To provide for consideration of additional factors in indecency penalties.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume 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 of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Services, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Bond Modified Amendment No. 3384, to include certain former
nuclear weapons program workers in the Special Exposure
Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program and to provide for the disposal of
certain excess Department of Defense stocks for funds for
that purpose.
Brownback Amendment No. 3235, to increase the penalties for
violations by television and radio broadcasters of the
prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and
profane language.
Burns Amendment No. 3457 (to Amendment No. 3235), to
provide for additional factors in indecency penalties issued
by the Federal Communications Commission.
Reed Amendment No. 3353, to limit the obligation and
expenditure of funds for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
program pending the submission of a report on operational
test and evaluation.
Bingaman Amendment No. 3459, to require reports on the
detainment of foreign nationals by the Department of Defense
and on Department of Defense investigations of allegations of
violations of the Geneva Convention.
Warner Amendment No. 3460 (to Amendment No. 3459), in the
nature of a substitute.
Dayton/Feingold Amendment No. 3197, to strike sections 842
relative to a conforming standard for waiver of domestic
source or content requirement and 843 relative to the
consistency with United States obligations under trade
agreements.
Warner (for McCain) amendment No. 3461 (to the language
proposed to be stricken by Amendment No. 3197), in the nature
of a substitute.
Feingold Modified Amendment No. 3288, to rename and modify
the authorities relating to the Inspector General of the
Coalition Provisional Authority.
Landrieu/Snowe Amendment No. 3315, to amend title 10,
United States Code, to increase the minimum Survivor Benefit
Plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 62 and older,
and to provide for a one-year open season under that plan.
Levin Amendment No. 3338, to reallocate funds for Ground-
based Midcourse interceptors to homeland defense and
combatting terrorism.

Amendment No. 3338

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form in relation to the
Levin missile defense amendment. Who yields time?
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. ALLARD. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to strongly
oppose the Levin amendment. This amendment would realign critical funds
for the ground-based midcourse interceptors. The consequences of that
decision, in my judgment, would be devastating. By reallocating those
funds, Congress would effectively cripple the deployment and testing of
the interceptors in Alaska. Let me hasten to add, that decision to go
to Alaska with these interceptors was not a political decision. It was
made by the scientists. But I support that decision, and I believe
Alaskans do also.
Ballistic missiles are a serious threat to the United States, and our
interests, forces, and allies throughout the world are threatened by
them. The missiles our enemies possess are growing in range,
reliability, accuracy, and number. A missile carrying nuclear,
biological, or chemical weapons could inflict damage that would make
the tragedy our country experienced on September 11 pale by comparison.
We cannot afford to ignore this threat. We must confront it, if we
want to address the challenges that characterize our Nation's new
security environment. The new security challenges of the 21st century
require us to think and act differently.
With that in mind, the decision was made to field the ground-based
midcourse system in Alaska. Alaska's location gives us a strategic
advantage. Interceptors launched from Alaska will be capable of
protecting all 50 States. If Congress rejects Senator Levin's amendment
and remains committed to the ground-based midcourse program, the United
States will be able to meet any potential threat from a rogue nation or
terrorist group.
The Fort Greely interceptors are the centerpiece of our integrated,
layered, national missile defense system. The funding contained in the
2005 budget is a downpayment on additional interceptors that will
enable us to conduct additional flight testing and maintain industrial
base production lines for key components of the ground-based system.
Senator Levin's amendment cuts this funding.
The amendment also disregards what years of experience have shown--
that it is wise to move into a deployment phase before the testing
phase of a program has been completed. I remind Congress of the gulf
war, when we fielded a number of systems that were under development at
that time, including JSTARS. I personally witnessed that test in the
deployment phase, in the testing phase, and early deployment of JSTARS
in the gulf war. The Patriot missile was also tested in this way.
Over many years we enhanced the Patriot batteries that first saw
action by 1991, by implementing a follow-on enhancement program and
replacing the original missile with a completely new interceptor.
Similarly, the B-52 bomber that first flew in 1952 is hardly the same
aircraft that dropped the bombs over Afghanistan in the war against
terror. The original B-52 gave us early intercontinental bombardment
capability, and it was enhanced over time with hardware and software
improvements that helped us meet evolving operational challenges. These
examples are reminders that a requirement written into a system's
development phase can quickly become irrelevant or yield a dead end.
That is a lesson we must keep in the forefront of our minds as we
confront today's dynamic security environment.
The time to move forward with the deployment of a ground-based
midcourse operational capability is now. We must continue to improve
the system. It must be allowed to evolve over time and take advantage
of the breakthroughs in technology as they occur. Congress should
follow the proven wisdom of experience and resist the urge to build to
perfection a national security strategy that has never served us well.

That is exactly what this amendment would have us do--turn our backs
on the proven wisdom of experience and wait until there is a tragedy to
confront the national security threats we know are emerging now.
I urge the Senate to support the ground-based midcourse system and
oppose Senator Levin's amendment.
Again, this system has been deployed in my State already in the test
phase. We should continue that concept.
I yield back any time I have not used.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has 25 minutes 30
seconds remaining. The Senator from Michigan has 30 minutes remaining.
Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment which I am offering does not
touch the first 20 interceptors. They are fully funded. They are going
to be deployed before they are independently tested. The Senate decided
that last week in a number of debates and in a vote on an amendment,
the Boxer amendment. Whether it was the right decision or the wrong
decision, time will tell, but nonetheless it is the decision and was
the decision of this Senate that those 20 interceptors be deployed in
those silos in Alaska prior to their being independently tested.
The question before us now is whether the added missiles--21 through
30, those interceptors that are paid for in this bill--are going to be
provided or whether we will use that money, $515 million, for a much
greater need, to address a much more immediate threat, and that is the
threat of loose nukes, the threat of nuclear fissile material

[[Page S7121]]

falling into the hands of terrorists, and also whether we will use at
least some of that money to put more into the security of our borders,
the security of our ports.
I will start with a CIA assessment that was made not too many years
ago. It was made after September 11. There was an unclassified
assessment made by the CIA as to what our greatest threat was. They
were comparing the missile threat to the nonmissile threat. ``Foreign
Missile Developments and Ballistic Missile Threats Through 2015,'' was
the title. They were looking at the missile threat. Here is the
judgment:

The Intelligence Community judges that U.S. territories are
more likely to be attacked with WMD using non-missile means,
primarily because such means, 1, are less expensive than
developing and producing ICBMs; 2, can be covertly developed
and employed; 3, the source of the weapon could be masked in
an attempt to evade retaliation; 4, probably would be more
reliable than ICBMs that have not completed rigorous testing
and validation programs; 5, probably would be much more
accurate than emerging ICBMs over the next 15 years; 6,
probably would be more effective for disseminating a
biological warfare agent than a ballistic missile; 7, would
avoid missile defenses. For all of those reasons, we have an
assessment that non-missile means of delivery are a more
serious threat than a missile means of delivery.

Now, the amendment I offered does not touch those 20 missiles that
were part of that test bed announced last year. Last year, the chairman
of our committee, Senator Warner, said this body is authorized in
moving ahead on 20 test bed sites, 16 in Alaska and the balance in
California. That was the decision that we made last year--a 20-silo
test bed site in Alaska and in California.
Now, this year, the administration said they want additional
interceptors. It is those additional interceptors on which we are
focusing.
My amendment would take $515 million of the $1.7 billion proposed for
fiscal year 2005 and say let's put that $515 million into far more
needed, immediate purposes; in other words, to try to address this
massive fissile material threat, the loose nuke threat, the dirty bomb
threat, which everybody says is the most serious terrorist threat we
face.
That is what this $515 million should be spent on; also, security of
our borders, security of our ports. Most of the containers coming into
this country are still uninspected.
We still do not have a means of determining what is an explosive
material at a distance. We must, if we are going to stop terrorists
from blowing up themselves and us, be able to identify explosive
material at a distance. We don't have that technology. My amendment
would add money for that technology.
We had the near destruction of the USS Cole because a tiny boat was
able to get next to it. If we could identify that explosive material at
a distance before the explosion of the car bomb or the suicide bomb or
the little boat that almost blew up the USS Cole, we would be making
ourselves far more secure. That is the kind of expenditure my amendment
would provide. It leaves, I emphasize, $1.2 billion in funding for
interceptors, which is more than we have provided in any prior fiscal
year. In 2002, we provided $1.1 billion. In fiscal year 2003, we
provided $763 million. In 2004, we provided $1.1 billion for
interceptors.

If my amendment is adopted and we use this money to address the loose
nuke issue and the other issues I have identified, we would still have
$1.2 billion for interceptors. Now, would there be an effect on
testing? No, for two reasons. No. 1, there is no effect of this
amendment on the funding for interceptors which are dedicated to flight
tests. The only interceptors affected by this amendment are the
deployed interceptors, 21 through 30. Those interceptors are not
planned for flight testing.
We were told last night, many of you folks say you want testing, but
then you cut interceptors that are going to be used for testing. Let me
emphasize that none of the interceptors that we cut are going to be
used for flight testing; they are not going to be launched. They are
going to sit in those silos. They will not be launched. We just
received that word, again, from the missile defense folks.
We asked them: Is it still your plan not to launch those interceptors
from the silos in Alaska?
Their answer is: That is correct. That is not our plan for testing.
We are not going to launch those interceptors. The interceptors used
for testing will be used somewhere else. They are not going to be part
of this test bed. We are not cutting those three test interceptor
missiles that are going to be used for testing.
When we are all done, if this amendment is adopted, there would still
be more spent on missile defense than on any weapons system in the
history of this country in any single year. So the idea that somehow or
other this is a devastating blow to missile defense is simply not
correct. It is 5 percent of the missile defense budget request for this
year. It is less than one-third of the interceptors, and none of the
test interceptors. These are the extra missiles that were not asked for
last year when we were assured by Senator Warner that the test bed was
for 20 silos in Alaska, mainly, and 4 in California.
Now, we talk about the greatest threats that we face. It seems to me
that it is almost a consensus that the greatest threats we face come
from the loose nukes. As a matter of fact, this body just adopted a
Domenici-Feinstein amendment, and that amendment said we ought to fund
what is called the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which has
recently been announced by Secretary Abraham.
Secretary Abraham, with great fanfare, announced the $450 million
Global Threat Reduction Initiative on May 26. That is just a month
ago--not even a month ago. Speaking to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, Secretary Abraham said that this new effort, the $450 million
Global Threat Reduction Initiative, aimed at the loose nukes, aimed at
this fissile material that is distributed around the world--any few
kilograms or pounds of which fell into the hands of a terrorist could
blow up a city--this new effort, according to Secretary Abraham will
``comprehensively and more thoroughly address the challenges posed by
nuclear and radiological materials and related equipment that require
attention anywhere in the world, by ensuring that they will not fall
into the hands of those with evil intentions.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. President, the purpose of the initiative was to secure,
consolidate, destroy, or return to the United States and Russia nuclear
materials from around the world, concentrating on the least secure and
the most dangerous materials first. Secretary Abraham committed the
United States to dedicate more than $450 million to this effort. Well,
there is no money in the 2005 budget for the effort.
The words are there, the commitment is there, Lord knows the threat
is there, but the money is not there. So in our bill, Senators
Domenici, Feinstein, and others--and I was a cosponsor--offered an
amendment which authorized this new initiative about which Senator
Domenici said the following:

Many of us have worked very hard to put together a program
where we and other nations will go to work at ridding the
world of proliferation of nuclear products from the nuclear
age. We think it is an exciting approach. Eventually, we have
to fund it and Presidents have to implement it. But the
Senate would be saying today it is good policy to get the
world concerned about getting rid of radioactive material
from the nuclear age.

This amendment today does what Senators Domenici and Feinstein said
and this Senate said when we adopted their amendment, which is to fund
the initiative. Not just to talk about it, not just to say words which
are important, but to actually put dollars behind the words.
As Senator Domenici said in offering the amendment, which we adopted,
which added this provision in this bill which authorized the Global
Threat Reduction Initiative, this amendment:

[I]s aimed--

As his amendment was and is--

at expediting global cleanout of nuclear materials and
equipment that could represent proliferation risks.

He went on to say:

Even though we are making progress, the focus on terrorism
over the last few years has substantially amplified the level
of our concern. In the process, we have learned more about
the complicated routes through which important equipment
technologies, such as enrichment capabilities, has moved to
unfortunate destinations.

[[Page S7122]]

Our focus on Russia was appropriate a decade ago. But it is
very clear today that proliferation must be viewed as a
global problem. We must broaden our programs so that they
have a global impact, not only focused on the former Soviet
Union.
The increased threat of terrorism should encourage us to
seek new ways to expedite the management, security, and
disposition of materials that could be dangerous to our
national security if they were to fall into the wrong hands.
These materials include a range of fissile materials, with
highly enriched uranium and plutonium being the ones of
greatest concern.

My amendment today would ensure that this real and immediate threat
to our security is funded, that the money is there.
The money is being transferred from these extra missiles, missiles
which have not been tested. If we decide we are going to proceed to
deploy 20 untested missiles, so be it, but 21 through 30, not discussed
last year when the test bed of the of 20 was described, but added this
year, those additional missiles do not come close to being as important
to our security as trying to help get rid of fissile and nuclear
material that can fall into the hands of terrorists.
Secretary Abraham said, and the words were good:

We will take these steps because we must. The circumstances
of a dangerous world have thrust this responsibility on the
shoulders of the civilized world. We don't have the luxury of
sitting back and not taking action.

We do not have that luxury, Mr. President. We do not have the luxury
of not addressing that new global initiative that Secretary Abraham and
the administration said was so important. We have a responsibility to
look at how we allocate resources and to weigh the greater risks with
the available resources.
It seems so obvious to me that when we compare what is provided in an
additional 10 missiles, not tested and not to be used as part of a
test--we do not touch any test missiles. We do not touch the 20
missiles in the test bed in Alaska and California. When we compare the
funding of $515 million for those additional 10 missiles, those extra
10 missiles not in the 20 silo test bed, with the critical need to
obtain this fissile material and to secure it around the world before
it falls into the hands of terrorists, it seems to me that the outcome
should be very clear. We should put that $515 million into securing
that material, to obtaining that material, to securing our ports, and
to doing some of the other homeland defense needs that are provided for
in my amendment.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used the 5 additional minutes.
He has 14 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair, and I reserve the remainder of that
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan reserves the
remainder of his time. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
I rise to strongly oppose the Levin amendment. Senator Levin proposes
to cut $515 million from missile defense and shift funds to a variety
of homeland security and counterterrorism provisions. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment on a number of grounds.
First, it makes a false distinction between missile defense and
homeland security. Missile defense is quintessentially homeland
security. That is right, missile defense is homeland security. It
protects our homeland from long-range missiles and the most destructive
weapons on the planet.
Second, it makes a false distinction between missile defense and
counterterror. Throughout the cold war, we were concerned with the
balance of terror. Rogue nations with missiles and weapons of mass
destruction will use those missiles and weapons to threaten and
terrorize the United States, our allies, and our friends.
Third, it would do serious harm to the Missile Defense Program. The
$515 million cut in the Levin amendment is for the next 10 ground-based
midcourse defense interceptors. Cutting these funds would break the
production line for these missiles. It would cause the loss of key
personnel, expertise, subcontractors, and suppliers, and then they
would have to start all over again, with lead-in delays and extra costs
to the program.
The Missile Defense Agency would have to reconstitute the production,
requalify and recertify subcontractors and suppliers, and it would have
to restart production. Losing these funds for a year could result in a
long delay in fielding the next 10 interceptors--between 2 and 3
years after we would have fielded them, I am told--and result in
restart costs of nearly $300 million.

Those who oppose missile defense obviously would like to delay. That
is what we have been arguing over the last few days. They would like to
add costs and then come back and say how this program is not proceeding
the way it should. This is an essential program. We should not have
delays. We should do everything we possibly can to cut down unnecessary
costs because of time delays.
Fourth, it would do serious harm to the defense of the Nation against
long-range missile threats. The Missile Defense Agency's assessment is
that delaying the next 10 interceptors would leave us critically short
of assets in the 2007 timeframe to defend against known and potential
threats.
We cannot talk about all the information that is available that
informs Senators and how that judgment comes about, but it is available
to all Senators, and if they have any questions about that, I urge them
to get that information and review it.
And fifth, this amendment is inconsistent with national policy
established in legislation and signed into law by President Clinton.
The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 established a national policy
to deploy a national missile defense as soon as technologically
feasible. It is feasible, and these additional interceptors are
important to that effort. The Senate approved that act by a vote of 97
to 3, I remind Members of the Senate.
Furthermore, this amendment would move the funds to accounts that are
already well funded. Again, I remind my colleagues in the Senate, this
missile defense is homeland security.
I want to talk a little bit about these funds. For example, the
President's budget includes $47.4 billion for homeland security
activities, not including ballistic missile defense throughout the
Government, an increase of $6.1 billion, or 15 percent, compared to
last year, a $26.8 billion increase to fiscal year 2002.
Being on the Budget Committee, I had an opportunity to do a
comparison. Homeland security is getting far more percentage increase
than any other agency the President proposed in his budget. Now we are
piling in on top of that.
Funding for the Department's activities to counter terrorism has more
than doubled in 3 years to $10.2 billion. Of that amount, the
President's budget request included $8 billion in DOD programs for
homeland defense. The committee's mark added more than $300 million
above the budget request.
All of the programs for which Senator Levin proposes to add funds in
his amendment were funded either at or above the amount of the
President's budget request. Many of the recommendations for increased
funding in this measure are simply flawed.
For example, one of the first items recommends an increase of $50
million in Air Force research and development to be allocated to NORAD
for low altitude threat detection and response technology. This item
appears to be directed at cruise missile defense, but it is not clearly
enough defined to know how the proposed funding increase would be used.
A $50 million increase for ill-defined purposes would not be
executable.
I note that the proposal was apparently justified on the basis that
the NORTHCOM integrated priority list includes cruise missile defense.
This proposed amendment also reduces one of the highest NORTHCOM
priorities on its list--that is ballistic missile defense--by $515
million, again reminding the Members of the Senate that missile defense
is homeland security.
Finally, I have a letter that was sent to the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee from Admiral Ellis, commander of the Strategic
Command at Omaha, NE, the head military integrator for missile defense,
who expresses his opposition to any cuts to missile defense funding. I
will read this letter for the benefit of my colleagues.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

[[Page S7123]]

I am writing to express concern about possible efforts to
cut funding from the President's FY05 budget request for
continued fielding of missile defense capabilities, including
additional Ground-based Interceptors. As the operational lead
for Global Missile Defense, USSSTRATCOM supports the
continued appropriate development of missile defense
capabilities that will be incrementally fielded and improved
under the evolutionary approach of Concurrent Test and
Operations. It is especially important to our early success
that we have funding support for the production of ground-
based interceptors at a rate and quantity sufficient to
sustain the evolutionary developmental approach, testing
milestones, and our initial defense operational capabilities.
A reduction of interceptor funding would: (1) limit the
capability and capacity of the Ballistic Missile Defense
System to defend the U.S. against long-range missile attack,
and (2) limit the opportunity to gain operational test
experience as it will reduce the number of interceptors
available to replace deployed interceptors subsequently used
in operational testing.

He goes on to say he further appreciates the chairman's support to
both develop and provide the Nation with a rudimentary missile defense
capability and indicated that this letter was also forwarded to the
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So the sponsor
of this amendment has seen this letter, which is from an individual
whom I have had before my committee and somebody whom I highly respect.
So there we have it, somebody who is part of STRATCOM giving us a clear
reason for why we need to have those additional missiles.

In response to what the sponsor of the amendment said about whether
all the missiles are going to be used, that was addressed in a full
committee hearing on March 9 in which Senator Levin himself, the
sponsor of the amendment, asked General Kadish, after he commented
about the fact that the missiles would work: How many of the Fort
Greeley ones would be launched?
General Kadish answered--and this is not new evidence or new facts
that have been brought before the Armed Services Committee or even
before the full Senate. General Kadish said: Eventually, all of them.
That response was further pursued by my colleague on the Armed
Services Committee, who asked: They would be moved somewhere else, is
that it?
General Kadish said: No. Well, they may--this is part of the ongoing
planning. That is why we all get frustrated from time to time when we
change our plans.
The current plan is to use all of those out at Fort Greeley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes of his time.
Mr. ALLARD. I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object, will the Chair advise both sides as to the time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14\1/2\ minutes remaining now on the
side of the Senator from Virginia and 14 minutes remaining on the side
of the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. ALLARD. I will respond to the concerns that were raised by the
sponsor of the amendment about what he referred to as ``loose nukes,''
and from that same report which he quoted, I would point out that in
the report it says the probability that a weapons of mass destruction
armed missile will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher
today than during most of the cold war.
This is a real threat, and we should not be saying we have a higher
priority on homeland defense or a higher priority on missiles. The fact
is we are vulnerable in all areas. We need to address that, and we have
been adequately addressing it with our funding for homeland security.
Now we need to take care of missile defense and make sure we have
adequately taken care of the threat with weapons of mass destruction
through missiles that might be launched.
In response to a hearing we had earlier on the need for a missile
defense test bed, I will share with my colleagues some testimony by
Admiral Ellis, who is the commander of STRATCOM. I asked Admiral Ellis:
Do you support the use of the missile defense test bed to provide
limited operational capability, yes or no?
Admiral Ellis replies: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Then I asked him a further question: Does such a capability
contribute to deterrence?
Admiral Ellis says: Absolutely.
Then I responded back: Does such a capability provide a useful
strategic option?
Admiral Ellis says: Yes, it does.
Then I further questioned: Does such a capability raise the nuclear
threshold?
Admiral Ellis says: It certainly does.
The fourth point I would like to talk about is the funding of the
nonproliferation initiative. The biggest portion of Senator Levin's
proposal adds $211 million for a new nonproliferation initiative in the
Department of Energy, but DOE cannot spend the funding it has already
for nonproliferation. Right now, DOE has $735 million in unobligated
balances for nonproliferation programs, and Senator Levin's amendment
would push that total up to nearly a billion dollars.
In summary, we are on the right track. The Armed Services Committee
has received testimony both in my subcommittee as well as in the full
committee and the testimony indicates we have a real need in missile
defense and we are taking care of homeland security. I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing the Levin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Alabama seeks recognition.
Mr. WARNER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for his leadership. I
support his position on this issue that is before us today, as well as
that of Senator Allard who chairs the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of
the Armed Services Committee where this matter is dealt with in
depth. Both these Senators have worked on this issue for quite some
time and have given it serious consideration. I believe they are
correct. Indeed, I believe the Levin amendment runs counter to the
policy of this Senate that has been established for some time. It is, I
believe, now the fourth amendment of its kind, designed to erode the
support and commitment we made to deploying a national missile defense
system.

A number of years ago, in 1998 or so, this Senate in a bipartisan way
adopted the Cochran-Lieberman amendment that declared it was the policy
of the U.S. Congress that we should deploy a national missile defense
system as soon as practical--not develop one, not research one, but to
deploy it as soon as possible. That passed, I believe, with about 90-
plus votes in the Senate and was signed by President Clinton. It
represents the policy and commitment of the United States.
Over the years, we have moved toward that goal. We were told it could
not be done. We were told a missile could not hit a missile in the air.
We were told, yes, there may be a threat out there, but it probably is
not very real, and even if it is you can't make the technology work.
This is Star Wars. It goes back to some degree to the ridicule that was
directed toward former President Reagan for his steadfast belief that
this country needed to move from just trying to see how many missiles
we can aim at our enemies, see how much threat we can focus on them, to
the concept he believed was more peaceful, which would be to develop a
system that would allow us to defend ourselves against attack. That is
what we voted on, and we voted on it virtually unanimously. I think 90
percent plus of the Senators in this body voted for that amendment.
That is where we are today. Now we have here at the last minute, as
this bill moves forward, one more attempt to drawdown money and to
spend it on other things. Yes, there are a lot of needs in this
country. You can go to education, you can go to health care, you can go
to homeland security, you can go to a lot of things we believe we need
desperately in America, but we are here to make choices. We made a
commitment and a choice to field a national missile defense system.
I will point out that a lot of Americans probably do not know this
system is working. The science is being proven

[[Page S7124]]

day after day. In fact, in September we will be placing in the ground
in Alaska a national missile defense system that can help protect us
from missile attack--not just from North Korea, but from an accidental
launch. They could be effective in protecting this country, and as we
go forward we will continue to improve this system.
As you test and develop this system, spiraling as we are doing now,
then we may find we can develop a better radar system, we can develop a
system that can be deployed on ships more effectively than what we have
today. We may be able to develop a local land-based system. We may
improve our computer system. We may be able to improve our guidance
systems. We may be able to improve our ability to defeat even the most
sophisticated attempts to confuse a national missile defense system.
But it does not have to be perfect before we put it into place today. I
say we are going to continue to do that.
I believe we are committed to going forward with this. It would be a
terrible mistake to cut $515 million from a system that is on track now
to be effective and to be deployed. This will shut down the assembly
lines. This will shut down the production that is ongoing. It is going
to cost us much more money in the long run. It is not going to be good
for our productive system. It is the kind of on-again, off-again
political management of the production and deployment of systems that
is not healthy for our Defense Department.

I see my time has expired. I thank the chairman for his leadership. I
also oppose the Levin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama yields the floor.
The Senator from Virginia has 5 minutes 5 seconds remaining.
Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague from Alabama. He has
been in the forefront of this debate for all the years he has been a
member of the Armed Services Committee.
At this time, I think it would be fair we allow the distinguished
proponent of the amendment to speak for a bit. Then I will follow, and
I presume he would like to do a few minutes' wrap-up; is that correct?
Mr. LEVIN. That will be great. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I will yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. President, the threat we are talking about addressing in my
amendment is not one of our domestic priorities. As important as those
priorities are, it is not transferring money from missile defense to
education or health care. It is transferring money from the next 10
missiles, untested, numbers 21 through 30, which were not stated to be
part of that 20-silo test bed which was presented to us last year,
instead taking that money and using that money not for my project but
for the administration's stated project of trying to address the
``loose nuke'' issue.
This is a program, this $450 million program, the administration
announced a few weeks ago in Vienna. With great fanfare, Secretary
Abraham said we have to address the loose nuke problem around the
world. Agreements were signed to counter a nuclear threat; $450 million
to prevent research materials going to terrorists as part of a global
cleanup plan.
But there is no money in this program. So the Senate comes along a
few days ago, and Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein, with the
support, I believe, of most of us--surely mine--say we have to move in
this direction. They authorize the program. But still no money. The
words are there, but the money is not there.
We are talking about the money for a global program, not cleanup in
Russia. That money has already been identified. This is for nuclear
material around the world that we and the Russians have to identify and
secure. That is what that $450 million is. There is not a penny in this
budget to secure that nuclear material.

The Russia task force of the Secretary of Energy said that the most
urgent unmet security threat to the United States is the danger that
weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material could be sold to
terrorists and used against us. That was the so-called Baker-Cutler
task force. Then they said the funding that is provided in the
Department of Energy budget falls short of what is required to
adequately address the threat.
We had the Harvard task force come forward and say the facts are that
the amount of inadequately secured bomb material in the world today is
enough to make thousands of nuclear weapons, that terrorists are
actively seeking to get it, and that with such material in hand a
capable and well-organized terrorist group plausibly could make,
deliver, and detonate at least a crude nuclear bomb capable of
incinerating the heart of any major city in the world. Securing the
vast stockpiles of nuclear materials and weapons around the world is an
essential priority for nonproliferation, for counterterrorism, and for
homeland security. That is the issue we have to face. Are we going to
fund this kind of program, or are we just going to talk about it?
The hundreds of millions of dollars which were identified by Senator
Allard have nothing to do with this effort to secure nuclear material
around the world. The money he identified has to do with a program to
try to secure plutonium between ourselves and Russia, a program which
is currently stalemated. That is something which hopefully can be
worked out between the Russians and the State Department. But the money
we are talking about which was so widely proclaimed by Secretary
Abraham as being forthcoming has not been forthcoming. There is no
money in the budget for it.
It is the loose nuke material that exists around the world that
threatens us more than any other single threat, and we don't have any
money for it in here. The question is whether we are going to do it or
whether we are going to add another 10 interceptors, numbers 21 through
30, add them to the test bed. That is the issue we face. Which is a
higher priority for us? Again, I emphasize this amendment does not
touch those 20 interceptors which are part of that test bed. We do not
touch that. That debate was last week. That is not this amendment.

Last week, we decided we are going to deploy those interceptors. Even
though they have not been independently tested, they will still be
deployed. Maybe they will work, maybe they will not work, but they will
be deployed. OK, that decision was made.
We are talking now about Nos. 21 through 30 and whether that $550
million is better spent the way it is proposed in this budget, or to
address the loose nuke problem around the world, to address our border
security, to try to inspect the containers by the tens of thousands
that come into this country, to put additional funds into new
technologies to address how we can identify explosive material at a
distance so we do not face a blowup of a ship like the USS Cole, a car
bomber, or a suicide bomber. That is the issue, whether we are serious
about the effort to address the greatest terrorist threats we face or
whether we want to put another $500 million into another 10
interceptors which have not yet been tested.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 6 minutes. The time
remaining on the Senator's side is 7 minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to our colleagues, I think the
Senator and I can agree on this point that there is no vote on this
current 2005 authorization bill of greater significance than the vote
we will take momentarily.
I frame this vote as follows: The whole of America watched within the
past few days the September 11 Commission, its Chairman, face the
cameras and say, in response to the astonishment of the American people
about the tragic events of September 11, we didn't foresee it, we
didn't plan for it, we didn't fund for it, we didn't train for it, and
it happened.
I say respectfully to my colleagues, that is precisely what this vote
is all about.
The Senator laid down the priorities of the Central Intelligence
Agency. I have them before me. I should repeat this one. They say the
possibility that a WMD armed missile will be used

[[Page S7125]]

against the U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most
of the cold-war period.
Senator Levin and I have been partners for 25 years on this
committee. We went through the cold-war era together. That is an
astonishingly high expectation. True, the CIA put somewhat greater
emphasis on a number of the programs that will be funded should the
Senator's amendment pass, but the Senator would acknowledge to me, I
think, that the administration, in sending forth this budget, covered
those 10 programs. Six of those programs receive more money than asked
for in the budget, and the remaining four programs were funded at the
budget level.
He points out a most recent program raised by the Secretary of
Energy. I share his concern, but the Secretary of Energy said that can
be financed through reprogramming, which is a procedure we follow
regularly.

In summary, we are at the crossroads momentarily of whether the
Missile Defense Program that this Nation has been working on for these
many years, that has been acted upon by the Congress in successive
sessions, will continue.
While the Senator said we are not dislodging what has been done by
the past Congress, I ask, why we should even go forward with those
expenses if we are going to stop the program and gap it, gap it for an
indeterminate period? Should we be able to put it together again after
several years, at a minimum, who can assure the technical workforce
that put together the first missiles will be there? Who can say the
contractor wants to pick up, once again, the burden of trying to
restart a program, given the background of the stop/start by the
Congress if this Levin amendment is adopted?
This amendment will spread uncertainty into this program. The world
will begin to say: America is not serious about missile defense.
Much of the technology of these programs for missile defense could
well be used in future years by other nations that will recognize their
vulnerability to the missiles. When we say ``vulnerability,'' it is not
necessarily limited to an aggressor firing, it could be an accidental
firing. That has happened. I need only point out the tragic submarine
experience. Both Russia and the United States have experienced errors
with those magnificent platforms, causing death and destruction.
Accidents happen even with the best of intent with military equipment.
We see China coming on, we see North Korea. I think there is no
dispute as to their potential today.
We must look at ourselves and go back to that refrain of Lee
Hamilton: We didn't plan, we didn't foresee, we didn't train, and it
happened. A future generation of America can look on this Senate at
this very moment and would have to see, henceforth, if this Nation ever
experiences the type of attack to which the Central Intelligence Agency
says we are vulnerable.
I urge Members to stay the course and not send a signal that America
has stumbled backward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we should stay the course. We have to
address the threats that we know are the major threats. We are not
doing that. The loose nuke threat in this world is the No. 1 threat
against us. That is what we all believe.
Yet a $450 million program to address those loose nukes is not funded
in this budget. There is not a dollar for that program in this budget.
We are told now that the Department of Energy will reprogram $450
million. I would like to see that request come in from the Department
of Energy. But we do not have that request, either.
What we do have, what we do know, is that the major threat we face is
the loose nuke threat. That is what the experts at the Department of
Energy tell us. We surely have to address the less likely threats. I
could not agree with that more. We should address threats that are not
as likely.
But, my heavens, to put nothing in this budget when we have adopted
the Domenici-Feinstein amendment which says we will have this global
program--there is no money authorized behind it in this budget. We have
adopted the Domenici amendment. Senator Domenici is exactly right. This
is the greatest threat we face, loose nukes. Loose nukes globally are
the greatest threat we face. What he said is someday we have to put the
funds behind it. That someday is now. We have to compare that threat
which we all believe is the most certain threat against the less likely
threat identified by the CIA, which is a missile attack.
Now it has been suggested that maybe we should then totally disband
the missile defense we have in Alaska. That is not what this amendment
is about. I want to emphasize that because it has been
mischaracterized. This does not end missile defense in Alaska. Quite
the opposite, it continues the funding for those first 20 missiles.
My dear friend from Virginia said last year that test bed is 20
missiles in Alaska. He asked Senator Boxer a few days ago whether this
body last year ``authorized moving ahead on 20 test bed sites, 16 in
Alaska and the balance in [California].'' And Senator Boxer said:
``Yes.'' That is what we decided last year. It would be a 20-silo test
bed site.
We do not disturb that in any way. We leave more money in this budget
after the $500 million is put into ``loose nukes.'' We leave more money
in there for interceptors than has been in any fiscal year budget. Mr.
President, $1.2 billion is left in the budget this year after my $500
million subtraction. That is more than was there in 2004, 2003, 2002.
Any of those years had less money for interceptors.
So the idea that somehow or other we are destroying a missile defense
system--when we leave that test bed in Alaska the way it is, we leave
the funding for it exactly the way it is, with 20 silos, the way it was
stated to be last year, but what we are saying is: Do not add another
10. Do not add another 10 interceptors, not independently tested. We
have been through that argument, but they are not tested missiles.
The money that goes into those 10 missiles can be used for a much
greater threat, not just the ``loose nuke'' threat, but the threats
that have been identified by NORAD and by the Northern Command. There
are many unfunded needs we have listed from NORAD, including low-
altitude threat detection and response technologies.
This is another one from the Navy which we fund. Let me read this
because it goes right to the USS Cole issue. They have an unfunded
program that would procure ``mobile and shore Explosive Ordnance
Disposal detachments to fill gap in required capability to detect
chemical, biological, and explosive hazards during Improvised Explosive
Device/Weapons Mass Destruction and Force Protection responses.'' So
the Navy says they have an unfunded program need of $21 million to try
to identify explosives at a distance.
We all know--surely the chairman of our committee knows--what
happened with the USS Cole. If we could have identified those little
boats carrying explosives at a distance, we would not have had the
damage and loss of life we had on the USS Cole.
So we have these real needs we would fund in my amendment. We have to
compare that to the extra 10 interceptors, Nos. 21 through 30, that do
not touch that 20-silo test bed in Alaska.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of documents be
printed in the Record. One would be the NORAD statement relative to
their shortfalls, some of which are funded in my amendment. Second
would be two editorials, one from the Washington Post and one from the
Los Angeles Times.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will not object, but I would state that
the Department of Energy, addressing the ``loose nuke'' issue, says
they expect to spend $87 million on it this year, and they can't spend
any additional money on it. So I think that should be stated likewise.
Mr. LEVIN. If it is $87 million, despite the $450 million which the
Secretary of Energy announced, that $87 million is not provided for in
this authorization bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S7126]]

Low Altitude Air Defense of North America

NORAD is leading the development and employment of
capabilities for the air defense of North America. Given the
proliferation of advanced technologies and improvised
delivery platforms operated by terrorist groups and others,
on 13 June 2002 the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
directed NORAD to develop the ``Low Altitude Air Threat
Defense of North America Capstone Requirements Document.''
This critical homeland defense effort addresses the
increasing gap between the growing danger from low altitude,
low observable threats and NORAD's current air defense
capabilities.
Such threats include cruise missiles, unmanned aerial
vehicles, crop dusters, radio controlled low observable
aircraft and ultra-lights.
Limited capabilities exist for fusing surveillance
information and the effective engagement and elimination of
these increasingly advanced threats launched from air, land
or sea.
Emerging technologies should be examined to enable NORAD to
detect, identify, track, engage and assess these threats.
There are two aspects to this NORAD-led multi-year effort,
which is supported by U.S. Northern Command and the Joint
Theater Air Missile Defense Organization:
a. Develop and write a Capstone Requirements Document. The
Capstone Requirements Document will provide the overarching
set of ``plug and play rules''--called requirements--by which
all systems, regardless of Service or interagency origin, are
to be developed and/or employed in support of detecting,
deterring and defending against low altitude air threats.
That is, regardless of agency or Service of origin, the
systems necessary for the full-spectrum air defense of North
America must be interoperable in order to provide NORAD the
actionable information it needs to defend against such low
altitude air threats.
b. Complete development and evaluation of a suite of
technologies. The following technologies have great potential
for the successful detection of and defense against low
altitude air threats:
Homeland Defense Battle Management Command and Control
architecture--will ensure the requisite interoperability of
systems to fuse sensor information and pass actionable
information to NORAD command and control centers and
defending forces;
Technologies for cruise missile detection and
identification, including lightweight radar technologies;
Stratospheric airship;
Maritime surveillance;
Surveillance platforms and other sensors; and
Defensive weapons.
____

From: Nanette Nadeau.
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2004.
To: Evelyn Farkas, (Armed Services).
Subject: Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection.

Hello Evelyn: Here is the information you requested on
Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP). In our earlier
conversation, you mentioned the FY05 $209.2M AT/FP shortfall
for Army Forces Command. Please be aware that USNORTHCOM's
other components have AT/FP shortfalls as well.

anti-terrorism/force protection (at/fp)

U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and its Service
Components; people, installations, forward/deployed
facilities and equipment are at increased risk of attack
based on recent and emerging asymmetric threats. The Command
should have the capability to deter and/or mitigate the risks
of terrorist acts against people and property whether in-
place or deployed. This includes a physical security program
to provide detection (alarms/guards), hardening of
structures, replacement of current explosive material
detection and personal protection gear (various detectors,
night vision goggles, etc.). The AT/FP program would also
include resources to conduct anti-terrorism exercises,
perform training and promote AT/FP awareness. FY05 AT/FP
funding lines for USNORTHCOM's Service Components follow.

[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline    Shortfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Forces Command...........................       $172.4       $209.2
Marine Forces Atlantic........................          0.0         26.4
Air Force/Air Combat Command..................          0.4         14.0
Navy Forces Atlantic..........................        128.7         82.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our first action on Thursday morning will be to provide you
UNCLASSIFIED information on the FY05 $13.3M shortfall for
Consequence Management.
We appreciate all your support.
Thank you,

Nanette A. Nadeau,

Chief, Legislative Liaison,
Commander's Action Group.
____

From: Nanette Nadeau.
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2004.
To: Evelyn Farkas (Armed Services).
Subject: Consequence Management.

Hi Evelyn: Here is the information you requested on
consequence management.
consequence management
USNORTHCOM, through its components, needs to be able to
communicate with federal, state and local agencies to begin
damage control and minimize the effects of actual or
suspected chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high
explosive incidents, civil disturbances and other events,
when directed by the President or Secretary of Defense.
Currently, the Army National Guard (ARNG) has only limited
capability to establish communications to support civil
authorities. This degrades alternate site operations, High
Frequency radio transmissions and prevents secure
communications required during domestic support operations.
The FY05 consequence management funding profile for ARNG
command and control networks follows:
ARNG: Baseline--$2.4M; Shortfall--$13.3M.
Hope this helps!

Nanette A. Nadeau,

Chief, Legislative Liaison,
Commander's Action Group.
____

Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2004.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Skelton: In response to your letter of
February 9, 2004, I am providing a list of unfunded programs
to which additional funding could be applied. While the Navy
is grateful for and has benefited from the increased
resources recently provided by the President and the
Congress, there still remain additional shortfalls that are
detailed herein.
The Department's FY 2005 Budget continues to focus on our
new defense strategy and emergent challenges of the 21st
Century. The resources contained in this budget go far in
helping us to maintain heightened readiness in uncertain
times, to provide further investment in transformational
programs, and to take care of our sailors and their families.
However, the Global War on Terrorism and current operations
incident to Operation Iraq Freedom continue to stretch our
resources in many areas. Additionally, the road to attaining
our shipbuilding and aircraft procurement program goals
remains exceptionally challenging.
For FY 2005, Naval unfunded programs total $2.5 billion.
These unfunded items are listed under Enclosure (1).
As always, if I may be of any further assistance, please
let me know. A copy of this letter is also being provided to
Chairman Hunter and Warner, and Senator Levin.
Sincerely,
Vern Clark,
Admiral, U.S. Navy.
Enclosure.

USN FY-05 UNFUNDED PROGRAM LIST (PRIORITY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30  CH-46 ERIP Inventory Adjustment.........................      APN      5.0  The CH-46 will be in service
longer than initially projected
due to V-22 program delays. The
Engine Reliability Improvement
Program is the engine
reliability and performance
solution to the H-46 #1 issue
over the last 5 years. The
program delivers an engine with
twice the reliability of
today's engine, is ahead of
schedule and meets engine
demand and operational
readiness requirements from
OIF. This funding provides (7)
ERIP modifications.
31  LHD 8...................................................        SCN  106.0  Fully fund LHD 8 SCN shortfall
as well as Ship Self-Defense
System (SSDS), AT/FP, and
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
(EFV) support on ship. Funds
IPVT shortfalls in TPX-42 and
GCCS-M interfaces with SSDS
Mk2; Implementation of USS COLE
SRG recommendations; Collective
protection system;
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
integration.
32  LHA(R)..................................................        SCN  250.0  Provides funding that will
deliver a transitional platform
fielding transformational
capabilities.
33  5"/54 Upgrades on CGs...................................    RDTEN     10.0  As part of the CG Modernization
program, upgrades existing 5"54
gun to interface with upgraded
fire control system and SPQ-9B
radar. Allows use of Task Force
Hip Pocket 5" rounds against
small boats. Supports Sea
Strike and Sea Shield pillars.
34  ARCI/Advanced Process Build Integration.................    RDTEN     20.0  Additional funds needed to
accelerate Acoustic Rapid COTS
Insertion (ARCI) upgrades to 13
ships that will not get ARCI
upgrades before deployment.
Includes Adv. Processor Build
(APB) 04 integration which
includes High Frequency
Tactical Control Sonar, AI&R-
SPVA sensor and processing,
real time reach back analysis
and spectral trackers.
35  CHEM/BIO................................................    MULTI     21.4  Procures systems for mobile and
shore Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD) detachments to
fill gap in required capability
to detect chemical, biological,
and explosive hazards during
Improvised Explosive Device/
Weapons Mass Destruction and
Force Protection responses.
Currently the EOD detachments
are limited in this capability.
Replaces 2800 CBD respirators
that have exceeded service life
plus 2-year extension. Allows
USN/USMC aircrew to operate in
CBRN threat environment until
Joint Service Aircrew Mask is
fielded in FY09.
36  ESSM on Large Decks.....................................    MULTI     34.2  Funds completion of Ship Self
Defense System (SSDS) MK2 and
procurement of one CEC system,
one SPQ-9B system, and one
complete Re-architectured NATO
Seasparrow Missile System
(RNSSMS) including a shipset
and installation costs for two
Mk29 (ORDALT) missile
launchers.
37  AV-8B Engine Life Management Program....................    RDTEN      5.0  The AV-8B Engine Life Management
Program (ELMP) improves the
F402 engine's safety and
reliability to increase the
Mean Time Between engine
Removal (MTBR) from 275 hours
to 800 hours, and to ensure the
AV-8B will remain a ready and
relevant combat aircraft until
transition to the JSF (STOVL).
Accelerated Simulated Mission
Endurance Testing III (ASMET
III) ensures engine test
experience remains ahead of
Fleet experience. $2.0M will
complete the remaining unfunded
portion of the ASMET III test
scheduled for FY2005. $3.0M is
required to reinstate the
previously cancelled Engine
Monitoring System (EMS) plan in
FY 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page S7127]]

[From the Washington Post, June 11, 2004]

Too Slow on Nukes

The group of eight industrialized nations took a couple of
steps at their summit meeting in Georgia this week to prevent
the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Urged on by the Bush
administration, the leaders of Europe, Japan, Canada and
Russia agreed to a one-year moratorium on supplying equipment
for producing fissile material to countries that do not
already have it. Mr. Bush seeks a permanent ban, which will
be discussed in the coming months. The G-8 also announced
seven new participants in its program for funding the
securing of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and
agreed to press more non-nuclear countries to accept expanded
inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The
various initiatives followed several recent steps by the Bush
administration--including a new $450 million program to
collect enriched uranium and plutonium from 40 countries
around the world--that have added momentum to its efforts to
prevent the spread of nukes to nations or terrorist groups.
This program nevertheless looks paltry in comparison with
recent developments in the opposite direction. Both North
Korea and Iran appear to be continuing with nuclear weapons
development, overcoming ineffective containment efforts by
the Bush administration and oft-divided groups of its allies.
Next week the IAEA board will meet to consider a report that
a formal Iranian commitment to freeze work on enriching
uranium was never honored. It's not clear that all the
nuclear equipment secretly produced and traded by the
Pakistan-based network of Abdul Qadeer Khan has been tracked
down: Some seems to have disappeared. Evidence has emerged,
meanwhile, that North Korea already has exported nuclear
technology, to Libya. Though Libya is dismantling its
program, there is an obvious danger that North Korea will
sell bombs or the technology for them to others. It's easy to
fault the ineffective strategies for these threats pursued by
the Bush administration or, in the case of Iran, by European
governments. But it's also unclear whether any approach, from
negotiation to military action, would succeed--though the
effort at containment must go on.
What's odd in such circumstances is the relative
sluggishness with which the world has attacked the part of
the nuclear menace that is relatively easier to deal with, if
equally frightening: that of ``loose nukes'' and the
materials needed to make them. All the elements needed to
manufacture a nuclear weapon are readily available in global
markets, save the fissile core of highly enriched uranium or
plutonium--and hundreds of tons of these materials are stored
under insecure conditions in the nations of the Soviet Union
and other countries. A decade-old U.S. program has
safeguarded only 20 percent of the material in Russia and
less than that elsewhere. According to a recent report by a
team of Harvard University researchers, less fissile material
was secured in the two years after Sept. 11, 2001, than in
the two years before the attacks.
Though it is working harder at securing the loose nukes,
the Bush administration is still giving this effort a
fraction of the resources it is spending to deploy a missile
defense system against a threat--a rogue state with an
intercontinental missile--that does not currently exist. At
the current rate of work, it will take 13 years to secure the
remaining bomb-grade material in the former Soviet Union and
more than a decade to collect it from other countries. Mr.
Bush's challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass), has laid out
a plan to complete the same job within four years. The
president could help his own political cause as well as U.S.
security by matching that commitment.
____

[From the Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2004]

A Bigger Peril: Dirty Bombs

During the Cold War, the United States, under the Atoms for
Peace program, and the Soviet Union actively exported nuclear
materials abroad to friendly countries. The justification was
that they were helping to promote the peaceful use of nuclear
energy. Now the U.S. and Russia are reviving efforts to
retrieve uranium before it ends up in a terrorist dirty bomb
detonated in a major city.
On Thursday, in a deal that followed a welter of new terror
warnings from the Justice Department, Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham signed a $450-million agreement with Russia
to retrieve nuclear materials.
Information about contributions to the global nuclear black
market by top Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan has
prompted the administration to revive its lagging non-
proliferation efforts. In a Feb. 11 speech, President Bush
warned that ``terrorists and terror states are in a race for
weapons of mass murder, a race they must lost.''
Yet, as a new Harvard University study obtained by the
Washington Post reports, not enough is being done against
such weapons. Less fissile material was put in safekeeping in
the two years after Sept. 11 than in the two years preceding
it. More than 40 countries could supply materials for an
atomic weapon. The U.S. has spent billions since 1992 to
secure nuclear materials, but bureaucratic wrangling has
stalled many programs inside Russia. According to the General
Accounting Office, even rudimentary safety measures to deter
the theft of dangerous materials are lacking at many Russian
nuclear labs. What's more, the Energy Department's own
auditors warned in February that substantial caches of
uranium produced here were ``out of U.S. control.''
Abraham's initiative states that the U.S. will retrieve
radiological material it has sent abroad and earmarks $100
million to aid Russian efforts. According to Atomic Energy
Minister Alexander Rumyantsev, Moscow will remove uranium
from 20 Soviet and Russian-built reactors in 17 countries.
Russia also promises not to complete Iran's Bushehr nuclear
power plant without a guarantee that spent fuel will be sent
to Moscow.
Though Abraham's move is a welcome one, the Bush
administration continues to waste far larger sums on a
missile defense system intended to defend the country against
nuclear missile attacks from rogue states or terrorists. For
2005, the administration's funding request is more than $10
billion, about 22 times the cost of the Energy Department
effort. Yet most experts agree that groups such as Al Qaeda
are far more likely to produce dirty bombs than nuclear
missiles. It makes more sense to invest in preventing nuclear
materials from falling into the hands of terrorists than to
pour billions into a system that has succeeded only in what
amounts to rigged testing.
The Abraham initiative deserves credit as a cost-effective
program against an immediate danger. Missile defense, on the
other hand, is most effective as a profit center for the
defense industry.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Washington Post editorial says:

What's odd in these circumstances is the relative
sluggishness with which the world has attacked the part of
the nuclear menace that is relatively easier to deal with--

And they are comparing it to the North Korean transfer of technology;
and that is the ``loose nukes'' and the materials that are needed to
make them.
The Post editorial says:

. . . [T]his Bush administration is still giving this effort
a fraction of the resources it is spending to deploy a
missile defense system against a threat--a rogue state with
an intercontinental missile--that does not currently exist.
At the current rate of work, it will take 13 years to secure
the remaining bomb-grade material in the former Soviet Union
and more than a decade to collect it from other countries.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would make an offer to my distinguished
colleague, if he wishes to advance an amendment on the issue of the
``loose nukes,'' to work with him to see whether, in this bill right
now, we could take that one change, if you feel it is inadequately
funded.
Mr. LEVIN. There is no funding. It is not just inadequate, we do not
have funding for that $450 million amount.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment is expired.

Amendment No. 3457, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Burns
second-degree amendment be modified with the technical changes at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3457), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add the
following:
(c) Additional Factors in Indecency Penalties; Exception.--
Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 503(b)(2)), is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(F) In the case of a violation in which the violator is
determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to have
uttered obscene, indecent, or profane material, the
Commission shall take into account, in addition to the
matters described in subparagraph (E), the following factors
with respect to the degree of culpability of the violator:
``(i) Whether the material uttered by the violator was live
or recorded, scripted or unscripted.
``(ii) Whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to
review recorded or scripted programming or had a reasonable
basis to believe live or unscripted programming would contain
obscene, indecent, or profane material.
``(iii) If the violator originated live or unscripted
programming, whether a time delay blocking mechanism was
implemented for the programming.
``(iv) The size of the viewing or listening audience of the
programming.
``(v) Whether the obscene incident or profane language was
within live programming not produced by the station licensee
or permitee.
``(vi) The size of the market.
``(vii) Whether the violation occurred during a children's
television program (as such term is used in the Children's
Television Programming Policy referenced in section
73.4050(c) of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R.
73.4050(c)) or during a television program rated TVY, TVY7,
TVY7FV, or TVG under the TV Parental Guidelines as such
ratings were approved by the Commission in implementation of
section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video
Programming Ratings, Report and Order, CS Docket No. 97-55,
13 F.C.C. Rcd. 8232 (1998)), and, with

[[Page S7128]]

respect to a radio broadcast station licensee, permittee, or
applicant, whether the target audience was primarily
comprised of, or should reasonably have been expected to be
primarily comprised of, children.''
``(G) The Commission may double the amount of any
forfeiture penalty (not to exceed $550,000 for the first
violation, $750,000 for the second violation, and $1,000,000
for the third or any subsequent violation not to exceed up to
$3,000,000 for all violations in a 24-hour time period
notwithstanding section 503(b)(2)(C)) if the Commission
determines additional factors are present which are
aggravating in nature, including--
``(i) whether the material uttered by the violator was
recorded or scripted;
``(ii) whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to
review recorded or scripted programming or had a reasonable
basis to believe live or unscripted programming would contain
obscene, indecent, or profane material;
`(iii) whether the violator failed to block live or
unscripted programming;
``(iv) whether the size of the viewing or listening
audience of the programming was substantially larger than
usual, such as a national or international championship
sporting event or awards program; and
``(v) whether the violation occured during a children's
television program (as defined in subparagraph (F)(vii)).''.

Amendment No. 3338

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am sure my colleague would want to ask
for the yeas and nays on his amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to the vote going forward, it is my
understanding the majority has been consulted, and the distinguished
Democratic leader, following these votes, wishes to offer his amendment
dealing with veterans health benefits.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly want to accommodate the
leadership. But I spoke earlier this morning outlining what I
understood was going to be the sequence of events in the morning. We
certainly want to accommodate the distinguished Democratic leader, but
one of our Members, for very special reasons, has to be absent this
afternoon. He is a member of the commission on WMD, and he wished to
rebut Senator Dayton's amendment, which would be a very short period of
time this morning.
Mr. REID. How long does the Senator from Arizona wish to speak?
Mr. WARNER. I would say 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. The votes will probably be completed shortly after 11
o'clock. We at least hope that is the case.
Mr. WARNER. The two votes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I meant to say 12 o'clock, which does not
leave much time for the Democratic leader.
Mr. WARNER. Could the Democratic leader then be recognized
immediately after the luncheons?
Mr. REID. We would ask, then, that the Democratic leader be allowed
to lay down his amendment, and that he would complete the debate at
some subsequent time. And then if Senator McCain----
Mr. WARNER. In other words, if I understand the request now, it is
simply to come in and be recognized for the purpose of laying down the
amendment so it is in the queue, and then we will proceed with the
Dayton amendment and those matters we originally scheduled?
Mr. REID. That is right. I do not know about the Dayton matter
originally scheduled.
Mr. WARNER. Apparently my leader would like to address this issue. We
want to be cooperative and supportive of the procedural aspects of it.
Could we proceed at least through the first vote and then, in that
interim period, be able to provide an answer?
Mr. REID. That is fine. I will be happy to do that. But I see no
prejudice to anyone if he is allowed to lay down his amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I share that, but any manager has to be cognizant of the
needs of his respective leader. So we will proceed to the first vote,
with an understanding there will be a modest period in between to
hopefully resolve this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3338. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 56, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

YEAS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--56

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 3338) was rejected.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that the vote that is about to be
taken be deferred in recognition of a need by the distinguished
Democratic whip.

Amendment No. 3409

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
order be set aside and if there is a pending amendment that it be set
aside, and I be allowed to offer for Senator Daschle amendment No.
3409.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we return to regular order.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, does that amendment need to be reported?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Daschle,
proposes an amendment numbered 3409.

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

(Purpose: To assure that funding is provided for veterans health care
each fiscal year to cover increases in population and inflation)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1068. FUNDING FOR VETERANS HEALTH CARE TO ADDRESS
CHANGES IN POPULATION AND INFLATION.

(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 320. Funding for veterans health care to address
changes in population and inflation

``(a) For each fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the
amount determined under subsection (b) with respect to that
fiscal year. Each such amount is available, without fiscal
year limitation, for the programs, functions, and activities
of the Veterans Health Administration, as specified in
subsection (c).
``(b)(1) The amount applicable to fiscal year 2005 under
this subsection is the amount equal to--
``(A) 130 percent of the amount obligated by the Department
during fiscal year 2003 for the purposes specified in
subsection (c), minus
``(B) the amount appropriated for those purposes for fiscal
year 2004.
``(2) The amount applicable to any fiscal year after fiscal
year 2005 under this subsection is the amount equal to the
product of the following, minus the amount appropriated for
the purposes specified for subsection (c) for fiscal year
2004:
``(A) The sum of--
``(i) the number of veterans enrolled in the Department
health care system under section 1705 of this title as of
July 1 preceding the beginning of such fiscal year; and
``(ii) the number of persons eligible for health care under
chapter 17 of this title who

[[Page S7129]]

are not covered by clause (i) and who were provided hospital
care or medical services under such chapter at any time
during the fiscal year preceding such fiscal year.
``(B) The per capita baseline amount, as increased from
time to time pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
``(3)(A) For purposes of paragraph (2)(B), the term `per
capita baseline amount' means the amount equal to--
``(i) the amount obligated by the Department during fiscal
year 2004 for the purposes specified in subsection (c),
divided by
``(ii) the number of veterans enrolled in the Department
health care system under section 1705 of this title as of
September 30, 2003.
``(B) With respect to any fiscal year, the Secretary shall
provide a percentage increase (rounded to the nearest dollar)
in the per capita baseline amount equal to the percentage by
which--
``(i) the Consumer Price Index (all Urban Consumers, United
States City Average, Hospital and related services,
Seasonally Adjusted), published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the Department of Labor for the 12-month period
ending on the June 30 preceding the beginning of the fiscal
year for which the increase is made, exceeds
``(ii) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding the 12-month period described in clause (i).
``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the purposes
for which amounts made available pursuant to subsection (a)
shall be all programs, functions, and activities of the
Veterans Health Administration.
``(2) Amounts made available pursuant to subsection (a) are
not available for--
``(A) construction, acquisition, or alteration of medical
facilities as provided in subchapter I of chapter 81 of this
title (other than for such repairs as were provided for
before the date of the enactment of this section through the
Medical Care appropriation for the Department); or
``(B) grants under subchapter III of chapter 81 of this
title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``320. Funding for veterans health care to address changes in
population and inflation.''.

Mr. WARNER. Regular order.

Amendments Nos. 3235 and 3457

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of
amendment No. 3235.
Under the previous order, the Burns second-degree amendment No. 3457
is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3457) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Byrd be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3235.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3464 to Amendment No. 3235

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3464, which is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The journal clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an
amendment numbered 3464.

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

(Purpose: To increase the penalties for violations by television and
radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene,
indecent, and profane language)

Strike page 1 line 2 through page 3 line 3 and insert the
following:

SEC.__. BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004''.
(b) Increase in Penalties for Obscene, Indecent, and
Profane Broadcasts.--Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the violator
is--
``(i)(I) a broadcast station licensee or permittee; or
``(II) an applicant for any broadcast license, permit,
certificate, or other instrument or authorization issued by
the Commission; and
``(ii) determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to
have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language, the
amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under this
subsection shall not exceed $275,000 for each violation or
each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount
assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a
total of $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.'';
and
(3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1),
by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 2 days
after the date of enactment of this section.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment. This is the decency amendment that has been widely
discussed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3464. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

YEAS--99

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

NAYS--1

Breaux

The amendment (No. 3464) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 3465 to amendment no. 3235

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Dorgan is
recognized to offer an amendment.
Mr. REID. I send the amendment to the desk on his behalf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Dorgan,
proposes an amendment numbered 3465 to amendment No. 3235.
The amendment is as follows:

In the amendment, strike all beginning on page 1, line 2,
through page 3, line three, and insert the following:

SEC.   . BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004''.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to increase
the FCC's authority to fine for indecent broadcasts and
prevent further relaxation of the media ownership rules in
order to stem the rise of indecent programming.
(c) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since 1996 there has been significant consolidation in
the media industry, including:
(A) Radio.--Clear Channel Communications went from owning
43 radio stations prior to 1996 to over 1,200 as of January
2003; Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. was established in 1997 and
owned 266 stations as of December 2003, making it the second-
largest radio ownership company in the country; and Infinity
Broadcasting Corporation went from owning 43 radio stations
prior to 1996 to over 185 stations as of June 2004;
(B) Television.--Viacom/CBS's national ownership of
television stations increased from 31.53 percent of U.S.
television households prior to 1996 to 38.9 percent in 2004;
GE/NBC's national ownership of television stations increased
from 24.65 percent prior to 1996 to 33.56 percent in 2004;
NewsCorp/FOX's national ownership of television stations
increased from 22.05 percent prior to 1996 to 37.7 percent in
2004;
(C) Media Mergers.--In 2000, Viacom merged with CBS and
UPN; in 2002, GE/NBC merged with Telemundo Communications,
Inc., and in 2004 with Vivendi Universal Entertainment; in
2003 News Corp./Fox acquired

[[Page S7130]]

a controlling interest in DirecTV; in 2000, Time Warner,
Inc., merged with America Online.
(2) Over the same period that there has been significant
consolidation in the media industry the number of indecency
complaints also has increased dramatically. The largest
owners of television and radio broadcast holdings have
received the greatest number of indecency complaints and the
largest fines, including
(A) Over 80 percent of the fines proposed by the Federal
Communications Commission for indecent broadcasts were
against stations owned by two of the top three radio
companies. The top radio company alone accounts for over two-
thirds of the fines proposed by the FCC;
(B) Two of the largest fines proposed by the FCC were
against two of the top three radio companies;
(C) In 2004, the FCC received over 500,000 indecency
complaints in response to the Superbowl Halftime show aired
on CBS and produced by MTV, both of which are owned by
Viacom. This is the largest number of complaints ever
received by the FCC for a single broadcast;
(D) The number of indecency complaints increased from 111
in 2000 to 240,350 in 2003;
(3) Media conglomerates do not consider or reflect local
community standards.
(A) The FCC has no record of a television station owned by
one of the big four networks (Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, News
Corp./Fox or GE/NBC) pre-empting national programming for
failing to meet community standards;
(B) FCC records show that non-network owned stations have
often rejected national network programming found to be
indecent and offensive to local community standards;
(C) A letter from an owned and operated station manager to
a viewer stated that programming decisions are made by
network headquarters and not the local owned and operated
television station management;
(D) The Parents Television Council has found that the
``losers'' of network ownership ``are the local communities
whose standards of decency are being ignored;''
(4) The Senate Commerce Committee has found that the
current fines do not deter indecent broadcast because they
are merely the cost of doing business for large media
companies. Therefore, in order to prevent the continued rise
of indecency violations, the FCC's authority for indecency
fines should be increased and further media consolidation
should be prevented.
(d) Increase in Penalties for Obscene, Indecent, and
Profane Broadcasts.--Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the violator
is--
``(i)(I) a broadcast station licensee or permittee; or
``(II) an applicant for any broadcast license, permit,
certificate, or other instrument or authorization issued by
the Commission; and
``(ii) determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to
have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language, the
amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under this
subsection shall not exceed $275,000 for each violation or
each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount
assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a
total of $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.'';
and
(3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1),
by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.
(e) New Broadcast Media Ownership Rules Suspended.--
(1) Suspension.--Subject to the provisions of paragraphs
(d)(2), the broadcast media ownership rules adopted by the
Federal Communications Commission on June 2, 2003, pursuant
to its proceeding on broadcast media ownership rules, Report
and Order FCC03-127, published at 68 FR 46286, August 5,
2003, shall be invalid and without legal effect.
(2) Clarification.--The provisions of paragraph (1) shall
not supersede the amendments made by section 629 of the
Miscellaneous Appropriations and Offsets Act, 2004 (Public
Law 108-199).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3465) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3466 To Amendment No. 3235

(Purpose: To protect children from violent programming)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, Senator Hollings is
recognized to offer an amendment.
Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator
Hollings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Hollings,
proposes an amendment numbered 3466 to amendment No. 3235.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3466) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3235

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Brownback
amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3235) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. The Burns amendment, likewise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3457

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased that amendment No. 3457 was
accepted by unanimous consent in the Senate today. While I fully
support the underlying Brownback legislation, I have offered a second-
degree amendment to protect the interests of small broadcasters who
should not be punished for events outside of their control. The
amendment agreed upon simply calls on the FCC to consider the size of
the stations in question as well as whether they had anything to do
with producing the offensive content in question.
I applaud the efforts of my colleague from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, for
his leadership on the issue of broadcast decency, and I am fully
supportive of his legislation. This legislation gives the Federal
Communications Commission the tools they need to go after those
responsible for exposing our children to indecent material.
With the recent trend of indecent events in the media, it is time to
raise the current fine levels in order to prompt stations to more
carefully screen their programming. These higher fines are appropriate
for most stations. However, if the fines are too high for a local
Montana broadcaster, it could well force them to close up shop.
In Montana, we have numerous stations that are so marginally
profitable that the only reason they remain on the air is because the
good citizens of their communities refuse to let them go dark.
For example, in Scobey, MT, townspeople regularly buy ``stock'' in
KCGM because the community is so small that, in the words of manager
Dixie Halvorsen, ``there is no reason for anyone to buy advertising in
this station. We have but one local market, one drug store, and one
feed store. They buy time with us because they want their local news
and their local high school sports and the local legion baseball and
the local weather . . . ''
Plentywood is much the same. KATQ has a local advisory board that
oversees the operation of the station. It is made up of members of the
business and non-profit community to ensure that their local stations
remain on the air.
Nearly two-thirds of the radio stations in Montana are small market
``mom and pops.'' In Libby, MT, Duane and Peggy Williams operate KLCB-
AM and KTNY-FM with the help of several part-time stringers and some
high school students. Libby has a depressed economy and is a Superfund
site. When the EPA held meetings and hearings with all of us in the
Congressional delegation, along with the Governor and other State and
Federal officials, Duane and Peggy interrupted their entire programming
for the day to cover the issue.
It is not at all inconceivable that during these hours of live
broadcasts, an upset citizen might utter a word or phrase that could be
considered indecent under this provision of the law. An excessive fine
would mean the end of Duane and Peggy's stations and dreams and the end
of local radio in Libby.
And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people like Duane and
Peggy who do not deserve such treatment for simply trying to do what is
best by their communities.
Examples such as this are why I introduced the amendment that was
agreed to today. This amendment outlines mitigating factors that the
Commission shall consider when determining the degree of a fine that
will help shield smaller stations from an unnecessarily strong
financial blow.

[[Page S7131]]

I thank Mr. Brownback for taking the lead on this important piece of
legislation, and I am pleased that my colleagues have recognized the
importance of the small-market station amendment.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, today I rise to make a few remarks about
my vote today for Senator Brownback's amendment regarding broadcast
indecency. I supported this amendment as modified by the Burns second-
degree amendment because it includes protections for small market
stations. Combined, the Burns and Brownback amendments would curb the
broadcast of indecent material without unjustly penalizing local
broadcasters who unknowingly transmit it.
I have spoken with Missouri broadcasters who worry that the stand-
alone Brownback legislation would subject them to large fines for
merely transmitting a program containing indecent material, like that
contained in the Superbowl halftime show, without their knowledge of
the indecency. Combined, the Burns-Brownback amendments would not place
broadcasters in this situation since it requires the Federal
Communications Commission to consider several factors including
knowledge in determining whether to levy a fine, and how much that fine
should be.
Under current law, local broadcasters are essentially liable for
everything that comes across their airwaves, even a Janet Jackson-type
incident that they are downstream from and have had no opportunity to
review. This quasi-strick liability standard is simply not fair, and
that is one reason why I believe the law should be changed.
The Burns amendment in particular corrects this unfairness by
requiring the FCC to consider factors in assessing fines including
whether the material was scripted or recorded and whether the violator
had a reasonable opportunity to review the script or recording, thereby
demonstrating that the violator had knowledge that the indecent,
obscene or profane material would be aired or, otherwise, had a
reasonable basis to believe that live or unscripted programming would
contain indecent material. In determining culpability, the FCC would be
required to consider mitigating factors including whether the licensee
had a reasonable opportunity to review the programming or had reason to
believe it may contain obscene, indecent, or profane material. I
believe these provisions address local broadcasters' concerns and
protect them from arbitrary FCC enforcement.
I support the Burns-Brownback amendments because of these provisions,
but I am still concerned about the phenomenon of congressional
overreaction to current events. Like many other parents, I feel that
this year's Superbowl halftime show contained indecent material and
that those responsible should be held accountable. After the Superbowl,
hundreds of Missourians contacted my to share similar views. There
seems to be a tendency among elected officials to respond to such a
strong outpouring of support by not only trying to fix the problem, but
by trying to fix it in a way that swings the legislative pendulum too
far in other directions, to over-regulate. I do not believe that these
amendments as combined go too far, but if they do I want to hear from
Missouri broadcasters and work with them to address their concerns.
I thank Senators Burns and Brownback for their hard work on this
legislation, and for addressing my concerns.
Mr. WARNER. We are moving along quite well. All are in agreement with
great cooperation on both sides. We are about to proceed to the
amendment, the ``Buy America'' from our colleague on the committee. The
Senator from Arizona on this side is ready.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. REID. Senator Dayton indicated he wishes to speak for a short
period of time. The Senator from Arizona does not usually speak very
long. Does the Senator have any idea how long he will talk?
Mr. McCAIN. No longer than 10 or 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. We can complete all debate on this amendment. Senator
Dayton said he would not speak for more than 5 or 10 minutes following
the Senator from Arizona, and that would complete debate on the
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Except the Senator from Virginia would like about 3
minutes to wrap up at the conclusion.
Mr. REID. Totally appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed 15
minutes for my substitute, the Senator from Minnesota be given 10
minutes in response, and the Senator from Virginia, 3 minutes, followed
by a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 3461

Mr. McCAIN. Yesterday, Senator Warner called up a substitute
amendment. I ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment be called
up for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. McCAIN. My reasons for offering this substitute amendment are
simple. It will be very harmful if we allow the Dayton amendment to be
adopted in its original form. It is harmful to the Department of
Defense, our soldiers in uniform, our domestic defense industry, and,
not least, the American taxpayer.
The amendment I am offering in the form of a substitute would grant
waiver authority for the application of a domestic source or content
requirement with a country that has signed a declaration of principles
with the United States. This substitute amendment aims to assure that
the Department of Defense, charged with protecting our national
security, is not limited in its ability to carry out the functions the
American public is depending on it to do.
The Dayton amendment would give preferential treatment to U.S.
suppliers and does not accomplish the more important objective, which
is to provide our troops with the best product for the best price. It
may not sound like much on first consideration, but it would have far-
reaching consequences on national security efforts and violate many of
our trade agreements with respect to defense procurement.
Despite the good intentions of the proponents of the ``Buy America''
amendment, if it passed in its current form, it could have consequences
to our Nation, impacting jobs and our economic prosperity. Further, it
would harm our relationships with our allies and coalition partners and
our collective prosecution of the war on terror.

As for the international considerations of the Dayton amendment, it
is isolationist and go-it-alone. Currently, the United States enjoys a
trade balance in defense exports of 6 to 1 in favor with respect to
Europe, and 12 to 1 with respect to the rest of the world. I don't
think there is any doubt if we restricted what we would buy from other
nations, they would then, in return, respond. If we pass the Dayton
amendment without modifications, our allies will retaliate, and the
ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to greater interoperability
with NATO and non-NATO allies would be seriously undercut. Critical
international programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter Program and the
Missile Defense Program would likely be terminated as our allies
reassess our defense cooperation.
There are many examples of a trade imbalance that I can point to. I
mention one government: The Dutch Government, over a 4-year period,
purchased $2.5 billion in defense equipment from U.S. manufacturers,
including air refueling planes, Chinook helicopters, Apache
helicopters, F-16 fighter equipment, missiles, combat radios, and
various equipment. During that same period, the United States purchased
only $40 million of defense equipment from the Dutch. So there is a
$2.5 billion procurement by the Dutch Government for American equipment
and $40 million of equipment of the United States bought by the Dutch.
Recently, the Defense Ministers of the United Kingdom and Sweden
pointed to similar situations in their country.
In every meeting regarding this subject I am told how difficult it is
to buy American defense products because of our protectionist policies
and the strong ``Buy European'' sentiment overseas. The Ambassadors of
the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Denmark, allies that provided
forces in

[[Page S7132]]

Iraq, recently sent letters to the Armed Services Committee expressing
their strong support for the underlying title 8 in the Defense
Authorization Act.
The letters support the Commission on the Future of the National
Technology and Industrial Base, the conforming standard for waiver of
domestic source or content requirements, and consistency with U.S.
trade obligations under trade agreements.
Over the last few years we have sold 18 variants of aircraft, 19
types of missiles, as well as ground and naval equipment, through the
Foreign Military Sales Program. These defense systems were manufactured
in 39 States across America. Companies such as Raytheon, Lockheed
Martin, Bell, Northrop Grumman, Missile Research Corporation, Sikorsky,
Pratt & Whitney, General Dynamics, American General, and American Truck
Corporation are contributing to the trade surplus we have in the
defense technology market.
I want to point out also that in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 there was
$482 million worth of military equipment purchased in the State of
Minnesota; $482 million, Lockheed Martin; and Raytheon, 20 Stinger
missiles. Lockheed Martin, by the way, sold those weapons systems to
Japan, and Raytheon, the Stinger, to Turkey.
I will read from a couple letters we have received from various
countries and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others on this issue.
There is no one under more assault than the British Prime Minister
for his continued unwavering support of our effort in Iraq. The British
Ambassador wrote:

If approved, the measures proposed under Title VII would be
an important step forward towards improving interoperability
across the full range of our mutual defence cooperation.

The Netherlands Ambassador says:

Although not directly related to the above referenced
proposals, allow me to share with you the idea that in our
perception, part of the discussion which is seen by some as
the danger posed by foreign dependency can be satisfied by
bilateral Security of Supply agreements which can be
negotiated as more detailed arrangements under a Declaration
of Principles. . . .

As you know, Mr. President, we have Canadian troops fighting
alongside Americans in Afghanistan.

The amendment offered by Senator Dayton sends the wrong
message to U.S. allies by deleting language in the
Committee's bill that would encourage and support
international defense cooperation and ultimately benefit U.S.
taxpayers and American troops.

Every nation that is working with us and fighting alongside the
United States is deeply concerned about this issue. It is hard for me
to understand why we would want to propose legislation which would put
this impediment to our relationship with our allies right now, when we
are desperately seeking more cooperation and more effort on behalf of
freedom.
The Danish Ambassador says:

. . . it would be very difficult to understand and explain
if Denmark were to face new restrictions in the industrial
cooperation with the U.S. Especially in light of our
participation in Iraq since the beginning of the military
operations and the continued presence of 500 Danish troops--
one of the largest contingents in both absolute numbers and
certainly in proportion of population.

We are in tough times right now. The last thing we need to do is
throw sand in the face of our allies, particularly our European allies
who are fighting alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo,
and other parts of the world. I would hope that the substitute would be
agreed to, and I would point out again the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as
well as the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace
Industries Association, the Secretary of Defense, and others have
spoken strongly on this issue.
Let me quote from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce letter:

On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's
largest federation, representing more than 3 million
businesses, I am writing to express serious concerns for two
Buy American-related amendments for consideration during
Senate debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.
These sections represent important steps in Department of
Defense transformation plans as it is filed.

So I would hope we would also understand the Senate needs to go into
these negotiations with a strong position, given the position of the
House Armed Services Committee authorization. So I hope we will adopt
the amendment. I ask for its enactment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 3197, As Modified

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be set aside, and I call up my amendment 3197 and ask unanimous consent
that my amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the
modifications are at the desk. We have examined them, and there is no
objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 3197), as modified, is as follows:

Beginning on page 172, strike line 11 and all that follows
through page 176, line 12.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his concurrence.
Mr. President, I want to say at the outset, as I said yesterday, but
in the absence of my colleague from Arizona, I have the utmost respect
for him and also for those who take a different position on this issue.
But I am a little perplexed at the dire consequences that are being
asserted if my amendment were to be adopted, because my amendment
simply strikes language that is in the bill before the Senate which is
itself modifying current law.
My amendment simply takes us back to current law. My amendment simply
takes us back to the principles and the policies and the standards and
the law in the Buy American Act, which has been in effect in this
country for 70 years. So I am astonished that these dire consequences
are being asserted on something that has been in existing law for 70
years, that has benefited companies represented by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the National Defense Industrial Association, that may have
certain members that have exported jobs and instead set up bases of
operation in other countries, including those affected by this
amendment.
So there may be those who have that particular financial interest for
their own companies involved, but, overall, as the Senator from Arizona
pointed out, national defense and military equipment are areas of our
trade where we enjoy a surplus. So it seems evident that the policies
and the laws of this country affecting both ``Buy American''--which
provides exemptions for the Secretary of Defense in just the
circumstances that the Senator from Arizona cited: if there are not
products available that are of the right quality, if there is a delay
in obtaining them, if the prices are not competitive, if there are any
factors at all that would harm our ability to provide for our national
defense or to supply our fighting men and women who serve us so
heroically around the globe--if there were anything at all that were an
impediment to them getting the best equipment, getting the most
advanced equipment, in a timely basis, at a competitive price, then the
Secretary of Defense, under the current law, is entitled and has the
authority to make a waiver and grant an exception.
But this ``Buy American'' law has said--for 70 years, under six
Democratic administrations and five Republican administrations, until
this administration started to object to it--try to buy American
because if you buy American, you strengthen America by supporting
American companies producing products in the United States of America,
employing American citizens, providing jobs in this country.
It is this administration which seemingly has very little concern
about that job base. Given that we have lost, since President Bush took
office, in the last 3\1/2\ years, over 2\1/2\ million manufacturing
jobs in this country--that is, 2\1/2\ million Americans who were
holding those jobs when President Bush took office, who are now without
those jobs. Maybe some have found lesser paying service sector jobs,
but many of them are unemployed and have been for a long time. Under
those circumstances, you would think this administration would be
unwilling to adopt any violations of the Buy American Act that would
have the consequence of costing more American manufacturing jobs or not
recovering some that would otherwise be possible

[[Page S7133]]

to be recovered for the benefit of American citizens, for the benefit
of American companies. But evidently that is not a concern.

I appreciate that Senator McCain has, by his proposed substitute
amendment--and I would support that if my own were not successful--
reduced the number of countries that are going to be given this special
treatment, this special advantage under the existing armed services
language--section 842 that I propose to strike--and has stated that the
countries that will be given this special exemption are those that have
signed statements of principle with the United States rather than
memoranda of understanding regarding U.S. purchases from those
countries.
I am a little perplexed that the Senator from Arizona cited letters
in support of his position from the countries of Canada and the
Netherlands because, according to the information I have been provided,
those two countries do not have statements of principle signed with the
United States, so they would not be included. In fact, they would now
be excluded by Senator McCain's proposed substitute amendment. As I
understand it, the countries that have signed these statements of
principle include Australia, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom,
Sweden, Spain, and Italy. I am pleased that the number of countries
then that would be exempted from ``Buy America'' are only 7, as opposed
to 21 before, but those are still 7 countries, frankly, that enjoy, on
an overall basis, a sizable trade surplus with the United States.
In other words, this country, if you take all goods and services,
imports far more products from those countries, buys more products made
in those countries than we export to those countries. One of the few
exceptions to that is the sale of military equipment. That is to our
advantage. That means we are exporting more than we are importing. That
means we have more jobs generated in the United States to produce those
goods and products than we are importing in return. But on an overall
basis, taking all products--commercial, industrial, agricultural, and
services--we are paying more money to import goods and services from
those countries than we are exporting.
So why are we willing to sacrifice one of the very few sectors in
which we enjoy a trade surplus and give that up by agreeing to buy the
same amount of product from them as we sell to them in this one sector
and then leaving all others aside? If we want to take that approach, if
we believe, as those countries do, that these kind of reciprocal
agreements are valuable to them, as they are, because they provide jobs
in those countries, why don't we make that requirement for everything
we import from those countries? Or better yet, why don't we make that
agreement for everything we import all over the world? Because as the
latest figures show, we are running a world trade deficit that now
exceeds on an annual basis $550 billion a year. That is $550 billion
that leaves the United States to buy foreign products. Here we are, in
one of the few sectors where we enjoy an export surplus, prepared to
give that up on the basis of getting contracts or selling products to
those countries.
I can understand why those countries who wrote those letters of
support would do so because that kind of agreement benefits them. But
we are not making laws--or we should not be--and we are not making
trade policies--or we should not be--that benefit Canada, the
Netherlands, Denmark--with all due respect, important friends and
allies as they are--any more than they pass laws or make trade policies
that benefit the United States to their own disadvantage. So if they
are not prepared to do so, and they should not, why would we do so when
we should not?
My goal is not to change current law; my goal is to stay with current
law. It is to strike the language in this bill that would create these
additional exceptions, that would allow other companies in other
countries to gain contracts that are for goods and services that are
now produced in the United States by American companies, employing
American workers, paying taxes in American communities that benefit our
schools, our local governments, our State and Federal Government, but,
most importantly, that provide jobs for American citizens, the same as
current law. I am not asking for any more protectionism. I am not
asking for any more of anything affecting trade policy or trade
agreements than exists under current law. I am simply asking my
colleagues not to go further.
I ask my colleagues--at a time when we have lost over 2.5 million
manufacturing jobs under President Bush and his administration--not to
go further, not to cost us more manufacturing jobs, but to take a stand
on behalf of those who are working in American industries today, those
who want to return jobs to American industries tomorrow. Let's stick
with current law. That is what my amendment does.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 3 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to go directly to the comments the Senator
just made, as he and I were in our colloquy the other day, I pointed
out that at the present time the United States, in the last fiscal
year, sold $63 billion in defense sales and only purchased $5 billion.
My point is, the Senator is going after the wrong target, the wrong
segment of the industry by this amendment, because it will create
greater loss of jobs if we go after that trade surplus that is in
defense right now. That is why we plead with our colleagues to leave
this sector of trade untouched. I believe it is very important we do
that.
The second thing that concerns me, and it is somewhat technical, in
drawing up this bill, I gave specific instructions to the staff to
preserve the sanctity of that part of ``Buy America'' which I and I
think everybody in this Chamber supports, the Small Business Act, where
23 percent of the dollars for small businesses have to go, the
shipbuilding, the blind and the handicapped, and the Berry amendment.
Yet when the Senator modified his amendment, this section up here was
taken out. That is caught up, and takes it out also.
It seems to me it is important for the Senate to reaffirm the
sanctity of those four categories of trade as being purely ``Buy
America'' and let them stay. But the Senator has taken out the work of
the committee when we put it in there. That is what troubles me.
Lastly, we have here another communication from the Secretary of
Defense of Great Britain, who is so explicit, he says:

. . . efforts by Administration officials to introduce
unnecessarily restrictive language into US/UK cooperative
armament and research MOUs are a potentially serious blow to
US-UK relations in the defence equipment co-operation field.
They would put us under pressure domestically--
That is, before the parliament, their parliament would now
begin to examine this tremendous trade surplus that we have
with relationship to Great Britain
--to review our own policies and to consider whether we are
prepared to continue to place significant defence contracts
with US suppliers in the face of what could only be seen as a
demonstrably uneven playing field. The mutual operational,
technological, and industrial benefits we have enjoyed over
years of equipment cooperation could quickly evaporate with
both of us being losers, and with obvious political
ramifications.

I say to my good friend, I recognize his intention to try and help
America save jobs, but his amendment addresses the wrong sector of
trade. He could do serious damage to a surplus we are generating with
additional jobs in the United States as it currently exists.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 3461

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:
The result was announced --- yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[[Page S7134]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Warner

NAYS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Voinovich
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3461) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3197

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Senate precedent, the accompanying
Dayton amendment to strike is moot.
Mr. ENSIGN. 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.

Amendment No. 3467 to Amendment No. 3315

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to a
Landrieu amendment numbered 3315 and offer a second-degree amendment
which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment
numbered 3467 to amendment No. 3315.

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

(Purpose: To provide a fiscally responsible open enrollment authority)

On page 9, strike lines 12 through 22, and insert the
following:
(8)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in
regulations premiums which a person electing under this
section shall be required to pay for participating in the
Survivor Benefit Plan pursuant to the election. The total
amount of the premiums to be paid by a person under the
regulations shall be equal to the sum of--
(i) the total amount by which the retired pay of the person
would have been reduced before the effective date of the
election if the person had elected to participate in the
Survivor Benefit Plan (for the same base amount specified in
the election) at the first opportunity that was afforded the
member to participate under chapter 73 of title 10, United
States Code;
(ii) interest on the amounts by which the retired pay of
the person would have been so reduced, computed from the
dates on which the retired pay would have been so reduced at
such rate or rates and according to such methodology as the
Secretary of Defense determines reasonable; and
(iii) any additional amount that the Secretary determines
necessary to protect the actuarial soundness of the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund against any
increased risk for the fund that is associated with the
election.
(B) Premiums paid under the regulations shall be credited
to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund.
(C) In this paragraph, the term ``Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund'' means the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund established under section 1461(a) of
title 10, United States Code.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might, on the resumption of the
Senate consideration of this bill, that will be following the taking of
the annual picture. At this time, the understanding is Senator Daschle
will be recognized for the purpose of bringing up his pending
amendment. I inform the Senate of that situation.

____________________