To clarify the application of Presidential action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

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 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

[[Page S5516]]

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 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

[[Page S5517]]

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 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

[[Page S5518]]

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 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.

[[Page S5519]]

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 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

[[Page S5520]]

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 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

[[Page S5521]]

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 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

[[Page S5522]]

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 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

[[Page S5523]]

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.
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.

[[Page S5524]]

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 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

[[Page S5525]]

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?
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

[[Page S5526]]

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 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 hat 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.

[[Page S5527]]

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.
I wish to take this opportunity to honor two outstanding Virginians
who played key roles in this historic decision. Those two men are
Spottswood 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
Spottswood 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,
Spottswood 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.

[[Page S5528]]

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 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.

[[Page S5529]]

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
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.''

____________________