approached this as she does all issues, with an openness 
and commitment and determination to try to make a very constructive 
contribution, and she has certainly been reaching out to the Members. 
So I am thankful for those efforts.
  I am also concerned about contracting out, and that we are going to 
find those with the best lobbying opportunities are going to be able to 
get these contracts that are important and require high-quality work.
  Mr. President, as we begin considering the fiscal year 2004 defense 
authorization bill, I, too, congratulate Chairman Warner and Senator 
Levin for their skillful leadership in preparing this bill. It does 
reflect a thoughtful response to the ongoing and changing needs of our 
military in these difficult years for our country, and it clearly 
provides a strong national defense.
  I also thank and commend Senator Talent for his leadership on the 
seapower portions of the bill in his first year as the chairman of the 
Seapower Subcommittee. It is a privilege to work with him on that 
subcommittee, and I look forward to continuing that work in the years 
ahead to make sure we are going to keep our Navy strong, and, of 
course, the Marines strong as well.
  In particular, this legislation contains numerous provisions to give 
additional support to the men and women who serve the Nation so well in 
the Armed Forces. Without their courage and their commitment, we could 
never achieve the brilliant military successes of the war in Iraq.
  First, and most important, this bill is intended to improve the 
quality-of-life programs our soldiers and sailors and marines and 
members of the Air Force deserve in the areas of pay and allowance. It 
recognizes the special sacrifice military service often requires from 
the service members and their families.
  For service members who are repeatedly deployed to assignments far 
from their home bases, including Reservists and Guard personnel, the 
bill authorizes a high deployment allowance, up to $1,000 a month in 
additional compensation for the hardships imposed on them and their 
families. The bill also continues support for the significant progress 
made in the past 4 years in reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses by 
improving the basic allowance for housing, and the bill also provides 
for strong national defense in the years ahead by investing in 
transformational technologies while ensuring that our military 
capabilities do not suffer any gap during the needed modernization that 
must take place in our forces.
  My principal concern with this legislation involves the provisions 
that authorize the fateful change of course in our longstanding policy 
on nuclear weapons. Of all challenges our country has faced over the 
past half century, the prevention of nuclear war is by far the most 
important. It is no accident that in all the years and the half century 
since World War II, no nuclear weapon has ever been used in any of the 
conflicts that have taken place anywhere on Earth. Few in 1945 would 
have predicted that extraordinary success, and few today would disagree 
that the effective world leadership of the United States under 
Presidents of both political parties on nuclear arms control throughout 
those years has been primarily responsible for that success.
  The danger today is that with the passing of the World War II 
generation in our own country and nations throughout the world, a new 
generation of leaders has been rising to power who did not live through 
the dawn of the nuclear age themselves and for whom the mushroom clouds 
over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are images from history, not vivid 
recollections from their own lives. Greater vigilance is clearly needed 
to continue the success of our nuclear arms control policy since 1945 
and ensure that nuclear weapons are not used by any nation in the 
future.
  Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other nuclear 
materials to other nations and to terrorists is the most urgent aspect 
of that challenge today. We all pray the Bush administration will be 
successful in the current negotiations with North Korea and that the 
tenuous progress made in recent weeks will improve so a successful 
conclusion can be achieved.
  Many of us are increasingly concerned, however, that with Congress 
and the Nation preoccupied over the past year with the war against 
terrorism and the war in Iraq that the administration has been quietly 
laying the groundwork for a far-reaching and highly dangerous U turn in 
our longstanding policy against the first use of nuclear weapons.
  Because of their unique and massive destructive power, nuclear 
weapons have always been kept separate from other weapons as part of 
our strong commitment to do all we can to see they are never used 
again. The Bush administration's proposal to veer away from that 
commitment should have been a wake-up call for Congress and the Nation 
many months ago.
  In the decade after the first two nuclear bombs were used in World 
War II and the nuclear arms race began with the Soviet Union, nations 
and peoples throughout the world began to realize both the danger posed 
by the use of nuclear weapons and the danger from the testing of 
nuclear weapons. To deal with those dangers, a remarkable series of 
international treaties was proposed, negotiated, and approved that had 
broad support in the world community, restrained the nuclear arms race 
between the United States and the Soviet Union, and dramatically 
reduced the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations.
  An excellent chronology of the many significant events in the history 
of nuclear weapons, beginning with the discovery of radioactivity in 
1896, is available on the Web sites of the Global Security Institute 
which was founded by our former colleague Senator Alan Cranston to 
enhance our understanding of these issues. I urge Members of the Senate 
to consult with it.
  One of the landmark achievements in reducing the spread of nuclear 
weapons

[[Page 12046]]

was the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which came into effect in 1968 
and under which nuclear and nonnuclear nations alike agreed to halt the 
development of these weapons. Currently 185 nations have signed the 
extension of the NPT. The reason the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 
has been so successful is the presumption that nuclear weapons will not 
be used by the principal nuclear powers except in the most extreme 
circumstances. For 25 years Republican and Democratic administrations 
alike have emphasized our commitment not to use nuclear weapons against 
nonnuclear nations. This assurance to other nations that nuclear 
weapons will not be used against them has been a major factor in 
avoiding nuclear war, slowing the nuclear arms race, and preventing the 
proliferation of these weapons to other countries and to terrorists.
  Control of current nuclear stockpiles is especially critical. The 
danger is very real that terrorists may be able to acquire nuclear 
material or even nuclear warheads. Even before 9/11, Congress and the 
administration had recognized this significant threat and, under the 
leadership of our former colleague Senator Nunn and our colleague 
Senator Lugar, we enacted a threat reduction program in 1991 to 
safeguard and reduce the nuclear arsenals of Russia and other former 
Soviet states. The Nunn-Lugar program has been effective in 
deactivating or destroying literally thousands of nuclear warheads and 
intercontinental ballistic missiles and hundreds of tons of fissionable 
material. Nevertheless, we have done far from enough to prevent the 
proliferation of these weapons.
  Shortly before President Bush's inauguration, a task force reported 
that the most urgent national security threat to the United States 
today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable 
material in Russia could be stolen, sold to terrorists, or hostile 
nation states, and used against American troops abroad or citizens at 
home. The 9/11 terrorists clearly demonstrated their willingness and 
ability to cause catastrophic damage to America. Yet the Bush 
administration continues to spend less on the Nunn-Lugar program than 
we did before 2001.
  In January of 2002, the administration released a nuclear posture 
review that could take us in a new and far more dangerous direction. 
The review blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. It 
suggests that certain events might compel the United States to use 
nuclear weapons first, even against nonnuclear nations. It also relies 
much more heavily on a nuclear threat by America in dealing with the 
difficult challenges we face in the world. The administration has even 
indicated it might use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or 
biological attack. There is no justification for that kind of 
escalation. Our conventional weapons are more than adequate to deal 
with that threat. We gain no greater deterrence by threatening to go 
nuclear. It makes no sense to break down the firewall we have always 
maintained between nuclear weapons and other weapons and that has 
succeeded so well for so long in preventing nuclear war. Other nations 
have complied with this basic principle, too. A nuclear weapon is not 
just another item in our arsenal, and it is wrong to treat it as if it 
were. In fact, the Nuclear Posture Review specifically discusses 
circumstances in which the United States might engage in the first use 
of nuclear weapons, such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a 
military confrontation over the status of Taiwan.
  The administration also appeared to be considering the use of nuclear 
weapons against Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. We reap what we sow. If 
we brandish our own nuclear weapons, we only encourage other nations to 
do all they can to develop their own.
  It is ominous as well that the administration is asking the Nation's 
weapons laboratories to consider the possibility of resuming nuclear 
testing in order to protect our current stockpile and meet new 
requirements in the future. They want funds in the budget to be used to 
prepare for testing new nuclear weapons and to cut in half the time 
needed to do so. They have asked the Department to consider global 
strike capabilities with new nuclear weapons, which would have to be 
tested as well. It makes no sense to abandon our moratorium on nuclear 
testing. That moratorium has stood for over a decade, and it has served 
us well.
  The pending bill continues this dangerous shift in other ways as 
well. Last year, the administration received $15 billion. The current 
bill proposes another $15 billion this year to study the feasibility of 
modifying existing warheads to create what they call a robust nuclear 
earth penetrator, a bunker buster, with 10 times the size of the 
Hiroshima blast, to be used to destroy hardened enemy targets buried 
deeply underground. It is difficult to believe that any administration 
in its right mind would propose such a weapon. A nuclear explosion in a 
bunker could spew tons of radioactive waste into the atmosphere, with a 
devastating plume that could poison huge areas in its path. Surely, if 
there is any need for such a weapon, we can develop a conventional 
weapon to achieve the purpose of the bunker buster.
  In yet another far-out nuclear proposal, the Bush administration has 
proposed to lift the current statutory ban on low-yield nuclear 
weapons, which now prevents the development of weapons with yields 
under 5 kilotons--about half the size of the Hiroshima blast. The 
precision-guided conventional munitions and standoff weapons we have 
today make these many nukes unnecessary. They would be no more 
effective than conventional munitions and would be far more dangerous 
to our troops and to our planet.
  In the debate in recent weeks on tax policy, President Bush has 
criticized the Senate and come out strongly against what he called 
``iddy-biddy'' tax cuts. What we should be really against is iddy-biddy 
nukes.
  The hardliners in the Bush administration seem to believe that the 
longstanding firewall between nuclear and conventional weapons is 
obsolete and is making us more vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. They 
claim that lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons will make 
our own nuclear threat a stronger and more credible deterrent. That is 
the last thing we need.
  The clear and present danger of the administration's change in 
nuclear policy is that it will encourage other nations to develop 
nuclear deterrents of their own. The entire world will be at greater 
risk that these weapons will be used--and used against us.
  Unfortunately, the real debate on these all-important issues of 
nuclear policy is only just beginning. Certainly, these issues demand 
far more attention than Congress and the country have been giving them. 
They have been eclipsed for too long by the war on terrorism and the 
war against Iraq. We can ignore them no longer. We have an obligation 
to our Nation and our people, and to all nations and all peoples, to 
see that nuclear weapons are never used again.
  In the debate in the coming days, I intend to offer an amendment to 
maintain the firewall between conventional and nuclear weapons. It 
strikes the provision repealing the prohibition on low-yield nuclear 
weapons that was put in place in the 1994 National Defense 
Authorization Act. That act prohibits research, testing, and 
development on low-yield nuclear weapons, and there is no reason to 
weaken it.
  Some suggest we should compromise and allow at least a little 
research. I say to the Senate, don't let the administration even start 
down that road. Don't feed the nuclear addiction. It is essential to 
continue to prohibit even the research on any such weapons. We do not 
want our descendents, surveying a devastated planet, to say that in 
this legislation the United States breached this firewall and took the 
decisive, shameful step that led to nuclear war.


                    Unanimous Consent Request S. 923

  Mr. President, our men and women in uniform are committed to 
protecting the security of our Nation. They work hard and make 
sacrifices every day. And they are willing to give their lives for the 
country.
  As many begin to return from Iraq and other places abroad, we owe it 
to

[[Page 12047]]

them to protect their economic security and the economic security of 
our Nation.
  These heroes are coming home to a failing economy--and for too many a 
loss of jobs. Today, more than 18,000 veterans are out of work. These 
are our Nation's fighting men and women, returning from Iraq, or who 
fought in the last gulf war. We owe it to them to protect them and 
their families' livelihood.
  President Bush claims that tax cuts for the rich will create the jobs 
these former service men and women need. But we tried the Bush 
administration's approach in 2001, and we lost 2.5 million jobs. 
Surely, we can do better for our returning troops who are now trying to 
rejoin civilian life. We can do better for all Americans who are 
without jobs in this recession.
  Today, nearly 9 million Americans are unemployed--2.8 million more 
than when President Bush first took office. This widespread 
unemployment has touched so many American lives, and it often seems the 
biggest in the face of those who have served their Nation in the Armed 
Forces.
  There is good news for some. The law requires employers to take back 
reservists after their deployments. Many of the men and women currently 
in or returning from Iraq will continue their service in our Armed 
Forces. But too many recently discharged service members are facing the 
same fate as millions of other Americans--they just cannot find jobs.
  We have an opportunity to extend the benefits for these brave 
Americans. We have an opportunity to make sure those ex-service members 
who still cannot find work after 9 months--the long-suffering and long-
term unemployed--are not left without a safety net. They put years of 
their lives into serving their country. Now unemployed after only 9 
months, we are going to say: Sorry, you have been out of work too long. 
We are going to stop your unemployment checks.
  We must not, and we cannot, do that to these workers. We must ensure 
that those long-term unemployed continue to receive unemployment checks 
so they can meet their mortgages, put food on the table, and take care 
of their children.
  The American people understand fairness. They understand that with 
one hand we are providing billions of dollars to the wealthiest 
individuals in this country, and we ought to extend the other hand to 
our hard-working men and women who played by the rules, worked all 
their lives, and paid into the unemployment compensation fund. They 
need that assistance now.
  For 80,000 workers a week, unemployment checks will stop coming at 
the end of this month if we take no action whatsoever--80,000 who have 
paid into the unemployment compensation fund, which currently has in it 
over $20 billion.
  Unemployment benefits are a lifeline available for millions of hard-
working Americans. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics 
and join to assist the unemployed--just as we have during recession for 
the past 50 years. We know the extension of unemployment compensation 
has been supported by President Reagan, President Nixon, President 
Eisenhower, as well as President Kennedy, President Clinton, President 
Bush, and President Ford--all of them. In the 5 years in the 1990s when 
we extended it, it had strong bipartisan support. Four of those votes 
were in excess of 90 votes. We want to take that same kind of action. 
We want to take it this evening before we go off for a Memorial Day 
recess.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 923, a bill to provide for 
a 6-month extension of unemployment compensation, including 13 weeks of 
benefits for the long-term unemployed--exhaus- 
tees--and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; 
that the amendment that is at the desk to remove the temporary enhanced 
regular unemployment compensation provisions be considered and agreed 
to; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object. We have only had a few moments to consider 
this Mr. President. We did not know the request was going to be 
offered. I register an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hear the objection on the other side. 
Action is needed in these several days. Some 80,000 of our fellow 
citizens starting next week will begin to lose all of their coverage, 
for which they have paid into the fund.
  This is a deplorable situation certainly for those Americans, and I 
think for all Americans. We are going to continue this battle 
throughout this week and beyond. I have heard an objection voiced.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and look forward to 
making some comments on the Defense bill. In previous years, I have 
been honored to work with Senator Kennedy on the Seapower Subcommittee 
when he was chairman, and when I was able to chair the subcommittee. I 
will admit, he remained on message. We are on the Defense bill and 
somehow we segued into unemployment benefits. I think we would do well 
to stay on this Defense bill.
  Briefly, Mr. President, we did talk about the nuclear posture of the 
United States. President Bush has proposed a reduction in nuclear 
weapons that is, in fact, reducing American nuclear weapons by one-
half. That is a good direction.
  Oddly, we remain the only nuclear power in the world that does not 
have the capacity at this point to build another nuclear weapon. Other 
nations are either building nuclear weapons or have the capability and 
have not eliminated it. First of all it would be unwise, in my view, to 
freeze ourselves at a low number and never be able to increase it, 
which simply sets out a target that any nation in the world, if they 
could reach that number, would then be a nuclear power on parity with 
the United States. We do not need to do that.
  I think the President is wise to not renounce unequivocally that he 
would never use a nuclear weapon before it has been used on us, 
particularly when people have the ability to threaten us with 
biological and chemical weapons that could cause even more loss of life 
than a single nuclear weapon. We need to keep our poise here. The 
President is reducing nuclear weapons. He is not expanding our number 
of nuclear weapons. The Defense Department and the President have not 
allowed the politically correct crowd or other groups to pressure him 
into saying we would never use a weapon before it is used on us.
  I believe this is a very good Defense bill. I remember when I came to 
the Senate a little over 6 years ago, the defense budget was somewhere 
around $290 billion. In 1991, our defense budget was $329 billion. We 
went from $329 billion to $278 billion in the mid-nineties, a huge 
reduction. We edged up only slightly in the last few years of the last 
decade of the century. We were not where we needed to be.
  I remember when we passed a budget a few years ago that topped $329 
billion, the first time we had exceeded the defense budget in the early 
1990s. During that period, we did two dramatic things; We reduced 
personnel in the Department of Defense by 40 percent and delayed 
confronting the bow wave of unmet recapitalization needs for our ships, 
aging aircraft, and other equipment. We delayed doing that, as we 
paired down our budget after the fall of the wall. It probably went too 
far. Not probably, we did go too far. Had we maintained just a few 
percentage points more of spending, we could have carried on the 
recapitalization program that would have left us in a lot better 
position than we are today.
  One of President Clinton's Service Secretaries used that phrase, ``a 
bow wave of unmet needs,'' needs that we were pushing off, which we 
knew we

[[Page 12048]]

had to address and we should have been addressing along the way but 
which is building in front of us. Now we have to address those needs, 
and I believe we are making progress.
  This bill authorizes an expenditure of $400.5 billion in defense 
spending. It is $17.9 billion more than last year. That is in real 
terms, adjusted terms, a 3.2 percent increase. It is not a huge 
increase, but it is a significant increase, and I think it has been 
planned for and being managed by the Defense Department pretty well.
  It includes some badly needed benefits for our service men and women. 
The family separation allowance is up. Incentive pay for places such as 
Korea are going to be up. Frankly, we did not do enough on Korea. It is 
a special case that is unfairly impacting the finances, the careers, 
and the lives of families when a person gets an assignment to Korea. We 
can do better, and we need to do better. I am continuing to look at 
that issue along with other Members such as Senator Dayton and others 
in this body.
  There is an increase in hostile fire pay. We increase the death 
benefit for all personnel. We double it to $12,000. We should, and I 
will be offering legislation to do a much better job of providing a 
death benefit for the soldiers who represent the United States of 
America in a hostile environment and who lose their lives in combat. We 
have seen those who were victims of terrorist attacks receive a million 
or more dollars in benefits. It is embarrassing how little the families 
of our soldiers who answer the call to go into harm's way, who put 
their lives at risk for our freedoms, get in benefits from the Federal 
Government. The situation is better as far as the money.
  We have demonstrated in the last conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan 
that our military has modernized itself and is capable of innovation 
and creatively utilizing advanced technologies to apply the maximum 
pressure on our enemy, minimizing the risk to our own forces and 
minimizing the risk to civilians and to the basic infrastructure of the 
enemy nations that we are facing. It is a tremendous achievement.
  I have pushed for transformation, and I think Secretary of Defense 
Rumsfeld is correct. We have to push and push to have the 
transformation we want in our Department of Defense. It will not occur 
if it is not being pushed from the top.
  With regard to the Army, for example, we have made some tremendous 
progress. Part of that progress is the quality of the leadership we 
have in the military today. Those who watched the briefings and saw the 
interviews of our men and women, the leaders in the military, saw the 
high education level, the technical expertise, and the leadership skill 
they have.
  Our military officers do not just have undergraduate degrees today. 
They have masters degrees in business, engineering, and technology. 
They have management specialties. They have Ph.D.s. They are the finest 
kind of leaders one would find in any business or any other competitive 
enterprise in the country.
  They do things such as study what happened previously. They call it 
``lessons learned.'' That is a healthy thing in America. We are quick 
to study our mistakes, and we learn from those mistakes.
  I recall the book ``Black Hawk Down,'' the movie that was made about 
the Somalian conflict, the mistakes that were made and the courage that 
was shown. That report has been studied. That event has been studied 
over and over again. It has gotten down to the most junior possible 
officers in our entire military. They know that story. They know what 
happened. They know the good things and they know the bad things.
  Some might think that the author who wrote the book that was being 
critical--I did not really think so. I thought it was truthful and 
tried to be helpful. He has been invited to lecture our military forces 
time and again on his insights as an outsider into what happened to 
them. So we have an open and creative military. I believe that is the 
strength of it.
  One of our leaders said we do not want a war; we want to resist a 
war, we want to avoid it at all possible costs, but when it can no 
longer be avoided, we want to fight it with violence, we want to fight 
it effectively, and we do not want it to be a fair fight. We want our 
enemies to know beforehand we do not want it to be a fair fight. We 
want to bring that force that we have to bear to win the war decisively 
and quickly, for this is the best way to create a safe environment 
afterwards and to preserve the lives of our service men and women. So 
we are working on that. This is not easy. We utilize the incredible 
technology that America develops. We utilize the management skills that 
Americans possess, and they are utilized routinely in this country.
  It is not easy to develop highly effective technology and, more 
importantly, apply that technology effectively on the battlefield. We 
have to make sure our 19-year-old Privates understand the capabilities 
they are dealing with and be able to apply it, even though they may 
have been in the military a year or less even. It is a tremendous 
managerial task.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 2 minutes to 
wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection whatsoever. I am curious as to whether 
we are under time limits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is operating under time limits. The 
minority has 26 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is fine with me. I am happy to yield. How much time 
does my friend need?
  Mr. SESSIONS. A couple of minutes would be fine. I did not know I was 
on a time limit.
  Mr. LEVIN. That makes two of us. So I am happy to yield some 
additional time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I close by saying how proud I am of the troops and our 
defense capability. As one writer for the British magazine, The 
Economist, said, not only do Americans spend more money on defense than 
their European allies, they spend it more wisely. That is the reason 
they are so capable in matters of defense. He also added that if the 
Europeans were so afraid of the United States, why did they not spend 
more on defense?
  I will be speaking later on a few more issues such as the Airland 
Subcommittee agenda, which I chair.
  At this time, I express my appreciation to Senator John Warner, the 
chairman of our committee, for his superb leadership, his understanding 
of this country, his understanding of the defense needs of this 
country, and his willingness to work for it.
  I, likewise, express my appreciation to Senator Levin, the ranking 
member. He is as capable, intelligent, and articulate as any Member of 
this body. He understands these issues. Although we talk at times about 
having differences of opinion, overwhelmingly the matters that went 
through our committee went through with bipartisan support and 
unanimous support.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan for allowing me the extra time.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. 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. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 
2004 National Defense Authorization Act. As ranking member of the 
Readiness Subcommittee, I have greatly enjoyed working with the new 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Ensign, and I especially appreciate the 
efforts that the Senator from Nevada has made to work through some of 
this year's very difficult issues in a balanced and fair manner.
  The readiness subcommittee is responsible for two areas that have the 
potential to be extremely controversial, and I believe both have been 
handled well.

[[Page 12049]]

  First, we spent a fair amount of time in our committee reviewing 
Department of Defense outsourcing policies. I continue to be troubled 
by the administration's insistence on outsourcing quotas, arbitrary 
timelines for conducting public-private competitions, and the use of 
direct conversions in place of competitive processes.
  Nonetheless, I support the provision in the bill which would 
authorize a pilot program under which the Department of Defense could 
test a new approach to public-private competition. The provision would 
also require that any deadlines for public-private competitions 
conducted by the Department of Defense be based on the resources 
actually available to the department to conduct such competitions. I 
believe that this provision strikes an appropriate balance.
  Second, our subcommittee held two hearings on environmental issues 
impacting military training and readiness. The administration has 
offered a series of legislative proposals to exempt the Department of 
Defense from some of our most important environmental statutes. I 
believe that these proposals go much farther than is needed to address 
the legitimate concerns of the military, and could do some real harm to 
the environment.
  The bill includes one provision on these issues, which would exempt 
military lands from critical habitat designation if those lands are 
covered by an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, or INRMP. I 
am disappointed that the majority of the committee rejected my 
amendment to this provision, which would have established a more 
workable and precise test for the adequacy of INRMPs to address 
endangered species. Nonetheless, I appreciate the thoughtful manner in 
which Senator Ensign considered this issue and attempted to address my 
concerns. While I do not support the provision that was included in the 
bill, I believe that it is a significant improvement over the 
administration's proposal.
  I also have some reservations about the reductions that we have taken 
in the operation and maintenance accounts, especially in the working 
capital funds. I am particularly concerned about the changes we have 
made within the Air Force working capital fund--as I understand it, the 
transfer of funds included in the markup package may actually create 
shortfalls of spare parts and harm readiness. I obviously hope that 
this does not come to pass, and I hope that we may be able to reverse 
some of these reductions as the bill progresses.
  As always, this bill continues to support military construction and 
family housing needs that are so critical to quality of life for our 
service men and women. I believe that the package we have before us 
today is a positive step toward this goal. I am concerned, however, 
that our actions with respect to overseas facilities in particular may 
be out of step with ongoing initiatives by the Department of Defense. 
The reductions in this bill, which go beyond those that the department 
itself recently proposed, undermine planned efficiencies that would 
improve both quality of life and training for Army forces who will 
remain in Germany. Currently, the department and the combatant 
commanders are working closely to create a comprehensive, integrated 
presence and basing strategy and to identify a new set of military 
construction requirements for the next decade. Moving forward, we must 
ensure that our decisions regarding military construction overseas 
support these future requirements so that we continue to support our 
service men and women to the best of our abilities.
  Mr. President, I believe that the bill we have before us makes some 
positive steps toward improving the readiness of our Armed Forces, and 
I commend it to my colleagues.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. It is my understanding that the Senate, at the hour of 5 
o'clock, will proceed to a rollcall vote and that the vote will be held 
open for the period of 1 hour, until 6 o'clock; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. My distinguished colleague, the ranking member, and I 
hope Members could come up to see either of us, if we are here--and if 
we are not here, both staffs will be here--and indicate the possibility 
that they may have amendments that will be forthcoming and the time, 
say tomorrow, that would be convenient for them to bring up those 
amendments.
  Tonight we will be addressing some amendments after 6 o'clock. We 
will resume with amendments in the morning. We have gotten excellent 
cooperation from those desiring to offer amendments. But by midday 
tomorrow, we should, at our respective caucuses, be able to give the 
Senate some idea during the caucuses of the progress of this bill and 
the likelihood of when final passage could be achieved. Am I not 
correct on that, I ask my colleague?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Virginia is, of course, correct.
  I join with him in asking Senators to share with us or our staffs at 
the 5 to 6 o'clock hour what amendment they would expect to be offering 
either tonight or tomorrow.
  I also point out, I believe--I want to make sure I am correct--the 
vote that occurs at 5 will be the only vote today. I ask the Chair, is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct--the Senator will 
suspend for a moment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thought that had already been agreed to. Am I incorrect 
on that?
  Mr. WARNER. In any event, Mr. President, there have been some rumors 
to that effect.
  Mr. LEVIN. I withdraw that. I thought an announcement had been made 
and it would be, of course, inappropriate for anyone other than the 
majority leader to make that announcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote will occur at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. WARNER. There is nothing in the Record as to post-6 o'clock as to 
further votes tonight. That is the case until we hear from the majority 
leader; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order concerning votes.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me confirm the vote that will be 
between 5 and 6 is the only vote tonight.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished assistant leader.
  Mr. LEVIN. The distinguished whip came to the floor just in time to 
save my reputation. I very much appreciate that.
  Mr. WARNER. With respect to amendments, I urge colleagues to look at 
the daily calendar in which the reference is made, on the covering 
page, to the order with regard to this bill and the proviso:

       Provided, That all first degree amendments be relevant and 
     that any second degree amendment be relevant to the first 
     degree amendment to which it is offered.

  There are restrictions on the subject matter. We want to cooperate 
with our colleagues. But it is very clear that this is the order that 
has been adopted by the Senate.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________