[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17399-17401]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate 
amendment No. 1389 to postpone the current round of domestic military 
base closures.
  The threats confronting the United States today are vastly different 
from those during the Cold War, and we must shift our defense posture 
to address new and emerging enemies. I do not dispute that closing and 
realigning excess military capacity is critical to that endeavor. 
However, I fear we are rushing to conclude this process before having 
all pertinent national security information to make a well-informed 
decision. In short, I believe we have put the cart before the horse.
  While I support delaying this base closure round, I do not dismiss 
the important work of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The 
Commissioners and their staff should be commended for their diligent 
efforts to carefully review and evaluate each recommendation made by 
the Pentagon.
  Having said that, I believe closing military installations without 
thoughtful consideration is short- sighted. Before implementing this 
round of base closures critical issues should be resolved to ensure we 
have not irrevocably damaged our ability to confront threats at home 
and abroad. The amendment requires specific benchmarks be fulfilled 
before the current round of domestic base closures is completed. I 
believe these requirements are logical and necessary in light of the 
threats facing the United States.
  The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are our most urgent 
national security concern, but the United States must be prepared to 
address other potential enemies. According to a recent Defense 
Department report, China has expanded its military reach enabling them 
to threaten Taiwan, Japan, and the U.S. military in the Pacific. 
Furthermore, China continues to both improve and expand its nuclear 
arsenal and has the capacity to field advanced missiles able to strike 
the United States.
  China is not our only national security concern, as both Iran and 
North Korea have refused to relinquish their nuclear weapons programs. 
U.S. intelligence experts agree North Korea has developed multiple 
nuclear weapons, while Iran, an active state sponsor of terrorism, 
continues to pursue chemical and biological weapons.
  Before completing this round of base closures, I believe it is 
prudent and sound policy to analyze all pertinent information that may 
impact our national security. For instance, the Department of Defense 
is undertaking a monumental shift in overseas deployments, which is 
long overdue. However, the Commission on Review of Overseas Military 
Facility Structure of the United States, commonly referred to as the 
Overseas Basing Commission, has indicated the Pentagon's plan to rotate 
soldiers back to the United States from overseas installations may be 
flawed. The Overseas Basing Commission argues if a crisis arises 
abroad, the military does not have enough sea and air transportation to 
rotate forces rapidly enough to respond. Furthermore, the Commission 
believes the Pentagon has understated the costs to redeploy troops to 
American soil. Finally, and most troubling, the Commission argues the 
plan could result in extended and more frequent rotations, which could 
strain U.S. military personnel and their families to the point where 
the United States is incapable of maintaining an all-volunteer force.
  In addition, currently tens of thousands of brave men and women are 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and like all Americans, it is my 
sincere hope that these soldiers return home as soon as possible. 
Having said that, I recognize immediately withdrawing American troops 
from Iraq could result in chaos and undermine the tremendous efforts 
made by all our service members. However, I question the timing of this 
round of base closures given that our Nation is at war and so many of 
our soldiers are supporting this effort. Until these troops have 
finished their important mission, and have returned home safely, it 
does not make sense to close military installations at home.
  Finally, we should not move forward with this round of base closures 
until the Defense Department completes the Quadrennial Defense Review 
and presents its findings to the President and Congress. The QDR is 
integral to U.S. military strategy as it assesses our future military 
capabilities and identifies emerging threats. It makes little sense to 
restructure our defenses until Congress has access to this vital piece 
of information.
  I believe that these questions must be answered before we proceed 
with closing domestic military installations. We must reorganize our 
military force in order to respond to the threats of the 21st century. 
The challenge is to do so in a manner that is not detrimental to our 
national security and the men and women who proudly serve our country.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an 
amendment to the fiscal year 06 National Defense Authorization Act, S. 
1042, that authorizes the Navy to convey approximately 230 acres of 
open space land along the eastern boundary of Marine Corps Air Station 
Miramar to the county of San Diego in order to provide access to the 
historic Stowe Trail.
  The Stowe Trail at one time functioned as the primary road leading to 
the historic town of Stowe, and now links the Goodan Ranch and Sycamore 
Canyon Preserves in the north with the Mission Trails Regional Park and 
Santee Lakes Regional Recreation Area further south.
  According to county records, up until the 1930s when access to this 
portion became restricted for military use, the Stowe Trail had served 
for some 80 years as the principle thoroughfare between the towns of 
Santee and Poway.
  The 230 acres of land that would be conveyed by the Navy under this 
provision include diverse plant and animal life and environmentally-
sensitive habitats and would provide a natural wildlife corridor 
between the two preserves, as well as with the Santee Lakes Recreation 
Area.
  Under the control of the County of San Diego, this land will become 
part of an extensive open space trail system that will not only 
increase recreational opportunities in the region, but will also 
provide a buffer zone that will mitigate against potential encroachment 
that could impact the essential military missions at Marine Corps Air 
Station Miramar.
  It is important to point out that this proposed land conveyance is 
the fruition of a process set in motion jointly

[[Page 17400]]

by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and Marine Corps Air 
Station Miramar in 2002.
  Both sides have worked together closely since that time to ensure 
that the result will be a win-win situation for both county and the 
Marines.
  For example, as part of the land conveyance process, the County of 
San Diego has fully committed to compensate the Navy by paying the full 
fair market value for this property.
  I would therefore ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the 
Senate to consider this amendment, and that the amendment be agreed to.
  I would also ask that this statement and the relevant amendment be 
placed together in the Congressional Record.


                           Amendment No. 1406

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1406 
that authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in the event of an overseas 
emergency, to transfer $200 million in defense articles, services, 
training and other support to the State Department to address the 
crisis. The funding would be used by the Office of Stabilization and 
Reconstruction at the State Department, a new office that has been 
created to organize the civilian side of the military/civilian response 
in post-conflict situations. The authority provided is permissive. It 
does not require such a transfer.
  The Secretary of Defense requested the authority contained in this 
amendment in his submission of legislation to be considered by the 
Congress. The Department of Defense needs a capable civilian partner 
that is prepared to go into hostile environments to assist the military 
in stabilizing a post-conflict situation. It also needs to be able to 
hand off a stabilized situation to civilian leadership. Without such a 
capacity, the military ends up performing tasks that civilians could 
and should be carrying out. As a consequence, the resources of the 
Armed Services are stretched thin and deployments of military personnel 
have to be extended beyond expectations.
  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has for some time been deeply 
involved in building the capacity of the State Department to play a 
leadership role in this area. Through legislation, hearings, and 
meetings of a policy advisory group of experts, we have called for the 
organization of a corps of civilians who are willing and able to 
undertake difficult missions in wartorn countries. The Office of 
Stabilization and Reconstruction, led by a Coordinator, Ambassador 
Carlos Pascual, is now up and running and doing an excellent job.
  My amendment reflects continued Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
attention to the issue. On June 16, we held a hearing on stabilization 
and reconstruction entitled ``Building Peace in a Hostile 
Environment.'' Ambassador Pascual participated as did two witnesses 
from the Defense Department, Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy in the Office 
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and LTG Walter Sharp, 
Director of Strategic Plans and Policy at the Joint Staff. James 
Kunder, Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near East, testified 
on behalf of USAID.
  Both Defense Department witnesses urged the committee to support the 
transfer authority contained in my amendment. Mr. Henry stated that it 
is in the Defense Department's interest to help the Stabilization and 
Reconstruction office ``fill the gap in its ability to deploy in a 
crisis.'' General Sharp said that General Myers, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, supports such a request because it would ``greatly 
improve Ambassador Pascual's ability to rapidly deploy in a crisis.''
  As most Members know, the foreign affairs budget is under 
considerable pressure. The Senate has just finished debating H.R. 3057, 
the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The 302(b) 
allocations for this bill were some $1 billion below the President's 
request. On the House side, the corresponding amount is some $3 billion 
below the President's request. When conferenced, the appropriated 
funding levels for foreign affairs will once again fall short of the 
amount that the President of the United States says he needs to conduct 
a strong foreign policy at a time of great complexity and danger.
  Tight budgets yield painful compromises. During consideration of H.R. 
3057, Senators Corzine and DeWine offered an amendment to appropriate 
$50 million to support African Union peacekeeping efforts in Sudan. 
They took the funding from the Conflict Response Fund that is to be 
used in emergencies by the new Office of Stabilization and 
Reconstruction. The amendment was accepted.
  That development has made the passage of this amendment to the 
Department of Defense bill even more crucial. The amendment does not 
make the transfer of services and other support automatic. Rather, the 
Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer the support only if he 
determines that an emergency exists that requires the immediate 
provision of such assistance. He must also determine that such 
assistance is in the national security interests of the United States.
  The Department of Defense has asked for the authority. It recognizes 
that coordination between the State Department and USAID during 
international emergencies can actually save money and lives. It 
reflects a new kind of cooperation between the military and the 
civilian component of our Government that a number of Members have 
spent much time and effort trying to promote. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the amendment.


                           amendment no. 1407

  Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment 1407 that strikes 
section 1008 from the bill under consideration.
  The purpose of the amendment is to allow the Defense Department to 
pay its fair share of the costs of building safer embassies. Section 
1008 allows Defense Department participation in the program only to the 
extent that unreimbursed services provided by State to DOD exceed 
unreimbursed services provided by DOD to State. It is a complicated 
formula that, in the end, will probably result in no contributions from 
the Department of Defense. There is no other agency that has similar 
legislation.
  More than 61,000 American Government employees from 30 agencies work 
at our embassies and consulates. The Departments of Justice, Homeland 
Security, Commerce, Treasury, Health & Human Services, Agriculture, and 
every other agency that has personnel overseas are contributing to the 
cost-sharing program. After an interagency negotiation, all executive 
branch departments, including the Defense Department, agreed to 
contribute to the cost-sharing program. But section 1008 would 
essentially vitiate that agreement on the part of the Department of 
Defense.
  The Senate has a deep interest in the safety and well-being of our 
citizens working overseas. Defense Department employees are second in 
number only to the State Department in many of our embassies. We all 
know that U.S. facilities are a prime target for terrorists. The 1998 
bombings of two American embassies in Africa made it clear that the 
threat can erupt in unexpected places.
  The United States has some 251 embassies and consulates overseas. 
Many of them do not meet security standards. They are not set far 
enough back from busily traveled streets, and they are not constructed 
to minimize damage if attacked. The capital construction program 
focuses on replacing 150 embassies, prioritized according to a formula 
that encompasses the threat they face. New embassy compounds are being 
built on a construction schedule that can be cut almost in half if the 
cost-sharing program is fully implemented.
  The cost-sharing program allocates construction expenses among 
agencies on the basis of future occupancy and the need for space 
specially designed for security purposes. After the State Department, 
the military ranks among the top contributors expected to participate 
in the program. Defense Department nonparticipation would stretch the 
embassy construction timetable by several years, prolonging the risks 
to embassy workers from all agencies.

[[Page 17401]]

  President Bush has designed an interagency cost-sharing program with 
a rapid construction timetable. He understands the risks and is working 
to address them. The cost-sharing program has been embraced by all 
Cabinet officers, including Secretary Rumsfeld. We in the Congress 
should not agree to a measure that will disrupt this timetable. We 
should not slow a process that directly addresses the threat of 
terrorism toward embassies, which are the most visible and accessible 
U.S. targets overseas.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our military is first in the world, 
because of the quality and training of our personnel and because of the 
technological sophistication of our equipment and weaponry. A large 
portion of the best civilian scientific minds in the Defense Department 
are nearing retirement age--yet the legislation before us cuts funding 
for the military's basic research in math and science.
  Amendment No. 1401 that I am offering with the Senator from Maine and 
others will ensure that the Department maintains its support for 
scientific research and development. It includes $10 million, to double 
the funding for the Department's current ``SMART Scholars'' program, 
which is essentially an ROTC program for the agency's civilian 
scientists. It increases by $40 million the Department's funding of 
basic research in science and technology, to ensure that its investment 
in this field is maintained and our military technology remains the 
best in the world. The $50 million total cost of the amendment is 
offset by a $50 million reduction in Department-wide administrative 
funding.
  Our amendment provides sufficient funding for the full cost of 
college scholarships and graduate fellowships for approximately 100 
science, technology, engineering, and math students. It increases basic 
research on an equal basis in the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and 
National Defense Education Program. It is supported by more than 60 of 
the most prestigious institutions of higher education in America.
  Defense Department-sponsored research has resulted in stunningly 
sophisticated spy satellites, precision-guided munitions, stealth 
equipment, and advanced radar. The research has also generated new 
applications in the civilian economy. The best known example is the 
Internet, originally a DARPA project.
  Advances in military technology often have their source in the work 
of civilian scientists in Department of Defense laboratories. 
Unfortunately, a large percentage of these scientists are nearing 
retirement. Today, nearly one in three DOD civilian science, technical, 
engineering, and mathematical employees is eligible to retire. In 7 
years, 70 percent will be of retirement age.
  Another distressing fact is that the number of new scientists being 
produced by our major universities at the doctoral level each year has 
declined by 4 percent over the last decade. Many of those who do 
graduate are ineligible to work on sensitive defense matters, since 
more than a third of all science and engineering doctorate degrees 
awarded at American universities go to foreign students.
  It is unlikely that retiring DOD scientists will be replaced by 
current private industry employees. According to the National Defense 
Industrial Association, over 5,000 science and engineering positions 
are unfilled in private industry in defense-related fields.
  The Nation confronts a major math and science challenge in elementary 
and secondary education and in higher education as well. We are tied 
with Latvia for 28th in the industrialized world today in math 
performance, and that is far from good enough. We have fallen from 3rd 
in the world to 15th in producing scientists and engineers. Clearly, we 
need a new National Defense Education Act of the size and scope passed 
nearly 50 years ago.
  At the very least, however, the legislation before us needs to do 
more to maintain our military's technological advantage. The pending 
bill irresponsibly cuts science and technology research by 17 percent. 
It increases funding for the SMART civilian ROTC science program but to 
only one-third of the Defense Department's request. Last year, over 100 
``highly rated'' SMART Scholar applications were turned down because of 
insufficient funding. Our amendment has sufficient funds to support 
every one of those talented young people who want to learn and serve.
  It also increases the investment in basic research in science and 
technology. Investments by DOD in science and technology through the 
1980s helped the United States win the Cold War. But funding for basic 
research in the physical sciences, math and engineering has not kept 
pace with research in other areas. Federal funding for life sciences 
has risen four-fold since the 1980s. Over the same period, 
appropriations for the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics 
have remained essentially flat. Funding for basic research fell from 
fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2004 by more than 10 percent in real 
terms.
  The Defense Science Board has recommended that funding for Science 
and Technology reach 3 percent of total defense spending, and the 
administration and Congress have adopted this goal in the past. The 
Board also recommended that 20 percent of that amount be dedicated to 
basic research, but the pending bill would cut funding for such 
research by 17 percent. We must do better, and this amendment does 
that.
  The amendment's offset reduces the defensewide administrative fund 
under the Secretary of Defense. It does not affect operations and 
maintenance funding for the Army, Navy, or Air Force. For example, it 
would reduce by 2\1/2\ percent the $2 billion that the bill gives the 
Secretary for his ``business and financial management'' transformation 
proposal--an area that the Government Accountability Office has deemed 
at ``high-risk'' for waste.
  We can't afford not to pass this amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.

                          ____________________