[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9629-9644]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S. 2400, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2400) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2005 for military activities in 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 
     Services, and for other purposes.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in connection with the work on this bill, 
which is scheduled for this week, Senator Levin and I ask unanimous 
consent that the staff members of the committee on the Armed Services, 
those names appearing on the list which is attached to this request, be 
extended the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 2400, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows:

       Judith A. Ansley, Richard D. DeBobes, Charles W. Alsup, 
     Michael N. Berger, June M. Borawski, Leah C. Brewer, Alison 
     E. Brill, Jennifer D. Cave, L. David Cherington, Christine E. 
     Cowart, Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Madelyn R. Creedon, Kenneth M. 
     Crosswait, Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Regina A. Dubey, and 
     Gabriella Eisen.
       Evelyn N. Farkas, Richard W. Fieldhouse, Andrew W. Florell, 
     Brian R. Green, Creighton Greene, William C. Greenwalt, 
     Jeremy L. Hekhuis, Bridget W. Higgins, Ambrose R. Hock, Gary 
     J. Howard, Jennifer Key, Gregory T. Kiley, Maren R. Leed, 
     Gerald J. Leeling, and Peter K. Levine.
       Thomas L. MacKenzie, Sara R. Mareno, Michael J. McCord, 
     Elaine A. McCusker, William G.P. Monahan, Lucian L. Niemeyer, 
     Cindy Pearson, Paula J. Philbin, Lynn F. Rusten, Arun A. 
     Seraphin, Joseph T. Sixeas, Scott W. Stucky, Diana G. Tabler, 
     Richard F. Walsh, Bridget E. Ward, Nicholas W. West, and 
     Pendred K. Wilson.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my privilege to again address the 
Senate on this bill, which I commend the Committee on the Armed 
Services for marking up in a record period of time. I first wish to 
thank my distinguished colleague, these now 26 years working together, 
the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and his staff who worked 
very diligently, such that the two of us together, with the tremendous 
support of each and every member of the Armed Services Committee, were 
able to proceed through the year with our series of hearings and to do 
a very thorough and expeditious markup.
  So we bring to the floor the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2005 for the Senate's consideration. This bill was 
unanimously reported out of committee on May 6. I believe it is a 
testament to the strong support of our men and women in uniform by the 
Senate if adopted.
  As we begin debate on this bill today, over 300,000 soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines, Active and Reserve, and countless 
civilians are serving bravely around the world, including the Persian 
Gulf region, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in the cause of freedom. All 
Americans are proud of what the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition 
partners have accomplished thus far in Iraq and in the global war on 
terrorism. We are ever mindful that the defense of our homeland begins 
on the distant battlefields of the world.
  As we begin this debate, we must pause to remember that military 
success is not achieved without significant sacrifice. We, the members 
of the committee--indeed, all Members of the Senate--extend our 
sympathies to the families and the loved ones of those who sacrificed 
their lives or were injured in operations to make America and the world 
safer. We will forever honor their service.
  The military successes in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 
Iraqi Freedom are a testament to the dedication and professionalism of 
the U.S. Armed Forces and to the support and sacrifice of their 
families. It is also a tribute to American technology and ingenuity. 
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 to 
be measured.
  As I have said repeatedly over the past few weeks, the horrific 
evidence of abuse of Iraqi prisoners perpetrated by a small number--and 
I repeat, thus far

[[Page 9630]]

to the comparison of the totality of our Armed Forces, a very small 
number of our Armed Forces--together with a number of civilian 
contractors, is an aberration, a total departure from the high 
standards and the professionalism that we have in our U.S. military. 
That series of incidents must never be permitted to happen again.
  I am very proud of what the Committee on the Armed Services has done 
thus far by way of its oversight responsibilities of this tragic 
situation, and we will continue, in consultation with my distinguished 
ranking member and all the members of the committee, to pursue the 
facts.
  These incidents are counter to every human value that every American 
has been taught. It is counter to what this country stands for, and it 
is counter to what the U.S. Armed Forces are fighting to protect. These 
acts of a few in some respect diminish us all. Nonetheless, we must not 
permit these acts to tarnish the honor of the many dedicated men and 
women in the Armed Forces, the 99.99 percent who are vigilantly 
upholding the values for which this country stands, and who are doing a 
great mission, wherever it is in the world, often at high personal 
risk.
  With Senate passage of the bill before us, we have the opportunity to 
send a strong message of support to our men and women in uniform. The 
bill contains much deserved pay raises and benefits for our military 
personnel and their families, much 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 address future threats. I urge my colleagues to debate this bill in 
a constructive spirit and to support its rapid adoption.
  The President's budget for defense for fiscal year 2005 continues a 
momentum of recent years in providing real increases in defense 
spending to combat terrorism and secure the homeland, to enhance the 
quality of life of 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 provides $422.2 billion for the Department of 
Defense and the defense programs of the Department of Energy, an 
increase of $20.9 billion, or 3.4 percent in real terms, over the 
amount authorized in fiscal year 2004.
  This bill reflects six priorities we established to guide our work on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
  First, our committee wanted to provide our men and women in uniform 
with the resources, training, and technology and equipment they need.
  Second, enhance stability of the Department of Defense to fulfill its 
homeland defense responsibilities.
  Third, continue to improve the quality of life for the men and women 
of the Armed Forces--Active, Reserve, Guard, and Retired--and their 
families.
  May I say at this point, having had many an association with the 
Armed Forces--and I use that term collectively to include the Guard and 
Reserve--they have performed magnificently, the Guard and Reserve, and 
have earned the respect of the regular forces who look upon them now as 
coequal partners.
  Fourth, sustain the readiness of our Armed Forces to conduct a full 
spectrum of military operations against current and anticipated 
threats.
  Fifth, support efforts to develop the innovative capabilities 
necessary to modernize and transform the Armed Forces.
  And sixth, continue active oversight of Department programs and 
operations, particularly in the areas of acquisition reform and 
contract management, to ensure proper stewardship of the taxpayers' 
hard-earned dollars.
  The committee's first priority was to provide the Department of 
Defense with the resources it needs to combat terrorism and win the war 
on global terrorism. This bill authorizes a temporary increase in the 
active-duty end strength of the Army of up to 30,000 soldiers from the 
2005 through 2009 fiscal years. This authorization is consistent with 
the manpower plans of the Army.
  In addition, the bill authorizes an increase of almost $1.2 billion 
over the budget request for programs to help our troops in the field. 
Funding highlights include, for the Army: $1.2 billion for helicopters 
to support Army aviation and modernization, in order to get needed 
airlift and attack helicopters to troops in the field; $272.2 million 
for aircraft survivability equipment to ensure all aircraft used in 
combat operations have the best possible protection; $905 million to 
continue procuring the Stryker armored vehicles that are already 
proving valuable in military operations in Iraq; and almost $1.1 
billion for up-armored HMMWVs, including an increase of $925 million to 
accelerate procurement of up-armored HMMWVs, as well as add-on 
ballistic armor for medium and heavy trucks, to protect our troops on 
patrol in hostile environments.
  To improve the ability of special operations forces, a major 
component of the war on terror, the bill authorizes an increase of 
$65.4 million above the President's budget request to accelerate the 
availability of important new capabilities.
  For naval forces, the bill authorizes an increase of $150 million to 
accelerate fielding of an amphibious assault ship that will greatly 
improve the mobility and lethality of the U.S. Marine Corps operations, 
increases the amount requested for amphibious assault vehicles by $23.2 
million, and it adds almost $50 million for personal protection 
equipment for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
  Overall, the bill adds over $600 million for force protection gear 
and combat clothing, such as improved body armor, to meet urgent 
requirements of the Armed Forces. The committee fully supports the 
budget request of $2.9 billion for C-17 new aircraft, to add to the 
existing fleet which is performing magnificently all over the world. 
This will improve the global mobility of our U.S. forces.
  To enhance the Department's homeland defense capabilities, the bill 
fully supports the President's budget request of $8 billion and 
authorizes an additional $46.9 million for seven additional weapons of 
mass destruction civil support teams. With this increase, the committee 
has reached the goal of funding 55 teams which will support local and 
regional first responders in every State and territory of the United 
States. May I add, our committee has had a long history of strong 
support for this program and increases the budget amounts each of the 
fiscal years to make certain that all 50 States are given this 
capability.
  In addition, the committee has added an additional $33.9 million for 
innovative technologies to combat terrorism and defeat emerging 
asymmetric threats, and $26.5 million for the development of chemical 
and biological agent detection and protection technologies. To protect 
America from ballistic missile threats, the bill authorizes $10.2 
billion for missile defense.
  This bill continues our commitment to improve the quality of life of 
our men and women in uniform, and their families, by authorizing a 3.5-
percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed service personnel, 
as well as increases in housing allowances that will eliminate average 
out-of-pocket expenses for off-base housing for service members. The 
bill authorizes a permanent increase in the monthly family separation 
allowance from $100 per month to $250 per month, and a permanent 
increase, from $150 a month to $225 a month, for special pay for duty 
subject to hostile fires or imminent danger. The bill also supports the 
initiatives taken by the Department to increase the pay of troops whose 
tours of duty have been extended for more than 12 months in the Iraq 
theater.
  In a significant health care initiative for members of the Reserves 
and National Guard, this bill authorizes permanent increases in 
coverage before and after mobilization, and a new health care option 
which would make TRICARE coverage available to all members of the 
Select Reserve and their families, in an affordable way. I urge my 
colleagues to support this innovative approach to enhancing health

[[Page 9631]]

care benefits for members of the Reserve and National Guard and their 
families.
  The administration requested $9.4 billion for military construction 
and family housing. The bill before the Senate includes an overall 
increase of $342.4 million in military construction, including 
increases of more than $100 million in critical unfunded projects 
identified by the military services, and an additional $172 million to 
fund improvements to the facilities supporting our National Guard and 
Reserve Forces.
  Over the past several years, the Armed Services Committee has worked 
with the Department of Defense to ensure that necessary modernization, 
transformation, and long-range research are maintained, even in times 
of high operational tempo.
  This bill continues support for these transformational activities, 
for example, by authorizing $131.1 million for tactical UAVs that have 
proven so valuable in recent military operations, an increase to $30.6 
million above the budget request; and more than $11 billion for 
cutting-edge science and technology programs, an increase of $445 
million above the budget request. These increases are in the critical 
areas of force protection equipment and devices, counterterrorism 
technologies, information assurance unmanned systems, and training 
innovations for the future defense force.
  With our Armed Forces deployed 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 battlefields, where the courage of our 
men and women are displayed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and elsewhere in 
the world.
  This National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2005 builds on 
the advances made in recent years. I urge my colleagues to join me and 
send a strong message of bipartisan support for our troops at home and 
abroad. We honor your service. We stand with you now and we will stand 
with you always in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join with our chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Warner, in bringing S. 2400, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 to the Senate floor. 
This bill is the product of 45 hearings, 3 days of markup, and 
countless hours of hard work by the members and the staff of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Throughout this process, Senator Warner has led the committee with 
his usual fairness and graciousness. There was a unanimous vote of our 
members in support of this bill, which is a tribute to the able 
leadership of my dear friend and the balanced approach which Senator 
Warner takes always in matters under consideration by our committee. He 
chairs this committee in the finest tradition of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, and I commend him for it. I wish every Senator 
could see him in action as he chairs our committee.
  Senator Warner has balanced the committee's legislative and oversight 
responsibilities over the last several weeks so there has been an 
additional challenge that Senator Warner has had to face as we have 
worked to report out this bill while at the same time beginning vital 
oversight over the abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. 
Without delaying the markup schedule, Senator Warner promptly scheduled 
a series of briefings and hearings on the prison abuse issue, with more 
to come. That means more work for all of us, for our staff, but it was 
the right and the necessary thing to do.
  Senator Warner has an equal determination, which I join, to have a 
comprehensive and prompt, hopefully, series of hearings into all 
aspects of this issue.
  The bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee will promote 
the national defense, improve the quality of life of our men and women 
in uniform, and make the investments we need to meet the challenges of 
the 21st century.
  First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in 
compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and 
their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing 
military operations around the world. For instance, the bill authorizes 
a 3.5-percent increase across the board for military personnel in terms 
of their pay, and it authorizes a permanent increase in the rate of 
special pay for duties subject to hostile fire and imminent danger. We 
authorize a permanent increase in the rate of family separation 
allowance.
  The bill authorizes a new benefit option under TRICARE which makes 
available for the first time an opportunity for all members of the 
selected Reserve and their families to participate in TRICARE. The bill 
authorizes an increase of $400 million over the President's budget 
request for enhanced health benefits for reservists.
  Second, the bill would make key investments that are needed to help 
address the challenges our military faces today and will continue to 
face in the future. I am particularly pleased that the bill would add 
$900 million to the President's budget to fund additional up-armored 
Humvees and add-on ballistic protection to provide force protection for 
our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill adds $600 million to the 
President's budget for additional force protection gear and combat 
clothing for service members. Our bill adds $450 million to the 
President's budget for advanced research that will help enhance force 
protection, combat terrorism, and counter the threat of proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction. The bill adds $47 million to the 
President's budget to field an additional seven weapons of mass 
destruction civil support teams, which fulfills a requirement 
established in last year's bill.
  Third, our bill contains a number of important provisions designed to 
improve the efficiency and the transparency of the operation of the 
Department of Defense. For instance, the bill would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to develop comprehensive DOD policy and procedures 
for the prevention of and response to incidents of sexual assault 
involving military members. The bill requires the Secretary to take 
specific steps to improve the management and oversight of contractors 
performing security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal 
justice functions in Iraq and other areas where U.S. forces are engaged 
in military operations. The bill establishes a commission on the 
National Guard and Reserve which will study the roles and missions of 
the Reserve components, and the bill strengthens the framework for 
oversight for addressing the Department's continuing financial 
management problems.
  Finally, the bill before us appropriately does not include two 
particularly troublesome legislative proposals. It does not include a 
provision that would delay or water down the base closure process. The 
committee continues to support the senior military and civilian 
leadership of the Department of Defense in concluding that another 
round of base closures is critical to meeting our future national 
security needs, and the bill does not include proposals advanced by the 
administration that would exempt certain military activities from key 
environmental requirements, including the Clean Air Act, the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Superfund law.
  There are, of course, provisions in this bill on which there are 
disagreements, as we would expect. I would like to mention a few areas 
in which I have serious concerns. I am disappointed that the bill, like 
the President's initial budget submission, fails to provide the money 
that we all know will be needed to support our day-to-day military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the beginning of this year, 
the administration insisted that because we do not yet know the exact 
cost of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, that it would 
be premature to include any cost for those

[[Page 9632]]

operations in the budget. The exact costs of a military operation, or 
even the normal operations of the Department of Defense, for that 
matter, are never known. That is not an adequate reason for not 
submitting a budget, and it is an inadequate reason for failing to 
include in that budget costs that we believe can be reasonably 
estimated and that we believe will be incurred in the next fiscal year.
  If Congress does not act to provide substantial funding for ongoing 
military operations this year, there is a significant risk that the 
military services will find themselves in serious financial difficulty 
earlier next year. The Pentagon has some flexibility to move funds to 
pay for ongoing operations, but shifting funds away from other 
priorities can only take the military so far. That is why the Senate 
Budget Committee included $30 billion for ongoing military operations 
in the Senate budget resolution earlier this year, and that is why the 
administration finally has acknowledged the problem, a week and a half 
ago, and agreed to submit a proposal for a $25 billion budget 
amendment. This money is needed to support our troops in the field, and 
they deserve more than just an IOU.
  I commend our chairman for holding a hearing in this matter. I think 
it was a very useful hearing. There was almost a consensus in our 
committee, or close to it, that there should be an amendment which 
would be offered, hopefully on this bill, which would provide the funds 
that are necessary for our troops for the operations we know will be 
taking place next year but to do it in a responsible manner where the 
Congress carries out its role of being a check and a balance on the 
executive branch and not just issuing a blank check. The chairman's 
initiative in holding this hearing and having the witnesses there who 
were called I believe will lead to the proper resolution of this 
matter--hopefully in an amendment that everybody can support.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank him for his full cooperation. We are now studying 
a draft by which the two of us would put forward to the committee a 
suggested amendment on this full amount of $25 billion.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman. We are indeed doing that.
  Another thing the bill does that it should not do, in my judgment, is 
to provide more than $10 billion for missile defense, including more 
than a half billion dollars for additional interceptors, without 
imposing basic ``fly before you buy'' requirements on the program.
  In the course of the markup, an amendment was offered that would have 
required the missile defense program to comply with the same 
operational testing requirements that are applicable to other 
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. It was defeated. 
Another amendment was offered that would have cut the funding for the 
production of additional interceptors or to fence that funding, 
restrict that funding until operational testing and evaluation of these 
interceptors is completed. That amendment was also defeated, as was the 
first, on a closely divided vote.
  It is unfortunate that the administration is so insistent on 
deploying a missile defense system as soon as possible that it is 
unwilling to comply with even the most basic operational test and 
evaluation requirements. If we want a missile defense that works rather 
than one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should not shy 
away from realistic testing requirements. The law and common sense 
require realistic testing requirements. Right now, they are not going 
to be followed.
  Another problem: The bill contains full funding of $27 million for 
the robust nuclear earth penetrator and the advanced nuclear weapons 
concept initiative, an increase of over $7.5 million authorized for 
these programs last year. The administration's budget for the outyear 
reflects a commitment to developing an earth penetrator, which is 
likely to cost on the order of $1 billion to produce and deploy. The 
bill also includes $9 million--a 50-percent increase over fiscal year 
2004--for the advanced nuclear weapons concepts initiative to look at 
new options for nuclear weapons.
  By pursuing this earth penetrator and the new nuclear weapons 
concepts, the administration continues to send the wrong message about 
weapons proliferation. At a time when the United States is trying to 
dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons 
development--we oppose North Korea's pulling out of the nuclear 
nonproliferation treaty, and we are spending over $1 billion to prevent 
the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology--these actions 
that are proposed by the administration send a terrible message.
  We are telling others not to go down the road to more and more 
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. In short, the United States is following a policy we 
would not tolerate and do not accept in others.
  I hope the Senate will reverse the administration's proposals as 
leaving us and the world less secure and more likely to face the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the proliferation of those 
weapons is the greatest threat we face.
  Finally, the bill contains two troubling provisions that would erode 
more than 30 years of congressional policy relative to high-level 
radioactive waste. These provisions were adopted on closely divided 
votes. One provision provides that the Department of Energy will have 
virtually unchecked discretion to reclassify or decree that high-level 
radioactive waste in South Carolina is not high-level radioactive 
waste. This ability to reclassify the waste opens the door to the 
Department of Energy to leave high-level radioactive waste in the 
ground in South Carolina and could lead to the same result in other 
States. That is because the second provision I referred to would 
require the States of Idaho and Washington to acquiesce in the 
Department of Energy's desire to reclassify high-level radioactive 
waste as they want to do in South Carolina before Idaho and Washington 
could continue to receive money to pump liquid high-level radioactive 
waste out of the tanks that are present in those States.
  Taken together, these two provisions begin to undo years of effort to 
make sure high-level radioactive waste will be disposed of safely to 
protect the public and the environment. It is disingenuous to pretend 
that high-level radioactive waste is anything other than high-level 
radioactive waste. The cavalier treatment of high-level radioactive 
waste could pose a very real risk environment to the health of our 
citizens down the line.
  As we begin consideration of this bill, the men and women of our 
Armed Forces--both Active and Reserve--remain deployed in harm's way in 
many areas of the globe and are being subjected to almost daily arms 
attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. We join together--every Member of this 
body--in standing behind our troops and expressing pride in their 
extraordinary accomplishments on the battlefield. This bill will help 
provide them with the equipment they need and the compensation and 
benefits they deserve.
  Let me again conclude by thanking Senator Warner for the leadership 
he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor, and I know we look 
forward to receiving amendments and considering amendments on this bill 
as the week progresses.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we welcome other Senators coming to the 
floor and discussing this bill. The bill is now open for amendment. We 
anticipate the senior Senator from Texas will come forward shortly with 
a very important amendment which is subject to leadership concurrence 
and which could be the subject of the vote that is now, according to 
leadership, scheduled for around 5:30. Senator Hutchison will probably 
be on the floor shortly after 4 o'clock to discuss that.
  As we commence the floor debate this afternoon, I think we are 
obligated

[[Page 9633]]

to bring to the attention of the American public who haven't already 
heard it the disturbing news about a threat posed to our forces in the 
Iraqi region. Indeed, it could be elsewhere in the world but for the 
moment in this particular region; that is, the use of a weapon which 
would fall within the definition of a weapon of mass destruction and 
used in Iraq on Saturday.
  News reports from Baghdad, confirmed by the Iraqi Survey Group--as 
you know, that is a group which was specifically tasked by the 
Secretary of Defense and specifically budgeted by the Congress of the 
United States to work on weapons of mass destruction issues. The report 
today, confirmed by the Iraqi Survey Group, indicated that on Saturday 
a roadside bomb was implanted on the road by terrorists who obviously 
attempted to use an artillery shell filled with deadly Sarin gas as an 
improvised explosive device. They are referred to as IEDs. This shell 
had no distinctive marks. Fortunately, the device only partially 
operated. There was an explosion, but fortunately only a small amount 
of the deadly nerve gas agent was produced by the explosion.
  Two U.S. demolition experts were treated for exposure to Sarin, and 
the reports are they are, fortunately, recovering.
  It is important to note, however, that this was an Iraqi military 
round. In other words, it was apparently identified clearly as one made 
some years before or sometime before our invasion. Its origin is 
unclear. What is clear is it was part of the Iraqi military arsenal 
that was not declared as required by the United Nations inspectors and 
that regime when they were operating in that region.
  We all know Saddam Hussein's regime had chemical weapons in the early 
1990s. We also know his regime continued the aggressive development 
activities on chemical and biological weapons. David Kay confirmed that 
as he reported to the Congress. Under the terms of the 1991 gulf war 
cease-fire, some chemical weapons were destroyed but tons of chemical 
and biological agents remain unaccounted for as to whether they were 
destroyed or are still in existence. Apparently, Iraq did have 
undeclared weapons as well.
  The discovery of this weapon is troubling and begs the question: How 
many more chemical weapons--weapons of potential mass destruction--are 
in Iraq and could fall into the hands of terrorists and other 
antagonists to the coalition forces named to bring freedom to the 
people of Iraq? Where are these various caches of weapons hidden? The 
question must be answered. It is the reason the important work of the 
Iraq Survey Group must go on.
  It has certainly been my opinion throughout that weapons of mass 
destruction materials and technology is the greatest threat to our 
Nation, and indeed all nations in the free world today. But materials 
or technology in the hands of terrorists could bring unimaginable 
destruction.
  Winning the global war on terrorism depends on stopping this 
proliferation. We have taken an important step forward in Afghanistan 
and an important step forward in Iraq.
  I hope that rapid passage of this bill will send a strong message 
because it reinforces our efforts worldwide to interdict weapons of 
mass destruction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me say that the remarks of the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the senior 
Senator from Virginia, are indeed disturbing because it would be the 
first evidence in this conflict that the chemical weapons Saddam 
Hussein once had and which we had no evidence of destruction might now 
be surfacing and might be used against our troops. It is, as he said, 
important that we continue to pursue this. We hope it is a single event 
rather than something that will repeat itself. But in any event, it 
brings home the seriousness of the proposition.
  I commend him for not only bringing it to our attention today but 
also for the work he and the committee have put into bringing this 
Defense authorization bill to the floor.
  It is a difficult time. We are not only focusing on the multiyear 
transition of our force structure but also the bringing of new 
technology to our military in an evolutionary way at the same time we 
are trying to provide the resources necessary to fight the war in Iraq 
and Afghanistan and other resources for the war on terror and building 
up our intelligence capabilities through the Defense Intelligence 
Organization and others.
  This is a very complicated and difficult time in defense planning. 
The bill the committee has put together is a very well-structured and a 
very forward-leaning bill, as well as a bill that takes care of the 
troops who are being put in harm's way today. I commend the chairman 
and members of the committee for the fine product they have put before 
us.
  I will speak today primarily about one aspect. It is not the war on 
terror but rather the way in which at least an element of high 
technology is being integrated into our forces to meet a different kind 
of challenge. It illustrates the fact that at the same time we are 
fighting this war on terror and the action in Iraq, we also have to 
think about the other challenges we are going to be facing in the 
future and be prepared to deal with them at that time.
  It is unfortunate but true that the sophisticated weapon systems that 
are available to our troops today were on the drawing boards maybe 20 
years ago and did not go into production until a few years ago because 
of all of the work that has to go into their development and their 
testing and their ultimate deployment. We do not have the ability to 
simply snap our fingers when we need a new weapons system and bring it 
online immediately. It takes years of work to get it to that point.
  A good example is, and a system we had to rely on to some extent in 
the first gulf war, in the area of missile defense. Missile defense has 
been with us ever since the pronouncement of President Reagan in his 
great announcement in the early 1980s that with the advent of ballistic 
missiles, a genie that would never be put back into the bottle, we were 
going to have to develop effective defenses against them or they would 
be the weapon of choice in the future for the delivery of high 
explosive but potentially nuclear weaponry, as well as chemical or 
biological weaponry. As a result, President Reagan embarked upon a 
scientific venture to find a way to intercept missiles. There was a 
great deal of research that went into this. Frankly, we came close 
during the end of the Reagan administration and first part of the first 
Bush administration of actually being able to deploy missile defenses.
  But one of the arguments opponents always made was more testing was 
necessary and we should not actually go to the deployment of the system 
until we could better prove it could defeat any conceivable threat. At 
the time, the potential enemy was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union 
did, indeed, have a sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missile 
system, one that required us not only to defeat a rudimentary kind of 
missile but one that might have decoys, that might have other kinds of 
penetration aids, ways defensively to throw our interceptor missiles 
off course.
  So there was always a game being played between perfection being the 
enemy of the good versus actually getting something deployed that would 
take care of most of the threat. At the end of the day, there was not 
sufficient support in the Congress to actually deploy a system, as a 
result of which a great deal of time and money was spent on ballistic 
missiles but nothing was ever produced.
  Along came the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration 
also understood that especially with the rise of the threat from North 
Korea, Iran, and China, as well as the leftover threat from the Soviet 
Union, but in a much more benign setting now that Russia was emerging 
as the power out of the ashes of the Soviet Union, there was still 
going to be a need to deploy some kind of system. As a result, the 
Clinton administration decided upon a

[[Page 9634]]

ground-based system of 100 interceptors primarily potentially at a site 
partially, at least, in Alaska that would be our basic way of beginning 
to deal with ballistic missile threat.
  Even the Clinton administration understood this was not the be-all 
and end-all. This would not necessarily be the end of the development 
of ballistic missile interceptors because as the offense became more 
sophisticated, so, too, the defense would have to become more 
sophisticated. But it was a way to begin the deployment and deal with 
the threat from a rogue nation, a nation like North Korea or Iran, for 
example, which would not have the sophisticated penetration aids of a 
nation like the Soviet Union.
  The question then came when the second Bush administration came to 
power, would it be possible for us to move away from the constraints of 
the ballistic missile treaty, the ABM treaty, to actually think about 
deploying more sophisticated and capable systems that were not 
permitted under the ABM treaty. It was agreed with the Russians that a 
new treaty would replace the ABM treaty, a treaty which would permit 
both countries to get rid of most of their offensive weapons, their 
nuclear weaponry, and much of this was to be delivered on top of 
ballistic missiles, as a result of which the means for delivery of 
those nuclear weapons would be eliminated as well as the nuclear 
weaponry itself.
  That decision was made and an agreement was entered into between the 
United States and Russia, and as a result, the United States began to 
think about a more creative way to actually deploy a rudimentary 
missile defense system. By then, the threat from Russia had eroded and 
we saw primarily the threat from the so-called axis-of-evil countries 
as the one we were going to have to deal with.
  The decision was made, since we wanted to put something into place 
quickly, that what we would do is combine the initial deployment of the 
system with continued testing so we would actually have a test bed 
available to us to provide the real conditions for a real test; have a 
real missile defense system in place to actually do the testing that 
would be the most sophisticated and end part of the testing program.
  We went through a series of tests that were highly scripted, that 
told us what we needed to know about the component parts of the system, 
and it was time to put it in operational mode to test it in that mode.
  GEN Ron Kadish, the general in charge of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization, put it very interestingly:

       The criticism we get is that we are not operationally 
     testing the system before we put it in place. My response to 
     that, which people don't seem to want to accept, is you can't 
     operational test the system until you put it in place.

  Of course, General Kadish is exactly right. You can only do so much 
hypothetical testing. There is a point at which you need to put it in 
place so you can go forward with the operational testing. This was the 
concept the Bush administration decided to pursue.
  It is strange that very concept now is being criticized and 
presumably will be the subject of amendments that will be offered in 
the Senate to take away from funding for the ballistic missile defense 
system. It will generally contend that more testing is required; that 
in effect we need to test this until we are absolutely certain it can 
do everything it needs against every potential adversary without 
question, by which time many years will have passed, much more money 
will have been spent, and we still will not have anything to show.
  It might be interesting to note that during the first gulf war we 
were actually exposed to the rationale for proceeding as we are 
proceeding with the missile defense system. At that time, Saddam 
Hussein launched Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia, at Kuwait, at the U.S. 
forces there, at the country of Israel, and there was no missile 
defense system in place at that time. The Israelis did not have the 
Arrow missile which they now have and which we hope will provide an 
effective missile defense system against something like the Scud 
missile for the state of Israel. What we had was an anti-aircraft 
missile called the Patriot. It was a very capable system. But we needed 
something to defend against the Scuds.
  Very hurriedly we sent to the theater batteries of Patriot missiles. 
Literally, on the way, as they were being prepared for transit and in 
transit and as they were being set up, we were adjusting the computer 
components, the radar connections and tracking systems and the like, to 
try to make these Patriot systems more robust, more capable, faster 
acting, more discerning, so they might actually hit a ballistic missile 
rather than an airplane, which is what they were designed to be against 
in the first instance.
  Lo and behold, it turned out through the ingenuity of people 
literally on the ground, the Patriot missile system was made to be 
somewhat effective against some of these Scud missiles. Certainly not 
as effective as a finely developed missile defense system would have 
been, but the point was we made do with what we had because we did not 
have a choice. We were in the middle of a conflict and we had to come 
up with some way to defend our troops and defend our friends.
  Lest my colleagues forget, remember, the single largest number of 
casualties in the first gulf war against Americans, 28 were killed when 
a Scud missile hit an Air Force base with American airmen and others 
present. It demonstrates you cannot wait until you have the perfect 
system. When you are in a conflict with people and they are working as 
fast as they can, it helps to have something ready to go even if it is 
not perfect.
  That was the reasoning behind the Bush administration's decision to 
move forward with the development of the system and not wait until 
every conceivable aspect of testing could be done, but to actually get 
it up to the point where it could be deployed for operational testing, 
and at that point we would be able to literally kill two birds with one 
stone.
  We would not only have an operational test bed capable of continuing 
to perform the tests necessary, but we would also have an operational 
capability of some robustness, probably not enough to defeat a Russian 
missile, should one be launched by accident, for example, but certainly 
one that might be sufficient to take out a North Korean missile.
  The thinking was that not only would you serve these two purposes, 
but you would also serve another very important purpose; and that was 
to discourage the countries that were beginning to proliferate weapons 
of mass destruction, and the missiles to deliver them, from developing 
these missile systems because of the notion that whatever they did, 
however much effort and time and money they put into it, we would have 
a way of defeating it, so it would not be worth their while--in effect, 
a deterrent, to say: The United States will not permit you to have an 
effective missile against us, so do not bother to try to develop and 
deploy it.
  We believe that could be important because of some things I will say 
in a moment relating to the exchange of information between countries 
such as China and Pakistan and North Korea and Iran and other countries 
that began to proliferate components and technology for the trading of 
these missiles. So the threat would not be just from one country but 
would be from several countries. We have to nip this in the bud, and 
developing a good missile defense would be one way to do that.
  So from the original notion, which, as I said, was to have 20 
missiles in combination between a site in California and a site in 
Alaska, to the development of another 10, which would be put in Alaska, 
and then another 10, following that, at a site to be determined--and 
this is the so-called missiles numbered 31 through 40. These are not 
yet funded. They are part of a long leadtime funding that is the 
subject of this bill and which might be the subject of an amendment.
  Let me go back and put all this into perspective. The Defense bill 
itself is just a little over $10 billion for ballistic missile defense 
research and development. It is key to the development and

[[Page 9635]]

deployment of this capability about which I have been speaking. The 
threat from ballistic missiles is not waning; it is growing.
  Today there are nearly three dozen countries, according to our 
intelligence, that have or are developing ballistic missiles of 
increasing range and sophistication. It includes the two remaining 
``access of evil'' members, Iran and North Korea, as well as their 
fellow terrorist regime Syria.
  Some of the latest developments, which unless indicated otherwise, 
are all taken from the DCI's most recent semiannual ``Report to 
Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass 
Destruction and Conventional Munitions,'' are as follows:
  First, North Korea: It continues its development of long-range 
missiles. Its Taepo Dong 2 missile, which is capable of reaching the 
United States with a nuclear weapon-sized payload, may now be ready for 
flight testing. So this is not a hypothetical threat.
  The Channel NewsAsia reported earlier this month that Pyongyang is 
nearing formal deployment of the Taepo Dong 2 and is now gearing up to 
test engines for the missile.
  Recent press accounts have also raised the possibility that North 
Korea is working on new intermediate-range ballistic missiles. 
According to a May 6 Los Angeles Times article, the South Korean press 
has reported that two new missile bases are under construction in North 
Korea. These bases would reportedly be used for a new missile capable 
of reaching U.S. bases in Guam and possibly Hawaii.
  North Korea not only presents a problem because of its own 
capabilities but also because of its proliferation of ballistic 
missiles and related technologies to potential adversaries of the 
United States.
  According to the DCI report:

       Throughout the first half of 2003, North Korea continued to 
     export significant ballistic missile-related equipment, 
     components, materials and technical expertise to the Middle 
     East, South Asia, and North Africa.

  Recent press reports indicate that Kim Jong Il has been negotiating 
with the Iranian regime on the sale of the long-range Taepo Dong 2.
  Iran: The DCI report says:

       Ballistic missile-related cooperation from entities in the 
     former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China over the years 
     has helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-
     sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles.

  Iran's ballistic missile inventory is among the largest in the Middle 
East.
  Last June, Iran made some significant advances in its program, 
conducting a successful test of the 800-mile-range Shahab-3 missile. If 
operational, this weapon could alter the strategic balance in the 
Middle East, placing Israel and U.S. bases in Turkey within Iran's 
reach. Iran is also seeking to produce a 1,200-mile Shahab-4 missile.
  According to CIA Director George Tenet's recent testimony to the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, Iran, as North Korea, has been willing 
to supply missile-related technology to countries of concern.
  The PRC, the People's Republic of China: In addition to the threat 
posed by the development of ballistic missiles by terrorist-sponsored 
regimes that I have noted, we should not forget about the improving 
capabilities, as well as the WMD and ballistic missile proliferation, 
of the People's Republic of China.
  The intelligence community's most recent report on foreign ballistic 
missile development assessed that China could begin deploying its 
5,000-mile-range DF-31 missile during the first half of this decade. 
China's even longer range ballistic missile, the DF-41, could be 
deployed in the latter half of the decade. I remind my colleagues this 
is now 2004.
  China also has approximately 500 shorter range missiles aimed at 
Taiwan.
  According to an article in today's Washington Post, the Chinese 
Government warned Taiwan's President to pull back from ``a dangerous 
lurch toward independence''--their words--``or face''--and I am again 
quoting their word--``destruction.''
  Given that warning, as well as numerous others like it, the United 
States should take very seriously not only the missile threat posed to 
Taiwan but also that posed to the United States.
  Finally, despite relatively new missile-related export regulations, 
Chinese entities continued, during the first half of 2003, to work with 
Pakistan and Iran on ballistic missile projects. Additionally, during 
that same time, Chinese firms continued to provide materials or 
assistance to the ballistic missile programs in Iran and North Korea.
  So you see a combination of countries willing to work with each other 
toward the development of these missiles, all of which could be 
threatening to the United States and our interests.
  So what will missile defense deployment accomplish? Well, as I said, 
both defense and deterrence.
  Deployment of the layered missile defense system will permit the 
United States freedom of action by eliminating the possibility that we 
would be susceptible to nuclear blackmail by a country such as North 
Korea.
  Missile defense will also reduce the incentives for proliferation by 
devaluing offensive missiles. If a rogue actor views missiles as less 
likely to be effective because of our defenses, he will also be less 
inclined to spend as much time or money trying to acquire them.
  Finally, missile defenses, in a worst case scenario, will save 
Americans lives.
  This is worth doing. I would like to quote again General Kadish, who 
made this point earlier this year. He said:

       We should not choose to be vulnerable. We have proven that 
     from a technological standpoint and a practical standpoint we 
     can intercept ballistic warheads in flight. And to say now 
     that we can technologically defend ourselves and then choose 
     not to is, in my view, a recipe for failure.

  The first obligation we have as legislators, as opinion leaders, as 
leaders in this country, is to ensure the defense of the United States 
of America and American citizens. We have to do that with the 
development of ballistic missile defenses because it is the one threat 
that exists against us which we do not yet have a capability of 
defeating. But we are on the verge of deploying that capability. We 
have to proceed with it and not retrench under the rubric of ``more 
testing is necessary.''
  There are challenges. The ideological opposition to missile defense, 
unfortunately, still exists. Last year was the first year that the 
President's overall request for missile defense was met. In the 
previous years it had not been. In fiscal year 2003, ballistic missile 
defense research and development had been reduced by $80 million, and 
the year before that by $530 million.
  In addition to that, restrictive language has been adopted by this 
body, creating a false choice between two alternatives, which I will 
speak to in a moment.
  Last year's authorization for the fiscal year 2003 Defense 
authorization bill required the administration to decide whether $814 
million would be spent on missile defense or terrorism. This was money 
that the administration had requested for its missile defense 
organization, and it was spent on that. But the President, in effect, 
was faced with a false choice. Which one, in effect, critics were 
asking, was more important? Of course, the bottom line is, they are 
both important. In the United States, we have the capability of doing 
both. Indeed, we have no choice but to do both. In fact, we have no 
choice but to do several things in this defense budget. You cannot 
decide that one is more important than the other and, therefore, you 
have to forego spending on one for the benefit of the other, if you 
have the capability of funding them all. So missile defense versus the 
war on terror would, indeed, be a false choice.
  It is clear that we have needs in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on 
terror, but we don't have the luxury of confronting those needs while 
at the same time overlooking or ignoring the ballistic missile threat 
from a country such as North Korea or Iran. I ask my friends, who were 
so shocked that something like 9/11 could happen, what their response 
would be if one of those missiles were launched against the United 
States, if we had no defense

[[Page 9636]]

against them landing on one of our cities. I would hope those who have 
been opposing the deployment of missile defenses would acknowledge 
responsibility in that environment.
  Let me respond to one potential amendment that might come up and then 
conclude my remarks. I have talked about the fact that there may be an 
effort to cut money from the Missile Defense Program to fund some other 
program such as armor for Humvees or vests for our soldiers or 
something of that sort. All of these things are being fielded as 
quickly as we can field them, as my colleagues well appreciate. In 
other words, diverting money now from missile defense to more body 
armor or armor for Humvees won't speed up 1 minute the deployment of 
that particular defensive equipment in Iraq.
  For whatever reasons, there will be an effort to take money from the 
ballistic missile program and apply to it those kinds of programs, I 
suppose, because they would presumably have a great deal of public 
support. I reiterate, those programs are totally funded today and are 
being provided, and we do not need to take money from the ballistic 
missile defense program as part of this Defense authorization bill.
  The funding that is provided in the bill will allow the construction 
and implementation of the ballistic missile defense test bed that will 
be used to conduct more realistic system-wide tests at the same time 
that it provides a near-concurrent initial operational capability in 
case of an attack. As I said, it is consistent with President Clinton's 
proposal for national missile defense that planned to deploy 100 
ground-based interceptors. This will provide for the addition to the 
initial 20 interceptors at Fort Greely and Vandenberg Air Force Base, 
of 20 additional ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, at sea, and 
perhaps even at some overseas location to be determined.
  The budget request specifically in the chairman's bill makes a 
downpayment on the ground-based interceptors Nos. 21 through 40. It is 
the long lead funding to provide: No. 1, additional test articles 
necessary to conduct planned future integrated flight tests--and I 
pause here to say, for those critics who say we need more testing, this 
is the money for the testing; so if you vote to cut this money, you are 
actually cutting the money for more testing; No. 2, an expanded 
interceptor inventory to address estimated growth in foreign ballistic 
missile threats; No. 3, maintain steady industrial base production 
lines for the interceptors and kill vehicles in the event an expanded 
inventory is deemed necessary; and, No. 4, ground-site preparation 
activities for interceptors Nos. 21 through 30.
  Any cuts to the ground-based missile defense deployment that is 
contemplated will cripple effective deployment of the initial test bed 
system that itself will allow for more realistic testing.
  So if you accept the notion of and assumption inherent in 
capabilities-based acquisition and spiral development, then criticisms 
about insufficient testing before initial deployment of this ballistic 
missile system are simply invalid.
  I commend the chairman and the committee for their great work in 
bringing this bill to the floor and finally funding our missile defense 
system so that we can not only continue the testing that is so 
important, but also at the same time provide some initial capability 
should we need that capability.
  I hope my colleagues will join together, support the chairman, 
support the committee, support the President in what he is trying to 
do, and not engage in a thousand cuts that could end up crippling this 
program yet once again, getting us to the point of deployment but no 
further than that point.
  I urge my colleagues to support the chairman and the committee and 
defeat such amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from 
Arizona. He has been in the very forefront of these issues regarding 
missile defense for many years. He has spent much of his time, and he 
speaks of his knowledge. I assure him that our committee, in the course 
of its markup, stood steadfast on these issues. I am hopeful we can 
continue to do so in the event such amendments as the Senator from 
Arizona contemplated would be brought to the floor. We would hope that 
he would find time to engage with us in support of the mark as it now 
stands.
  Earlier today the distinguished Senator from New Jersey advised the 
managers of the bill that he has an amendment. I also see the 
distinguished Senator from Maine. I would think as a matter of comity, 
we would hear from our distinguished colleague from New Jersey. It is 
my understanding that the managers of the bill will make a request that 
this matter be laid aside, after, in fact, he offers the amendment. The 
bill is open for amendment. The parliamentary situation affords the 
Senator from New Jersey this opportunity, and we welcome amendments 
being brought up. We anticipate a second amendment to be brought 
forward this afternoon. So at some point, there will be a vote, but 
that is subject to the leadership. I also have just seen the amendment. 
We will need time on both sides to study it. I anticipate we will ask 
the Senator to lay it aside at the conclusion of his remarks. Then the 
distinguished Senator from Maine would be recognized next.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3151

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for 
his courtesy and understand that when my remarks are finished, a 
request will be made to lay the amendment aside. For now, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg} proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3151.

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

       On page 184, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

          Subtitle F--Provisions Relating To Certain Sanctions

     SEC. 856. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Clarification of certain actions under IEEPA.--In any 
     case in which the President takes action under the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 
     et seq.) with respect to a foreign country, or persons 
     dealing with or associated with that foreign government, as a 
     result of a determination by the Secretary of State that the 
     government has repeatedly provided support for acts of 
     international terrorism, such action shall apply to a United 
     States person or other person as defined in paragraph (2).
       (2) Definitions.--In this section:
       (A) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual, 
     partnership, corporation, or other form of association, 
     including any government or agency thereof.
       (B) United States person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (i) any resident or national (other than an individual 
     resident outside the United States and employed by other than 
     a United States person); and
       (ii) any domestic concern (including any permanent domestic 
     establishment of any foreign concern) or any foreign 
     subsidiary or affiliate (including any permanent foreign 
     establishment) of any domestic concern, which is controlled 
     in fact by such domestic concern.
       (C) Controlled.--The term ``is controlled'' means--
       (i) in the case of a corporation, holds at least 50 percent 
     (by vote or value) of the capital structure of the 
     corporation; and
       (ii) in the case of any other kind of legal entity, holds 
     interests representing at least 50 percent of the capital 
     structure of the entity.
       (b) Applicability.--
       (1) In general.--In any case in which the President has 
     taken action under the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act and such action is in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the provisions of subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to a United States person (or other person) if such 
     person divests or terminates its business with the

[[Page 9637]]

     government or person identified by such action within 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Actions after date of enactment.--In any case in which 
     the President takes action under the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to a 
     United States person (or other person) if such person divests 
     or terminates its business with the government or person 
     identified by such action within 90 days after the date of 
     such action.

     SEC. 857. NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS OF TERMINATION OF 
                   INVESTIGATION BY OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS 
                   CONTROL.

       (a) Notification Requirement.--The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 42. NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS OF TERMINATION OF 
                   INVESTIGATION BY OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS 
                   CONTROL.

       ``The Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control 
     shall notify Congress upon the termination of any 
     investigation by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the 
     Department of the Treasury if any sanction is imposed by the 
     Director of such office as a result of the investigation.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 42. Notification of Congress of termination of investigation by 
              Office of Foreign Assets Control.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment 
that is vital to the purpose of this Defense authorization bill. This 
bill supports our men and women who are on the front lines of the war 
on terrorism throughout the world. They are paying a terrific price. 
They are doing it bravely and courageously. We want to make sure there 
are no opportunities to circumvent rules that would permit any business 
to go on with terrorist countries.
  My amendment focuses on a key component of the war on terror; that 
is, to deny terrorists funding and support. My amendment will close a 
loophole that allows U.S. companies to do business with terror-
sponsoring nations such as Iran. Senators Feinstein, Clinton, Corzine, 
and Feingold are cosponsors of the amendment.
  As my colleagues know--and we just heard from the Senator from 
Arizona about his concern with the behavior of some of the rogue 
nations, including Iran, who are planning terrible things in their 
public statements for the United States--American companies are 
supposed to be prohibited from doing business with Iran. But by 
creating shell companies as foreign subsidiaries, these companies are 
making a mockery of our sanctions laws and providing revenue for the 
financing of terrorist acts. It is wrong. It has to stop, and this 
amendment would do just that.
  Immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush 
told the world, ``You are either with us or against us.'' Pretty clear. 
That same message should apply to people in our own country, including 
those in our corporate world.
  We know many companies find tax loopholes or regulatory loopholes 
they exploit from time to time. But in this case, we found U.S. 
companies exploiting loopholes so they could do business with 
terrorists.
  President Bush also said, ``Money is the lifeblood of terrorist 
operations.'' He is right.
  If U.S. companies do business with rogue states like Iran, they are 
generating revenue for those who supply money and other resources to 
terrorists. They are also sending a message to these countries that 
they are not really isolated, as they should be, and that the United 
States, in some form, finds their behavior acceptable.
  We have passed laws, such as the International Emergency Economic 
Powers Act, which make it clear U.S. companies must not do business 
with terrorist states. The vast majority of American companies abide by 
that law. However, a few companies have exploited a loophole that 
allows them to do business with Iran and other rogue nations.
  If we look at this chart, we see the structure or format that permits 
this to happen. Once they form a subsidiary company that doesn't have 
the same restrictions on doing business with Iran we have, that money 
can be earned, revenues can be generated that help these countries, 
help Hezbollah and Hamas, and they brag about it constantly.
  This placard demonstrates how companies utilize this loophole.
  U.S. companies often have several subsidiaries. Most American 
companies and their subsidiaries do not cross the lines that prevent 
business with terrorist states. But some do, and here is how they do 
it.
  Some U.S. companies set up a foreign subsidiary for the specific 
purpose of gaining revenues from terrorist states. The reason is the 
sanctions laws prohibit the parent company and its foreign branches 
from doing business with terrorist states. Foreign subsidiaries, 
however, are not mentioned in the law. This omission has not gone 
unnoticed by corporate lawyers. It has been identified as a major 
loophole that allows companies to do business with rogue states.
  We know a few American companies are using this loophole to do 
business with the Iranian Government. This is the same Iranian 
Government President Bush said is part of the axis of evil. This is the 
same Iranian Government that directly funds organizations like Hamas, 
Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad--all terrorist organizations, according to 
the State Department.
  Now, for a moment, I ask my colleagues to look at the young faces in 
this photograph. One of these young women is Sara Duker, a young woman 
who lived in New Jersey until her death. The other is Abigail Litle. 
Sara was a constituent of mine. She was a 22-year-old from the town of 
Teaneck, NJ; a summa cum laude graduate of Barnard College. Sara was 
killed with her fiance when the bus she was riding in Jerusalem was 
blown up in 1996 by Hamas. Hamas receives funding and support from the 
Iranian Government. Iranian terrorists caused the deaths of many 
American citizens abroad, including the 240 Marines who were brutally 
murdered in their sleep in 1983 in Beirut. They also took the lives of 
these two young American women, Sara Duker and 14-year-old Abigail 
Litle.
  Iran sponsors terrorism. The terror they help fund has killed 
hundreds of Americans. Yet American companies--it is hard to believe 
this--are flaunting the law in order to do business with the Iranian 
Government. It is wrong, but it is not technically illegal yet. This 
amendment would change that.
  I say to my colleagues this is a loophole we must close. We have to 
tell both our friends and those who continue to sponsor terrorism we 
are serious in our efforts to battle this evil.
  It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business 
practice that provides revenues or profits to terrorism. We have to 
stop them. We have a chance to do that today with this amendment.
  The bottom line is big businesses, even those with financial ties to 
top members of our Government, do not get a free pass in this war on 
terrorism. No one in America wants to give these countries any 
advantage they could restrict them from.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, close the terror-
funding loophole, pass this legislation, and send out the message we 
are against any help for terrorist nations that might occur.
  I understand the request I agreed to earlier is to permit another 
amendment to be considered. I will honor that commitment, and I want to 
make sure we have an understanding that at an appropriate time we will 
have a discussion and further review of my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished colleague from 
New Jersey. I want to confer with the distinguished ranking member, who 
will soon be back. In the meantime, if it is agreeable with the 
Senator, we will lay his amendment aside. I so request that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be laid aside.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.

[[Page 9638]]


  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act. As a member of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, I especially commend the able leadership of 
our chairman, Senator John Warner. Under his leadership and that of the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee has delivered to the full Senate a vital piece of legislation 
for our security now and in the years to come.
  This legislation provides vital resources for the men and women in 
our military, resources they require in defending our Nation and in 
carrying out the operations overseas.
  I am proud that the legislation before us builds on the efforts we 
have made in previous years to ensure that our troops are the best 
paid, the best trained, and best equipped in the world. It includes, 
for example, a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay raise for military 
personnel. It authorizes the permanent increase in the rate of family 
separation allowances from $100 per month to $250 per month. It also 
authorizes a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duties 
subject to hostile fire or imminent danger from $150 per month to $225 
per month. These provisions, in a small way, help to recognize the 
sacrifices of those who are deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  One of the greatest obligations we have is to provide the best 
protection possible to our troops who are being sent into harm's way. 
Therefore, the committee added $425 million for additional force 
protection equipment, such as up-armored Humvees, ballistic equipment 
kits to fortify Humvees, and combat clothing for service members, such 
as body armor.
  With 60 percent of its National Guard personnel deployed, Maine has 
the second highest deployed ratio in the Nation. There is only one 
other State that has deployed more of its National Guard than the State 
of Maine. I am very grateful for the service of our Guard and Reserve 
members, but I am also very concerned about the heavy burden we are 
imposing on our Guard members and reservists, their families, and their 
employers.
  Many of my colleagues know of the experience, for example, of one of 
the military police companies from Maine which was on its way home on 
Easter weekend when it received orders to extend its deployment and 
return to Kuwait and Iraq. This news was demoralizing for some of the 
soldiers in this unit who had already been in Iraq for more than a 
year, and it was devastating to the family members who were ready to 
welcome them home on Easter Sunday.
  Thankfully, this bill begins to address the many significant 
contributions and sacrifices being made by our guardsmen and reservists 
in the global war on terrorism. It authorizes a new benefit option 
under the military health care program known as TRICARE.
  TRICARE Reserve Select would be offered for the first time to members 
of the selected Reserve and Guard and their families who could 
participate in TRICARE for a premium. It authorizes more than $400 
million above the President's budget request for enhanced health 
benefits for reservists, which will improve mobilization readiness and 
ensure the continuity of health care services.
  The legislation focuses on other areas in need of reform as well. 
Earlier this year, the committee held a hearing on sexual assaults in 
the military. We heard very disturbing testimony about sexual assaults 
and the inadequate response to victims. This legislation directs the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy and procedures 
for the prevention of and response to incidents of sexual assault 
involving military members.
  As a member of the Seapower Subcommittee under the able chairmanship 
of Senator Jim Talent, I am particularly pleased that this 
authorization bill provides significant funding for our naval forces. 
We continue to marvel at the capabilities and the commitment of our 
Navy. At the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example, 70 percent 
of our surface fleet and 50 percent of our submarine fleet were 
deployed in Iraq, the highest deployment rate since World War II.
  This Defense authorization includes $6.7 billion for the procurement 
of seven ships. These include three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class 
destroyers, two of which will be constructed at the famous Bath Iron 
Works in Maine. While this shipbuilding budget represents considerable 
progress, I want to note for my colleagues that we need to be vigilant 
about the number of ships we are building to ensure that our fleet can 
meet our national security requirements.
  Our Navy now has fewer than 300 ships, and the current rate of 
production, unfortunately, will not allow that number to increase. This 
could place our shipbuilding industrial base at risk. To avoid that 
unacceptable outcome, the Senate Armed Services Committee added report 
language at my request that directs the Navy to take all actions 
necessary to ensure the viability of the second shipyard--that is Bath 
Iron Works--in order to maintain a healthy and competitive industrial 
base.
  We have a responsibility to ensure that our Navy is well prepared to 
fight today and tomorrow. Part of that involves designing and 
developing the next generation of ships. The last three destroyers of 
the Arleigh Burke class are funded in this fiscal year 2005 Defense 
authorization. They will be followed by a new class of destroyers, a 
destroyer designed to meet the challenges of the 21st century, the DDX. 
One of the two builders of the DDX, I am proud to say, is Bath Iron 
Works in the State of Maine.
  I am pleased to state to the distinguished Presiding Officer, my 
colleagues, the citizens of Maine, and the fine employees of Bath Iron 
Works that this bill represents important progress in securing the 
future of our Navy and the future of Bath Iron Works. It will help to 
preserve America's proud maritime tradition and our shipbuilding 
industrial base.
  I have been extremely concerned about the fiscal year 2006 gap in the 
production of surface combatants in the administration's proposed 
budget. If permitted, this would be the first time in 20 years that no 
surface combatant would be built.
  Moreover, the Navy's analysis of the impact on the industrial base 
indicates that if the DDX schedule were to slip, the shipyard that is 
scheduled to build the follow ship--in this case Bath Iron Works--could 
experience significant workload issues.
  Fortunately, there is good news in this bill. I have worked very hard 
with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in an effort to 
maintain some stability in the shipbuilding industrial base. At my 
request, the committee added $99.4 million to begin the construction of 
a second DDX to be built in Bath in fiscal year 2006, thus accelerating 
the start of construction by 1 year and helping to partially fill that 
very dangerous gap in our shipbuilding budget. This funding will help 
to ensure a more stable workload for Bath Iron Works and, thus, to 
preserve the skilled workers essential to our national security.
  We only have two shipyards left that now build surface combatant 
ships. We need to make sure that we sustain the highly skilled 
workforce in both of those yards so that we have a competitive 
environment for the Navy.
  This bill has a number of other very important provisions for new 
weapon platforms and systems. It also recognizes that our Nation cannot 
maintain its technological superiority over potential adversaries 
without investing in emerging capabilities.
  The legislation authorizes $11 billion for the Defense Science and 
Technology Program, including an additional $450 million for 
transformational basic and applied research activities, bringing the 
Department closer to its goal of investing 3 percent of its budget in 
such programs.
  Finally, I am also very pleased that this legislation includes 
provisions that I authored allocating $3 million to establish a U.S. 
Army Center of Excellence at the University of Maine. I know from my 
conversations with

[[Page 9639]]

Army officials and generals that they are very excited about the 
possibility of a Center on Advanced Structures and Composites in 
construction. The center will focus on addressing the Army's needs in 
fundamental and applied research related to the use of advanced 
composite materials and structures.
  These are a few of the reasons why this Senate should strongly 
support the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act.
  I again want to commend the chairman and ranking member of the 
committee for their hard work, working with all of us on the committee, 
as well as with the administration and one another, in bringing forward 
this vital legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished 
colleague from Maine for all of her hard work on the Armed Services 
Committee. I very much enjoyed her strong remarks in support of this 
bill.
  I believe the distinguished Senator from Texas is now ready to 
present an amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield while I add my 
thanks to the Senator from Maine for the contribution she makes to the 
committee. She highlighted a number of initiatives she has undertaken 
on the committee. In addition to those very strong efforts on the part 
of the Senator from Maine, she has been such a major contributor in the 
strength of the committee over the years that I wanted to acknowledge 
that along with our chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 3152

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment, but 
I first want to commend the committee for producing a very good bill. I 
cannot think of anything more important while our troops are in harm's 
way. We see on television and read in the newspapers every day about 
what our troops are doing for our country. Now they know they are going 
to be fully funded. The priorities in this bill are the right 
priorities.
  I commend the distinguished chairman, the Senator from Virginia, and 
the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Michigan, for 
producing this bill. Sometimes producing this bill has been very 
difficult, but it looks as though the committee came together knowing 
how important this was for our military to see that it would not be 
minor skirmishes that would submarine this very important legislation. 
So I commend the committee.
  I say on a couple of points with which I am particularly involved 
that I think the committee has done a terrific job. First, I am 
chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, which is part of 
the Appropriations Committee. The administration requested 
approximately $9.5 billion for military construction and family 
housing, and the committee went up to $9.82 billion, increasing the 
administration's request, because family housing is so very important 
right now.
  We are beginning to give a better quality of life to all of our 
military personnel. Whether they are single and live in barracks or 
whether they have family housing requirements, they are getting better 
quality. I am very pleased about that, and particularly that the 
committee also fully funded all of the requirements of the very 
critical military construction of the Department of Defense for 
overseas locations.
  As we look at our military construction budget, we are making sure 
the military construction we do overseas, not counting in our combat 
zones, but in places where we have facilities, that we are focusing now 
on only putting money in facilities we know are going to endure. Part 
of the overseas basing commission Senator Feinstein and I passed, along 
with the help of the authorization committee, to assure that we look at 
all of those bases, that we not put one military construction dollar 
where we do not know absolutely that is going to be an enduring 
facility so our taxpayers know we are not going to be building some big 
cafeteria, fitness center, or headquarters in a place we are going to 
abandon in the next 2 to 3 years. So we are trying to spend wisely and 
the authorization committee did an excellent job of funding the 
military construction authorization, working with our subcommittee that 
will be appropriating funds.
  The second area they should be commended for addressing is our 
military compensation. Certainly increasing our military pay by 3.5 
percent, which the President requested, it will be fully funded and 
assure everyone in the military. Then adding to the combat pay and 
adding to the separation allowance, these are very important items to 
increase the quality of life for those serving our country today, and 
their families.
  It was mentioned earlier by the Senator from Maine that there should 
be an addressing of the issue of sexual assault in our military. It is 
important that there will be a comprehensive policy and procedure for 
prevention and response to incidents of sexual assault involving 
military members. It is required that that be done in the next year. I 
am very pleased the committee chose to do this because we have been 
reading disturbing reports about this subject. All of us are concerned 
that our young women who agree to serve in our military and who are 
performing so well be able to serve knowing they will be protected from 
any kind of physical assault.
  Last, I want to mention the Joint Strike Fighter, which is a very 
important future fighter airplane I am very excited about and have been 
involved in as it has evolved from the drawing board. It will be made 
in Texas, so I am more familiar with it. I am very pleased the 
committee chose to fully fund the research, development, and testing of 
future fighter planes that will give us the total dominance of the air 
in future years. I think the committee did an outstanding job.
  Before I go to my amendment, there is one area I also want to bring 
up with the chairman. I would like to try to come up with an 
appropriate amendment, working with the committee, that deals with 
reaching the cap on privatized housing for our military personnel. We 
have been able to do so much more by having an association with private 
housing builders and contractors. We could never, ever have put the 
housing we have on the ground if we had had to fully fund this from our 
Department of Defense funds.
  We have been able to have partnerships with private companies where 
they would do the building and we would lease back those facilities 
through the years. We have been able to increase the quality of housing 
in that respect. We are soon going to reach the $850 million cap. We 
were very concerned we would be bumping against that, and stopped some 
of the projects that are on the drawing boards today, projects our 
military personnel have looked forward to coming to fruition, places 
like Fort Hood where we have severe housing shortages.
  The military personnel have been relying on the family housing 
projects that have been built by private companies and now we are 
looking at hitting that cap and not being able to go forward with those 
projects. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the 
committee if he would work with me and see if we could come up with 
some appropriate language that would raise that cap maybe by $300 
million, $400 million, or $500 million, so we would not have any danger 
of bumping against the cap before we have the opportunity to address it 
in the next authorization appropriations bill.
  I ask the distinguished chairman if this is also a concern of his and 
if he would try to work with me, if there is an amendment we could 
offer together or somehow assure that we will not stop the planning 
that is going on now for some very important military housing projects.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator for her inquiry. I will 
give her assurance that we will take it into consideration. For the 
moment, though, we are on this amendment. To my understanding it is now 
pending at the desk?

[[Page 9640]]


  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I was going to send my amendment to the desk, and I 
am now prepared to do that.
  I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3152.

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

     (Purpose: To authorize medical and dental care for cadets and 
    midshipmen, and to authorize disability benefits for cadets and 
                  midshipmen of the service academies)

       On page 147, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 717. ELIGIBILITY OF CADETS AND MIDSHIPMEN FOR MEDICAL 
                   AND DENTAL CARE AND DISABILITY BENEFITS.

       (a) Medical and Dental Care.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1074a the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1074b. Medical and dental care: cadets and midshipmen

       ``(a) Eligibility.--Under joint regulations prescribed by 
     the administering Secretaries, the following persons are, 
     except as provided in subsection (c), entitled to the 
     benefits described in subsection (b):
       ``(1) A cadet at the United States Military Academy, the 
     United States Air Force Academy, or the Coast Guard Academy, 
     and a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy, who 
     incurs or aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the 
     line of duty.
       ``(2) Each member of, and each designated applicant for 
     membership in, the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
     who incurs or aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in 
     the line of duty while performing duties under section 2109 
     of this title.
       ``(b) Benefits.--A person eligible for benefits in 
     subsection (a) for an injury, illness, or disease is entitled 
     to--
       ``(1) the medical and dental care under this chapter that 
     is appropriate for the treatment of the injury, illness, or 
     disease until the injury, illness, disease, or any resulting 
     disability cannot be materially improved by further 
     hospitalization or treatment; and
       ``(2) meals during hospitalization.
       ``(c) Exception.--A person is not entitled to benefits 
     under subsection (b) for an injury, illness, or disease, or 
     the aggravation of an injury, illness, or disease that is a 
     result of the gross negligence or the misconduct of that 
     person.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     1074a the following new item:

``1074b. Medical and dental care: cadets and midshipmen of the service 
              academies.''.

       (b) Eligibility of Academy Cadets and Midshipmen for 
     Disability Retired Pay.--(1)(A) Section 1217 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1217. Cadets, midshipmen, and aviation cadets: 
       applicability of chapter

       ``(a) This chapter applies to cadets at the United States 
     Military Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, and 
     the United States Coast Guard Academy and midshipmen of the 
     United States Naval Academy.
       ``(b) Monthly cadet pay and monthly midshipman pay under 
     section 203(c) of title 37 shall be considered to be basic 
     pay for purposes of this chapter and the computation of 
     retired pay and severance and separation pay to which 
     entitlement is established under this chapter.''.
       (B) The item related to section 1217 in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 61 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``1217. Cadets, midshipmen, and aviation cadets: applicability of 
              chapter.''.

       (2) The amendments made by paragraph (1) shall take effect 
     on October 1, 2004.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this amendment attempts to solve a 
problem facing not this generation of military leadership but our 
future generation of military leadership.
  Current law established in the Career Compensation Act of 1949 denies 
cadets and midshipmen the disability benefits that would be provided to 
any other member of the Armed Forces, especially when they are injured 
in the line of duty. With respect to health benefits, cadets and 
midshipmen who are separated for medical disability after being injured 
during military training now face unnecessary and unfair burdens in 
maintaining the continuity of their health care.
  In addition, Reserve Officer Training Corps, ROTC cadets are in many 
cases required to pay for their own medical care after being injured 
during military training. Even though ROTC cadets are covered under the 
Office of Workers Compensation within the Department of Labor, medical 
care providers, many of whom have not been compensated for their prior 
work, decline to treat ROTC patients unless they use private medical 
insurance.
  This is not something that we should allow to remain a problem. In 
2001, when I became aware of the plight of some seriously disabled 
cadets and midshipmen from the service academies, I asked for a study. 
These cadets were discharged from the Armed Forces without any 
entitlement to future medical care or disability benefits. In each of 
these cases, the cadets and midshipmen had been injured in the line of 
duty.
  I asked for a report, and the Department of Defense did find that the 
ROTC also had examples of how the health care system, which currently 
operates under the Department of Labor, does not adequately serve these 
former cadets whose care was under their charge.
  In one case, a ROTC cadet received dental injuries during training at 
the Fort Lewis advanced camp for the U.S. Army. As a result of his 
injuries, he received emergency medical treatment at Fort Lewis but 
required followup treatment at a civilian treatment facility. The only 
dentist who would see the cadet treated him and received $13 on the 
$1,200 bill that was submitted. The dentist attempted to work in 
conjunction with the cadet and the ROTC unit for nearly a year to 
receive full payment for his work, and he never did.
  So the amendment I offer today would include academy cadets and 
midshipmen in the military disability discharge and retirement system 
so that they can also receive necessary health and dental benefits, and 
for ROTC cadets it would transfer responsibility for medical claims 
from the Department of Labor to the Department of Defense, authorizing 
the use of supplemental health care programs in the TRICARE management 
agency. While no additional benefits would be provided to ROTC 
participants, the change would ensure a better quality of health care.
  This amendment is fair to academy cadets, midshipmen, and ROTC cadets 
who are injured while in the performance of military training. It would 
provide health and disability benefits to those who currently receive 
none if they are midshipmen and academy cadets. It also ensures a 
credible health care system widely accepted by health care providers 
for those currently covered under the less effective OWC program.
  The Congressional Budget Office and Department of Defense estimate 
these changes will cost approximately $460,000 a year. So this is a 
very small amount of money required to provide care for those who are 
in training to serve our country.
  The bottom line is these ROTC cadets who are injured in military 
training would be able to receive health care if they need it as a 
followup, after the emergency treatment from that training accident. 
This provides that they can go from the Department of Labor to the 
Department of Defense to receive better quality and more experienced 
health care coverage.
  Regarding those midshipmen and cadets in our military academies, it 
would allow those who have to be severed from the academies because of 
their injuries, because they are no longer physically able to become 
members of the armed services, if they are injured in military 
training, that they would be able to receive the health care and the 
disability payments to which they would be entitled. It would go to the 
Veterans Affairs Department for them to determine what kind of 
disability and how much of a disability, just as those in the armed 
services do today. I think it is the fair thing.
  It is the result of a study that I requested. So I believe it is my 
responsibility to try to correct the problems that were found in the 
study and treat these young ROTC cadets and those wonderful young 
people who are in our military academies and in the Naval Academy and 
Coast Guard--that they

[[Page 9641]]

would also be able to receive health care if they are injured and would 
be able to receive a disability payment if they are severed from the 
academy.
  I ask at the appropriate time I have a vote on my amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Shall we ask for the yeas and nays?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, so I understand it, I would like to hear 
again from the distinguished proponent of the amendment. Clearly, the 
midshipmen at the Naval Academy, cadets at West Point and the Air Force 
Academy, get very clear treatment. I want to clarify exactly what the 
college ROTC, NROTC, Air Force ROTC--what is it they get? Is it less 
than the midshipmen?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes. First, let me say with regard to the academy----
  Mr. WARNER. This bill goes a long way to improve it, as I read it. I 
want to make it clear. I don't want to raise expectations too high.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me say, as regards the academy members first----
  Mr. WARNER. The three service academies.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Of course they get health care--treatment for their 
injury. But assume their injury then keeps them from being able to stay 
at the academy; they have to be let go because they no longer can 
perform the physical functions. Then they go into the private sector 
and their health care continuity would be assured under this amendment 
as they would get a small disability as well because they were in 
training.
  ROTC, today, does give health care benefits if they are injured in 
training, but it is under the Department of Labor, and it is under 
workers' compensation. There has been a dissatisfaction with the kind 
of treatment they have been able to receive, and the Department of 
Labor and workers' compensation doesn't have the same understanding of 
a military injury. All we are doing--and this costs absolutely 
nothing--we are just transferring the benefit from the Department of 
Labor to the Department of Defense so these young people would be able 
to get continued health care for whatever their injury was when it was 
in the line of duty.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that is exceedingly helpful. I 
commend the distinguished Senator. My notes show she started back in 
2001 on this issue, and at that time we reached a consensus that we 
would let the Department of Defense issue a report. That comprehensive 
report was issued the 1st of May in 2003.
  Again, I thank the Senator for bringing it to the Senate's attention. 
I urge all Senators to support this amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman. I appreciate that very much. I 
appreciate very much the ability to work with his staff and with the 
minority staff as well to assure that we were doing exactly what we 
wanted to do in the narrow area to which this corresponds. I thank the 
chairman and look forward to having a favorable vote on my amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague.
  I would like to say a few additional words, but I will defer to our 
distinguished colleague from Michigan if he would like to speak.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Texas for her 
leadership. She has been very patient and has allowed us to be very 
thorough. As a result, I think the amendment which she sponsors is very 
valid, and not only will pass overwhelmingly, hopefully for the good it 
does, but also will make it through conference. I commend her for her 
tenacity on this issue. I hope it is successful. It fills some gaps 
which need to be filled.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the remarks of 
the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I also commend the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan as well as the distinguished 
chairman of the committee for producing an excellent bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have gone through the report in support 
of this amendment issued by the Department of Defense. I find the 
history very interesting. There are four academies because the Coast 
Guard is very much included.
  Until the enactment of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, 
disability retirement was a prerequisite of commissioned officer 
services. The most significant reform of the provisions of this 
legislation was the inclusion of enlisted personnel within the group 
eligible for benefits. Prior to 1949, cadets and midshipmen, as well as 
the enlisted personnel in the Armed Forces, were denied disability 
benefits. It is amazing to think back about how that could have been 
possible.
  There is no record of cadet disability being seriously considered 
until the review of pay and benefits that led to the Career 
Compensation Act of 1949. At that time, however, it is clear that 
Congress established a policy that exists today. During the hearings on 
H.R. 5007, which became the act of 1949, the following colloquy 
occurred before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  Senator Baldwin asked:

       On page 63, in the provisions of the law as written here, 
     with reference to retirement for disability, does service at 
     the Coast Guard Academy, Annapolis, and West Point--is that 
     included in the period of service?
       Admiral Fechteler. Now----
       The Chairman. Suppose a man is disabled while he is at the 
     Naval Academy or the Coast Guard Academy or at West Point; 
     suppose he breaks his leg in such a fashion that he cannot 
     walk well any more, and you gentlemen decide that he is 
     unfit? What happens to him if he is in one of the three 
     academices?
       Admiral Fechteler. He is just discharged.
       The Chairman. Does he get any severance pay?
       Admiral Fechteler. No, Sir.
       The Chairman. He is just out of luck?
       Admiral Fechteler. That is right.
       The Chairman. Through no fault of his own, while actively 
     engaged in the curriculum prescribed for these men?
       Admiral Fechteler. He still gets nothing.
       Senator Baldwin. I would hate to see a good back for the 
     Navy going around an Army end for a touchdown, break his leg 
     and come to such an end.
       Senator Chapman. That is the present law?
       Admiral Fechteler. That would continue under this.
       The Chairman. That is an interesting observation, 
     nevertheless.

  For some reason, they went ahead and exempted these young men, the 
midshipmen in the ROTC. And now, many years later, the Senator from 
Texas very wisely has corrected our predecessors, I say to Senator 
Levin, who allowed this to slip these many years. I think it is an 
interesting chapter in history.
  Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent 
that at 5:30 today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
Hutchison amendment with no amendments in order to the amendment prior 
to the vote; I further ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 
be equally divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see no Senator at this time seeking 
recognition. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 17 
minutes as in morning business provided that the time be charged 
against the Republican-controlled time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Brown V. Board of Education

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 50th 
anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Topeka Board 
of Education.

[[Page 9642]]

  I wish to take this opportunity to honor two outstanding Virginians 
who played key roles in this historic decision. Those two men are 
Spotts-
wood W. Robinson III and Oliver W. Hill.
  It is hard to imagine that only fifty years ago separate but equal 
under the 1896 Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, was allowed 
to be the law of the land in the United States. It is hard to imagine 
that not so long ago, in many States, Black children and White children 
were forbidden from learning in the same classroom or even the same 
school. It is regretful to think that only fifty years ago there were 
still those who believed people should be judged by the color of their 
skin rather than the content of their character.
  In the historic Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of 
Education, the highest court in the United States ruled unanimously 
that ``separate but equal'' education facilities for African-American 
children were a violation of the United States Constitution. This 
single decision opened the door for equal treatment of all Americans, 
regardless of race; an idea enshrined in the spirit of our 
Constitution, but, at the time, not properly reflected in our laws.
  Eight year-old Linda Brown surely did not know how historic her 
actions would be--she simply wanted to attend the nearby school with 
her friends. But instead, she was forced to attend a ``separate'' 
facility with Topeka's other African-American children.
  Chief Justice Earl Warren's decision for the Court was eloquent:

       Today, education is perhaps the most important function of 
     State and local governments. . . . It is the very foundation 
     of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in 
     awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for 
     later professional training, and in helping him to adjust 
     normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful 
     that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life 
     if he is denied the opportunity of an education. The Court 
     concluded that ``in the field of public education, the 
     doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place; separate 
     educational facilities are inherently unequal.

  So here we are on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Court's 
decision and I would like to honor these two great Virginians, Judge 
Spotts-
wood Robinson III and Mr. Oliver W. Hill. Both of these valiant 
gentlemen devoted their lives, energy, and resources to ensure that all 
Americans are afforded an equal opportunity in every aspect of American 
life.
  My predecessor, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the 
Honorable L. Douglas Wilder, rightfully described Judge Spottswood 
Robinson as ``one of those unsung and little noticed giants'' of the 
civil rights movement. Born in Richmond, VA, on July 26, 1918, to a 
middle-class African-American family known for its presence in the 
business community, Spottswood Robinson learned from his father and his 
grandfather that honesty and hard work lead to success.
  Spottswood Robinson was an academic leader at segregated Armstrong 
High School, excelled as an undergraduate at Virginia Union University, 
a historically Black college and Howard University, another 
historically Black college. He graduated from the Howard School of Law 
in 1937.
  One might ask, ``why did he go to Howard University? Howard 
University is in Washington, DC.'' The sad fact was, he could not get a 
legal education in his home Commonwealth of Virginia. There were no 
legal or law opportunities for Blacks in Virginia. At Howard, though, 
he excelled and scored the highest scholastic average ever achieved at 
the school. He later stated that ``one of the things drilled into my 
head was . . . this legal education that you are getting is not just 
for you, it was for everybody. So when you leave here, you want to put 
it to good use.''
  Spottswood Robinson certainly did put his knowledge to good use. 
Spottswood Robinson was considered the architect of the legal plans to 
overcome the closing of public schools in Prince Edward County, VA. He 
also used his knowledge to lay the groundwork for the monumental case 
of Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia. In this case involving 
segregation on the Greyhound buslines, Robinson advocated a unique 
legal proposition that segregation imposed by the Greyhound Bus Company 
violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which was a departure 
from the legal theory that the 14th amendment due process clause would 
be invoked. His deft use of the Commerce Clause gave the Civil Rights 
cause a historic success.
  After Judge Spottswood Robinson gave up his law practice in 1960, he 
was asked to be the Dean of the Howard University School of Law. In 
1964, President John F. Kennedy selected Judge Robinson to be the first 
African American to be appointed to the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia. In 1966, Judge Robinson became the first African 
American to be appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit when he was appointed by then-President Johnson. On 
May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African American to serve 
as chief judge of the Circuit Court of District of Columbia. He retired 
in 1992 and he died in 1998 at the age of 82 in his Richmond, Virginia 
home.
  Another key Virginian in the civil rights movement was Oliver W. 
Hill. His life story is one of endless pursuit of justice and fairness. 
Mr. Hill was also born in Richmond, VA, in 1907. From the start, Mr. 
Oliver Hill epitomized excellence in all endeavors. He also attended 
Howard University where he received his undergraduate and law degrees, 
graduating second only to the future Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood 
Marshall. In 1948, Mr. Hill was elected the first African-American 
member of the Richmond City Council since reconstruction.
  As part of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, these two gentlemen, Spotts-
wood Robinson and Oliver Hill, played instrumental roles in litigating 
cases that resulted in the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board 
of Education. They were the two key litigators for the Virginia portion 
of this case which was styled Davis v. County School Board of Prince 
Edward County. They joined other civil rights attorneys Justice 
Thurgood Marshall and Mr. Jack Greenberg in representing those who 
firmly believed that ``Separate but Equal'' was not the American way.
  The historic efforts of these men positively changed our nation. In 
1999, the United States Congress recognized Oliver Hill's efforts by 
awarding him the Nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential 
Medal of Freedom. Mr. Hill's medal reads:

       A courageous civil rights advocate, Oliver Hill has devoted 
     his life to building a more just and inclusive America. As a 
     trial lawyer, he won landmark cases that secured equal rights 
     for African-Americans in education, employment, housing, 
     voting and jury selection. Successfully litigating one of the 
     school desegregation cases later decided by the Supreme Court 
     in Brown v. Board of Education, he played a key role in 
     overturning the ``separate but equal'' doctrine.

  In addition to being awarded the prestigious Presidential Medal of 
Freedom, Mr. Hill's efforts have been recognized by organizations and 
institutions in Virginia and across the nation. In 1983, students at my 
alma mater, the University of Virginia, founded the Oliver W. Hill 
Black Pre-Law Association. In 1992, Mr. Hill was honored with Dominion 
Power's ``Strong Men and Women'' award. Each year the Virginia State 
Conference of the NAACP awards the ``Oliver W. Hill Freedom Fighter 
Award'' to an outstanding civil rights advocate. In 2001, the American 
College of Trial Lawyers presented Mr. Hill with the ``Award for 
Courageous Advocacy.'' Each year the Old Dominion Bar Association 
awards the Oliver W. Hill Scholarship to outstanding Virginians 
entering Virginia law schools. A bronze bust of Mr. Hill is proudly 
displayed at the Black History Museum and Cultural Center of Virginia.
  As with Spottswood Robinson, these honors and eminent awards were 
rightly bestowed on a man who exemplified character and perseverance in 
the face of adversity and injustice.
  Mr. President, our Nation has progressed in large part due to brave, 
tenacious and brilliant individuals like Spottswood Robinson and Oliver 
Hill. I believe that I speak for the entire nation in saying to Oliver 
Hill and the

[[Page 9643]]

family of Judge Spottswood Robinson, how grateful we are for their 
commitment to the American ideals of equality, fairness and justice.
  As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of this historic decision, we 
must always remember that our Nation was founded upon the idea and 
proposition that ``all men are created equal,'' and we must ensure that 
our Nation's policies properly reflect this commitment to equality of 
opportunity ``regardless of one's race, ethnicity, gender or religious 
beliefs.''
  ``For his unyielding efforts to improve the lives of his fellow 
Americans and his unwavering dedication to justice for all, our Nation 
honors Oliver Hill.''
  In addition to being awarded the prestigious Presidential Medal of 
Freedom, Mr. Hill's efforts have been recognized by organizations and 
institutions in Virginia and across our Nation.
  In 1983, students at my alma mater, the University of Virginia, 
founded the Oliver W. Hill Black Pre-Law Association.
  In 1992, Mr. Hill was honored with Dominion Power's Strong Men and 
Women award. Each year, the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP 
awards the Oliver W. Hill Freedom Fighter Award to an outstanding civil 
rights advocate.
  In 2001, the American College of Trial Lawyers presented Mr. Hill 
with the Award for Courageous Advocacy.
  Each year, the Old Dominion Bar Association awards the Oliver W. Hill 
Scholarship to outstanding Virginians entering Virginia law schools.
  A bronze bust, in fact, of Oliver Hill is proudly displayed at the 
Black History Museum and Cultural Center of Virginia.
  As with Spottswood Robinson, these honors and eminent awards were 
rightly bestowed on a man who exemplified character and perseverance in 
the face of adversity and injustice.
  Our Nation has progressed in large part due to brave, tenacious, 
brilliant, and principled individuals like Spottswood Robinson and 
Oliver Hill.
  I believe I speak for the entire Nation in saying to Oliver Hill and 
to the family of Judge Spottswood Robinson how grateful we are for 
their commitment to the American ideals of equality, fairness, and 
justice.
  As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of this historic decision, we 
must always remember our Nation was founded upon the idea and 
proposition that ``all men are created equal,'' and we must ensure that 
our Nation's policies properly reflect this commitment to equality of 
opportunity regardless of one's race, ethnicity, gender, or religious 
beliefs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business and the time be charged to our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Compensation for Negro League Baseball Players

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on the occasion of the 50th 
anniversary of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, I am happy to 
announce to the Senate I have come from Tampa, FL, where I made an 
announcement of some significance today. Seated with two Negro League 
ballplayers--a pitcher from the Kansas City Monarchs, Bob Mitchell, and 
a pitcher from the Indianapolis Clowns, Mr. Maddox--we were happy to 
announce, with a representative of Commissioner Bud Selig present, the 
first compensation for the Negro League players who were kept out of 
the Major Leagues, because segregation did not end with Jackie Robinson 
breaking the color barrier in 1947. Indeed, Major League Baseball was 
not integrated until the late 1950s.
  When Commissioner Selig, in 1997, decided to do something about the 
inequity of the Negro League players never having been compensated--but 
the criteria was based on the principle they would be compensated if 
they had played in the Negro Leagues before 1947 and in the Majors 
after--today the principle was established by Major League Baseball 
that, in fact, the Majors were not integrated until the late 1950s. The 
compensation plan we announced will be for the Negro Leaguers who still 
played the same amount of time--4 years--but played 4 years in the 
Majors before the end of the 1958 season. Therefore, they, too, will be 
compensated.
  Why is this important? It is important because of the sad fact of our 
Nation's history of segregation. There was tremendous talent in the 
Negro Leagues. We know of those such as Hank Aaron who came out of the 
Negro Leagues, and Jackie Robinson, the first to come out of the Negro 
Leagues into the Majors. We know of the home-run king, Hank Aaron, and 
what all he has meant to the game. But there were many other players 
who had fantastic talent but who were never able to break into the 
Major Leagues after Jackie Robinson because of the color barrier.
  So with this announcement today, it is giving new life to those 
players who are now quite elderly. Also, Major League Baseball has been 
kind enough to recognize there will be a survivor benefit since many of 
these players are now getting on to the age of the twilight of their 
lives. For the period of time in which this compensation is available, 
it will also be available to their surviving spouse.
  It has been such a privilege, and it is interesting, one of the great 
joys of public service is sometimes you are in the right place at the 
right time. I found myself in that position, having been elected to the 
Senate in the 2000 election. In 2001, I got a letter from Mr. Mitchell. 
He was asking for help, so we went to work on it. I met with him and a 
group of a half dozen of the old Negro League players. I told them I 
was going to go to work on this issue. And I say that with a great 
sense of personal satisfaction of knowing sometimes you are in the 
right place at the right time, to kind of move the ball along toward 
progress.
  I have given several speeches on the floor of this Senate. I have 
brought it up in several committee hearings, more recent of which was 
about 2 months ago, with Commissioner Selig sitting there, of where we 
could discuss Major League Baseball's intent to provide for this 
compensation.
  So one thing after another, with a lot of people working together, 
this is a happy day. I say it is coincidental, but it is a significant 
coincidence that it happens on the day of the 50th anniversary of the 
Brown v. Board of Education landmark Supreme Court decision.
  As I have met with these baseball players who played in the old Negro 
Leagues, I have asked them: How good were you? And I would talk to the 
shortstops, but it was most revealing when I would talk to the 
pitchers, just like Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Maddox, who stood up with me 
today in making this announcement in Tampa. I asked: How good were you? 
They would look at me, and that big smile would break out on their 
face, and they would say: Senator, listen, we would smoke 'em. They 
couldn't hold a candle to us.
  And I would say: Give me an example. And they would say: Today, they 
pitch four, five, maybe six innings. We would pitch nine straight 
innings, and we would still have the reserve to keep going.
  Finally, what a happy day this is for a lot of them who are now 
eligible to receive this compensation. What a happy day it is for me 
and my staff, who have worked so hard people over the past 3 years. 
What a happy day it is for Commissioner Bud Selig, who has wanted to do 
the right thing because he knew it was the right thing.
  I am glad to bring a little bit of good news to this august body of 
which I am very privileged to be a Member.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I see no one on either side 
of the aisle seeking recognition. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on

[[Page 9644]]

agreeing to amendment No. 3152, offered by the Senator from Texas, Mrs. 
Hutchison.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Kansas (Mr. 
Brownback), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from 
Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kansas 
(Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would each vote ``yea.''
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from California 
(Ms. Boxer), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator 
from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), the Senator from 
Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Ms. Boxer), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), 
and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) would each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Chambliss
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Ensign
     Frist
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Roberts
     Stabenow
  The amendment (No. 3152) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. 
Daschle, has advised me that his flight to Washington was delayed due 
to weather conditions. His flight was scheduled to arrive earlier this 
afternoon, but the delay resulted in his unavoidable absence during the 
previous vote on the Hutchison amendment. Senator Daschle has advised 
me that had he been here he would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________