To direct the Attorney General to submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate all documents in the possession of the Department of Justice relating to the treatment and interrogation of individuals held in the custody of the United States.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

Mr. WARNER. In consultation with the majority leader, the
distinguished Democratic leader, and the Democratic whip, Senator Levin
and I have worked out a series of steps we are going to begin to take
in seriatim at this time. The first step is that I yield the floor such
that the Chair can recognize the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 3400

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for regular order with regard to amendment No.
3400.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand there will be a second-
degree amendment offered to my amendment which is to bring a small
measure of relief to military families by allowing the FMLA-eligible
family members of deployed personnel to be able to use the FMLA
benefits for issues directly related to or resulting from their loved
one's deployment. This has been accepted by the body previously and put
into other legislation. It was certainly my hope that we would be able
to move forward with this. It is something our military families
desperately need. However, it is my understanding that this second-
degree amendment would require protracted debate. It is in our interest
to move this important Department of Defense authorization bill
forward.
Mr. WARNER. If the Senator would withhold.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator.

Amendment No. 3475 to Amendment No. 3400

(Purpose: To enable military family members to take time
off to attend to deployment-related business, tasks, and
other family issues.)

Mr. WARNER. There is at the desk a second-degree amendment which I
submit on behalf of Senator Gregg and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Gregg, for
himself and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment 3475 to
amendment 3400.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Feingold has offered an amendment
intended to help military families who have a family member activated
in support of a contingency operation. First of all, I make it clear
that all of us want to assist families placed in the difficult position
of operating with one family member called to duty.
That is why the underlying bill contains provisions such as
permanently increasing the Family Separation Allowance, FSA, payable to
deployed servicemen and women with dependents up to $250 a month.
But the proposal made by Senator Feingold to expand the Family
Medical Leave Act is not the right approach. I rise to offer an
alternative proposal as a second-degree amendment. The amendment I am
offering today presents military families a much better method for
obtaining the flexibility they may need to prepare for activation and
to keep the family running while a family member is called to duty.
The Feingold amendment would offer some employees unpaid leave. My
amendment will offer paid leave. While the Feingold amendment applies
only to those military family members that work for employers with 50
or more employees, and offers no assistance at all to individuals who
work for smaller employers, my amendment will apply to all military
family employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Feingold amendment will also create uncertainty and animosity in
the workplace by giving employees the vaguely defined right to take
intermittent leave with minimal notice for any ``issue relating to
``the family member's service''--a phrase which can be interpreted to
cover just about any activity.
My amendment, on the other hand offers a clear method for earning and
using paid leave time.
The Feingold amendment is a mandate in search of a problem--no need
has been demonstrated for it and in

[[Page S7266]]

fact, in a recent survey of activated Armed Service members' spouses,
80 percent stated that their employers were supportive of their need to
complete pre-activation tasks.

In light of this existing support by employers, my amendment creates
a voluntary system of adding flextime to the work schedule. Therefore,
employers who already have programs in place to accommodate military
families will have the option of maintaining those programs or adopting
a flextime initiative, they will not be forced to add another
complicated layer onto the already confusing Family and Medical Leave
law.
I also point out that the Feingold amendment has never been the
subject of a single House or Senate hearing. I am sure that many of my
colleagues, like me, have heard from businesses concerned about the
difficulties they will face in interpreting and implementing the
Feingold amendment.
Flextime proposals, however, have been vetted in no fewer than 8
hearings in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. There is
also concerns that the Feingold amendment may threaten the operation of
military bases. According to the Department of Defense. ``If a major
military unit were deployed from a single base, this policy could
effectively shut down the installation depending upon the number of
family member employees covered.''
My amendment would not present such a threat to military
installations because it does not apply to public employees.
Finally, Mr. President, I recognize that all of us want to do what we
can to ease the burden on families who have a family member--be it a
spouse, parent or child--serving to protect our nation. The sacrifice
they are willing to make is nothing short of remarkable. I believe the
approach I am offering here today is the best way to help these
families. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment builds on a time
tested law, the Family Medical Leave Act, to allow family members
flexibility to prepare to send their loved ones to Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere abroad to fight on behalf of their Nation. The Family
Medical Leave Act has helped more than 35 million Americans over the
last 10 years. It will help even more under the Feingold amendment. The
amendment will allow family members to take the time off they need to
meet child care needs, care for elderly parents, and otherwise balance
their family responsibilities as their loved ones prepare for active
duty.
The reason this laudable Feingold amendment is being withdrawn is
because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to give our
military families a pay cut.
Corporate profits are growing, while worker wages are not. Yet
Republicans keep trying to implement more policies that are bad for
workers. First, Republicans took away overtime protections from
millions of Americans. Now, they want to give employers additional
power to decide how workers are to be compensated for their overtime
work.
The Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, currently requires employers to
pay workers time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
When workers put in overtime hours now, they have a right to time and
half pay, and they have total control over how or when to use that pay.
The Gregg amendment would allow employers to pay workers nothing for
overtime work at the time the work is performed, in exchange for a
promise of a new schedule. Under current law, employers are free to
offer more flexible schedules. The only difference is that they have to
pay workers for their overtime hours.
For those who work overtime, overtime pay constitutes 25 percent of
their pay. Middle class families, already squeezed in today's economy,
rely on these added earnings for their children's college tuition,
their own retirement, or even to meet their monthly bills. In fact,
millions of workers depend on cash overtime to make ends meet and pay
their housing, food and healthcare bills.
The Gregg proposal has insufficient enforcement provisions to ensure
that employees will not be forced to change their schedules instead of
getting overtime pay. This will mean a pay cut for millions of
Americans. Workers deserve a pay raise, not a pay cut.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for the amendment offered by Senator Feingold.
Senator Feingold's amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would
allow the work of the Inspector General of the Coalition Provisional
Authority, CPA-IG, to continue its work uninterrupted after the June 30
handover.
This is critical. Congress provided more than $18 billion to rebuild
Iraq, roughly the same amount that we spend on the rest of the world
combined. Congress jammed through the Iraq supplemental appropriations
bill in an extremely short time, without a sufficient number of
hearings, into a very chaotic environment without the usual financial
controls.
Recognizing this reality, Congress created a strong, independent
inspector general to help police these funds.
In the months that followed passage of the Iraq supplemental, we
heard numerous reports of waste, fraud, and abuse. If anything, this
should have sent a clear signal to the administration and Congress that
we need more--not less--oversight of these funds.
It defies logic then that the State Department is now proposing to
weaken the one entity that Congress specifically tasked with keeping
track of these tax dollars.
The State Department's plan could undermine the independence of this
inspector general and disrupt this important work, reducing Congress's
ability to account for these funds. It is unlocking the vault to those
who want to cheat us.
The State Department also has told the Appropriations Committee that
it will have to create 25 new positions to handle the work in Iraq.
Let me get this straight. We want to close down an IG that has about
60 people in place, which are actively conducting audits and rooting
out waste, fraud, and abuse.
After the administration is finished closing down that office, they
will turn around and hire 25 new people to do the same work--only
through at a lower level office at the State Department.
Why on Earth would we want to do this? At a time when we are hearing
weekly reports of abuse by Halliburton and others, why would we want to
reinvent the wheel? Why would we downgrade the status of the CPA-IG and
undermine its independence? It just does not make any sense.
This is why the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin is so
important.
This is why I support his amendment.
Last year Senator Feingold and I offered an amendment to the
supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that established an
inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority so that there
would be one auditing body completely focused on ensuring taxpayer
dollars are spent wisely and efficiently, and that this effort is free
of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Today the CPA, as we all know, is phasing out, but the reconstruction
effort has only just begun. According to the Congressional Research
Service, as of May 18, only $4.2 billion of the $18.4 billion Congress
appropriated for reconstruction in November had even been obligated.
This amendment would ensure that the inspector general's office can
continue its important work even after June 30 rather than being
compelled to start wrapping up and shutting down while so much
important work remains to be done.
It renames the Office of the CPA IG, changing it to Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction. The amendment establishes that this
inspector general shall continue operating until the lion's share of
the money Congress has appropriated to date for the Iraq relief and
reconstruction fund has been obligated.
American taxpayers have been asked to shoulder a tremendous burden
when it comes to the reconstruction of Iraq. Over 20 billion taxpayer
dollars have been appropriated for the Iraq relief and reconstruction
fund. That is more than the entire fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations
annual appropriation. It is more than the entire fiscal year 2004
Foreign Operations annual appropriation. This is a tremendous sum to
devote to one country.
We all agreed last year that it required an entity on the ground,
exclusively focused on this effort, to ensure

[[Page S7267]]

adequate funding and oversight. We agreed that we need a qualified,
independent watchdog with all the powers and the authorities that
accrue to inspectors general under the Inspector General Act of 1978.
We agreed that business as usual whereby individual agency IG's attempt
to oversee this mammoth effort in addition to everything else the
agency does it simply not appropriate in this case.
There is nothing ordinary about the nature of the U.S. taxpayer
investment in Iraq. Ordinary measures will not suffice.
This amendment modifies the legislation creating this IG to ensure
that it does not disappear along with the CPA, but instead continues to
operate until the amount of reconstruction spending in Iraq more
closely resembles other large bilateral foreign assistance programs,
which are overseen by existing agency inspectors general. Specifically,
to phases out the special IG after 80 percent of the Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund appropriated to date is obligated. If that fund
grows substantially in the next calendar, then Congress can consider
the wisdom of adjusting this mandate accordingly.
Let there be no confusion, this inspector general is only tasked with
overseeing how U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent. It does not have a
mandate to oversee Iraqi resources. That is not what this is about. So
there is nothing at all in continuing this operation that is
inconsistent with the transfer of sovereignty on June 30.
Because the Department of Defense has responsibility for what is
happening to some reconstruction dollars and the Department of State
will have responsibility going forward, it makes good sense to have a
focused IG on the ground who is able to see the entire picture at
once--not being completely required to just focus on the State
Department position or just focus on the Department of Defense portion.
This amendment is in no way hostile to the reconstruction effort. This
amendment is about trying to get it right.
Suggesting that a special inspector general's office continues to be
in order in Iraq is hardly revolutionary. As I have mentioned, the
reconstruction budget for Iraq is bigger than the entire fiscal year
2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Yet five different
inspectors general--at USAID, at the State Department, at the Defense
Department, at the Treasury, and at the Export-Import Bank--are charged
with overseeing portions of that account. In fact, currently some 41
Federal establishments and designated Federal entities with annual
budgets less than $21 billion have their own, independent, statutorily
mandated inspector general, from the Railroad Retirement Board to the
Smithsonian Institution. We ask for focused accountability when
taxpayer dollars are a stake in these situations. We must demand the
same in Iraq.
Obviously, when you are talking about $20 billion just for this Iraq
situation, we have to do the same thing. We must demand the same in
Iraq.
To date, the Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional
Authority has made important progress, and has some 30 active
investigations and 19 audits underway. A whistleblower hotline
established by the inspector general has received hundreds of calls.
This is clearly not the time to pull the plug on his important effort.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. This is the critical
point: To oppose this amendment is to vote for less oversight of the
reconstruction effort in Iraq than we have today. It is a step backward
if we don't. We cannot abdicate our oversight responsibility. The
stakes are far too high for that.

Amendment No. 3400 Withdrawn

Mr. FEINGOLD. In light of the offering of the second-degree
amendment, I am about to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment, but I first indicate how important it is we provide this
FMLA benefit to these families. Obviously, this issue will return, but
in the spirit of trying to resolve this issue and move the bill
forward, I now ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment No. 3400.
Mr. WARNER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3475 Withdrawn

Mr. WARNER. And the second-degree amendment likewise is withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Before the Senator from Wisconsin leaves the Senate, I want
the record to indicate he has worked hard on issues relating to
veterans. This is no exception.
I know the Senator, when he travels home to Wisconsin, will meet with
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and other such assembled
groups. By looking at this record, they should understand what the
Senator from Wisconsin has tried to do for the veterans of this
country. I applaud and commend the Senator from Wisconsin for his
tenacity. And he will be back, knowing the Senator from Wisconsin, to
fight another day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 3288

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I now ask for the regular order with
regard to amendment No. 3288.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, for this amendment, which I offered
earlier and had the yeas and nays ordered on, I now ask unanimous
consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee
for his cooperation and for his support on this important amendment,
which I understand will be accepted. This amendment allows the
important work of the Inspector General of the CPA in Iraq to continue
after the June 30 transition.
We are talking here about $20 billion of American taxpayers' dollars.
Only about $4.5 billion has already been contracted for. So the
remainder is still going to be expended. There are a great deal of
audits and other efforts being made on the ground. That should
continue. This has to do with protecting the American taxpayers.
I am delighted both the chairman and ranking member have expressed
support for this amendment. I am confident, with their assurances, that
this amendment will make it all the way through the process and become
the law of the land so this fine work of this inspector general can
continue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the matter has been discussed between
myself, Senator Levin, Senator Harry Reid, and the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin. The concept of the inspector general is a
proven concept. It is a valuable concept in the administration of our
expenditures to have accountability.
We shall work on it to see that from that conference evolves,
hopefully, an amendment that is a part of the statute to be
incorporated eventually from the conference report that reflects the
goals the Senator has set out. That is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as to the amendment as we have crafted
it, which was carefully and specifically crafted, I take the chairman's
comment to indicate the approach we have taken in the Senate is the
approach he will be advocating in conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank and congratulate the Senator from
Wisconsin for this amendment. He has been an absolute bulldog when it
comes to protecting taxpayers' dollars, just as he has been a fighter
for veterans, as in his previous discussion.
I want to tell him I know we will be fighting with all of our energy
in conference to retain this provision. It is vitally important there
be this kind of an inspector general review and an inspector general
who has the kind of independent power the Senator from Wisconsin has
always fought for. We intend to do exactly that, to carry out, to wage
his battle in conference to retain this provision.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in thanking the Senator for his
cooperation.
I draw the attention of the ranking member to suggest at this point
in time we clear a package of managers' amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. We need to pass this amendment first.

[[Page S7268]]

Mr. WARNER. Yes, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Feingold amendment is still the pending
question.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I urge that the amendment be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3288) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very simple
amendment that everyone should support. This amendment requires the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD-IG), in
consultation with the Inspectors General of the State Department and
the CIA, to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the programs and
activities of the Iraqi National Congress.
Over the last 10 years, we have seen funds from the U.S. Government
spent in highly questionable, if not fraudulent ways, including money
spent on oil paintings and health club memberships.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg. A number of serious
questions remain unanswered concerning the INC. Here are a couple of
examples:
First, the INC spent millions in setting up offices around the world,
including London, Prague, Damacus, and Tehran. The State Department's
internal documents indicated that they really had no idea of what was
happening in some of these offices--especially Tehran. In light of the
recent press reports about INC intelligence sharing with Iran, I think
the DOD-IG should take a look at this issue and see what was happening
in the Tehran office. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Second, the INC spent millions to set up radio and television
broadcasting inside Iraq. The radio program seemed redundant as the
U.S. Government was, at the time, funding Radio Free Iraq. A New York
Times article questioned the effectiveness of the TV broadcasting
program. Kurdish officials indicated that, despite repeated attempts,
they could never pickup the INC's TV broadcast inside Iraq. This,
again, raises questions about how this money is being spent. The IG
should examine this issue. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Third the INC's Informaiton Collection Program--funded initially by
the State Department and later by the Defense Department--continues to
be a source of controversy and mystery. I have a memo here, written by
the INC to Appropriations Committee staff, detailing the INC's
Information Collection Program. In this memo, the INC claims to have
written numerous reports to senior Administration officials, who are
listed in this memo, on topics including WMD proliferation. The
Administration disputes this claim. Again, we need to get to the botton
of this.
I could go on and on. However, in the interests of time, I will
simply say that there are many, serious unanswered questions about the
INC's activities.
What was the INC doing with U.S. taxpayer dollars? What was going on
in the Tehran office? Did the Information Collection Program contribute
to intelligence failures in Iraq? Were the broadcasting programs at all
effective in gathering support for U.S. efforts in Iraq?
To be sure, there have been a few investigations into INC. However,
these have been incomplete, offering only a glimpse of what occurred.
A few years ago, the State Department Inspector General issued two
reports on the INC. But these reports only covered $4.3 million and
examined only the Washington and London Offices. The State Department
IG informed my office yesterday that these are the only two audits they
conducted and have no plans to conduct audits on this issue.
A GAO report, published earlier this year, summarized the different
grant agreements that the State Department entered into with the INC,
but this report did not attempt to answer the myriad questions that
remain about the INC.
Another GAO report is underway, but this looks only at the narrow
question of whether the INC violated U.S. laws concerning the use of
taxpayer funds to pay for public propaganda.
Finally, according to press reports, the Intelligence Committee is
looking to a few issues related to the INC.
My amendment is consistent with these investigations. The DOD-IG does
not have to reinvent the wheel. It can build off this existing body of
work to answer questions that will remain long after these
investigation have been completed.
Mr. President, my amendment is about transparency. My amendment is
about accountability. My amendment is about getting to the bottom of
one of the most mismanaged programs in recent history.
Most importantly, my amendment is about learning from our mistakes so
we do not repeat them in the future. I urge my colleague to support my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 3315, As Modified

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is an amendment pending by Senator
Landrieu; is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. The number of that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3315.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a
modification to the amendment offered by Senators Landrieu, Snowe,
Ensign, and Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no objection. The matter has been
carefully worked through the course of the evening, and it is ready for
action by the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
The amendment (No. 3315), as modified, is as follows:
On page 130, after line 9, insert the following:

SEC. 642. FULL SBP SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES
OVER AGE 62.

(a) Phased Increase in Basic Annuity.--
(1) Increase to 55 percent.--Subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) of
section 1451 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``35 percent of the base amount.'' and inserting
``the product of the base amount and the percent applicable
for the month. The percent applicable for a month is 35
percent for months beginning before October 2005, 40 percent
for months beginning after September 2005 and before October
2008, 45 percent for months beginning after September 2008,
and 55 percent for months beginning after September 2014.''.
(2) Reserve-component annuity.--Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)(I)
of such section is amended by striking ``35 percent'' and
inserting ``the percent specified under paragraph (1)(B)(i)
as being applicable for the month''.
(3) Special-eligibility annuity.--Subsection (c)(1)(B)(i)
of such section is amended--
(A) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the
applicable percent''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The percent
applicable for a month under the preceding sentence is the
percent specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being
applicable for the month.''.
(4) Conforming amendment.--The heading for subsection
(d)(2)(A) of such section is amended to read as follows:
``Computation   of   Annuity.--''.
(b) Phased Elimination of Supplemental Annuity.--
(1) Decreasing percentages.--Section 1457(b) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``5, 10, 15, or 20 percent'' and inserting
``the applicable percent''; and
(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``The percent used for the computation shall be an even
multiple of 5 percent and, whatever the percent specified in
the election, may not exceed 20 percent for months beginning
before October 2005, 15 percent for months beginning after
September 2005 and before October 2008, and 10 percent for
months beginning after September 2008.''.
(2) Repeal of program in 2014.--Effective on October 1,
2014, chapter 73 of such title is amended--
(A) by striking subchapter III; and
(B) by striking the item relating to subchapter III in the
table of subchapters at the beginning of that chapter.
(c) Recomputation of Annuities.--
(1) Requirement for recomputation.--Effective on the first
day of each month referred to in paragraph (2)--
(A) each annuity under section 1450 of title 10, United
States Code, that commenced before that month, is computed
under a provision of section 1451 of that title amended by
subsection (a), and is payable for that month shall be
recomputed so as to be equal to the amount that would be in
effect if the percent applicable for that month under that
provision, as so amended, had been used for the initial
computation of the annuity; and

[[Page S7269]]

(B) each supplemental survivor annuity under section 1457
of such title that commenced before that month and is payable
for that month shall be recomputed so as to be equal to the
amount that would be in effect if the percent applicable for
that month under that section, as amended by this section,
had been used for the initial computation of the supplemental
survivor annuity.
(2) Times for recomputation.--The requirements for
recomputation of annuities under paragraph (1) apply with
respect to the following months:
(A) October 2005.
(B) October 2008.
(C) October 2014.
(d) Recomputation of Retired Pay Reductions for
Supplemental Survivor Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense
shall take such actions as are necessitated by the amendments
made by subsection (b) and the requirements of subsection
(c)(1)(B) to ensure that the reductions in retired pay under
section 1460 of title 10, United States Code, are adjusted to
achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b) of that
section.

SEC. 643. OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIOD FOR SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2005.

(a) Persons Not Currently Participating in Survivor Benefit
Plan.--
(1) Election of sbp coverage.--An eligible retired or
former member may elect to participate in the Survivor
Benefit Plan under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code, during the open enrollment period
specified in subsection (f).
(2) Election of supplemental annuity coverage.--An eligible
retired or former member who elects under paragraph (1) to
participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan at the maximum level
may also elect during the open enrollment period to
participate in the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan
established under subchapter III of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code.
(3) Eligible retired or former member.--For purposes of
paragraphs (1) and (2), an eligible retired or former member
is a member or former member of the uniformed services who on
the day before the first day of the open enrollment period is
not a participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan and--
(A) is entitled to retired pay; or
(B) would be entitled to retired pay under chapter 1223 of
title 10, United States Code, but for the fact that such
member or former member is under 60 years of age.
(4) Status under sbp of persons making elections.--
(A) Standard annuity.--A person making an election under
paragraph (1) by reason of eligibility under paragraph (3)(A)
shall be treated for all purposes as providing a standard
annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
(B) Reserve-component annuity.--A person making an election
under paragraph (1) by reason of eligibility under paragraph
(3)(B) shall be treated for all purposes as providing a
reserve-component annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
(b) Election To Increase Coverage Under SBP.--A person who
on the day before the first day of the open enrollment period
is a participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan but is not
participating at the maximum base amount or is providing
coverage under the Plan for a dependent child and not for the
person's spouse or former spouse may, during the open
enrollment period, elect to--
(1) participate in the Plan at a higher base amount (not in
excess of the participant's retired pay); or
(2) provide annuity coverage under the Plan for the
person's spouse or former spouse at a base amount not less
than the base amount provided for the dependent child.
(c) Election for Current SBP Participants To Participate in
Supplemental SBP.--
(1) Election.--A person who is eligible to make an election
under this paragraph may elect during the open enrollment
period to participate in the Supplemental Survivor Benefit
Plan established under subchapter III of chapter 73 of title
10, United States Code.
(2) Persons eligible.--Except as provided in paragraph (3),
a person is eligible to make an election under paragraph (1)
if on the day before the first day of the open enrollment
period the person is a participant in the Survivor Benefit
Plan at the maximum level, or during the open enrollment
period the person increases the level of such participation
to the maximum level under subsection (b) of this section,
and under that Plan is providing annuity coverage for the
person's spouse or a former spouse.
(3) Limitation on eligibility for certain sbp participants
not affected by two-tier annuity computation.--A person is
not eligible to make an election under paragraph (1) if (as
determined by the Secretary concerned) the annuity of a
spouse or former spouse beneficiary of that person under the
Survivor Benefit Plan is to be computed under section 1451(e)
of title 10, United States Code. However, such a person may
during the open enrollment period waive the right to have
that annuity computed under such section 1451(e). Any such
election is irrevocable. A person making such a waiver may
make an election under paragraph (1) as in the case of any
other participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan.
(d) Manner of Making Elections.--An election under this
section shall be made in writing, signed by the person making
the election, and received by the Secretary concerned before
the end of the open enrollment period. Any such election
shall be made subject to the same conditions, and with the
same opportunities for designation of beneficiaries and
specification of base amount, that apply under the Survivor
Benefit Plan or the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan, as
the case may be. A person making an election under subsection
(a) to provide a reserve-component annuity shall make a
designation described in section 1448(e) of title 10, United
States Code.
(e) Effective Date for Elections.--Any such election shall
be effective as of the first day of the first calendar month
following the month in which the election is received by the
Secretary concerned.
(f) Open Enrollment Period.--The open enrollment period
under this section shall be the one-year period beginning on
October 1, 2005.
(g) Effect of Death of Person Making Election Within Two
Years of Making Election.--If a person making an election
under this section dies before the end of the two-year period
beginning on the effective date of the election, the election
is void and the amount of any reduction in retired pay of the
person that is attributable to the election shall be paid in
a lump sum to the person who would have been the deceased
person's beneficiary under the voided election if the
deceased person had died after the end of such two-year
period.
(h) Applicability of Certain Provisions of Law.--The
provisions of sections 1449, 1453, and 1454 of title 10,
United States Code, are applicable to a person making an
election, and to an election, under this section in the same
manner as if the election were made under the Survivor
Benefit Plan or the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Plan, as
the case may be.
(i) Additional Premium.--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.

Amendment No. 3467

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment, No. 3467, offered by the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the second-degree
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3467) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3315, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment.
Mr. WARNER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the first-degree amendment,
as modified, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3315) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. 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 Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have worked with the Senator from
Louisiana for many hours today on this amendment. There was an article
written, and I joke with the Senator from Louisiana. She was the
feature of a veterans publication. They had a picture of her with her
sleeves rolled up, muscles showing: ``Military Mary.''
Mary Landrieu is someone who looks out for the military. And I call
her, joke with her, and ask her: How is ``Military Mary'' doing? She is
very proud of this name she has picked up. Tonight is an indication of
why she deserves that name. She has been outstanding in her advocacy
for American

[[Page S7270]]

veterans. This agreement we have here tonight indicates she is not only
a good advocate for the military but a very fine Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, just one word, now that we have adopted the
Landrieu amendment. Chairman Warner and I used to have the privilege of
having Senator Landrieu on the Armed Services Committee. We saw
firsthand what a tigress she is and was relative to military matters.
She is no longer on our committee, and we do miss her, indeed. But she
brings and displays that fervor here on the floor frequently. We thank
her for her tenacity. Talk about tenacity, she has a full supply of it.
We commend and congratulate her.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reference was made to the hard work
Senator Landrieu performed on this amendment. Indeed, I was witness to
that. But it did bring back a fond memory to me. In the period during
the war in Vietnam, there was a very colorful and strong chairman in
the House Armed Services Committee named Eddie Hebert from New Orleans,
LA, and a gentleman who worked very closely with him, named Moon
Landrieu. They were quite a team. They did a great deal working
together for the men and women of the U.S. military.
When reference was made to Senator Landrieu's accomplishments, I am
sure she would agree with me that the teachings of her distinguished
father and the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
have vested in her a lot of wisdom about military matters.
I also recognize the work done by Senators Ensign and Snowe. I have
been working with both of them over a period of time. Senator Ensign
and Senator Snowe each have put in previous pieces of legislation which
basically covered this same subject. In the course of the past 48
hours, those two Senators have been working in collaboration with
Senator Landrieu in an effort to get the Senate to take the action that
we just took on that amendment. So I thank the Senator from Maine and
the Senator from Nevada for their work.
As veterans look to the action taken by the Senate, they can decide
for themselves on the work done by these Senators, and all Senators,
because there was a unanimous vote on this amendment. I think we
fulfilled our obligation to that very important class of individuals,
the veterans; and particularly in this case, this provides benefits for
the widows primarily--there are a few remaining spouses--but basically
the widows who are at a critical time in their life and there is need
for special consideration as it relates to personal finances. So I
thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Landrieu-
Snowe amendment because it corrects an injustice being visited upon the
survivors of our servicemembers killed in action and military retirees
under the current military Survivor Benefit Plan, or SBP.
As the program currently operates, the widows or widowers of those
who have ``borne the battle'' receive an annuity equal to 55 percent of
the servicemember's retirement pay. That is, until they turn 62. At
that time, under current law, a surviving spouse's SBP benefits must be
reduced either by a Social Security offset, or a reduction in payments
to 35 percent of retired pay--a drop of almost 40 percent--simply
because they have reached the age of 62.
For example, let's take the widow of a Navy chief petty officer or E-
7 who had served 20 years before retiring. Before she reaches 62, this
widow will receive $786 per month, but on her 62nd birthday, that
benefit drops to only $500 per month--a loss of $2,432 per year.
For a retired O-5, say a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, the widow's
benefit would drop by $6,960 a year as soon as she turns 62. That is
quite a birthday gift.
But the inequities don't stop there. For example, the military
Survivor Benefit Plan does not measure up to the federal Survivor
Benefit Plan in terms of benefits paid to survivors. Survivors of
federal civilian retirees under the original Civil Service Retirement
System receive 55 percent of their spouse's retired pay for life--with
no drop in benefits at age 62. Under the newer Federal Employee
Retirement System, survivors still receive 50 percent of retired pay
for life, again with no drop at age 62.
Mr. President, yet another reason that we should adopt this
legislation is that members of the military pay more than their share
of Survivor Benefit Plan program costs, as compared to their federal
civilian counterparts.
Originally, the Congress intended the government to subsidize 40
percent of the cost of military Survivor Benefit Plan premiums--similar
to the government's contribution to the federal civilian plan. Over the
last several decades, however, there has been a significant decline in
the government's cost share, and Department of Defense actuaries advise
that the government subsidy is now down to less than 20 percent. This
means that military retirees are now paying more than 80 percent of
program costs from their retired pay versus the intended 60 percent.
Contrast this to the federal civilian SBP, which has a 52 percent
cost share for those under the Civil Service Retirement System and a 67
percent cost share for those employees, including many of our own
staff, under the Federal Employees Retirement System. While it is true
that there are differences between the civilian and military premium
costs, with federal civilians paying more, it is also true that
military retirees generally retire earlier than their federal civilian
counterparts, and as a result, pay premiums for many more years.
This amendment will raise, over a 3\1/2\-year period, the percentage
of the retirement annuity received by the survivor from 35 percent to
55 percent after age 62. During the first year, fiscal year 2005, an
open enrollment period will be held to allow new enrollees to sign up
for the program in order to reduce retired pay outlays by increasing
deductions of SBP premiums from retired pay, thus offsetting part of
the cost of the survivor benefit increase.
Beginning on Oct. 1, 2005, the age-62 SBP annuity would increase to
40 percent of retired pay, followed by additional increases to 45
percent on April 1, 2006, 50 percent on April 1, 2007 and 55 percent on
April 1, 2008 after which all survivors would receive the 55 percent of
the annuity.
Once again, I ask my colleagues to support our Nation's military
widows and widowers. In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001,
we included a Sense of the Congress on increasing the military SBP
annuity. This year, we have a chance to carry out this intent by
enacting this important measure, and I ask my colleagues to join with
me in support of this legislation.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we are ready to do a package of
amendments, if I could get the attention of the ranking member.

Amendments Nos. 3414, As Modified; 3280, As Modified; 3355, As
Modified; 3220; 3373, As Modified; 3459, As Modified; 3311, As
Modified; 3476; 3477; 3478; 3479; 3480; 3481; 3342, As Modified; 3482;
3483; and 3484

Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk which have
been cleared by myself and the ranking member. Therefore, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc,
the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any statements
relating to any of these individual amendments be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 3414, as modified

At the end of title XI, insert the following:

SEC. 1107. REPORT ON HOW TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN INDIVIDUALS
WITH FOREIGN LANGUAGE SKILLS.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Federal Government has a requirement to ensure that
the employees of its departments and agencies with national
security responsibilities are prepared to meet the challenges
of this evolving international environment.
(2) According to a 2002 General Accounting Office report,
Federal agencies have shortages in translators and
interpreters and an overall shortfall in the language
proficiency levels needed to carry out their missions

[[Page S7271]]

which has adversely affected agency operations and hindered
United States military, law enforcement, intelligence,
counterterrorism, and diplomatic efforts.
(3) Foreign language skills and area expertise are integral
to, or directly support, every foreign intelligence
discipline and are essential factors in national security
readiness, information superiority, and coalition
peacekeeping or warfighting missions.
(4) Communicating in languages other than English and
understanding and accepting cultural and societal differences
are vital to the success of peacetime and wartime military
and intelligence activities.
(5) Proficiency levels required for foreign language
support to national security functions have been raised, and
what was once considered proficiency is no longer the case.
The ability to comprehend and articulate technical and
complex information in foreign languages has become critical.
(6) According to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry
into the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks, the Intelligence Community
had insufficient linguists prior to September 11, 2001, to
handle the challenge it faced in translating the volumes of
foreign language counterterrorism intelligence it collected.
Agencies within the Intelligence Community experienced
backlogs in material awaiting translation, a shortage of
language specialists and language-qualified field officers,
and a readiness level of only 30 percent in the most critical
terrorism-related languages that are used by terrorists.
(7) Because of this shortage, the Federal Government has
had to enter into private contracts to procure linguist and
translator services, including in some positions that would
be more appropriately filled by permanent Federal employees
or members of the United States Armed Forces.
(b) Report.--In its fiscal year 2006 budget request, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives, a plan for expanding and improving the
national security foreign language workforce of the
Department of Defense as appropriate to improve recruitment
and retention to meet the requirements of the Department for
its foreign language workforce on a short-term basis and on a
long-term basis.

amendment no. 3280

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC.  . ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS.

(a) In General.--Section 801(c) of the NationalEnergy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287(c)) is amended by
striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2005''.
(b) Payment of Costs.--Section 802 of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287a) is amended by
inserting ``, water, or wastewater treatment'' after
``payment of energy''.
(c) Energy Savings.--Section 804(2) of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) The term `energy savings' means a reduction in the
cost of energy, water, or wastewater treatment, from a base
cost established through a methodology set forth in the
contract, used in an existing federally owned building or
buildings or other federally owned facilities as a result
of--
``(A) the lease or purchase of operating equipment,
improvements, altered operation and maintenance, or technical
services;
``(B) the increased efficient use of existing energy
sources by cogeneration or heat recovery, excluding any
cogeneration process for other than a federally owned
building or buildings or other federally owned facilities; or
``(C) the increased efficient use of existing water sources
in either interior or exterior applications.''.
(d) Energy Savings Contract.--Section 804(3) of the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c(3))
is amended to read as follows:
``(3) The terms `energy savings contract' and `energy
savings performance contract' mean a contract that provides
for the performance of services for the design, acquisition,
installation, testing, and, where appropriate, operation,
maintenance, and repair, of an identified energy or water
conservation measure or series of measures at 1 or more
locations. Such contracts shall, with respect to an agency
facility that is a public building (as such term is defined
in section 3301 of title 40, United States Code), be in
compliance with the prospectus requirements and procedures of
section 3307 of title 40, United States Code.''.
(e) Energy or Water Conservation Measure.--Section 804(4)
of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
8287c(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) The term `energy or water conservation measure'
means--
``(A) an energy conservation measure, as defined in section
551; or
``(B) a water conservation measure that improves the
efficiency of water use, is life-cycle cost-effective, and
involves water conservation, water recycling or reuse, more
efficient treatment of wastewater or stormwater, improvements
in operation or maintenance efficiencies, retrofit
activities, or other related activities, not at a Federal
hydroelectric facility.''.
(f) Review.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall complete
a review of the Energy Savings Performance Contract program
to identify statutory, regulatory, and administrative
obstacles that prevent Federal agencies from fully utilizing
the program. In addition, this review shall identify all
areas for increasing program flexibility and effectiveness,
including audit and measurement verification requirements,
accounting for energy use in determining savings, contracting
requirements, including the identification of additional
qualified contractors, and energy efficiency services
covered. The Secretary shall report these findings to
Congress and shall implement identified administrative and
regulatory changes to increase program flexibility and
effectiveness to the extent that such changes are consistent
with statutory authority.
(g) Extension of Authority.--Any energy savings performance
contract entered into under section 801 of the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287) after October
1, 2003, and before the date of enactment of this Act, shall
be deemed to have been entered into pursuant to such section
801 as amended by subsection (a) of this section.

AMENDMENT NO. 3355, AS MODIFIED

On page 280, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 1068. CLARIFICATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 FUNDING LEVEL
FOR A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND
TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNT.

For the purposes of applying sections 204 and 605 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 (division B of
Public Law 108-199) to matters in title II of such Act under
the heading ``National Institute of Standards and
Technology'' (118 Stat.69), in the account under the heading
``industrial technology services'', the Secretary of Commerce
shall make all determinations based on the Industrial
Technology Services funding level of $218,782,000 for
reprogramming and transferring of funds for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program and shall submit such a
reprogramming or transfer, as the case may be, to the
appropriate committees within 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 3220

(Purpose: To repeal the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
recommend that installations be placed in inactive status as part of
the recommendations of the Secretary during the 2005 round of defense
base closure and realignment)

At the end of subtitle B of title XXVIII, add the
following:

SEC. 2814. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO
RECOMMEND THAT INSTALLATIONS BE PLACED IN
INACTIVE STATUS DURING 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE
BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

Section 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by striking subsection (c).

AMENDMENT NO. 3373, AS MODIFIED

At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:

SEC. 326. REPORT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT ISSUES AFFECTING UTAH
TEST AND TRAINING RANGE, UTAH.

(a) Report Required.--(1) The Secretary of the Air Force
shall prepare a report that outlines current and anticipated
encroachments on the use and utility of the special use
airspace of the Utah Test and Training Range in the State of
Utah, including encroachments brought about through actions
of other Federal agencies. The Secretary shall include such
recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate
regarding any legislative initiatives necessary to address
encroachment problems identified by the Secretary in the
report.
(2) It is the sense of the Senate that such recommendations
should be carefully considered for future legislative action.
(b) Submission of Report.--Not later than one year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit the report to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate.
(c) Prohibition on Ground Military Operations.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to permit a military
operation to be conducted on the ground in a covered
wilderness study area in the Utah Test and Training Range.
(e) Communications and Tracking Systems.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to prevent any required
maintenance of existing communications, instrumentation, or
electronic tracking systems (or the infrastructure supporting
such systems) necessary for effective testing and training to
meet military requirements in the Utah Test and Training
Range.

AMENDMENT NO. 3459, AS MODIFIED

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

SEC. 1022. REPORTS ON MATTERS RELATING TO DETAINMENT OF
PRISONERS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Reports Required.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report on the population of persons
held by the Department of

[[Page S7272]]

Defense for more than 45 days and on the facilities in which
such persons are held.
(b) Report Elements.--Each report under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) General information on the foreign national detainees
in the custody of the Department on the date of such report,
including the following:
(A) The best estimate of the Department of the total number
of detainees in the custody of the Department as of the date
of such report.
(B) The countries in which such detainees were detained,
and the number of detainees detained in each such country.
(C) The best estimate of the Department of the total number
of detainees released from the custody of the Department
during the one-year period ending on the date of such report.
(2) For each foreign national detained and registered with
the National Detainee Reporting Center by the Department on
the date of such report the following:
(A) The Internment Serial Number or other appropriate
identification number.
(B) The nationality, if available.
(C) The place at which taken into custody, if available.
(D) The circumstances of being taken into custody, if
available
(E) The place of detention.
(F) The current length of detention.
(G) A categorization as a civilian detainee, enemy prisoner
of war/prisoner of war, or enemy combatant.
(H) Information as to transfer to the jurisdiction of
another country, including the identity of such country.
(3) Information on the detention facilities and practices
of the Department for the one-year period ending on the date
of such report, including for each facility of the Department
at which detainees were detained by the Department during
such period the following:
(A) The name of such facility.
(B) The location of such facility.
(C) The number of detainees detained at such facility as of
the end of such period.
(D) The capacity of such facility.
(E) The number of military personnel assigned to such
facility as of the end of such period.
(F) The number of other employees of the United States
Government assigned to such facility as of the end of such
period.
(G) The number of contractor personnel assigned to such
facility as of the end of such period.
(c) Form of Report.--Each report under subsection (a) shall
be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.

AMENDMENT NO. 3311, AS MODIFIED

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

SEC. __. REPORT ON OFFSET REQUIREMENTS UNDER CERTAIN
CONTRACTS.

Section 8138(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-87; 117 Stat. 1106; 10 U.S.C. 2532
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) The extent to which any foreign country imposes,
whether by law or practice, offsets in excess of 100 percent
on United States suppliers of goods or services, and the
impact of such offsets with respect to employment in the
United States, sales revenue relative to the value of such
offsets, technology transfer of goods that are critical to
the national security of the United States, and global market
share of United States companies.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3476

(Purpose: To provide for appropriate coordination in the preparation of
the management plan for contractor security personnel)

On page 188, beginning on line 17, strike ``Congress'' and
all that follows through line 20, and insert ``the
congressional defense committees, the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a
plan for the management and oversight of contractor security
personnel by Federal Government personnel in areas where the
Armed Forces are engaged in military operations. In the
preparation of such plan, the Secretary shall coordinate, as
appropriate, with the heads of other departments and agencies
of the Federal Government that would be affected by the
implementation of the plan.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3477

(Purpose: To provide for appropriate coordination in the preparation of
the report on contractor performance of security, intelligence, law
enforcement, and criminal justice functions, and to add other
congressional committee recipients for the report)

On page 192, after line 22, insert the following:
(c) Coordination.--In the preparation of the report under
this section, the Secretary of Defense shall coordinate, as
appropriate, with the heads of any departments and agencies
of the Federal Government that are involved in the
procurement of services for the performance of functions
described in subsection (a).
(d) Additional Congressional Recipients.--In addition to
submitting the report under this section to the congressional
defense committees, the Secretary of Defense shall also
submit the report to the Select Committee on Intelligence of
the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives.

AMENDMENT NO. 3478

(Purpose: To provide for appropriate coordination in the preparation of
the report on contractor security in Iraq, and to add other
congressional committee recipients for the report)

On page 246, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
(d) Coordination.--In the preparation of the report under
this section, the Secretary of Defense shall coordinate with
the heads of any other departments and agencies of the
Federal Government that are affected by the performance of
Federal Government contracts by contractor personnel in Iraq.
(e) Additional Congressional Recipients.--In addition to
submitting the report on contractor security under this
section to the congressional defense committees, the
Secretary of Defense shall also submit the report to any
other committees of Congress that the Secretary determines
appropriate to receive such report taking into consideration
the requirements of the Federal Government that contractor
personnel in Iraq are engaged in satisfying.

AMENDMENT NO. 3479

(Purpose: To provide for the space posture review to be a joint
undertaking of the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central
Intelligence)

On page 249, line 16, strike ``(d)'' and insert the
following:
(4) The reports under this subsection shall also be
submitted to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the
Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of
the House of Representatives.
(d) Joint Undertaking With the Director of Central
Intelligence.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct the
review under this section, and submit the reports under
subsection (c), jointly with the Director of Central
Intelligence.
(e) * * *

AMENDMENT NO. 3480

(Purpose: To add the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives as
recipients of the report of the panel on the future of military space
launch)

On page 252, beginning on line 10, strike ``and the
congressional defense committees'' and insert ``, the
congressional defense committees, the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3481

(Purpose: To add the Director of Central Intelligence as an approving
official for Department of Defense assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan
military and security forces in certain cases)

On page 269, line 16, before the period at the end insert
``and, in any case in which section 104(e) of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-4(e)) applies, the
Director of Central Intelligence''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3342, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To require a plan on the implementation and utilization of
flexible personnel management authorities in Department of Defense
laboratories)

At the end of title XI add the following:

SEC. 1107. PLAN ON IMPLEMENTATION AND UTILIZATION OF FLEXIBLE
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES IN DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES.

(a) Plan Required.--The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall
jointly develop a plan for the effective utilization of the
personnel management authorities referred to in subsection
(b) in order to increase the mission responsiveness,
efficiency, and effectiveness of Department of Defense
laboratories.
(b) Covered Authorities.--The personnel management
authorities referred to in this subsection are the personnel
management authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense by
the provisions of law as follows:
(1) Section 342(b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat.
2721), as amended by section 1114 of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-398 (114 Stat. 1654A-
315)).
(2) Section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 5
U.S.C. 3104 note).
(3) Such other provisions of law as the Under Secretaries
jointly consider appropriate for purposes of this section.
(c) Plan Elements.--The plan under subsection (a) shall--
(1) include such elements as the Under Secretaries jointly
consider appropriate to provide for the effective utilization
of the personnel management authorities referred to in
subsection (b) as described in subsection (a), including the
recommendations of the

[[Page S7273]]

Under Secretaries for such additional authorities, including
authorities for demonstration programs or projects, as are
necessary to achieve the effective utilization of such
personnel management authorities; and
(2) include procedures, including a schedule for review and
decisions, on proposals to modify current demonstration
programs or projects, or to initiate new demonstration
programs or projects, on flexible personnel management at
Department laboratories
(d) Submittal to Congress.--The Under Secretaries shall
jointly submit to Congress the plan under subsection (a) not
later than February 1, 2006.

AMENDMENT NO. 3482

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the return of
members of the Armed Forces to active service upon rehabilitation from
service-related injuries)

On page 112, between the matter following line 5 and line
6, insert the following:

SEC. 574. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING RETURN OF MEMBERS TO
ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE UPON REHABILITATION FROM
SERVICE-RELATED INJURIES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The generation of young men and women currently serving
on active duty in the Armed Forces, which history will record
as being among the greatest, has shown in remarkable numbers
an individual resolve to recover from injuries incurred in
such service and to return to active service in the Armed
Forces.
(2) Since September 11, 2001, numerous brave soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines have incurred serious combat
injuries, including (as of June 2004) approximately 100
members of the Armed Forces who have been fitted with
artificial limbs as a result of devastating injuries
sustained in combat overseas.
(3) In cases involving combat-related injuries and other
service-related injuries it is possible, as a result of
advances in technology and extensive rehabilitative services,
to restore to members of the Armed Forces sustaining such
injuries the capability to resume the performance of active
military service, including, in a few cases, the capability
to participate directly in the performance of combat
missions.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) members of the Armed Forces who on their own initiative
are highly motivated to return to active duty service
following rehabilitation from injuries incurred in their
service in the Armed Forces, after appropriate medical review
should be given the opportunity to present their cases for
continuing to serve on active duty in varied military
capacities;
(2) other than appropriate medical review, there should be
no barrier in policy or law to such a member having the
option to return to military service on active duty; and
(3) the Secretary of Defense should develop specific
protocols that expand options for such members to return to
active duty service and to be retrained to perform military
missions for which they are fully capable.

AMENDMENT NO. 3483

(Purpose: To authorize, and authorize the appropriation of, $18,140,000
for military construction at Navy Weapons Station, Charleston, South
Carolina, for the construction of a consolidated electronic integration
and support facility to house the command and control systems
engineering and design work of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems
Center, Charleston, and to provide offsets, including the elimination
of the authorization of appropriations of $10,358,000 for military
construction at Charleston, South Carolina, for the construction of a
readiness center for the Army National Guard)

On page 305, in the table preceding line 1, insert after
the item relating to Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island, the
following new item:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina.....................  Naval Weapons           $18,140,000
Station, Charleston.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On page 305, in the table preceding line 1, strike the
amount identified as the total in the amount column and
insert ``$833,718,000''.
On page 307, line 8, strike ``$1,825,576,000'' and insert
``$1,843,716,000''.
On page 307, line 11, strike ``$676,198,000'' and insert
``$694,338,000''.
On page 314, line 7, strike ``$2,493,324,000'', as
previously amended, and insert ``$2,485,542,000''.
On page 315, line 3, strike ``$863,896,000'' and insert
``$856,114,000''.
On page 322, line 15, strike ``$371,430,000'' and insert
``$361,072,000''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3484

(Purpose: To add an amount for a bed-down initiative to enable the C-
130 aircraft of the Idaho Air National Guard to be the permanent
carrier of the SENIOR SCOUT mission shelters of the 169th Intelligence
Squadron of the Utah Air National Guard)

On page 24, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

SEC. 133. SENIOR SCOUT MISSION BED-DOWN INITIATIVE.

(a) Amount for Program.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 103(1) is hereby increased by
$2,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available
for a bed-down initiative to enable the C-130 aircraft of the
Idaho Air National Guard to be the permanent carrier of the
SENIOR SCOUT mission shelters of the 169th Intelligence
Squadron of the Utah Air National Guard.
(b) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 421 is hereby reduced by $2,000,000, with the amount
of the reduction to be derived from excess amounts provided
for military personnel of the Air Force.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 3280

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment,
which I have cosponsored with the Senator from Oklahoma, to extend the
Energy Savings Performance Contract program through the end of fiscal
year 2005.
Our amendment is urgently needed to stem the damage being done to a
very successful program that brings private sector expertise, and
private sector financing, to efficiency projects that reduce the
Federal Government's energy use, and energy costs.
Since the 1970's Federal Government agencies have been setting an
example for the Nation on how to reduce energy waste and save money by
improving their energy efficiency--spending $2.3 billion less for
energy in FY2000 than in FY1985. One of the reasons for this success is
the availability of Energy Savings Performance contracts, ESPCs. These
contracts offer a way to make energy savings improvements at Federal
facilities at no cost to the Government, by leveraging private capital.
The Department of Defense has been a leader in the use of Energy
Savings Performance contracts.
Under the ESPC authority enacted in 1992, private sector companies
enter into contracts with Federal agencies to install energy savings
equipment and make operational and maintenance changes to improve
building efficiency. The company pays all of the up-front costs for
making the energy efficiency improvements and guarantees the agency
savings through the term of contract. The energy service company then
recovers its investment, over time, by receiving a portion of the
agency's energy cost savings.
Since 1992, this program has brought nearly $1.1 billion in private
sector investments to Federal agencies, resulting in hundreds of
millions of dollars in permanent savings to the taxpayers. The ESPC
program has the support of a broad and diverse coalition of businesses,
environmental groups and labor--including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
U.S. PIRG, and the Teamsters.
Unfortunately, the statutory authority for the ESPC program expired
at the end of FY2003. As a result of the program lapse, over $300
million in energy efficiency projects have been halted nationwide.
Pending contacts are in limbo along with over 3,000 new jobs associated
with these projects. Although I and others have made several efforts to
extend the program, these efforts have been unsuccessful, primarily
because the Congressional Budget Office assigns a cost to the program,
unlike the Office of Management and Budget which considers the program
to be budget neutral.

While the debate over proper scoring of the program goes on, the loss
of new business and experienced personnel has put this program into
crisis. With each passing week, the benefits and potential of ESPCs are
bleeding away. At a time of high energy costs, high deficits, and high
unemployment, Congress should act as soon as possible to extend ESPC
authority.
I thank the managers of the bill for accepting this short-term
extension amendment. I also pledge to continue working with Senator
Inhofe and other supporters of the ESPC program to enact a permanent
extension of this valuable efficiency program.

[[Page S7274]]

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary Abraham
expressing administration support for the ESPC Program be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Secretary of Energy,

Washington, DC, April 8, 2004.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Administration strongly supports
enactment, as soon as possible, of legislation to extend the
authority for Federal agencies to enter into Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPCs).
Congress established the ESPC program in 1992 as an
innovative way to improve the Government's energy efficiency
by harnessing private-sector resources to fund necessary
energy-efficient improvements. However, authority to enter
into new ESPC contracts expired on October 1, 2003. A short-
term, one-year reauthorization would allow Federal agencies
to continue making investments in energy efficiency that save
energy and money and help agencies meet Federal energy
conservation goals.
The Administration continues to support long-term
reauthorization of the ESPC program as part of the
comprehensive energy legislation currently under
consideration in Congress. The legislation itself extending
ESPC authority is considered budget neutral and does not
require additional resources, as the Office of Management and
Budget classifies all budget authority and outlays for ESPCs
as absorbing discretionary resources. However, ESPCs actually
save the government money, because the upfront costs of ESPC
efficiency improvements are recovered through the energy
savings that result. Moreover, payments to the contractors
are contingent upon realizing a guaranteed stream of future
cost savings.
Improved energy efficiency and conservation of Federal
facilities is an important component of this Administration's
commitment to the cost-effective use of public dollars and
protection of the environment. The Administration urges
Congress to act quickly to extend the authorization of this
important program.
Sincerely,
Spencer Abraham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a unanimous
consent agreement with the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be
withdrawn, with the exception of the following: Daschle, No. 3409, as
amended; Leahy, No. 3387, which will have a second degree by Senator
Leahy or designee; and a series of amendments which have been cleared
by both managers; I further ask consent that at 9:30 tonight the Senate
proceed to a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment No. 3409, with
no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided
further that following the disposition of the Daschle amendment, the
Senate vote in relation to the Leahy amendment No. 3387. I further ask
consent that following the disposition of the Leahy amendment, and the
disposition of the cleared amendments, the bill be read a third time
and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no
intervening action or debate.
Before the Chair rules, I ask unanimous consent that the votes occur
in reverse order than listed above.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, first of all,
it will be the Daschle amendment No. 3409, as amended.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct. If I failed to read it, it is as
amended.
Mr. REID. And that the Leahy amendment No. 3387--we all know Senator
Leahy is going to offer a second-degree amendment to the underlying
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct. It is in the script.
Mr. REID. And also, I say to the Senator, I want to make sure we
would have the Daschle vote second and the Leahy vote first.
Mr. WARNER. If that is the preference, so granted.
Mr. REID. That would be for the convenience of the Democratic leader.
I would also think it would be appropriate to have 2 minutes evenly
divided prior to each vote. I would ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished chairman of the committee allow the modification of his
unanimous consent request as I have outlined it.
Mr. WARNER. I concur in the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, not to speak on my
amendment but to call it up and offer the second degree now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Daschle second degree
No. 3468 is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3468) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3485 To Amendment No. 3387

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 3387 be called up,
and I send to the desk a second-degree amendment on behalf of myself
and Mr. Corzine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr.
Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 3485 to amendment No.
3387.

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

(Purpose: To direct the Attorney General to submit to the Committee on
the Judiciary of the Senate all documents in the possession of the
Department of Justice relating to the treatment and interrogation of
individuals held in the custody of the United States)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS.

The Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate all documents and records produced
from January 20, 2001, to the present, and in the possession
of the Department of Justice, describing, referring or
relating to the treatment or interrogation of prisoners of
war, enemy combatants, and individuals held in the custody or
under the physical control of the United States Government or
an agent of the United States Government in connection with
investigations or interrogations by the military, the Central
Intelligence Agency, intelligence, antiterrorist or
counterterrorist offices in other agencies, or cooperating
governments, and the agents or contractors of such agencies
or governments.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished manager and yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as the debate on the Defense
authorization bill began, I announced my intention to offer an
amendment to that bill with respect to the nuclear penetrator, or, as
it is known around here, the RNEP. I have been dissuaded from offering
that amendment by the arguments of some of my friends who insist it is
unnecessary because it would be simply a statement of existing law. I
wanted to be sure that was the case, and therefore I sought assurances
from both the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. I
have handed the letters from those two Departments to my friend from
Michigan. I ask if I could reclaim those letters so I might quote from
them.
Mr. LEVIN. That is a fair request.
Mr. BENNETT. Linton F. Brooks, who is the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, wrote me on June 15, and he
says the following things:

. . . let me state unequivocally this Administration has no
current plans or requirements to conduct an underground
nuclear test.

That is important to understand, that the administration has no plans
to conduct an underground nuclear test of any kind.
With respect to RNEP, he says:

. . . I know you are concerned that the ongoing RNEP study
could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear testing.
The RNEP study will not require an underground nuclear test.

That is a very firm, unequivocal statement.
He goes on to talk about possibilities, and he says:

Should the President support, and the Congress approve,
full-scale engineering development of RNEP, the
Administration does not intend to conduct a nuclear test.
From the beginning, we have operated under the assumption
that resuming testing to certify RNEP is not an option. . . .

[[Page S7275]]

Those are firm assurances from the Department of Energy. But I wanted
to be sure this was not just Ambassador Linton Brooks' attitude, so I
had a conversation with Paul Wolfowitz at the Department of Defense.
Dated June 23, he sent me a letter reaffirming what Administrator
Brooks had said and makes it clear that the Department of Defense
agrees there will be no nuclear test with respect to RNEP under the
current administration.
So I am heartened by these assurances I have received from the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy that there is no
plan or requirement to conduct an underground nuclear explosive test of
any kind, and I accept these assurances. But here in the Congress I
have those to whom I look for guidance on these matters. I want to be
sure that should some future administration decide to change the policy
that has been outlined by the Bush administration, that the present law
would hinder future administrations from conducting these same tests
without there being a vote of Congress; particularly with respect to
RNEP, that there would be no underground nuclear test without a
congressional vote.
I have asked the Senator from Arizona, who is an expert on these
matters, if he would agree. I also discussed it with the Senator from
Michigan, who is the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee.
If I may, Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, if
he agrees that under current law, a vote from Congress would have to
occur before a test could be conducted on RNEP?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I answer the Senator from Utah, yes, I agree
Congress would have to vote before a test could be conducted.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. President.
I would now like to address the same question to the Senator from
Michigan, with his great background in the area of law concerning this.
Does the Senator from Michigan agree that under current law, a vote
from Congress would have to occur before a test could be conducted for
RNEP?
Mr. LEVIN. Yes. I, too, agree that Congress would have to vote before
a test could be conducted.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I thank the Senator
from Arizona.
On the basis of their assurances, along with the written assurances I
have received from this administration--two Departments speaking--I
will not offer my amendment.
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent those two letters be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security
Administration,
Washington, DC, June 15, 2004.
Hon. Robert Bennett,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bennett: Thank you for taking the time to meet
with me on June 3, 2004, to discuss your concerns regarding
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) study and
underground nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). I
appreciate your concerns and I hope to address them in this
letter.
First, let me state unequivocally this Administration has
no current plans or requirements to conduct an underground
nuclear test. The Stockpile Stewardship Program is working
today to ensure that America's nuclear deterrent is safe,
secure and reliable. Currently there are no issues of
sufficient concern to warrant a nuclear test. I certainly
understand the concerns you and your constituents in Utah
have with nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. However, I
believe it is critical to maintain a readiness capability at
the NTS to conduct such a test in the future if called for by
the President of the United States, in order to ensure the
safety and/or reliability of a weapon system. Therefore, I
believe it is important for us to work together to ensure
that the NNSA test readiness program continues to make safety
a top priority.
Furthermore, I know you are concerned that the ongoing RNEP
study could lead to the resumption of underground nuclear
testing. The RNEP study will not require an underground
nuclear test. Should the President support, and Congress
approve, full-scale engineering development of RNEP, the
Administration does not intend to conduct a nuclear test.
From the beginning, we have operated under the assumption
that resuming testing to certify RNEP is not an option and
for that reason, more than any other, the RNEP study is only
looking at two existing weapon systems, the B-61 and the B-
83. Both are well-proven systems with an extensive test
pedigree from the 1970s and 80s. I would be happy to work
with you and the Senate Armed Services Committee to address
your concerns on this sensitive matter.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please do
not hesitate to contact me or C. Anson Franklin, Director,
Office of Congressional, Intergovernmental and Public Affairs
at (202) 586-8343.
Sincerely,
Linton F. Brooks,
Administrator.
____

Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, June 23, 2004.
Hon. Robert Bennett,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bennett: I understand that you have concerns
about the Department's plans to study options for a Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) that would give the United
States the capability to threaten hardened, deeply buried
targets in hostile nations. Specifically, you have raised
concerns that the development of such a system could require
the resumption of underground nuclear testing.
I want to assure you that the Administration has no plans
to conduct an underground nuclear test associated with the
development of RNEP. As National Nuclear Security
Administration Administrator Linton Brooks recently wrote to
you, ``the RNEP study is only looking at two existing weapon
systems, the B-61 and B-83. Both are well-proven systems with
an extensive test pedigree from the 1970s and 80s.''
If RNEP were to move from its current study phase to
development, such plans would be part of the Administration's
annual budget request to Congress. The Administration's
intentions concerning underground nuclear testing during RNEP
development, if different from our current intentions, would
be explicit in that request. Congress would have the
opportunity at that time to debate and pass judgment on those
plans.
Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns
about the Department's development of RNEP. If I can be of
further assistance, I hope you will let me know.
Sincerely,
Paul Wolfowitz.

____________________