To require the Department of Defense to fully comply with the Competition in Contracting Act for any contract awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1050, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1050) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2004 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
Forces, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Murray Amendment No. 691, to restore a previous policy
regarding restrictions on use of Department of Defense
medical facilities.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
pending amendment is set aside.
The Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 791

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 791.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Daschle and Mr.
Johnson, proposes an amendment No. 791.

Mr. REID. 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 set aside an amount for reconstituting the B-1B bomber
aircraft fleet of the Air Force)

On page 21, after line 20, insert the following:

SEC. 132. B-1B BOMBER AIRCRAFT.

(a) Amount for Aircraft.--(1) Of the amount authorized to
be appropriated under section 103(1), $20,300,000 shall be
available to reconstitute the fleet of B-1B bomber aircraft
through modifications of 23 B-1B bomber aircraft otherwise
scheduled to be retired in fiscal year 2003 that extend the
service life of such aircraft and maintain or, as necessary,
improve the capabilities of such aircraft for mission
performance.
(2) The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report that specifies the
amounts necessary to be included in the future-years defense
program to reconstitute the B-1B bomber aircraft fleet of the
Air Force.
(b) Adjustment.--(1) The total amount authorized to be
appropriated under section 103(1) is hereby increased by
$20,300,000.
(2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 104 is hereby reduced by $20,300,000, with the amount
of the reduction to be allocated to SOF operational
enhancements.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the
distinguished leader and ranking member, my understanding is that
amendment requires a further amendment, and then it is in an acceptable
form. Am I not correct?
Mr. LEVIN. If I could ask the Senator to yield, it is my
understanding that the amendment has been agreed to but the paperwork
has not yet been completed to accomplish the agreement.
Mr. REID. If the Chair would allow me, Senator Daschle agreed to the
modification of the amendment. That could be handled either later today
or in the managers' package.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. Perhaps
in the course of the debate this morning we can reach that agreement
quickly.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. Fitzgerald assumed the Chair.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I first express to colleagues in the
Senate our appreciation for their patience. We have achieved remarkable
results, in my judgment, under the guidance of the distinguished
Democratic whip and the Republican whip on this side, helping the two
managers.
Mr. President, my colleague Senator Levin and I wish to turn to a
package of some 30 agreed-upon amendments. At the conclusion of that,
we will entertain a unanimous consent request which should pretty well
keep us in motion here.

Amendment No. 804

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator
Smith which will authorize land exchange at the Naval and Marine Corps
Reserve Center in Portland, OR.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
laid aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Smith,
proposes an amendment numbered 804.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize a land exchange, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
Center, Portland, Oregon)

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

SEC. 2825. LAND EXCHANGE, NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE
CENTER, PORTLAND OREGON.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may
convey to the United Parcel Service, Inc. (in this section
referred to as ``UPS''), any or all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including improvements thereon, consisting of
approximately 14 acres in Portland, Oregon, and comprising
the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center for the purpose of
facilitating the expansion of the UPS main distribution
complex in Portland.
(b) Property Received in Exchange.--(1) As consideration
for the conveyance under subsection (a), UPS shall--
(A) convey to the United States a parcel of real property
determined to be suitable by the Secretary; and
(B) design, construct, and convey such replacement
facilities on the property conveyed under subparagraph (A) as
the Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) The value of the real property and replacement
facilities received by the Secretary under this subsection
shall be at least equal to the fair market value of the real
property conveyed under subsection (a), as determined by the
Secretary.
(c) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--(1) The Secretary may
require UPS to cover costs to be incurred by the Secretary,
or to reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred by the
Secretary, to carry out the conveyance under subsection (a),
including survey

[[Page S6893]]

costs, costs related to environmental documentation,
relocation expenses incurred under subsection (b), and other
administrative costs related to the conveyance. If amounts
are collected from UPS in advance of the Secretary incurring
the actual costs, and the amount collected exceeds the costs
actually incurred by the Secretary to carry out the
conveyance, the Secretary shall refund the excess amount to
UPS.
(2) Amounts received as reimbursement under paragraph (1)
shall be credited to the fund or account that was used to
cover the costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out the
conveyance. Amounts so credited shall be merged with amounts
in such fund or account, and shall be available for the same
purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations,
as amounts in such fund or account.
(d) Condition of Conveyance.--The Secretary may not make
the conveyance authorized by subsection (a) until the
Secretary determines that the replacement facilities required
by subsection (b) are suitable and available for the
relocation of the operations of the Naval and Marine Corps
Reserve Center.
(e) Exemption From Federal Screening.--The conveyance
authorized by subsection (a) is exempt from the requirement
to screen the property for other Federal use pursuant to
sections 2693 and 2696 of title 10, United States Code.
(f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property to be conveyed under this section
shall be determined by surveys satisfactory to the Secretary.
(g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyances under this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have no objection to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 804) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 805

Mr. LEVIN. I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Sarbanes that
would provide for the conveyance of 33 acres of land in Fort Ritchie,
MD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside for all the amendments which Senator Warner and
I will now be offering.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Sarbanes,
proposes an amendment numbered 805.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of land at Fort Ritchie,
Maryland)

On page 370, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following
new section:

SEC. 2825. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT RITCHIE, MARYLAND.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army shall
convey, without consideration, to the PenMar Development
Corporation, a public instrumentality of the State of
Maryland (in this section referred to as the
``Corporation''), all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, at former Fort Ritchie, Cascade,
Maryland, consisting of approximately 33 acres, that is
currently being leased by the International Masonry Institute
(in this section referred to as the ``Institute''), for the
purpose of enabling the Corporation to sell the property to
the Institute for the economic development of former Fort
Ritchie.
(b) Exemption from Federal Screening Requirement.--The
conveyance authorized by subsection (a) shall be exempt from
the requirement to screen the property concerned for further
Federal use pursuant to section 2696 of title 10, United
States Code, under the Defense Base and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note) or under any other applicable law or regulation.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Corporation.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 805) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 707, as Modified

Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senator Inhofe, I offer an amendment that
supports Army research and development funding for human tissue
engineering. It has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Inhofe,
proposes an amendment numbered 707, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To add an amount of Army RDT&E funding for human tissue
engineering, and to provide offsets within the same authorization of
appropriations)

On page 25, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 213. HUMAN TISSUE ENGINEERING.

(a) Amount.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
under section 201(1), $1,700,000 may be available in PE
0602787 for human tissue engineering. The total amount
authorized to be appropriated under section 201(1) is hereby
increased by $1,700,000.
(b) Offsets.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
under section 301(4) for operations and maintenance, Air
Force, is hereby reduced by $1,700,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. There is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 707), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 791, As Modified

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I offer a modified amendment on behalf of
Senator Daschle that would add an additional $20.3 million for B-1B
bomber modifications. I believe it has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator intend this to be a
modification of the pending Daschle amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. I am not sure I can hear the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Michigan intend this to
be a modification of the pending Daschle amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. We do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment
numbered 791, previously proposed by the Senator from Nevada,
Mr. Reid, for Mr. Daschle, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To set aside an amount for reconstituting the B-1B bomber
aircraft fleet of the Air Force)

On page 21, after line 20, insert the following:

SEC. 132. B-1B BOMBER AIRCRAFT.

(a) Amount for Aircraft.--(1) Of the amount authorized to
be appropriated under section 103(1), $20,300,000 may be
available to reconstitute the fleet of B-1B bomber aircraft
through modifications of 23 B-1B bomber aircraft otherwise
scheduled to be retired in fiscal year 2003 that extend the
service life of such aircraft and maintain or, as necessary,
improve the capabilities of such aircraft for mission
performance.
(2) The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report that specifies the
amounts necessary to be included in the future-years defense
program to reconstitute the B-1B bomber aircraft fleet of the
Air Force.
(b) Adjustment.--(1) The total amount authorized to be
appropriated under section 103(1) is hereby increased by
$20,300,000.
(2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 104 is hereby reduced by $20,300,000, with the amount
of the reduction to be allocated to SOF operational
enhancements.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate will soon adopt a new national
Defense authorization bill. I commend Senators Warner and Levin, the
distinguished managers of this bill, for their excellent work. They
have worked well together on an important piece of legislation.
This crucial legislation, the fiscal year 2004 National Defense
authorization bill, provides funds for our troops, their training, and
their equipment.

[[Page S6894]]

Coming as it does on the heels of the end of the fighting in Iraq, it
also provides the Senate with its first opportunity to act on some of
the lessons we have learned in that conflict.
Although the hostilities ended a short time ago and much more needs
to be done in Iraq, I do not believe it is premature to begin drawing
some conclusions about which forces and equipment performed well. Based
on the Pentagon's assessments as well as media reports, it appears the
B-1B aircraft and their crews performed magnificently.
Just as in Afghanistan, we had few air bases in adjacent countries.
Fortunately the B-1's long operating range overcame that problem. Just
as in Afghanistan, our air tankers were straining to keep up the demand
for midair refueling--but B-1s were part of the solution, with their
ability to cover long distances and strike 24 targets on a single
mission. Just as in Afghanistan, we needed the ability to carry out
strikes around the clock, on a moment's notice, regardless of weather
conditions and B-1s did the job, day after day, until the Iraqi
military was routed and its leadership was no more.
All of this served to reinforce what many have believed to be true
for quite some time now; namely, that the Pentagon acted too hastily a
few years ago when it decided to retire one-third of our B-1B bomber
fleet.
The plan to retire one-third of the B-1 fleet was developed before
the September 11th attacks, before the war on terrorism, before the
fighting in Afghanistan, and before Iraq. Given the proven record of
performance of the B-1, the age of our current heavy bomber fleet, the
lack of a next-generation bomber, and the fact that it took 20 years
before our Nation's last bomber-development program could field
planes--it seems incredible that we are consigning 23 of our most
capable aircraft, a plane referred to by those who know it best as the
``backbone of the bomber fleet,'' to the Arizona desert.
My amendment would begin the process of rolling back the decision to
retire those 23 planes. It would rebuild our bomber fleet toward the
level recommended in our last comprehensive review of bomber needs, the
U.S. Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers. That report
determined that 93 B-1s were needed to protect U.S. national security
interests until a replacement capability is available. My amendment
would put us on the path to 83 B-1s--the most we can muster, given
decommissioning work that is already well underway on some aircraft.
Senator Johnson and I have consulted with the Air Force about the
timing and funding requirements to regenerate 23 planes and have
determined that an appropriate first-year effort would be $20.3
million. This is also the level of effort being recommended by the
House Armed Service Committee in the bill being taken up this morning
on the House floor. This fiscal year 2004 funding would launch a
multiyear program to provide these 23 planes the same capabilities as
the rest of the B-1 fleet.
To begin with, these planes would require the Block E upgrade to B-1
offensive systems that almost all of our B-1 fleet has already
received. Additional assorted upgrades will also be required, and my
amendment would begin that work--configuration to accommodate towed
decoys, installation of new datalink capabilities, and modifications to
improve the dependability and capability of the plane's electronic
countermeasure system and its central integrated test system.
Finally, my amendment would require the Air Force to report back to
congressional defense committees on additional funding requirements
needed in the Future Years Defense Plan, (FYDP) to fully restore these
aircraft to operational levels.
This is our last chance to halt the retirement of B-1s, since many
are scheduled to be sent to Arizona by the end of this fiscal year. In
light of what we know now about the hasty manner in which the B-1
retirement decision was made, the B-1's proven combat effectiveness,
and our Nation's anticipated security requirements, it is time to begin
bringing back these 23 planes.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I support the Daschle-Johnson amendment
to the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. This amendment will
provide the funding necessary to maintain a strong and reliable B-1
bomber fleet.
Over the past week, the B-1 bombers, crews, and support staff of the
28th Bomb Wing have begun to return to Ellsworth Air Force Base from
their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. As they did in Kosovo and
Afghanistan, the B-1 bombers performed superbly in the war in Iraq.
They have once again demonstrated that they are the backbone of
America's bomber fleet. The B-1's unique ability to linger over the
battlefield and provide responsive firepower at the time and place
required by military commanders was an integral part of our victory in
Iraq.
Although B-1s flew fewer than 2 percent of the combat sorties in
Operation Iraqi Freedom, they dropped more than half the satellite
guided Air Force Joint Direct Attack Munitions, (JDAMs). The B-1s were
tasked against the full spectrum of potential targets in Iraq,
including command and control facilities, bunkers, tanks, armored
personnel carriers, and surface-to-air missile sites. They also
provided close air support for U.S. forces engaged in the field. The
bombers and crews accomplished all of this while maintaining over an 80
percent mission capable rate. This record of success proves B-1 is a
vital, versatile, and potent component of our military force structure.
The Daschle-Johnson amendment would provide the funding needed to
start regenerating, modernizing, and returning 23 B-1s to our bomber
fleet. The Department of Defense is in the process of implementing its
plan to retire all but 60 B-1s, this is despite a U.S. Air Force White
Paper on Long Range Bombers that determined it was in our national
security interests to maintain the full B-1 fleet. Furthermore, since
the Pentagon announced its decision to consolidate the fleet, the B-1s
have been instrumental in the military success of both Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Given the demonstration of its unique capabilities in both these
campaigns, it makes little sense to continue forward with the
retirement of one-third of the B-1 fleet. With the funding provided in
the Daschle-Johnson amendment, and planned increases in the Air Force's
budget in future years, additional modernized B-1s could enter service
in fiscal year 2005. The B-1's ability to carry a large payload of
satellite guided weapons and to strike from long distances will make it
an important part of our Nation's defense for many years.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the long-term
viability of the B-1 fleet by voting in favor of the Daschle-Johnson
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. It is cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 791), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 787, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an amendment to
support naval research and development for nonthermal imaging systems.
The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 787, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available $2,000,000 for non-thermal imaging systems)

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

SEC. 213. NON-THERMAL IMAGING SYSTEMS.

(a) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(2) for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Navy and available for Power
Projection Applied Research (PE 602114N), $2,000,000 may be
available for research and development of non-thermal imaging
systems. The total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 201(2) is hereby increased by $2,000,000.
(b) Offsets.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(4) for operations and maintenance, Air Force, is
hereby reduced by $1,000,000 and the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 104 for Defense-Wide Activities, is
hereby reduced by $1,000,000 for SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades.

[[Page S6895]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. It has been cleared on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 787), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 806

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Biden, I send an
amendment to the desk which would increase by 30 the personnel end
strength of the Air National Guard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Biden,
proposes an amendment numbered 806.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase by 30 personnel the personnel end strength of the
Air National Guard of the United States as of September 30, 2004, to
provide personnel to improve the information operations capability of
the Air National Guard of the United States)

(a) In section 411(a)(5), relating to the authorized
strength for Selected Reserve personnel of the Air National
Guard of the United States as of September 30, 2004, strike
``107,000'' and insert ``107,030''.
(b) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 104 is hereby reduced by $3,300,000, including
$2,100,000 from SOF rotary wing upgrades and $1,200,000 from
SOF operational enhancements.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
The amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 806) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed.

Amendment No. 788, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. I offer an amendment to make available funds for
operation and maintenance for the Army Reserve for information
operations for Land Forces Readiness-Information Operations
Sustainment. This amendment has been modified to provide offsets.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 788, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $3,000,000 for operation
and maintenance for the Army Reserve for information operations for
Land Forces Readiness--Information Operations Sustainment)

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

SEC. 313. INFORMATION OPERATIONS SUSTAINMENT FOR LAND FORCES
READINESS OF ARMY RESERVE.

(a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations for Army
Reserve.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by section
301(6) for operation and maintenance for the Army Reserve is
hereby increased by $3,000,000.
(b) Availability for Information Operations Sustainment.--
(1) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
301(6) for operation and maintenance for the Army Reserve, as
increased by subsection (a), $3,000,000 may be available for
Information Operations (Account #19640) for Land Forces
Readiness-Information Operations Sustainment.
(2) The amount available under paragraph (1) for the
purpose specified in that paragraph is in addition to any
other amounts available under this Act for that purpose.
(c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(4) for operation and maintenance for the Air
Force is hereby reduced by $3,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. No objection on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 788), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 807

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an
amendment which authorizes $2.1 million to conduct research and
development activity for the Holloman Air Force Base high-speed test
track.
I believe it has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Bingaman,
proposes an amendment numbered 807.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $2,100,000 from amounts
available for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air
Force for Major T&E Investment (PE 0604759F) for research an
development on magnetic levitation technologies at the high speed test
track at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico)

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

SEC. 213. MAGNETIC LEVITATION.

(a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations.--The
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(3) for
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force
is hereby increased by $2,100,000, with the amount of the
increase to be allocated to Major T&E Investment (PE
0604759F).
(b) Availability.--(1) Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Air Force and available for
Major T&E Investment, as increased by subsection (a),
$2,100,000 may be available for research and development on
magnetic levitation technologies at the high speed test track
at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
(2) The amount available under paragraph (1) for the
purpose specified in that paragraph is in addition to any
other amounts available under this Act for that purpose.
(c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(4) for operation and maintenance, Air Force, is
hereby reduced by $2,100,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 807) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 808

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an
amendment that adds $2 million for the Army for the procurement of
rapid infusion pumps.
The matter has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 808.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $2,000,000 for other
procurement for the Army for medical equipment for the procurement of
rapid infusion (IV) pumps)

In subtitle B of title I, add after the subtitle heading
the following:

SEC. 111. RAPID INFUSION PUMPS.

(a) Availability of Funds.--(1) Of the amount authorized to
be appropriated by section 101(5) for other procurement,
Army, $2,000,000 may be available for medical equipment for
the procurement of rapid infusion (IV) pumps.
(2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 101(5) is hereby increased by $2,000,000.
(b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(1) for operations and maintenance, Army, the
amount available is hereby reduced by $2,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 808) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 743, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham, I offer an
amendment which adds $8 million to Marine Corps research and
development funds for development of the collaborative information
warfare network in the critical infrastructure protection center.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Graham of
South Carolina, proposes an amendment numbered 743, as
modified.

[[Page S6896]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To set aside an increased amount for the Collaborative
Information Warfare Network at the Critical Infrastructure Protection
Center at the Space Warfare Systems Center)

On page 40, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 235. AMOUNT FOR COLLABORATIVE INFORMATION WARFARE
NETWORK.

(1) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
201(2), for research and development, Navy, $8,000,000 may be
available for the Collaborative Information Warfare Network.
(2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 201(2) is hereby increased by $8,000,000.
(3) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(4) for operation and maintenance, Air Force, the
amount is hereby reduced by $8,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
Mr. LEVIN. There is no objection to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 743), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 723, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an
amendment which would add $2 million in Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation funding for the development and fabrication of composite
submarine sail test articles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Lott,
proposes an amendment numbered 723, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To set aside an amount of Navy RDT&E funding for the
development and fabrication of composite sail test articles for
incorporation into designs for future submarines)

On page 25, between lines 11 and 12, and insert the
following:

SEC. 213. COMPOSITE SAIL TEST ARTICLES.

(a) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 201(2) for Virginia-class submarine development may
be increased by $2,000,000 for the development and
fabrication of composite sail test articles for incorporation
into designs for future submarines.
(b) Defense-Wide Activities.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated under section 104 may be reduced by $2,000,000,
to be derived from the amount provided for SOF operational
enhancements.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 723), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 809

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an
amendment to support Army research and development for portable mobile
emergency broadband systems.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 809.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, $2,000,000 for research,
development, test, and evaluation for the Army for the development of
Portable Mobile Emergency Broadband Systems (MEBS)

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

SEC. 213. PORTABLE MOBILE EMERGENCY BROADBAND SYSTEMS.

(a) Availability of Funds.--(1) Of the amount authorized to
be appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Army, $2,000,000 may be
available for the development of Portable Mobile Emergency
Broadband Systems (MEBS).
(2) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 201(1) is hereby increased by $2,000,000.
(b) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 104 for Procurement, Defense-wide activities, SOF
Operational Enhancements is hereby reduced by $2,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 809) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 810

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an
amendment which would add funds for research and development of boron
energy cell technology.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Domenici,
proposes an amendment numbered 810.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide, with an offset, an additional $5,000,000 for
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force for boron
energy cell technology)

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

SEC. 213. BORON ENERGY CELL TECHNOLOGY.

(a) Increase in RDT&E, Air Force.--The amount authorized to
be appropriated by section 201(3) for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby increased by
$5,000,000.
(b) Availability for Boron Energy Cell Technology.--(1) of
the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(3)
for research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air
Force, as increased by subsection (a), $5,000,000 may be
available for research, development, test, and evaluation on
boron energy cell technology.
(2) The amount available under paragraph (1) for the
purpose specified in that paragraph is in addition to any
other amounts available under this Act for that purpose.
(c) Offset from Operations and Maintenance.--The amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 301(1), for
operations and maintenance for the Army is hereby reduced by
$5,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 810) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 760

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cochran and others, I
offer an amendment which makes available funds for the Arrow ballistic
missile defense system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms.
Mikulski, and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 760.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To set aside an amount for coproduction of the Arrow
ballistic missile defense system)

On page 40, between lines 7 and 8 insert the following:

SEC. 235. COPRODUCTION OF ARROW BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
SYSTEM.

Of the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 201 for ballistic missile defense, $115,000,000 may
be available for coproduction of the Arrow ballistic missile
defense system.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a
cosponsor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, likewise, I ask unanimous consent to be
added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 760) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 790, As Modified

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an
amendment that would add a reporting requirement to section 3131.

[[Page S6897]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Bingaman,
proposes an amendment numbered 790, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report assessing the effects of the repeal of
the prohibition on the research and development of low-yield nuclear
weapons)

In section 3131, add at the end the following:
(c) Report.--(1) Not later than March 1, 2004, the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly
submit to Congress a report assessing whether or not the
repeal of section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994, will affect the ability of the
United States to achieve its non-proliferation objectives and
whether or not any changes in programs and activities would
be required to achieve these objectives.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 790), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 811

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would amend
section 2611 of the United States Code title X to allow the Secretary
of the Navy to accept guarantees as gifts for the construction of a
United States Marine Corps Heritage Center, enabling the center to be
completed in time for the 230th anniversary of the United States Marine
Corps in November of 2005.
It has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 811.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the acceptance of guarantees with gifts for the
development of the Marine Corps Heritage Center at Marine Corps Base,
Quantico, Virginia)

On page 278, beginning on line 16, strike ``FOR ASIA-
PACIFIC CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES''.

On page 280, after the matter following line 7, insert the
following:
(c) Acceptance of Guarantees with Gifts in Development of
Marine Corps Heritage Center, Marine Corps Base, Quantico,
Virginia.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may utilize the
authority in section 6975 of title 10, United States Code,
for purposes of the project to develop the Marine Corps
Heritage Center at Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia,
authorized by section 2884 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B 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-440).
(2) The authority in paragraph (1) shall expire on December
31, 2006.
(3) The expiration under paragraph (2) of the authority in
paragraph (1) shall not effect any qualified guarantee
accepted pursuant to such authority for purposes of the
project referred to in paragraph (1) before the date of the
expiration of such authority under paragraph (2).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the Warner amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 811) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a
period throughout the remainder of the day for those who wish to be
added as cosponsors of this amendment to so indicate to the Presiding
Officer their desire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 737

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida, I
offer an amendment that would authorize travel and transportation
allowances for dependents of service members who have committed
dependent abuse against a spouse or dependent child.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment
numbered 737.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize certain travel and transportation allowances for
dependents of members of the Armed Forces who have committed dependent
abuse)

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

SEC. 565. CERTAIN TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR
DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO
HAVE COMMITTED DEPENDENT ABUSE.

Section 406(h) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4)(A) If the Secretary concerned makes a determination
described in subparagraph (B) with respect to the spouse or a
dependent of a member described in that subparagraph and a
request described in subparagraph (C) has been by the spouse
or on behalf of such dependent, the Secretary may provide any
benefit authorized for a member under paragraph (1) or (3) to
the spouse or such dependent in lieu of providing such
benefit to the member.
``(B) A determination described in this subparagraph is a
determination by the commanding officer of a member that--
``(i) the member has committed a dependent-abuse offense
against the spouse or a dependent of the member;
``(ii) a safety plan and counseling have been provided to
the spouse or such dependent;
``(iii) the safety of the spouse or such dependent is at
risk; and
``(iv) the relocation of the spouse or such dependent is
advisable.
``(C) A request described in this subparagraph is a request
by the spouse of a member, or by the parent of a dependent
child in the case of a dependent child of a member, for
relocation.
``(D) Transportation may be provided under this paragraph
for household effects or a motor vehicle only if a written
agreement of the member, or an order of a court of competent
jurisdiction, gives possession of the effects or vehicle to
the spouse or dependent of the member concerned.
``(E) In this paragraph, the term `dependent-abuse offense'
means an offense described in section 1059(c) of title 10.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 737) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 812

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer an
amendment to provide emergency and morale communications programs.
The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain,
proposes an amendment numbered 812.

The amendment is as follows:
On page 43, strike lines 4 through 9 and insert the
following:

SEC. 311. EMERGENCY AND MORALE COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS.

(a) Armed Forces Emergency Services.--Of the amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 301(5) for operation
and maintenance for Defense-wide activities, $5,000,000 shall
be made available to the American Red Cross to fund the Armed
Forces Emergency Services.
(b) Department of Defense Morale Telecommunications
Program.--(1) As soon as possible after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall establish and
carry out a program to provide, wherever practicable, prepaid
phone cards, or an equivalent telecommunications benefit
which includes access to telephone service, to members of the
Armed Forces stationed outside the United States who are
directly supporting military operations in Iraq or
Afghanistan (as determined by the Secretary) to enable them
to make telephone calls to family and friends in the United
States without cost to the member.
(2) The value of the benefit provided by paragraph (1)
shall not exceed $40 per month per person.
(3) The program established by paragraph (1) shall
terminate on September 30, 2004.
(4) In carrying out the program under this subsection, the
Secretary shall maximize the use of existing Department of
Defense telecommunications programs and capabilities, private
entities free or reduced-cost services, and programs to
enhance morale and welfare. In addition, and notwithstanding
any limitation on the expenditure or obligations

[[Page S6898]]

of appropriated amounts, the Secretary may use available
funds appropriated to or for the use of the Department of
Defense that are not otherwise obligated or expended to carry
out the program.
(5) The Secretary may accept gifts and donations in order
to defray the costs of the program. Such gifts and donations
may be accepted from foreign governments; foundations or
other charitable organizations, including those organized or
operating under the laws of a foreign country; and any source
in the private sector of the United States or a foreign
country.
(6) The Secretary shall work with telecommunications
providers to facilitate the deployment of additional
telephones for use in calling the United States under the
program as quickly as practicable, consistent with the timely
provision of telecommunications benefits the program, the
Secretary should carry out this subsection in a manner that
allows for competition in the provision of such benefits.
(7) The Secretary shall not take any action under this
subsection that would compromise the military objectives or
mission of the Department of Defense.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 812) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
Th motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 813

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I offer an
amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that United States air
carriers should offer reduced fares and flexible terms of sale to
members of the United States Armed Forces. This is a timely message to
the airlines of a way in which they can show their support to military
members.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mrs. Hutchison,
proposes an amendment numbered 813.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that air carriers should
provide special fares to members of the armed forces)

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. AIR FARES FOR MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES.

It is the sense of the Senate that each United States air
carrier should--
(1) make every effort to allow active duty members of the
armed forces to purchase tickets, on a space-available basis,
for the lowest fares offered for the flights desired, without
regard to advance purchase requirements and other
restrictions; and
(2) offer flexible terms that allow members of the armed
forces on active duty to purchase, modify, or cancel tickets
without time restrictions, fees, or penalties.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 813) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 814

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Chambliss, I offer an
amendment to modify the program element of the Army's short range air
defense radar research and development program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Chambliss,
proposes an amendment numbered 814.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the program element of the short range air defense
radar program of the Army)

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

SEC. 213. MODIFICATION OF PROGRAM ELEMENT OF SHORT RANGE AIR
DEFENSE RADAR PROGRAM OF THE ARMY.

The program element of the short range air defense radar
program of the Army may be modified from Program Element
602303A (Missile Technology) to Program Element 603772A
(Advanced Tactical Computer Science and Sensor Technology).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 814) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. 815

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, I offer an
amendment that would authorize the Department of Defense and the VA
jointly to conduct a program to develop and evaluate integrated healing
care practices for members of the Armed Forces and veterans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Mikulski,
proposes an amendment numbered 815.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide additional duties for the DOD-VA Joint Executive
Committee relating to integrated healing care practices for members of
the Armed Forces and veterans)

On page 169, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
(d) Integrated Healing Care Practices.--(1) The Secretary
of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may, acting
through the Department of Veterans Affairs-Department of
Defense Joint Executive Committee, conduct a program to
develop and evaluate integrated healing care practices for
members of the Armed Forces and veterans.
(2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated by section
301(21) for the Defense Health Program may be available for
the program under paragraph (1).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 815) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 816

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bennett, I offer an
amendment to require a Department of Defense study of the adequacy of
the beryllium industrial base.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Bennett,
proposes an amendment numbered 816.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a Department of Defense study of the adequacy of
the beryllium industrial base)

On page 276, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

SEC. 1025. STUDY OF BERYLLIUM INDUSTRIAL BASE.

(a) Requirement for Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall
conduct a study of the adequacy of the industrial base of the
United States to meet defense requirements of the United
States for beryllium.
(b) Report.--Not later than January 30, 2004, the Secretary
shall submit a report on the results of the study to
Congress. The report shall contain, at a minimum, the
following information:
(1) A discussion of the issues identified with respect to
the long-term supply of beryllium.
(2) An assessment of the need, if any, for modernization of
the primary sources of production of beryllium.
(3) A discussion of the advisability of, and concepts for,
meeting the future defense requirements of the United States
for beryllium and maintaining a stable domestic industrial
base of sources of beryllium through--
(A) cooperative arrangements commonly referred to as
public-private partnerships;
(B) the administration of the National Defense Stockpile
under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act;
and
(C) any other means that the Secretary identifies as
feasible.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 816) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S6899]]

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 817

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators McCain, Sessions,
Lindsey Graham, and Bayh, I offer an amendment which would add
reporting requirements to a report on the NATO Prague Capabilities
Commitment and the NATO Response Force.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain, for
himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, and Mr.
Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 817.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on decisionmaking by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization)

On page 310, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
(D) A discussion of NATO decisionmaking on the
implementation of the Prague Capabilities Commitment and the
development of the NATO Response Force, including--
(i) an assessment of whether the Prague Capabilities
Commitment and the NATO Response Force are the sole
jurisdiction of the Defense Planning Committee, the North
Atlantic Council, or the Military Committee;
(ii) a description of the circumstances which led to the
defense, military, security, and nuclear decisions of NATO on
matters such as the Prague Capabilities Commitment and the
NATO Response Force being made in bodies other than the
Defense Planning Committee;
(iii) a description of the extent to which any member that
does not participate in the integrated military structure of
NATO contributes to each of the component committees of NATO,
including any and all committees relevant to the Prague
Capabilities Commitment and the NATO Response Force;
(iv) a description of the extent to which any member that
does not participate in the integrated military structure of
NATO participates in deliberations and decisions of NATO on
resource policy, contribution ceilings, infrastructure, force
structure, modernization, threat assessments, training,
exercises, deployments, and other issues related to the
Prague Capabilities Commitment or the NATO Response Force;
(v) a description and assessment of the impediments, if
any, that would preclude or limit NATO from conducting
deliberations and making decisions on matters such as the
Prague Capabilities Commitment or the NATO Response Force
solely in the Defense Planning Committee;
(vi) the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense on
streamlining defense, military, and security decisionmaking
within NATO relating to the Prague Capabilities Commitment,
and NATO Response Force, and other matters, including an
assessment of the feasibility and advisability of the greater
utilization of the Defense Planning Committee for such
purposes; and
(vii) if a report under this subparagraph is a report other
than the first report under this subparagraph, the
information submitted in such report under any of clauses (i)
through (vi) may consist solely of an update of any
information previously submitted under the applicable clause
in a preceding report under this subparagraph.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 817) 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.

Amendment No. 818

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I offer an
amendment that requires the Comptroller General to submit a report
regarding the adequacy of special pays and allowances for service
members who experience frequent deployments away from their permanent
duty stations for periods less than 30 days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mrs. Boxer,
proposes an amendment numbered 818.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:
GAO Study.--Not later than April 1, 2004, the Comptroller
General shall submit a report regarding the adequacy of
special pays and allowances for service members who
experience frequent deployments away from their permanent
duty stations for periods less than 30 days. The policies
regarding eligibility for family separation allowance,
including those relating to required duration of absences
from the permanently assigned duty station, should be
assessed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the matter is cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 818) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 819

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I offer an amendment
which supports the network centric operations at minority colleges and
universities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 819.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To set aside an amount for initiating a capability in
historically Black colleges and universities to support the network
centric operations of the Department of Defense)

On page 25, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 213. AMOUNT FOR NETWORK CENTRIC OPERATIONS.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section
201(1) for historically Black colleges and universities,
$1,000,000 may be used for funding the initiation of a
capability in such institutions to support the network
centric operations of the Department of Defense.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support the amendment. I ask unanimous
consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will be added
as a cosponsor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior
Senator from the State of Virginia, Mr. Allen, be added as a cosponsor
of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 819) 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.

Amendment No. 789, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bunning, I offer an
amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate about upgrading the
chemical agent sensors at the chemical stockpile disposal sites in the
United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Bunning,
proposes an amendment numbered 789, as modified.

The amendment, as modified is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the deployment of
airborne chemical agent monitoring systems at the chemical stockpile
disposal sites in the United States)

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

SEC. 1039. SENSE OF SENATE ON DEPLOYMENT OF AIRBORNE CHEMICAL
AGENT MONITORING SYSTEMS AT CHEMICAL STOCKPILE
DISPOSAL SITES IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Millions of assembled chemical weapons are stockpiled
at chemical agent disposal facilities and depot sites across
the United States.
(2) Some of these weapons are filled with nerve agents,
such as GB and VX and blister agents such as HD (mustard
agent).
(3) Hundreds of thousands of United States citizens live in
the vicinity of these chemical weapons stockpile sites and
depots.
(4) The airborne chemical agent monitoring systems at these
sites are inefficient or outdated compared to newer and
advanced technologies on the market.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the Secretary of the Army should develop and deploy a program
to upgrade the airborne chemical agent monitoring systems at
all chemical stockpile disposal sites across the United
States in order to achieve the broadest possible protection

[[Page S6900]]

of the general public, personnel involved in the chemical
demilitarization program, and the environment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection on this side.
Mr. WARNER. We have no objection. This has been cleared on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 789), as modified, 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.

Amendment No. 820

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sessions, I offer an
amendment which directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on
the adequacy of the benefits for survivors of military personnel who
die on active duty. This amendment, and the study it directs, I am
confident, will provide a catalyst for necessary evaluation and change
in the manner in which families are compensated after the death of
loved ones serving in uniform.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Sessions,
proposes an amendment numbered 820.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a study of the military death gratuity and other
death benefits provided for survivors of deceased members of the Armed
Forces)

On page 155, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
(c) Death Benefits Study.--(1) It is the sense of Congress
that--
(A) the sacrifices made by the members of the United States
Armed Forces are significant and are worthy of meaningful
expressions of gratitude by the Government of the United
States, especially in cases of sacrifice through loss of
life;
(B) the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and subsequent
worldwide combat operations in the Global War on Terrorism
and in Operation Iraqi Freedom have highlighted the
significant disparity between the financial benefits for
survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces and the
financial benefits for survivors of civilian victims of
terrorism;
(C) the death benefits system composed of the death
gratuity paid by the Department of Defense to survivors of
members of the Armed Forces, the subsequently established
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program, and
other benefits for survivors of deceased members has evolved
over time, but there are increasing indications that the
evolution of such benefits has failed to keep pace with the
expansion of indemnity and compensation available to segments
of United States society outside the Armed Forces, a failure
that is especially apparent in a comparison of the benefits
for survivors of deceased members with the compensation
provided to families of civilian victims of terrorism; and
(D) while Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
provides an assured source of life insurance for members of
the Armed Forces that benefits the survivors of such members
upon death, the SGLI program requires the members to pay for
that life insurance coverage and does not provide an assured
minimum benefit.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a study of the
totality of all current and projected death benefits for
survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to
determine the adequacy of such benefits. In carrying out the
study, the Secretary shall--
(A) compare the Federal Government death benefits for
survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces with
commercial and other private sector death benefits plans for
segments of United States society outside the Armed Forces,
and also with the benefits available under Public Law 107-37
(115 Stat. 219) (commonly known as the ``Public Safety
Officer Benefits Bill'');
(B) assess the personnel policy effects that would result
from a revision of the death gratuity benefit to provide a
stratified schedule of entitlement amounts that places a
premium on deaths resulting from participation in combat or
from acts of terrorism;
(C) assess the adequacy of the current system of Survivor
Benefit Plan annuities and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation and the anticipated effects of an elimination of
the offset of Survivor Benefit Plan annuities by Dependency
and Indemnity Compensation;
(D) examine the commercial insurability of members of the
Armed Forces in high risk military occupational specialties;
and
(E) examine the extent to which private trusts and
foundations engage in fundraising or otherwise provide
financial benefits for survivors of deceased members of the
Armed Forces.
(3) Not later than March 1, 2004, the Secretary shall
submit a report on the results of the study under paragraph
(2) to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives. The report shall include the
following:
(A) The assessments, analyses, and conclusions resulting
from the study.
(B) Proposed legislation to address the deficiencies in the
system of Federal Government death benefits for survivors of
deceased members of the Armed Forces that are identified in
the course of the study.
(C) An estimate of the costs of the system of death
benefits provided for in the proposed legislation.
(4) The Comptroller General shall conduct a study to
identify the death benefits that are payable under Federal,
State, and local laws for employees of the Federal
Government, State governments, and local governments. Not
later than November 1, 2003, the Comptroller General shall
submit a report containing the results of the study to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a
cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 820) 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.

Amendment No. 821

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I offer an
amendment that would increase the maximum Federal contribution to the
National Guard Challenge Program in States from the current 60 percent
to 65 percent for fiscal year 2004.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Landrieu,
proposes an amendment numbered 821.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend title 32, United States Code, to increase the
maximum Federal share of the costs of State programs under the National
Guard Challenge Program for fiscal year 2004, and to provide an offset)

On page 291, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 1039. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE PROGRAMS UNDER THE
NATIONAL GUARD CHALLENGE PROGRAM.

(a) Maximum Federal Share.--Section 509(d) of title 32,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (1);
(3) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated, by striking the
period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph (2);
``(2) for fiscal year 2004 (notwithstanding paragraph (1)),
65 percent of the costs of operating the State program during
that year.''.
(b) Study.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a
study to evaluate (a) the adequacy of the requirement under
section 509(d) of title 32, United States Code, for the
United States to fund 60 percent of the costs of operating a
State program of the National Guard Challenge Program and the
State to fund 40 percent of such costs, and (b) the value of
the Challenge Program to the Department of Defense.
(2) In carrying out the study under paragraph (1), the
Secretary should identify potential alternatives to the
matching funds structure provided for the National Guard
Challenge Program under section 509(d) of title 32, United
States Code, such as a range of Federal-State matching
ratios, that would provide flexibility in the management of
the program to better respond to temporary fiscal conditions.
(3) The Secretary shall include the results of the study,
including findings, conclusions, and recommendations, in the
next annual report to Congress under section 509(k) of title
32, United States Code, that is submitted to Congress after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Amount for Federal Assistance.--(1) The amount
authorized to be appropriated under section 301(10) is hereby
increased by $3,000,000.
(2) Of the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 301(10), $68,216,000 shall be available for the
National Guard Challenge Program under section 509 of title
32, United States Code.
(3) The total amount authorized to be appropriated under
section 301(4) is hereby reduced by $3,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment.

[[Page S6901]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 821) 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.

Amendment No. 727

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bunning, I offer an
amendment which would authorize a multiyear procurement for the Phalanx
Close In Weapon System program, Block 1B, for the Navy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Bunning,
proposes an amendment numbered 727.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the use of multiyear procurement authority for
the Navy for procurement of the Phalanx Close In Weapon System program,
Block 1B)

On page 17, after line 25, add the following:
(5) The Phalanx Close In Weapon System program, Block 1B.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 727) 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.

Amendment No. 822

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment that would provide an
equitable offset for any fee charged the Department of Defense by the
Department of State for maintenance, upgrade, or construction of United
States diplomatic facilities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 822.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide an equitable offset for any fee charged the
Department of Defense by the Department of State for maintenance,
upgrade, or construction of United States diplomatic facilities)

On page 69, line 5, strike ``AIRLIFT''.
On page 70, between the matter following line 9 and line
10, insert the following:
(c) Costs of Goods and Services Provided to Department of
State.--For any fee charged to the Department of Defense by
the Department of State during any year for the maintenance,
upgrade, or construction of United States diplomatic
facilities, the Secretary of Defense may remit to the
Department of State only that portion, if any, of the total
amount of the fee charged for such year that exceeds the
total amount of the costs incurred by the Department of
Defense for providing goods and services to the Department of
State during such year.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. There is no objection to the amendment on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 822) 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.

Amendment No. 823

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Landrieu, which would provide for a feasibility study of the
conveyance of the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant at Doyline, LA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Landrieu,
proposes an amendment numbered 823.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To proivde for a feasibility study of the conveyance of the
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant, Doyline, Louisiana)

At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 2825. FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONVEYANCE OF LOUISIANA ARMY
AMMUNITION PLANT, DOYLINE, LOUISIANA.

(a) Study Required.--(1) The Secretary of the Army shall
conduct a study of the feasibility, costs, and benefits for
the conveyance of the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant as a
model for a public-private partnership for the utilization
and development of the Plant and similar parcels of real
property.
(2) In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consider--
(A) the feasibility and advisability of entering into
negotiations with the State of Louisiana or the Louisiana
National Guard for the conveyance of the Plant;
(B) means by which the conveyance of the Plant could--
(i) facilitate the execution by the Department of Defense
of its national security mission;
(ii) facilitate the continued use of the Plant by the
Louisiana National Guard and the execution by the Louisiana
National Guard of its national security mission; and
(C) evidence presented by the State of Louisiana of the
means by which the conveyance of the Plant could benefit
current and potential private sector and governmental tenants
of the Plant and facilitate the contribution of such tenants
to economic development in Northwestern Louisiana;
(C) the amount and type of consideration that is
appropriate for the conveyance of the Plant;
(D) the evidence presented by the State of Louisiana of the
extent to which the conveyance of the Plant to a public-
private partnership will contribute to economic growth in the
State of Louisiana and in Northwestern Louisiana in
particular;
(E) the value of any mineral rights in the lands of the
Plant;
(F) the advisability of sharing revenues and rents paid by
current and potential tenants of the Plant as a result of the
Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Program; and
(b) Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant.--In this section, the
term ``Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant'' means the Louisiana
Army Ammunition Plant in Doyline, Louisiana, consisting of
approximately 14,949 acres, of which 13,665 acres are under
license to the Military Department of the State of Louisiana
and 1,284 acres are used by the Army Joint Munitions Command.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House or
Representatives a report on the study conducted under
subsection (a). The report shall include the results of the
study and any other matters in light of the study that the
Secretary considers appropriate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 823) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 824

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, Senator
Reid, and Senator Boxer, I offer an amendment that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a 2001 survey on potential
perchlorate contamination at Department of Defense sites prepared by
the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mrs. Feinstein,
for herself, Mr. Reid, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment
numbered 824.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the submittal of a survey on perchlorate
contamination at Department of Defense sites)

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

SEC. 332. SUBMITTAL OF SURVEY ON PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION AT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SITES.

(a) Submittal of Perchlorate Survey.--Not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress the 2001 survey to identify the
potential for perchlorate contamination at all active and
closed Department of Defense sites that was prepared by the
United States Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace
Expeditionary Force Technologies Division, Tyndall Air Force
Base and Applied Research Associates.
(b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. There has been a clearance on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 824) was agreed to.

[[Page S6902]]

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 785

(Purpose: To strengthen the authority under section 852 to provide
Federal support for the enhancement of the emergency response
capabilities of state and local governments)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dodd, I offer an
amendment to establish a grant program to support increasing the number
of firefighters to address emergencies and terrorist threats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator please submit the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. I apologize.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Dodd,
proposes an amendment numbered 785.

(The amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 2003, under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side. I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be added as a
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will be added
as a cosponsor.
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 785) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be added as
a cosponsor of the amendment. And I ask if we can leave the roll open
for cosponsors until 6 o'clock tonight--until we go out--for additional
people to be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 821

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I can think of few better uses of
Federal dollars than the benefits derived from our commitment to the
National Guard's Youth Challenge Program. Every year, over 500,000 boys
and girls drop out of school. High-school dropouts face a much more
difficult life after leaving school than their peers who continue their
educations to finish high school. Drug use and run-ins with the law
often plague high school dropouts for a life-time.
The Youth Challenge Program has reclaimed the lives of over 45,000
children through the instillment of discipline, self-respect,
commitment to citizenry, and the renewed pursuit of a diploma. It costs
over $40,000 a year for a child to be detained in a juvenile detention
center. On the other hand, Youth Challenge can reclaim a child from a
life of wrong-turns for $14,000 a child.
I am pleased the President and the Senate have committed $65.2
million to the Youth Challenge Program. Youth Challenge is funded on a
formula basis, whereby the Federal Government contributes 60 percent of
the funds and States contribute 40 percent. Regrettably, many States
are facing steep budget shortfalls, and they are having difficulty
meeting the 40 percent match. Already, New York and Missouri have
closed their Youth Challenge programs.
This amendment authorizes the Department to increase the Federal
match, temporarily, until the States get their financial houses in
order. For fiscal year 2004, the Federal match would increase to 65
percent. For fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 the Federal match
would increase to 70 percent. However, it is expected the States will
have recovered from budgetary difficulties by fiscal year 2007;
therefore, the Federal match would fall back to 65 percent in all
subsequent years.
There is no more effective program to make high school dropouts
contributors, rather than anchors, to society. I hope you will join me
in supporting this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, without losing
his right to the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. REID. Tremendous progress has been made in the last few hours, as
we have seen by these amendments. We are very close to being able to
issue a consent we hope will be agreed upon to finalize the bill, but
we need just a minute to do that. There is a call in the cloakroom we
have to resolve before we do that.
Mr. WARNER. May I suggest we put in a quorum call.
Mr. REID. Would the Senator from Virginia do that, please.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia suggests the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now resume consideration of the Murray amendment, No. 691, and there
then be 60 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, prior
to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to
the amendment prior to the vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may interrupt, I failed to mention this
to my friend a second ago. Our leader has asked that the vote occur at
2:15, rather than an hour from the time it begins. We would still only
have an hour of debate. There are other things we can do during that
period of time. So I ask for that modification.
Mr. WARNER. Yes, that is acceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
amendments, that only amendments in order are relevant under the
original agreement and subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. We have a package of amendments. There are additional
amendments, all of which must be in conformity with the unanimous
consent, pending relevancy at the desk. All have to be checked through
that system. They are: First, Durbin; second, Domenici; third,
Landrieu; fourth, Kerry. Further, Senator Grassley has an amendment.
All of these have to be passed through the parliamentary unanimous
consent.
Mr. REID. These are subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
Mr. WARNER. I say to my distinguished colleague, there is a Boxer
amendment regarding contracting, subject to a relevant second degree.
Mr. REID. We just got a call from Senator Byrd. We are going to have
to wait.
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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 691

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again I proceed to a unanimous consent
request as follows: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume
consideration of the Murray amendment No. 691, and there then be 60
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in
relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the
vote; I ask consent that the following amendments be the only
amendments in order and be relevant as under the original agreement and
subject to relevant second degrees: A package of amendments that have
been cleared and are being cleared by both managers; the Boxer
amendment regarding contracting and subject to relevant second degree;
Domenici amendment on border security, to be resolved; Kerry, air
travel; Landrieu, subject to being relevant; Grassley, ground systems,
subject to relevancy.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Domenici, Kerry, Landrieu,
Grassley also have the same language, that they be subject to relevant
second-degree amendments. We have stated that twice. I want to make
sure that is clear.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the
above amendment, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then
proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or
debate.

[[Page S6903]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that at a time
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the
Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1104,
introduced by Senator Brownback, relating to parental notification,
provided that immediately upon the reporting of the bill, the majority
leader or his designee be recognized in order to file a cloture motion
on the bill. I further ask consent that there then be 60 minutes for
debate only, equally divided between Senators Brownback and Murray, and
that following that debate time, notwithstanding the provisions of rule
XXII, the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on the underlying bill, without intervening action or debate;
provided further that if cloture is not invoked, the bill be placed on
the calendar. If cloture is invoked, I would ask consent that it be in
order to file first-degree amendments up to the cloture vote, and
second-degree amendments up to 3 hours after the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this took just a
few minutes to read. It took hours to accomplish.
We are now going to a situation where Senator Murray and Senator
Brownback will debate for 1 hour. Following that, there will be a vote
on or in relation to the Murray amendment. Following that, we will work
our way through these other amendments that have been declared to be in
order on this bill. Some of them, I hope, will be resolved.
I personally extend my appreciation to the two managers of this bill
for their patience, their understanding, and also Senator Murray and
Senator Brownback. The issue about which we are going to debate for an
hour is very sensitive to everyone, those two Senators especially. They
have also been courteous to each of us and each other. I think this is
a fair way to proceed.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader. He has been
too modest to say he, together with the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky on this side, has been an integral part of enabling this
agreement to be formulated.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 691

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now there are 60 minutes evenly divided on the
Murray amendment. Who yields time?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, is the Murray amendment called up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is pending.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to add cosponsors
as follows: Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer,
Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate now has before it a very
important amendment. I think all of us know that women have played a
critical role in all of our country's recent military actions.
In Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in missions throughout the world, women
have demonstrated their skill, their sacrifice, and their courage. We
can all be very proud of the women who have served in our military.
They are our mothers, our daughters, they are our sisters, and they are
our neighbors. They put themselves in harm's way to protect our
freedom. They live and work in hostile combat zones under very
dangerous conditions. They make sacrifices every day to defend our
Nation.
But today, military women are forced to sacrifice their own
constitutional rights, as they risk their lives to protect our freedom.
No woman----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend just a moment,
please. Could we have order so the Senator from Washington can be
heard?
Thank you very much. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, no woman should be forced to surrender her
constitutional rights when she puts on a military uniform and
volunteers to serve our country overseas. But that is exactly what
happens today, and it must stop. The women of our military risk their
lives to protect our rights, but if they serve abroad they are being
denied access to safe, legal, constitutionally protected health care.
Today I am on the floor of the Senate to offer an amendment to ensure
that our military women when they serve overseas have access to the
same health care as they get here at home. I again thank all my
cosponsors, Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer,
Jeffords, Durbin, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Bingaman.
Before I go into detail, I want to clarify what this is about and
what it is not about. There are four very important aspects to
understand.
First of all, this amendment does not require any direct Federal
funding of abortion-related services. My amendment simply requires
these women to pay for any costs associated with an abortion in a
military facility. So no direct Federal funding is involved.
Second, my amendment does not compel a medical provider to perform
abortions. All branches of the military allow medical personnel who
have moral or religious or ethical objections to abortion not to
participate. So this amendment does not change or alter conscience
clauses for military medical personnel.
Third, this will not create any significant burden on the military.
It will not hinder the military's ability to carry out its missions or
to provide medical services.

Finally, do not believe anyone who tells you that our military, the
finest military in the world, is not capable of providing these health
services or that our military is unable to determine the cost. The
truth is that today the Defense Department allows for privately funded
abortions in the case of rape or incest. The ultimate proof that this
is something our military can do is that, prior to 1988, the Department
of Defense did allow privately funded abortions at overseas military
facilities.
So, clearly, this can be done. So let's make sure we are all straight
on those four points. There is no direct Federal funding. No medical
provider would be required to do anything they oppose. No significant
burden would be placed on the military. And there is no doubt that our
military can do this because it has done it before, prior to 1988, and
does it today in cases of rape or incest.
Anyone who comes to the Senate floor and makes any of those claims I
have just rebutted is raising red herrings as a distraction from the
real issue. The real issue is the health of women who serve our country
and respect for their rights and freedom.
The current policy on the books today is an insult to women. It is a
rejection of their rights and it is a threat to their health. Under
current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their
country, and female military dependents, are not allowed to exercise
their legally guaranteed right to choose, simply because they are
serving overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as
free citizens. Yet they are denied one of the most basic rights
afforded all women in this country. This is an important women's health
amendment.
Women should be able to depend on their base hospital and military
health care providers to meet all of their health care needs. To single
out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health. The
current policy does not ensure the access women need for four reasons.
First of all, a woman today must seek the approval of her commanding
officer for transport back to the United States. That could be very
humiliating and can be a deterrent to a woman to getting the care that
she needs. We know, from a GAO report that was issued in May of 2002,
that many commanding officers--and I quote:

. . . have not been adequately trained about the importance
of women's basic health care. Department of Defense officials
said that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be
reluctant to allow active duty Members, both men and women,
time away from their duty station to obtain health care
services.

So women have to face the humiliation of asking a superior officer
for permission over something that the GAO found many commanders do not
understand or appreciate.

[[Page S6904]]

Second, the current policy jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy
because she must disclose her medical condition to her superiors with
no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept confidential. That
is a very important point. She would have to disclose her medical
condition to her superiors in the Air Force or the Army, in the
service, with no guarantee that her medical concerns will be kept
confidential.
Third, the woman is not afforded medical leave, so she is further
penalized under the current policy.

And fourth, because of these unfair restrictions, many women are
forced to seek care off the base, in a foreign country. That country
may have different cultural and religious norms and different standards
of health care. Many women have little or no understanding of the laws
or restrictions in a host country, and there may also be significant
language and cultural barriers as well. So let's be honest. Some of the
countries our military operates in are not very progressive when it
comes to women's issues, and that could threaten our service women.
In addition, these countries may not have adequate safety and medical
standards. Here in the United States, we take for granted the safety of
our health care service. When we seek care in our doctors' offices or
in a clinic, we assume all safety and health standards are adhered to.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in many countries.
Under current conditions, we are subjecting women to standards in a
foreign country where they may not be safe, where they may not be
health standards where we can assure that their basic health care is
taken care of.
Finally, because of all these barriers, women may delay getting the
care they urgently need. Many women are forced to delay the procedure
for several weeks until they can travel to a location where safe,
adequate care is available. Each week that an abortion is delayed there
are greater risks to a woman's health.
So the current policy is humiliating. It is a threat to women's
privacy. It is punitive. It is a threat to women's safety, and it is a
threat to women's health. Those are not the types of burdens we should
be putting on women who volunteer to serve our country and defend our
freedoms.
The current policy is unfair to women. It denies them their
constitutional rights. My amendment before the Senate today will
correct that.
This amendment is supported by the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists. It is supported by the American Medical Women's
Association. It is supported by Physicians for Reproductive Choice in
Health. And it is supported by the National Partnership for Women and
Families.
The Senate agreed to this amendment. The Department of Defense has
followed this policy before. And, finally, let me just say, after the
inspiring and courageous work our military women have done in Iraq and
in Afghanistan, we owe them nothing less than the same rights they are
fighting to protect for all of us.
This is a test for every Senator. Every Senator is going to have to
answer to the women who serve our country overseas. Will you stand up
for the rights of women who, today, are standing up to ensure your
freedom? Either you respect the women who serve our country overseas
and you agree that they deserve the same rights and freedoms as women
here at home or you do not. That is the choice. Either you respect the
women who serve our country overseas and you agree that they deserve
the same rights and freedoms as women here at home or you do not. That
is the case.

If you vote against the Murray-Snowe amendment, you are simply
telling American servicewomen that when they serve overseas protecting
our country and risking their lives that they can't be trusted with the
constitutional right to health care that women here at home in the
United States have. They deserve more respect than that.
I hope my colleagues will vote for the Murray-Snowe amendment.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to, first, thank the Senator
from Washington for bringing up this issue. I think there was a
relevancy issue associated with it. There was a big debate about this
last night. It was eventually deemed relevant.
I then proposed a second-degree amendment that would require parental
notification of the type which is involved with 43 of our States.
Forty-three States have parental notification--that a minor on a
military base, a dependent, could not get an abortion until either
parent was notified--just notified, not consent, just notified--within
48 hours before the abortion or that there be a judicial oversight. So
that if either parent were not available or accessible, or the child
didn't want to notify the parent, they could get the court to rule that
the abortion go ahead and the parent not be notified or, if it were a
catastrophic situation and the life of the minor was in jeopardy, the
doctor could go forward and provide the abortion without a notification
period.
That was the second degree that was being proposed. We had a spirited
discussion here privately about this.
I thank the managers of the bill. I thank particularly the two whips
on either side for pushing this forward to get us to resolve the issue;
that what we are going to do today is take up the Murray amendment and
take up the parental notification issue at a later date--I hope a week
or two after we get back from the break. I think it is an important
issue as well.
The parents in 43 States are notified if their minor child is seeking
to have an abortion. We would extend this right to parents of military
personnel as well. That is what is considered in the second degree.

I appreciate the Senator from Washington working that out with us so
we are able to take up both of these difficult issues.
I also thank the Senator from Washington for her passion and caring
for women in the armed services. She stands up strongly for women's
rights, particularly for women's rights in the military. I appreciate
that. I have no qualms about her passion or her heart at all. I
recognize and applaud both.
But we have a narrow specific issue here that goes to the very core
of what we are about as a society today. It goes to the very core issue
of culture of life and culture of death that is being broadly discussed
in the culture today. And that is being played out here on the issue of
military bases. It goes to the issue of the legal status of the child
in utero.
I certainly recognize the passion of the Senator from Washington for
women's rights. I applaud that. But there is also another person
involved here and there are other issues involved here.
On February 10, 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 1996 was signed into law by then-President Clinton with a
provision to prevent Department of Defense medical treatment facilities
from being used to perform abortions except for when the life of the
mother is in danger or in the case of rape or incest.
That is the current status for the use of military base health
facilities to provide for abortion. They can be provided at military
bases in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother or
military personnel is endangered. This would be obviously women in the
military or a female dependent in the military.
This provision--10 United States Code 1093(b)--reversed a Clinton
administration policy instituted on January 22, 1996, permitting
abortions to be performed at military facilities, period.
In other words, all abortions on demand could be provided according
to the Clinton administration policy that was put into place
immediately after President Clinton became President.
Previously--from 1988 to 1993--the performance of an abortion was not
permitted at military hospitals except when the life of the mother was
endangered.
I think you can start to see the progression here that was taking
place.
Under President Reagan, there was a provision that you could provide
an abortion on a military base if the life of the mother was in danger.
That continued through President Reagan and President Bush 1. Then
President Clinton came into office and immediately opened up all
military facilities for all abortions and said they could be performed.
In February 1996, that was limited. Abortions could be provided in
cases of

[[Page S6905]]

rape and incest and when the life of the mother was endangered, but it
was an expansion from where it was in the Reagan administration.
That is the law of the land as it is today.
The Murray amendment, which would repeal this pro-life provision,
attempts to turn these taxpayer-funded DOD medical treatment facilities
into facilities that provide abortion on demand for military personnel
and their dependents. The Senate should reject this amendment. This is
what the issue is about.
When a similar amendment passed last year, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld warned that the President's senior advisers would
recommend the President veto the Defense authorization bill on this
issue. So you are talking about an abortion issue of providing
abortions in medical military facilities, a narrow, overall issue
bringing down the entire Defense authorization bill--on this issue
where abortions are provided for rape, incest, life of the mothers, but
not on demand for all abortions. That could bring down the whole bill.
Using the coercive power of Government to force American taxpayers to
fund health care facilities where abortions are performed would be a
terrible precedent that would put many Americans in a difficult
position of saying: They are using my taxpayer money to fund something
that I don't agree with--abortion on demand. Yes, I can understand it
in cases of life of the mother, certainly, and of rape and incest, but
not on demand.
When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was
first promulgated, military physicians, as well as many nurses and
supporting personnel, refused--refused--to perform or assist in
elective abortions. In response, the administration sought to hire
civilians to do abortions. That should tell us something about what is
taking place here. The military personnel themselves--the physicians--
do not want to do these elective abortions.
Therefore, if the Murray amendment were adopted, not only would
taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but
resources would be used to search for, hire, and transport new
personnel simply so that the abortions could be performed outside of
this narrow scope of rape, incest, life of the mother that would be on
all other abortions.
In fact, according to CRS, a 1994 memorandum from the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs--this would be under the
Clinton administration--``direct[ed] the Military Health Services
System to provide other means of access if providing pre-paid abortion
services at a facility was not feasible''--how outside individuals
performed abortions on military bases.
One argument used by supporters of abortions in military hospitals is
that women in countries where abortion is not permitted will have
nowhere else to turn to obtain an abortion. However, DOD policy
requires military doctors to obey the abortion laws of the countries
where they are providing services, so they still could not perform
abortions at those locations.
Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and
nurturing life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the
most innocent human life: the child in utero--and this as an elective,
on demand, not in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, which are
currently provided under the law concerning the Department of Defense.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this Murray amendment and free
America's military and the Department of Defense authorization bill
from abortion politics. American taxpayers should not be forced to fund
facilities that destroy innocent human life. I urge my colleagues to
reject that amendment.

I would also urge my colleagues, when we bring up the parental
notification bill, that they would support such a provision. The
parental notification bill would--and that is one parent, not both--one
parent is simply notified 48 hours in advance of an abortion being
provided to their minor child if that is going to take place on a
military base. And if either parent cannot be reached, or if the child
believes this would endanger, somehow, him or herself, there is a
judicial override or the doctor could go ahead and even perform and
note in the record as to why, for health reasons, he did not notify.
This isn't consent, it is notifying the parent.
It is not the issue up, but thanks to the Senator from Washington, to
help get this agreed to, to work this out, we will be considering that
parental notification provision.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
We do have other speakers to present. If it would be appropriate for
the Senator from Washington, we could bounce back and forth. I do have
a speaker who is here.
Mr. President, how much time remains on our side on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen minutes, 20 seconds.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my
colleague from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray
amendment.
We worked hard on this bill. I serve on the Armed Services Committee.
We are still in a state of conflict in Iraq. We have hostilities and
dangers around the world. We made a commitment, as a Senate, to move
forward, to move this Defense bill early this year, not wait until the
last minute, to do our work properly.
This bill is endangered now by a highly controversial amendment,
which I oppose, and which I think a majority in this body will oppose.
It could affect adversely our ability to conduct a harmonious
conference with the House of Representatives. It could even result in a
veto by the President of the United States.
I know there is a strong abortion agenda still out here, even though
the polling numbers continue to show erosion for that position.
This side of the aisle--Senator Brownback and others who care about
the issue--has not injected abortion into the Defense debate, but it
has been raised by the pro-abortion agenda groups. I think that is not
healthy. I wish it had not happened. I know there has been a debate
over whether or not it is even relevant, but the Parliamentarian had
ruled that it is, so we will have this vote today.
I will just note, as an example of the reality of the problem, we had
a bankruptcy bill that I worked on in the Judiciary Committee--and
others did--for several years. We voted on it on the floor of this body
and got 87 votes for it. Yet it died in committee because a pro-
abortion amendment had been placed on it. The conference committee
could not break the deal, and eventually the entire bill failed.

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. On your time, Mr. President.
Mr. CARPER. I just want 1 minute, if I could.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama controls the time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield for 1 minute, if he would use Senator Murray's
time.
Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, on the issue the Senator raises in
relation to the bankruptcy legislation, I make a point of
clarification. This is an issue I care about as much as the Senator
from Alabama. The language that died, after having been reported out to
the conference committee, was language that said when a person commits
a violent act for which they are convicted and fined, they cannot
discharge that fine in a court of bankruptcy.
It does not say anything about abortion. It does not say anything
about abortion clinics. It says if you have been convicted of a violent
act, you cannot go to a court of bankruptcy and discharge that claim
for which you have been convicted and fined. That is what it said.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator
yield?
Mr. CARPER. I just wanted to make that clear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I do not think the Senator, who is a great colleague,
would dispute the fact that language resulted in the failure of that
bill.

[[Page S6906]]

People care about this issue. It is a big deal to people. It is a
personal and emotional issue that I don't think needs to be pressed at
this point.
Our military physicians and nurses are not happy with it. It would
require us to utilize military hospitals as facilities to carry out
abortions. It would make our hospitals a part of the abortion process.
It would utilize Federal property and resources to that degree. It
covers not just foreign hospitals but every hospital in America.
Yes, it is legal--clearly legal--that a woman can have an abortion
and can use her own money to that effect, but we have sort of reached
an understanding and compromise in the Congress that it is legal but
because of respect for people with differing views, we just will not
use taxpayers' money to fund it. There is just sort of a truce, in a
way, that has been reached. I think it is probably something we just
have to live with at the present time.
I don't see any need to pressure or embarrass doctors and nurses who
do not feel comfortable doing this. We know this. There was a survey
done of the Army, Navy, and Air Force obstetricians; 44 of them were
surveyed. All but one said they adamantly opposed doing abortions. One
later said that physician was opposed to abortions. Some of these were
women physicians. Nurses are not comfortable with it. I don't believe
we ought to be requiring military hospitals to go out and hire other
physicians to come in on Government taxpayer funded property to conduct
these procedures. It is just not necessary.
President Bush has made clear he opposes using taxpayers' money to
fund abortions. Passage of this amendment would threaten that.
I believe women are playing an increasingly valuable role in our
military. I spent over 10 years as a reservist and served with many
fine women officers. The unit I was a part of in Mobile, AL, is now in
Kuwait commanded by a woman officer. I can't tell you how proud I am of
them. I am not hearing from the women I know in the military that this
is something they are demanding, frankly. I don't think the American
people are.
I will just point out some numbers that deal with this subject. If
anybody cares, a January 2003 poll of ABC News/Washington Post--not
conservative groups--showed that only 23 percent were for abortion to
be legal in all cases. That is less than a fourth. The same poll found,
when asked this question, should we make abortion harder to get, 42
percent said yes; easier to get an abortion, 15 percent said yes. So 42
percent thought it ought to be harder to get an abortion and 15 percent
thought it should be easier.
In January of 2003, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked this
question: should abortion be generally available, 39 percent; stricter
limits, 38 percent; not permitted, 22 percent. Sixty percent favored
either stricter limits or not permitted. A CNN Gallup poll in 2003
asked, should parental consent be required for an abortion? Yes, 73
percent.
Regardless of how we personally feel about this issue, it ought not
to be on this bill. It is not what we need to be debating now. We need
to be focused on our men and women in harm's way, providing them with
the necessary funding and resources and equipment needed to do their
job. We don't need to jeopardize this bill in conference or subject it
to a possible Presidential veto as a result of this amendment.
I thank Senator Brownback for his leadership and yield back such time
as I may have.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Murray has 18 minutes 15 seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Washington. I listened to a
description of her amendment by the Senator from Alabama. It did not
sound like the amendment she described. I want to ask a few questions
so it is clear.
Does this amendment in any respect require the Federal Government to
pay for an abortion?
Mrs. MURRAY. This amendment does not require the Federal Government
to pay for an abortion. In fact, it will allow the woman herself to pay
out of her own personal private funds for an abortion in a military
hospital overseas.
Mr. DURBIN. So under this amendment, women in the U.S. military who
seek, through their constitutional right, an abortion service would
have to pay for it out of their own pocket?
Mrs. MURRAY. That is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. Secondly, there has been a suggestion made that if your
amendment passes, it will require doctors, for example, in medical
facilities connected with the armed services, to perform an abortion if
they object to performing that procedure under their own conscience; is
that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. That is not correct. The amendment, as I have offered,
has a conscience clause for all doctors overseas.
Mr. DURBIN. So if a doctor at a military hospital says, even though
this young woman who is in the armed services comes to me for an
abortion procedure and I object to it on religious and moral grounds--
that doctor is not going to be compelled to perform an abortion under
this amendment?
Mrs. MURRAY. That is absolutely correct. This amendment does not
compel any medical provider to perform an abortion.
Mr. DURBIN. There has also been a suggestion that in U.S. military
hospitals around the world, there is no provision for abortion
services; is that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. Would the Senator restate the question?
Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that under certain circumstances,
such as rape or incest, at military hospitals around the world today,
abortions are being performed; is that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. In all military facilities,
women who are victims of rape or incest do have the opportunity to
receive abortions.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Washington. That clarifies some
of the things that have been said. The Federal Government will not be
paying for the abortion. The woman in the military who seeks it must
pay out of her own pocket. The doctors involved in this procedure will
not be compelled to do so if it violates their own morality or their
own conscience by the Murray amendment. And military hospitals serving
U.S. personnel around the world today already provide abortions in
emergency circumstances involving rape or incest.
We have to be honest about what the amendment does and does not do.
This is what it does. It says to women who have volunteered--and we are
now dealing with an All-Volunteer Force--to join the U.S. military and
to lay their lives on the line, to risk their lives and their future
for their country, that they will not be compromised. They will not be
surrendering their constitutional right to make a choice to control
their own reproductive freedom.
There are some on the other side who say, no, they may have that
constitutional right in the United States, but once they have taken the
oath to serve the U.S. Army or Navy, in that situation they have given
up their constitutional right. Is that what we want to say?

After going through the Iraqi war where women in uniform were
captured as prisoners of war, put their lives on the line, are we
saying to those women and thousands like them that if you join the U.S.
military you give up your constitutional right? Is that what we are
saying to those who we are trying to recruit to join the military? I
hope not.
I hope we are saying that we recognize the reality of service,
particularly overseas. A woman finds herself in a difficult
circumstance, where she wants to seek, under her constitutional right
guaranteed by the Supreme Court, the right to terminate a pregnancy in
the first, second, and third month. Now in the military she has to go
ask permission of the commanding officer and may be forced into a
situation where she has to find a way back to the United States in
order to protect her own health and make her own decision.
This comes down to a fundamental question: Are women serving in the
U.S. military to be treated as second-class citizens? Those who oppose
the Murray amendment say, yes, once you

[[Page S6907]]

have said, as a woman, that you will serve in the military, you have
given up your constitutional right to control your own body and your
own reproductive freedom.
That is a terrible thing to say. Frankly, it says that we denigrate
the contribution and the heroism of the women who joined the U.S.
military.
What Senator Murray is asking for is perfectly reasonable. A woman in
the military at her own expense can go to a military hospital which
already provides abortion services as a normal course for victims of
rape and incest, can go to a doctor who has willingly and voluntarily
agreed to be part of this counseling and part of this procedure, and
pay out of her own pocket for the procedure to take place. That is not
a special privilege. In fact, it says to that woman, you are just as
much an American citizen as your sister back home.
If we go the opposite course, frankly, it sends a very sobering
message to recruiters around America that you have to be honest with
the women you are seeking to recruit and tell them that once they take
that oath to the United States to serve in the military, they have
given up a constitutional right protected by the laws of the land.
I commend the Senator from Washington for her leadership, and I
support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes fifty-six seconds.
Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could engage and ask the Senator from Washington,
to make sure I am on the same amendment--I have her amendment here.
What I read here is that the amendment does two things: It says:

Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b); and
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Restriction on Use of
Funds.''

So it strikes those on two words. That is the only thing I have of an
amendment. Am I correct? Is that the actual text of the amendment?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, the Senator is correct.
Mr. BROWNBACK. By striking subsection (b), that section reads:
Restriction on use of facilities: No medical treatment facility or
other facility of the Department of Defense may be used to perform an
abortion except for--the life of the mother will be in danger if the
fetus was carried to term or in the case in which the pregnancy is the
result of an act of rape or incest.
That provision will be stricken.
That is what I have got of what the amendment is. Is that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will hold a second, I will check and then
respond.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I will make my full point. We are talking about
overseas facilities. In actuality, the striking says ``no medical
treatment facility or other facility of the Department of Defense. . .
.'' So you are talking about overseas facilities and domestic
facilities. These would be facilities overseas and in the U.S. that
could both be used to provide abortion on demand. This is removing this
restriction that it would just be in the case of the life of the
mother, rape, and incest, is that correct?
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct only in that it would strike the
language in the bill which would put us back to the previous language
that is in the statute today, which I am happy to provide him, which I
accurately described in my statement.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Maybe the Senator can answer this. This would open up
both domestic and overseas facilities because the language as stricken
says that no medical treatment facility or other facility of the
Department of Defense may be used--it has no limitation saying this is
just overseas facilities. It is any DOD facility.
Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. I remind the Senator that
domestically in the service, a woman has the right to receive health
care services at a hospital. So where this affects a woman is when they
are serving overseas and they don't have the same access.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Still, she would have access to DOD facilities in the
U.S.
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, and she would have to pay for it out of her own
money.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I also note the Senator from Illinois talked about
conscience clause protection, where somebody would not have to provide
this. That is not in your amendment. You are talking about the base
portion of any Department of Defense medical doctor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Under current law, all medical providers in the
Department of Defense have a conscience clause.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you. Your amendment does not have conscience
clause protection. That is already part of the base if you are a
military physician, to be able to provide that.
I want to hone in on what the amendment is about. It is about opening
up DOD medical facilities, domestically and internationally--the
Senator argues there won't be that much demand domestically, but it
opens it up both ways to provide abortion on demand in the United
States to U.S. military personnel and their dependents. So you are
talking about a broad array of taxpayer-funded facilities you are
opening up to provide abortions in Kentucky, Washington, Kansas, or
wherever.
I want to agree with the Senator from Washington that we are talking
about the use of the facilities here--taxpayer-funded facilities--that
provide abortions and not necessarily the doctor. The doctor may be
recruited from outside and paid for privately, but you are using
taxpayer-funded facilities to provide abortions. So you can see a
situation in this country where you would have a military facility in
Kentucky or in the State of Washington being protested by people who
are pro-life because their taxpayer-funded facility is being used to
provide abortions on demand--not just for the life of the mother, rape,
and incest.

Again, I recognize the strong support Senator Murray puts forward for
the rights of women, and I applaud that. But we are talking about a
very sensitive issue for a number of people when you talk about the use
of taxpayer dollars to do something they really don't agree with. I
don't think it is wise to do that, one. Two, I don't think we should be
tying up the DOD authorization bill on probably the central most
difficult issue of our day for people to really wrestle with. That is
what this amendment would do.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to look at the actual text of
the amendment and oppose the Murray amendment.
I yield the floor and retain the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes 25 seconds.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will make a couple of points. Under
current law, in the case of rape or incest, at a military facility an
abortion can be performed. No one is protesting that today. I again
advise my colleague that a woman who is in this country has this right,
anyway. Where we are concerned, rightfully, is for women who are
serving overseas. They don't have a constitutional right today to have
an abortion.
Let me tell you what happens to a woman if she finds herself in
difficult circumstances and is serving overseas. She has to go to her
commanding officer. Believe me, that is very difficult for a woman to
do, go to a commanding officer and describe the circumstances she finds
herself in, and ask for permission to fly home to have an abortion
performed, where it is legal.
Mr. President, that is humiliating, but it is also difficult. She
then has to wait for a C-17 to be available. Think about this. We have
just seen the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have to make a
C-17 available for a woman to fly home. That is ridiculous. They have
the medical facilities there already, and the facilities are available.
So we are putting the services at risk when we have to fly them home.
This is humiliating and she has to ask her commanding officer. A woman
serving in the country doesn't have to do that. It is difficult and
cumbersome.
This also really jeopardizes a woman's right to privacy because in
order to go to her commanding officer, she has to disclose her medical
condition. We all would think the officer would respect her rights, but
that is not always the case. She has to put that question in her head
when she goes to ask them. I don't think it is fair to the

[[Page S6908]]

women overseas when they disclose their medical condition with no
guarantees that they will be kept confidential. Think of the potential
of using that against a woman in the service. I think that is something
none of us want to place a young woman in the position of having to do.
We need to remember a woman is not given any medical relief and she
is penalized under this policy. She has to wait for a C-17 to be
available, fly home, take the time to have the procedure done, and then
return to military service. We are taking her out of service when we
need her, and we are causing her a tremendous amount of distress, too.
Remember, we are talking about a service that is protected
constitutionally for any woman who is here in this country. But these
are women who have volunteered to serve us overseas in the military.

Finally, let us not forget what we have done to women today who are
serving us in the military and fighting for our freedom. We have put
them--if they don't want to ask their commanding officer, wait for a C-
17, and all of the other conditions we put on them--today, they can go
to a hospital in a foreign country. Well, think of the difficulties of
that, where they don't have the same culture, don't speak the same
language, if a woman has a health care procedure done and the doctor
cannot tell her what she needs to do in the following 24 hours or weeks
to make sure she is taking care of herself correctly, and she cannot
understand him because she doesn't understand the language.
Why would we do that to a woman serving us overseas? I think we ought
to go back and put in place a provision in the law that has worked
before that simply gives women who serve us the same constitutional
right women in this country have today. That is what this amendment is
about. That is what this vote is about. I hope our colleagues will vote
with us in a few minutes when the vote is called.
I retain the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The Senator from Kansas is
recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes on the time of the Senator
from Kansas and 8 minutes on the time of the Senator from Washington.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple comments in
regard to what Senator Murray has just put forward. She said we are
talking about international facilities, but the amendment covers
international and domestic facilities, which we have established here,
so it would be domestic facilities. It is going to be abortion of all
types. It could be abortion on demand at domestic facilities.
If the Murray amendment is adopted, it would be for not just military
personnel but also for minors, dependents who would be able to use
these same facilities for abortion on demand. The reason I wanted to
put forward a parental notification amendment is we will have a
situation, if the Murray amendment is adopted and the amendment I would
put forward is not accepted, we will have a situation at military bases
throughout the United States of minors of military personnel seeking
abortions and not notifying their parents and not having to notify
their parents, even though State laws require a different situation.
I want to check that point to make sure we would be able to do things
differently on a military base than in State law.
The point being we are talking about a massive expansion of the use
of medical facilities on a very troubling area of the law. There is the
issue the Senator from Washington raised about how this would actually
work. I submit this is working fairly well right now. We are not
receiving a huge level of complaints from women in the military saying:
I want to be able to receive an abortion in any medical facility the
military has anywhere in the world in cases outside of rape, incest,
and life of the mother, which are currently provided. This is quite an
expansive position on a very tense subject, and it is one that
threatens to bring down the whole Department of Defense bill. I urge my
colleagues, this is not the time and place for us to do this. It would
be inappropriate to do so.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes and 13 seconds.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I have 5 minutes?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I also thank the
Senator from Washington. I think she is doing a great service to the
women of our country in pointing out what the problem is here.
I was sitting in my office doing work, and I heard the statement that
this is abortion on demand. I thought it might be useful for me to read
into the Record one letter I received last year from a woman on this
very subject that indicates the difficulty of the circumstances women
can find themselves in while living overseas.
I am about to read the story of Holly Webb. Holly is the wife of a
staff sergeant in the Air Force stationed in Misawa, Japan. I would
like you to hear her story:

My husband was stationed in Misawa, Japan, and I moved over
in September 2001 to join him. I was pregnant for the first
time. Prior to my arrival in Japan, I felt like something was
wrong with my pregnancy, and at 6 weeks I went to the
emergency room at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida where
we had been stationed.
My doctor there told me that everything seemed OK from what
they could tell. At 16 weeks, I was in Japan with my husband,
and I started bleeding. I would bleed weekly for 5 days and
then the bleeding would subside. I went to the military
hospital at Misawa and they told me I had a placenta previa
and that this was a normal side effect and they sent me home.

Just so everybody knows, placenta previa is a serious problem some
women confront which can impact their pregnancy. It can cause severe
problems for the woman including hemorrhaging both during delivery and
post-partum.
Continuing the letter:

At 20 weeks, I started bleeding heavily, and I went back to
the hospital. I thought that my water had broken but the
hospital told me it was not an emergency and kept me
overnight. My OB/GYN did not visit me until the next morning.
They told me that the results of my triple screen blood test
showed possible spina bifida which necessitated an
ultrasound. When they did the ultrasound, they discovered, as
I had thought, that there was no amniotic fluid surrounding
the fetus. They were unable to detect whether or not the
fetus had spina bifida.
For the next day, I was administered IV fluids, and my
doctor mentioned that I might be dehydrated. My cervix
remained closed, however, and they told me there was still a
fetal heartbeat. I was told I might deliver spontaneously
within weeks or months, but if the baby survived, it would
have serious health complications due to the fact I was at
risk for infection as well and because there was no amniotic
fluid surrounding the baby.
When I asked the hospital what my options were, they told
me they could not induce labor or dilate my cervix to deliver
because it would be considered an abortion, but that I was at
risk for infection. My doctor told me that in order to have
an abortion, they would have to have my situation reviewed by
a medical board and that she didn't know how long this would
take. She told me that during her 7 or 8 years of practice in
a military hospital, no matter what the situation was, a
woman's request for an abortion was always denied.
My doctor told me the only way I could receive additional
medical treatment was if I became ill. I was told to go home
and monitor my temperature and to return when I had a
fever or was in pain. I asked if there was any other
option because I was worried about dying.
At that point, I felt like my choices were either to go
home and wait for a life-threatening infection so that my
labor could be induced or go to an outside hospital where I
didn't speak the language and could not be sure that the
treatment would be safe.
When I got to the private Japanese hospital, the doctor
told me there was a serious risk for infection and that he
needed to put me on antibiotics immediately. If I didn't get
antibiotics through IV immediately, I would die. I contacted
my grandmother in the United States who wired me $2,000 to
pay for the hospital visit.
I checked into the hospital about 4 hours later. They
dilated my cervix over a period of 2\1/2\ days and induced
labor. I delivered a stillborn baby. The military hospital
told me that this was an elected abortion and not a stillborn
birth.
I am now 17 weeks pregnant again, and my only option is to
use the military hospital

[[Page S6909]]

for my OB/GYN treatment. I have begged them to let me off the
base to go to a private doctor because of my experience last
year. I believe that my pregnancy puts my health at risk. I
would again be prevented from making decisions I need to
about my pregnancy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Let me just make a point.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the Senator such time as she needs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is just one example of what a
women living abroad might go through. We can think of all kinds of
other situations in foreign countries that might necessitate the
termination of a pregnancy. Many of these women are living in countries
that don't have good health care systems in place, skilled providers,
or access to safe or clean hospitals.
This ban is a huge mistake. It is in fact a double standard. I do not
know of a health situation a man could encounter that would be dealt
with at a military hospital in quite the same manner. Nor do I know of
a health situation a man could encounter that a military hospital would
not treat.
I thank the Senator from Washington for her amendment and for her
leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support the Murray-Snowe amendment. I
comment Senator Murray for her strong and unflagging leadership on this
issue, and am pleased to once again join with her on the critical
amendment to the Department of Defense authorization. I am pleased to
join my colleague in support of this amendment to repeal the ban on
abortions at overseas military hospitals, an amendment whose time has
long since come.
Year after year, time after time, debate after debate, we revisit the
issue of women's reproductive freedoms by seeking to restrict, limit,
and eliminate a woman's right to choose. While at times we are able to
take one step forward we end up taking two steps back. Last year we
were able to garner a majority of the Senate only to have this language
removed in conference. I believe that ultimately, we will prevail, that
my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol will realize that this is a
policy change that makes sense, and I hope that will occur on this
reauthorization.
When we last considered this amendment, almost 11 months ago to the
day, we had more than 378,000 troops stationed overseas, today we have
over 10,000 more. Of those more than 35,000 of these troops were women
as of April 2002 and women make up almost 36,500 of the troops today.
We recognize the impact that the failure to repeal this ban has on so
many of these women.
Since last year's reauthorization debate, the Commander-in-Chief has
called our Nation's military into action on another front. As we
watched the 24 hour news stations' broadcasting reports from their
embedded reporters, we saw more female faces amongst the troops than
ever before. We are considering this Defense authorization during a
time of war when Americans, both civilian and military, are fighting
terrorism and tyranny all across the globe, both men and women. These
women, these soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines, deserve access to
the same health services that women here in the States have.
As I think about this last conflict, it occurs to me how ironic it is
that the very people who are fighting to preserve our freedoms, those
who are on the front lines defending this war on terrorism or other
parts of the globe, are supporting those who are fighting, are
currently the least protected in terms of the right to make choices
about their own personal health and reproductive decisions.
``That is why I stand to join my colleague, Senator Murray, once
again in overturning this ban on privately funded abortion services in
overseas military hospitals, for military women and dependents based
overseas, which was reinstated in the fiscal year 1996 authorization
bill, as we all know. It is a ban without merit or reason that put the
reproductive health of these women at risk.
Specifically, as we know, the ban denies the right to choose for
female military personnel and dependents. It effectively denies those
women who have voluntarily decided to serve our country in the armed
services safe and legal medical care simply because they were assigned
duty in another country. It makes me wonder why Congress would, year
after year, continue to leave these women who so bravely serve our
country overseas with no choice by denying them the rights that are
guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution?
Our task in this debate is to make sure that all of America's women,
including those who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces and military
dependents, are guaranteed the fundamental right to choose. Our task is
not to pay for abortions with Federal funding--contrary to what our
opponents may claim, after all, since 1979 the Federal law has
prohibited the use of Federal funds to perform abortions at military
hospitals. This amendment would not change that. However, what it would
do is reinstate the policy that was in place from 1979 to 1988, when
women could use their own personal funds to pay for the medical care
they need.

In 1988, the Reagan administration announced a new policy prohibiting
the performance of any abortions at military hospitals even if it was
paid for out of a woman's private funds--a policy which truly defies
logic.
President Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993, by Executive order,
restoring a woman's right to pay for abortion services with private,
non-Defense Department funds. Just when we had thought that logic would
prevail, in 1995, through the very bill we authorize today, the House
International Security Committee reinstated this ban which was then
retained in the conference. And here we are 8 years later trying to
undo this unnecessary threat to our female servicewomen.
Let me take a moment to reiterate a very important point. President
Clinton's Executive order did not change existing law prohibiting the
use of Federal funds for abortion, and it did not require medical
providers to perform those abortions. In fact, all three branches of
the military have conscience clauses which permit medical personnel
with moral, religious, or ethical objections to abortion not to
participate in the procedure. I believe that is a reasonable measure
and one I do not take issue with.
Opponents of this amendment argue that changing current law means
that military personnel and military facilities are charged with
performing abortions, and that this, in turn, means that American
taxpayer funds will be used to subsidize abortions. This is a wholly
and fundamentally incorrect. Every person who has ever been in a
hospital for any type of procedure knows full well that the hospital
and the physician is able to account for every charge, the cost of
every minute, every physician, every nurse, each aspirin, the supplies,
the materials, the overheads, the insurance, anything that is part of
the procedure. Under this amendment, every expense is included in the
cost that is paid by private funds. Public funds are not used for the
performance of abortions in this instance. That is an important
distinction to reinforce today. I know it is easy to confuse the
debate, to obfuscate the issues. What we are talking about here is
restricting how a woman using her own private insurance or money in
support of that procedure. We are not talking about using Federal
funds.
This amendment we are fighting for is to lift the ban on privately
funded abortions paid for with a woman's private funds. That is what
this issue is all about. Proponents of this amendment believe that a
woman would have the ability to have access to a constitutional right
when it comes to her reproductive freedom to use her own funds, her own
health insurance, for access to this procedure.
Congress works hard at times of war, and at times of peace, to
support our American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as
their dependents, our armed services and our armed forces have no
better friend and ally than the Congress. I would argue that is the
case in most situations, but obviously there is a different standard
when it comes to the health of a woman and her reproductive decisions.
This is especially confounding when we all completely agree that our
military members and their families have

[[Page S6910]]

sacrificed a lot, including their lives, for the sake of our Nation and
what we believe. For those women overseas we are asking them to
potentially, and unnecessarily, sacrifice their health under this ban.
Making this type of decision is perhaps the most fundamental, personal,
and difficult decision a woman can face. It is a very personal
decision. It is a decision that should be made between a woman, her
doctor, her family. It is a constitutional right. It is a
constitutional right that should extend to women in the military
overseas, not just within the boundaries of the United States.

I think it is regrettable that somehow we have demeaned women, in
terms of this very difficult decision that they have to make. There has
been example upon example given to us, to my colleague Senator Murray,
about the trying circumstances that this prohibition has placed on
women who serve in the military abroad. I do not think for one moment
anybody should minimize or underestimate the emotional, physical
hardship that this ban has imposed, a ban that prohibits a woman from
using her own private health insurance, her own private funds to make
her own constitutional decision when she happens to be in the military
serving abroad.
The ban on abortions in military hospitals coerce the women who serve
our country into making decisions and choices they would not otherwise
make. As one doctor, a physician from Oregon, recalls his days as a
Navy doctor stationed in the Philippines, he describes the experiences
and hardships that result unnecessarily from this policy. Women have to
travel long distances in order to obtain a legal abortion--not
necessarily a safe abortion, but a legal one. Travel arrangements that
are difficult and expensive. Not to mention the fact that in order to
take leave, they had to justify taking emergency leave to their
commanding officer. Imagine that circumstance. Forcing women to make a
very personal decision so well known.
However, for those women who choose to find an alternative, their
only option is to turn to local, illegal abortions. In other
circumstances, their dignity was offended and often their health was
placed at risk, which was certainly reinforced by the letter that was
sent to both Senator Murray and from now retired, Lt. Gen. Kennedy, the
highest ranking woman in the military. She speaks with great
perspective about the humiliation and the demeaning circumstances in
which many women were placed, not to mention putting their health at
risk.
I hope we can overturn this prohibition in law and grant women in the
military the same constitutional right that is afforded women who live
within the boundaries of the United States of America. No one should
leave their constitutional rights at the proverbial door, but that is
what this ban has done. Our constitutional rights are not territorial
and women who serve their country should be afforded the same rights
that women here in America have. I think this ban is not consistent
with the principles which our Armed Forces are fighting to protect, and
which the American people so overwhelmingly support. I hope we move
forward, and I hope we would understand that women in the military and
their dependents overseas deserve the same rights that women have here
in this country. They have and should have the protections of the
Constitution, no matter where they live.
I hope the Senate will overturn that ban and will support the
amendment offered by Senator Murray and myself.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
amendment offered by Senators Murray and Snowe to the Department of
Defense reauthorization bill to repeal the ban on privately funded
abortions sought by U.S. servicewomen, spouses, and dependents in
military hospitals overseas.
The Supreme Court acknowledges a woman's right to choose as a
constitutionally protected freedom. That right is not suspended simply
because a woman serves in the U.S. military or is married to a U.S.
service member and living overseas.
Women based in the United States and using a U.S.-based military
facility are not prohibited from using their own funds to pay for an
abortion. Having a prohibition on the use of U.S. military facilities
overseas creates a double standard, and discriminates against women
service members stationed overseas.
Banning privately funded abortions on military bases endangers a
woman's health. Service members and their dependents rely on their
military base hospitals for medical care. Private facilities may not be
readily available in other countries.
For example, abortion is illegal in the Philippines. A woman
stationed in that country or the spouse of a service member would need
to fly to the U.S. or to another country--at her own expense--to obtain
an abortion. We don't pay our service members enough to assume they can
simply jet off to Switzerland for medical treatment.
If women do not have access to military facilities or to private
facilities in the country they are stationed, they could endanger their
own health by the delay involved in getting to a facility or by being
forced to seek an abortion by someone other than a licensed physician.
We know from personal experience in this country that when abortion
is illegal, desperate women are often forced into unsafe and life-
threatening situations. If it were your wife, or your daughter, would
you want her in the hands of an untrained abortionist on the back
streets of Manila or Argentina? Or would you prefer that she have
access to medical treatment by a trained physician in a U.S. military
facility?
Not only would these women be risking their health and lives under
normal conditions, but what if these women are facing complicated or
life-threatening pregnancies and are unaware of the seriousness of
their condition?
The ban on privately funded abortions on military bases overseas
affects more than 100,000 active service members, spouses, and
dependents of military personnel.
One such woman this ban impacts is Holly Webb.
Holly Webb is the wife of a staff sergeant in the Air Force stationed
in Misawa, Japan. She tells the following story of her struggle to find
adequate reproductive health care overseas:

My husband was stationed in Misawa Japan, and I moved over
in September 2001 to join him. I was pregnant for the first
time. Prior to my arrival in Japan, I felt like something was
wrong with my pregnancy and at 6 weeks I went to the
emergency room at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida where
we had been stationed.
My doctor there told me that everything seemed OK from what
they could tell. At 16 weeks I was in Japan with my
husband and I started bleeding. I would bleed weekly for 5
days and then the bleeding would subside. I went to the
military hospital at Misawa and they told me I had
placenta previa and that this was a normal side effect and
they sent me home.
At 20 weeks, I started bleeding heavily and went back to
the hospital. I thought that my water had broken but the
hospital told me that it was not an emergency and kept me
overnight. My ob/gyn did not visit me until the next morning.
They told me that the results of my triple screen blood test
showed possible spina bifida which necessitated an
ultrasound. When they did the ultrasound they discovered, as
I had thought, that there was no amniotic fluid surrounding
the fetus.
They were unable to detect whether or not the fetus had
spina bifida. For the next day I was administered IV fluids
and my doctor mentioned that I might be dehydrated. My cervix
remained closed, however, and they told me that there was
still a fetal heartbeat. I was told that I might deliver
spontaneously within weeks or months, but that if the baby
survived, it would have serious health complications due to
the fact that I was at risk for infection as well as because
there was no amniotic fluid surrounding the baby.
When I asked the hospital what my options were they told me
that they could not induce labor or dilate my cervix to
deliver because it would be considered an abortion but that I
was at risk for infection. My doctor told me that in order to
have an abortion, they would have to have my situation
reviewed by a medical board and that she didn't know how long
this would take.
She told me that during her 7 or 8 years of practice in a
military hospital, no matter what the situation was, a
woman's request for an abortion was always denied.
My doctor told me that the only way I could receive
additional medical treatment was if I became ill. I was told
to go home and monitor my temperature and to return when I
had a fever or was in pain. I asked if there was any other
option because I was worried about dying.
At that point, I felt like my choices were either to go
home and wait for a life-threatening infection so that my
labor could be induced, or to go to an outside hospital,
where I didn't speak the language and could not be sure that
the treatment would be safe.

[[Page S6911]]

When I got to the private Japanese hospital, the doctor
told me that there was serious risk for infection, and that
he needed to put me on antibiotics immediately and that if I
did not get antibiotics through IV immediately I would very
likely die. I contacted my grandmother in the U.S. who wired
me $2,000 to pay for the hospital visit.
I checked into the hospital about 4 hours later. They
dilated my cervix over a period of 2\1/2\ days, then induced
labor. I delivered a stillborn baby. The military hospital
told me that this was an elected abortion and not a stillborn
birth.
I am now 17 weeks pregnant again and my only option is to
use the military hospital for my ob/gyn treatment. I have
begged them to let me off the base to go to a private doctor
because of my experience last year. I believe that if my
pregnancy puts my health at risk, I would again be prevented
from making the decisions I need to about my pregnancy.

I hope that we have learned something from Mrs. Webb's story. No
woman should have to go through the obstacles Mrs. Webb faced. If Mrs.
Webb had been living in the U.S. she would have had a choice. She could
have gotten an abortion and avoided the emotional trauma associated
with giving birth to a stillborn, and not had to put her own life at
risk.
Current law does not force any military physician to perform an
abortion against his or her will. All branches have a conscience clause
that permits medical personnel to choose not to perform the procedure.
A doctor can simply say, ``I won't perform such a procedure.'' And then
that woman must just find another doctor.
What we are talking about today is providing equal access to military
medical facilities, wherever they are located, for a legal procedure
paid for with one's own money.
Abortion is legal for American women. These women would pay for the
service with their own funds. This amendment does not involve the use
of federal funding.
We ask these service members to risk their lives in the service of
their country but we are not willing to grant them access to the same
services they would receive if they were stationed in the U.S. This is
especially troubling since September 11 since more Americans have
decided to serve their country.
Service members and their dependents must have access to safe, legal,
and comprehensive reproductive health care.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ask unanimous
consent that my statement appear in the Record.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for her effort
to repeal the unfair ban on privately-funded abortions at overseas U.S.
military facilities. This amendment rights a serious wrong in our
policy, and guarantees that women serving overseas in the armed forces
are able to exercise their constitutional right to choose.
This is an issue of fundamental fairness for the many women who make
daily sacrifices to serve our Nation. It is wrong to deny them the same
medical care available in the United States. Women serving overseas
should be able to depend on military base hospitals for their medical
needs. They should not be forced to choose between lower quality care
in a foreign country, or returning to the United States for the care
they need. Congress has a responsibility to provide the best possible
medical care for those serving our country at home and abroad.
Such care is essential. Our dedicated servicewomen should not be
unfairly exposed to risks of infection, illness, infertility, and even
death, when appropriate care can easily be made available to them.
Servicewomen overseas deserve the same access to all medical services
as their counterparts at home.
This amendment will also ease the heavy financial burden on
servicewomen who make the difficult decision to have an abortion. The
cost of returning to the United States from far-off bases in other
parts of the world often imposes significant financial hardship on
women. Those serving in the United States do not have the same burden,
since nonmilitary hospital facilities are readily available. It is
unfair to ask women serving abroad to suffer this financial penalty.
If the cost of a separate trip to return to the United States is too
high, servicewomen may face significant delay before military
transportation is available. Each week, the health risks faced by these
women become increasingly serious. Long delays in obtaining a military
flight can force women to rely on questionable medical facilities
overseas. As a practical matter, they are being denied their
constitutionally-protected right to choose.
A woman's decision to have an abortion is very difficult and
extremely personal. It is wrong to impose this heavy additional burden
on women who serve our country overseas.
Every woman in the United States has a constitutionally-guaranteed
right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. It is long
past time for Congress to stop denying this right to women serving
abroad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time
will be charged equally. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I think perhaps we are ready to proceed
with a vote on the bill. I do not know if the Senator from Washington
is ready to yield back her remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back her remaining
time?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 1 minute 38
seconds, and the Senator from Kansas has 3 minutes 9 seconds and
counting.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am prepared to yield back my time. The issue has
been well debated. People know the issue. It has been voted on before.
I hope we can proceed with the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from California has given a
very clear reason to vote for this amendment. We have heard no
disagreement that this current policy toward women service members is
not humiliating. We have heard no disagreement that it is not a threat
to privacy, and it is punitive. What this issue is about is whether
women in the service overseas have the same constitutional rights,
protections, and safety in their health care as those women who are in
this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington yields back time.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 691. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Wyden

NAYS--51

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Kerry

The amendment (No. 691) was rejected.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S6912]]

Mr. SANTORUM. 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, parliamentary inquiry: At this point the
bill is open to further amendment, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from
Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Would the Presiding Officer advise the Senate with regard
to the order that currently controls the next amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a limited list of amendments offered.
Mr. WARNER. Could the Presiding Officer recite those amendments in
their standing order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A package of amendments has been cleared by
both managers: A Boxer amendment on contracting subject to a relevant
second degree, a Domenici amendment on border security, a Kerry
amendment on air travel, a Landrieu amendment, and a Grassley amendment
on the industrial enterprise.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, therefore, it would be in order at this
time for any of those amendments to be taken up by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished managers of
the bill to allow a very brief colloquy and a unanimous consent request
by the Senators from Massachusetts and New York, and maybe a couple of
others, we would take no more than 2 minutes for the Senator from
Massachusetts and 3 minutes for the Senator from New York.
Mr. WARNER. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 923

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to
provide help for 3.2 million Americans who are out of work and need
Congress to extend unemployment insurance. Soon the checks will no
longer be in the mail for millions of Americans and New Yorkers who
depend on unemployment benefits to provide for their families at this
time.
In New York alone, over 100,000 people have exhausted their
unemployment insurance benefits and are still without a job. Starting
on May 31, unless we act, more than 80,000 Americans will begin
exhausting their unemployment every single week.
These Americans and New Yorkers need and deserve our action. We knew
we had to take steps at the beginning of this year to extend
unemployment compensation. We need to do it again.
I hope none of us will turn our back on these hard-working,
struggling Americans--people who have mortgages to pay, people who have
car payments to make, people who have children to raise.
In April 2000, there were 176,000 long-term unemployed parents. Last
month, there were 607,000 long-term unemployed parents, an increase of
245 percent.
I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from
further consideration of S. 923, a bill to provide a 6-month extension
of unemployment compensation, including 13 weeks of benefits for the
long-term unemployed--exhaustees--and that the Senate then proceed with
its immediate consideration; that an amendment at the desk to remove
the ``Temporary Enhanced Regular Unemployment Compensation'' provisions
be considered and agreed to; that the bill be read three times, passed,
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of S. 1079, Senator Murkowski's bill to extend the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, provided that
the Senate proceed to its consideration, the bill be read a third time
and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, does this
include the workers who have contributed into the fund and whose
benefits have expired? It has been standard and it has been used in the
Senate and supported by the Senate five different times during the
1990s. Does this include those workers?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call upon the proponent of the
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, if we can't get an answer
to that.
Mr. WARNER. We are about to get an answer, I advise the Senate.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am sorry.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts to
repeat the question.
Mr. KENNEDY. Does this include the more than 1 million workers whose
unemployment benefits have expired and who otherwise would be eligible
to receive unemployment compensation under the proposals that have been
offered here by the Senator from New York and our own proposal, and
that were also included in the proposal that was passed in a bipartisan
way on five different occasions during the 1990s? Does this amendment
include those individuals?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may respond, my bill is a clean 6-
month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 2002.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, further holding the right to object, does
it include any ability to give flexibility to the States so that they
can take care of part-time workers as included in the Democratic
proposal? Does it include those provisions as well?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I repeat that this is a clean 6-month extension of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is a very clear reason the request
of the Senator from New York and the request I will make should be
respected on the floor of the Senate. We are facing a crisis with 8 to
9 million Americans unemployed. More than 1.5 million of those have
seen their unemployment compensation expire. Starting next week, 80,000
workers are going to lose their unemployment compensation.
This is an issue about fairness. On the one hand, we have an
opportunity to return to these workers what they have paid over a
lifetime of work, in many instances, into a trust fund that is in
excess of $20 billion, and the reason it is in surplus is that these
workers have paid into it. Now they are entitled to get that money out.
We have had objection to the request of the Senator from New York.
I am going to give the Senate one more opportunity to see whether
they are going to be responsive, whether this body is going to
understand the issue of fairness. Tomorrow we are going to pass
billions of dollars for the wealthiest individuals in this country. We
are trying to look out after hard-working Americans.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by
the majority leader, following consultation with the Democratic leader,
the Senate consider S. 1079, extension of the unemployment
compensation, considered under the following limitations: General
debate of an hour equally divided, with only one amendment in order,
the amendment by Senator Kennedy, on which there be an hour of debate
equally divided, and no other amendments be in order, and any points of
order be considered waived by this agreement; that upon the disposition
of the amendment and the use and yielding back of all time, the Senate
vote on passage of the bill, without further intervening action or
debate, as amended, if amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object.

[[Page S6913]]

Mr. President, I compliment our colleague from Alaska for trying to
pass a clean, simple extension. This is the same language Senator
Clinton and I passed last January. It is the same language Senator
Fitzgerald passed with us, I believe January 7 or 8. It is the same
language we passed a couple of times for a clean extension. It is not a
doubling of the program. It is not taking a 13-week Federal program and
turning it into a 26-week program. It is not expanding the definition
of uninsured or unemployed to include part-time workers, or to include
a whole variety of people who, frankly, the States don't now cover.
I will tell my colleagues that we are not going to double the
program. We are not going to triple the program. The Senator from
Alaska offered to extend the current program which we have been using
for the last 2 or so years. That is the proposal she will make today
and, I would expect, the proposal she will make tomorrow. That is the
only proposal, in my opinion, that will pass.
People want to try to make political statements. We had a vote on it
in the budget.
I will not yield.
We had a vote on it in the budget. It didn't pass. We had a vote on
it last week on the tax bill. It didn't pass. Some people want to
double or triple this program. It is not going to work.
The Senator from Alaska says she is trying to extend the program so
people won't lose their benefits beginning next month. A clean
extension of the Federal program of 13 weeks can pass, or rather may
pass. But colleagues who want to continue to double or triple the
program jeopardize helping the very people they say they want to help.
I compliment my colleague from Alaska. I hope our colleagues will
give fair consideration and ultimately agree to a simple extension of
the program for 6 months, as proposed by our colleague from Alaska.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Republican leader: Why don't we
then just have the two different alternatives placed before the Senate
and let the Senate express itself on whether it favors our proposal or
favors the Republican proposal?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these proposals
be laid before the Senate and, at a time suitable to the majority and
minority leaders, we have a 10-minute, evenly divided, discussion, and
we let the Senate vote on whether it prefers the proposal of the
Senator from Alaska or the proposal of the Senators from New York and
Massachusetts.
I think that is a fair way to proceed.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I will not yield.
We talk about fairness. Our proposal is basically a similar proposal
to what was passed five times, and which the Senator from Oklahoma
supported in the 1990s. Why don't we give the Senate a chance to vote
on either one of them? That would be fairest to the workers in this
country.
If you are able, then, to persuade Members to vote for yours, so be
it; we will accept it. And if they vote for ours, we would hope you
would accept it. That is what I think is fair.
I ask whether the Senator from New York would think that is fair?
Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. I think the Senator from Massachusetts--
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TALENT). The Senator from Massachusetts is
making a unanimous consent request.
Is there objection?
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts retains the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think this is a pretty clear indication
about where our Republican friends are on this issue. They are denying
us--or denying the Senate--in the final hours prior to the expiration
of coverage for workers--denying us an opportunity to get a vote in the
Senate.
Basically, they say: Either take ours or leave it--take ours or leave
it--and that is being unfair to workers, particularly at a time when
the Republican Party is about to recommend tax breaks of billions of
dollars for the wealthiest individuals in this country, and they refuse
to give fairness to workers in this country.
That is what is going on here. Workers in this country understand
what is happening here in the Senate. It is a clear indication of the
priorities: Just open up the Federal Treasury. Give the wealthiest the
highest amount of tax breaks and give short shrift to hard-working
Americans.
The Republican leader refuses to permit the Senate of the United
States, in a time set by our leaders, to make a judgment on which they
would prefer. The workers in the United States are clearly getting
short-shrifted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just for the information of our
colleagues, to make sure we make the record straight, my very good
friend from the great State of Massachusetts has mentioned: Let people
have a vote.
Well, we have not had one vote--we have had three votes this year. We
had a vote on the appropriations bill earlier this year. We had a vote
on the budget. We had a vote on the tax bill.
They did not win. They tried to double the program two or three
times, unsuccessfully, and so they are now trying again.
Frankly, we have a DOD authorization bill, we have a tax/economic
growth package, we have a debt limit extension, and we need to pass UI.
We have a lot of work to do in the next few hours.

Some of us--let me rephrase that--this Senator is going to do what I
can to make sure we are not going to double or triple this program. We
have already had three votes on the proposal to double it. We are not
going to do that. I don't know how many votes people think they need.
They may think they are winning on the votes, but they are not winning
on the issue. I think we may have consent to pass a clean extension. It
takes unanimous consent. I tell my colleagues on the other side, who
are playing this game, this will not work legislatively. And it may
jeopardize a clean extension.
So I would be very cautious, especially when you get late in the
game, and close before a break, and people want to go home, I would not
take for granted that you can pass a clean extension--but I compliment
my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for trying to do so. I
believe we can do so.
We have had three votes already, and it did not win. It will not win
on the fourth vote. So I urge my colleagues: The way to do this is
let's pass a clean extension, the same extension that my colleague from
New York and I passed one or two times on the floor of the Senate.
Let's do that again, and let's help the people who need the help.
If people play other games, they jeopardize even a clean extension. I
think people should be on notice of that not everybody might want a
clean extension. So the effort to double the program may mean that some
people will get zero. Instead of getting 13 weeks, they might get zero
because of this effort to double the program.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wanted to ask my friend from Oklahoma
to yield to me, but he yielded the floor.
The dilemma, of course, is one that is very difficult for us to
confront. I appreciate greatly the wonderful cooperation that I
received in working out the extension of unemployment compensation for
those who needed to complete their 13 weeks who were unemployed, and
for those who were going onto unemployment for the first time.
Our problem is--and this is where I think the nub of our difference
is--we have this growing number of literally millions of people who
have exhausted their benefits and are looking for work and cannot find
it.
I understand and I respect the argument from the other side, although
I disagree that the tax package that is about to be passed today or
tomorrow is going to generate jobs and economic growth. I do not think
it will. I think it will, in fact, make our economic situation worse
and continue to put people out of work. But we will get a chance to
find out who is right about that.
But, unfortunately, there are a lot of innocent people caught in the
middle

[[Page S6914]]

of this debate, people who are not sitting here on the floor of the
Senate, people who are not going to get a big tax break, people who are
out of work and cannot find a job in this economy.
At some point we have to take responsibility for these people. I
appreciate the author on the other side. And I appreciate the good work
of the Senator from Alaska to have a straight extension, but we did not
have a vote on that specifically. We had votes attached to other
items--appropriations, tax cuts, et cetera. At some point, we are going
to have to face the reality that this economy is losing private sector
jobs at the fastest rate in our history. At some point, we have to take
responsibility for these people.
We reformed welfare, which I supported. We said to people, go out and
get a job; support yourself and your children because we expected that
we would have a good economy, because we would have good, sensible,
responsible, fiscally sound policies at the Federal level that would,
hand in hand, help the private sector create those jobs. That is not
happening, for a lot of reasons. The economy continues to get worse. We
have lost half a million jobs in the last 3 months alone.
So I simply ask my friends, my colleagues on the other side: If not
now, when? When do we take responsibility, as previous
administrations--Republican and Democrat--previous Congresses--
Republican and Democrat--did in previous recessions? At some point, we
cannot any longer pretend that the economy is going to generate the
jobs that all of those unemployed people who have no means of support
are desperate to have.
So I hope we will get to that point sooner than later because I have
thousands and thousands of these people--some of whom have been out of
work since 9/11, 2001--and I believe we should help them. And it is
good for the economy. We ought to take that action as soon as possible.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAPO). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent
request.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be recognized in order to
offer her amendment regarding contracting. I further ask that
immediately following the reporting by the clerk, the Senator from
Virginia, Mr. Warner, be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment
regarding the same subject; provided further that there be 30 minutes
under the control of Senator Boxer and 15 minutes under the control of
Senator Warner. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the
debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Warner
amendment, to be immediately followed by a vote in relation to the
Boxer amendment, with no amendments in order to either amendment prior
to the votes.
Before the Chair rules, I think we can make the second vote a 10-
minute vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have no
objection. I think that would be appropriate. I also ask that there be
recorded votes on both the Boxer and Warner amendments; further, that
between the two votes, there be 5 minutes equally divided under the
control of Senator Boxer and Senator Warner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the two votes, both the
Warner amendment and the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order at this time
to simply order the yeas and nays on the two amendments, which will be
done if there is no objection.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Chair repeat that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order at this time
to request the yeas and nays on the amendments despite the fact neither
has been offered.
Mr. WARNER. I request the yeas and nays on the Warner amendment and
the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 825

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid and Senator Warner
for working out this arrangement whereby we can have a definite vote on
two alternatives that deal with, in my opinion, competitive bidding--
that is what we are talking about--in the rebuilding of Iraq.
I send my amendment to the desk, and I ask that the amendment be
read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 825:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) On March 8, 2003, the Army Corps of Engineers awarded a
sole-source Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract
for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry.
(2) The Department of Defense has characterized this
contract as a short-term ``bridge'' contract that will be
used for an interim period until a contract can be awarded on
a competitive basis.
(3) However, the estimated date of completion for this
contract is March 2005 and the value is estimated by the
Department of Defense to be $57 billion.
(4) The Department of Defense has established a goal of
completing the follow-on competition and having a fully
competitive contract in place by August 31, 2003. This goal
was stated in a letter dated May 2, 2003.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) The taxpayers deserve fairness.
(2) Businesses deserve fairness.
(3) The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 establishes
a preference for the award of competitive contracts.
(4) The Department of Defense should meet its goal of
having a fully competitive contract in place by August 31,
2003 and performing work needed for the reconstruction of the
Iraqi oil industry after such date under that competitive
contract.
(c) Report to Congress.--If the Department of Defense fails
to meet its own stated goal of having a fully competitive
contract in place by August 31, 2003, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit a report to Congress by September 30,
2003, detailing the reasons for allowing this sole source
contract to continue.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at this time, does my friend want to bring
his second-degree amendment to the desk or, rather, his substitute?

Amendment No. 826

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment which is
in the first degree to protect the Senator from California, unless she
would like to have it as a second-degree amendment. We can do that.
Mrs. BOXER. I prefer to have it as a first-degree amendment. It will
be much better, and I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 826.

Mr. WARNER. 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:

SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COMPETITIVE AWARD OF
CONTRACTS FOR IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION.

It is the sense of the Senate that the Department of
Defense should fully comply with the Competition in
Contracting Act (10 U.S.C. 2304 et seq.) for any contract
awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq and should
conduct a full and open competition for performing work
needed for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry as
soon as practicable.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will later advise the Senate with regard
to the content of this amendment. For the moment, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the spirit of my amendment is very clear.
I am very resolute about it. I appreciate the fact we are going to have
a vote on the Warner first-degree amendment and the Boxer amendment.
All the years I was in the House of Representatives, part of the time
I

[[Page S6915]]

served on the Armed Services Committee. I am pleased to see my friend
from Illinois here because together during the years I served on the
Armed Services Committee, we took on the issue of procurement reform. I
am very pleased to say that as a result of the work that many of us
did, we were able to--and it was Berkley Bedell, if my colleague
remembers; there were a number of us--we were able to make sure there
was competition at the Pentagon.
Competition is the name of the game. It is supposed to be the name of
the game in America. When I see any agency turning away from
competitive bidding, unless there is a good reason to do so--and I
might say, if it is an emergency, this is a good reason, but beyond
that, there is no reason to award a contract without going to bid,
without considering competitive bids.
What happens--and I feel really deeply about this--when the taxpayers
of this country and the businesses of this country that are playing by
the rules see such a contract given to one special company, it is very
bad, in my opinion, for our country. It is very bad for our fighting
men and women who risk their life and limb.
Let me tell you what I mean. As a result of a sole-source contract
that was given to a subsidiary of Halliburton, these are some of the
headlines that appeared across the country. I will let my colleagues
judge, and I will let the people judge whether these kinds of headlines
are good for our country and good for the morale of our troops.
Here is one from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Secret Halliburton deal endangers U.S. credibility.

That is May 8, 2003, in a southern paper.
Here is one from the Montreal Gazette:

Halliburton contract bigger than reported; Linked to
Cheney; Role has grown beyond fighting Iraq oil fires.

This one was in the Houston Chronicle on May 8, 2003:

Halliburton contract stokes new controversy.

Here is one from the L.A. Times, May 8:

Shadow over the oilfields; The administration's no-bid
contract with Halliburton subsidiary gives the impression of
a grab at Iraqi resources for American business.

Another headline in the L.A. Times on April 11:

More flack on Halliburton deal; The revelation that the
Pentagon contract is worth up to $7 billion is more fuel for
critics who say it should have been open to bidding.

And USA Today, April 11:

Halliburton oilfield deal raises questions.

The point is, we should do everything we can for the taxpayers of
this country to make them feel comfortable that when there is work at
home or abroad, every business in this country gets a chance to compete
for the work. Why? Because we all know if there is no competition, the
price could soar.
I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to my amendment Senator
Lieberman, Senator Clinton, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Lautenberg, and
Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I am proud to have their support. There can be no
stronger advocate of the strongest possible military than Senators
Lieberman and Graham. We know that. We have seen them here. They are
supporters because they understand, as I do, that it weakens our
country when we do these kinds of deals.
The amendment that my friend has offered is fine; there is nothing
wrong with it, but it does not get to the heart of this particular
contract. It is general, whereas the amendment I have offered--and, by
the way, it is just a sense of the Senate. It is nice. But what I have
offered says that if the Secretary of Defense finds that the Army Corps
has not, in fact, put the rest of this contract out for bid by the date
of September 30--and they have promised to do so by August 31--then
they have to tell us why they did not bid out this contract.
I am going to put up a chart that shows a copy of the congressional
notification of this contract. It looks scary when one sees it because
there is lots in it, but I have highlighted in yellow the things my
colleagues ought to know, because maybe they do not know this.
I want to compliment the minority ranking member of the Committee on
Government Reform in the House, Henry Waxman, for doing so much of the
research.
I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet called the Bush
Administration's Contracts with Halliburton, put out by the minority
staff of the Committee on Government Reform, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Fact Sheet: The Bush Administration's Contracts With Halliburton

The Bush Administration has awarded several extremely large
contracts and task orders to Halliburton. Of particular
concern are the contracts awarded to a Halliburton
subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root. GAO reports and other
investigations have documented a history of Brown & Root
overcharging the taxpayer. Yet despite this history, the
Administration has awarded Brown & Root lucrative government
contracts--including a recent contract for oil-related work
in Iraq that is worth up to $7 billion and that was awarded
secretly and without any competition. The Administration has
also awarded contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars
for work in Iraq to a select group of U.S. companies, with
only limited competition.
Halliburton has a unique relationship to this
Administration. When Dick Cheney left his position as
Halliburton's CEO in 2000 to run for Vice President, he
reportedly received company stock worth over $33 million.\1\
He continues to receive deferred compensation payments of
over $160,000 a year from Halliburton.\2\

history of brown & root problems

GAO has found serious problems with contract work that
Brown & Root did for the Army in the Balkans. In 1997, it
found that the Army ``was unable to ensure that the
contractor adequately controlled costs.'' \3\ For example,
Brown & Root was charging the Army $86 to fly in $14 sheets
of plywood from the United States. The Army official in
charge was ``shocked'' when he found that out.\4\
In 2000, GAO found more evidence that Brown & Root was
inflating the government's costs--and its profits--by, for
example, overstaffing work crews and providing more goods and
services than necessary.\5\
Brown & Root was the subject of a criminal investigation
for overbilling the government on another contract. According
to a former employee, the company routinely and
systematically inflated contract prices it submitted to the
government for work at the former Fort Ord military base in
California.\6\ Brown & Root paid $2 million to settle that
case in 2002.\7\
Brown & Root's parent company, Halliburton, has its own
problems. The SEC is investigating accounting practices of
the company dating back to the Vice President's tenure at its
CEO.\8\ The company recently restated its earnings for the
4th quarter of 2002.\9\ And Halliburton has admitted paying
$2.4 million in bribes to a Nigerian official in an attempt
to gain favorable tax treatment in the country.\10\

defense department contracts with brown & root

Despite this troubled history, the Administration has
awarded Brown & Root three very lucrative Defense contracts.
In 2001, Brown & Root won a $300-million contract to provide
support services to the Navy--despite a bid protest by a
rival bidder that GAO upheld.\11\ Later that year, it won a
ten-year contract with no cost ceiling to provide support
services to the Army.\12\ Under these contracts, Brown & Root
has been asked to do work in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan and
to build prison cells for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba--even though much of this work could be done more
cheaply using Army and navy personnel.\13\
In March 2003, the Administration awarded Brown & Root a
contract to repair and operate Iraq's oil infrastructure.
Normally, federal contracting rules require public notice and
full and open competition. But the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers awarded the contract secretly and without any
competition.
The Administration has been reluctant to provide complete,
or even basic, information about the contract. While the
contract was signed March 8, it was not disclosed publicly
until March 24. Moreover, the Corps did not reveal until
April 8, in response to a letter from Rep. Waxman, that the
contract had a potential value of up to $7 billion.\14\ And
it was not until May 2, in response to another request from
Rep. Waxman, that the Corps disclosed that the scope of the
contract was significantly broader than previously provided
information had suggested.\15\
Based on what the Corps has revealed to date, the contract
is worth up to $7 billion, with the potential profit for
Brown & Root worth up to $490 million. The Corps has said the
actual value of the contract may end up being less than that
(according to the Corps, it may be ``only'' around $600
million). Nonetheless, the fact that the Corps would issue
such a large contract without competition is highly unusual.
Moreover, the contract is far broader than had been
initially suggested. Information provided by the Corps and
Halliburton had indicated that the contract was for work
putting out oil well fires and repairing damage. Halliburton
issued a press release on

[[Page S6916]]

March 24 entitled ``KBR Implements Plan for Extinguishing Oil
Well Fires in Iraq,'' which described the contract work as
``assessing and extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq and
evaluating and repairing, as directed by the U.S. government,
the country's petroleum infrastructure.'' \16\ The Corps also
released information stating that it was in charge of
``implementation of plans to extinguish oil well fires and to
assess oil facility damage in Iraq'' and that it would be
contracting with Brown & Root to perform these functions.\17\
On May 2, however, the Corps revealed that the contract
also includes ``operation of facilities'' and ``distribution
of products.'' It thus appears that Brown & Root may be asked
to operate Iraqi oil facilities and distribute oil products.
This raises significant questions about the Administration's
intentions regarding Iraqi oil. The Administration has
previously drawn a bright line on Iraqi oil: according to
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, ``[t]he oil fields
belong to the people of Iraq, the government of Iraq, all of
Iraq.''\18\ Those sentiments were echoed by Secretary of
State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
among others.\19\ It now appears that Halliburton or another
similar company--and not the Iraqi people--may be making
fundamental decisions about how much oil should be produced
and who should produce it.
The Corps has also claimed that the contract is only for
short-term emergency work. But the Corps revealed in their
April 8 letter that the contract has a two-year term. The
Corps also indicated that they are planning to replace the
contract with a new, competitively bid contract. In their May
2 letter, however, the Corps disclosed that the Halliburton
contract will be in place until at least late August 2003,
and possibility until January 2004.
According to the May 2 letter from the Corps, the new,
longer-term contract the Corps is planning to issue will
again involve operating facilities and distributing oil. This
raises further questions about how much say the Iraqi people
will have in making decisions about the country's natural
resources.
The Corps contract is ``cost plus.'' This means that the
contractor receives its costs plus an additional percentage
of those costs as its profit. These kinds of contracts are
particularly susceptible to abuse as they give the contractor
an incentive to pad its profits by increasing its costs. As
noted above, Brown & Root has a record of overcharging the
taxpayer on cost-plus contracts.

other iraq contracts

Halliburton is not the only company to benefit from secret,
noncompetitive contracts. The U.S. agency for International
Development hand-picked U.S. companies to bid secretly on
contracts for work in Iraq. Like the Army Corps contract, the
AID contracts for Iraqi reconstruction have been handled with
unusual secrecy. AID secretly hand-picked a select few
domestic companies to bid on nine contracts for services
including airport administration, education, public health,
and personnel support. The eight contracts that have been
awarded are together worth up to $1 billion. And they may be
worth much more, depending on whether and how they are
renewed.
Halliburton was one of five companies asked by AID to bid
on a $680 million contract to rebuild Iraq. Like Halliburton,
the other companies bidding--including Parsons, Fluor, and
the eventual winner, Bechtel--are heavy Republican
contributors. Between them, these companies reportedly
contributed $3.6 million over the past two election cycles,
two-thirds of which went to Republicans.\20\ After the
controversy over the Army Corps contract, Halliburton
announced that it would not bid on the AID contract. It has
indicated it may instead opt for a still lucrative but lower-
profile subcontracting role.
AID has not identified all of the companies that were
selected to bid on its contracts and it has given shifting
and at times contradictory explanations of why it did not use
full and open competition.
For example, AID has said that it limited the eligible
companies to those with a security clearance. But it turns
out that some of the companies that were asked to bid did not
actually have security clearances. In fact, in one case, AID
found out after choosing a contractor that the contractor did
not have a clearance.\21\ AID awarded the contract to the
contractor anyway.\22\
AID has also said that it is required by federal law to use
U.S. companies. However, AID can waive this requirement. In
fact, it did so with respect to subcontractors on the Iraq
contracts. But AID declined to invite any non-U.S. firms to
bid on the actual contracts.

More information about the Administration's contracts with
Halliburton and other companies can be found at

www.reform.house.gov/min/inves_admin/admin_contracts.htm
.

endnotes

\1\ Cheney Gets $33 Million Exit Package from Dallas-Based
Energy Services Firm, Dallas Morning News (Aug. 17, 2000).
\2\ White House, Vice President Dick Cheney and Mrs. Cheney
Release 2002 Income Tax Return (Apr. 11, 2003).
\3\ General Accounting Office, Contingency Operations:
Opportunities to Improve the Logistics Civil Augmentation
Program (Feb. 1997) (GAO/NSIAD-97-63).
\4\ Id.
\5\ General Accounting Office, Contingency Operations: Army
Should Do more to Control Contract Cost in the Balkans (Sept.
2000) (GAO/NSIAD-00-225).
\6\ Complaint for Damages under False Claims Act and Demand
for Grand Jury at 7, U.S. ex rel. Dammen Grant Campbell v.
Brown & Root Service Corp. (E.D. Cal.) (No. CIV-97-
1541WBSPAN).
\7\ Department of Defense, Criminal Investigative Service,
Press Release (Feb. 7, 2002).
\8\ Halliburton, Halliburton Reports SEC Investigation of
Accounting Practice (May 28, 2002); Halliburton, Halliburton
Updates SEC Status (Dec. 19, 2002).
\9\ Halliburton, Halliburton 2002 Fourth Quarter Adjustments
(Mar. 27, 2003).
\10\ Securities and Exchange Commission, Halliburton Company
Form 10-Q (Mar. 31, 2003).
\11\ The rival bidder also claimed that Brown & Root had an
unfair advantage because its proposed program manager was an
active-duty Navy officer in the command that conducted the
acquisition. GAO concluded that there was ``no evidence that
any impropriety or unfair competitive advantage resulted''
from the apparent conflict of interest. General Accounting
Office, Matter of Perini/Jones Joint Venture (Nov. 1, 2000)
(GAO Decision B-285906).
\12\ In Tough Times, a Company Finds Profits in War, New York
Times (July 13, 2002).
\13\ Id.
\14\ See Letter from Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers to Rep. Henry
A. Waxman (Apr. 8, 2003).
\15\ See Letter from Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers to Rep. Henry
A. Waxman (May 2, 2003).
\16\ Halliburton, KBR Implements Plan for Extinguishing Oil
Well Fires in Iraq (Mar. 24, 2003).
\17\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Corps of Engineers'
Role in Combatting Iraqi Oil Fires (undated).
\18\ White House, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer (Feb. 6,
2003).
\19\ Powell Says U.S. Not after Iraqi Oil, Los Angeles Times
(Jan. 23, 2003); NewsHour, PBS (Feb. 20, 2003).
\20\ Center for Responsive Politics, Rebuilding Iraq: The
Contractors (undated) (online at <a href='http://www.opensecrets.org/news/
rebuilding_iraq/index.asp'>www.opensecrets.org/news/
rebuilding_iraq/index.asp</a>).
\21\ Letter from Bruce N. Crandlemire, Office of Inspector
General, U.S. Agency for International Development, to
Timothy T. Beans, U.S. Agency for International Development
(Apr. 25, 2003).
\22\ Id.

Mrs. BOXER. When we look at this congressional notification, which
was very late in getting there because there were already five task
orders under this Halliburton contract, finally they gave this
information over: They have obligated first $17 million, then $6.7
million, $22 million, $5 million, and $24 million, with no competitive
bidding.
Originally it was, oh, they have to put out the oil fires. Okay. We
understand that. But what about the rest? The estimated face value of
this contract is $7 billion. What do we spend on all of our afterschool
programs, I say to my colleagues, in 1 year? A billion dollars. How
many kids are waiting in line to get into that program? Millions.
We cannot afford it, but we can afford to give a sole-source $7
billion to one company named Halliburton. We all know the power of that
company.
I want my colleagues to see I am not making this up when I say this
was a sole-source contract. Estimated face value, $7 billion. Bids
solicited, sole-source procurement; bids received, one. What a happy
day for Halliburton that was.
The subsidiary of Halliburton is Brown & Root. That is the
corporation that is the subsidiary of Halliburton that received this
contract. One might say, well, maybe this is such a great company,
maybe there is a reason why we would go sole source with this company.
Well, GAO has found serious problems with contract work that Brown &
Root did for the Army in the Balkans. In 1997, GAO found that the Army
was unable to ensure that the contractor adequately controlled costs.
For example, Brown & Root was charging the Army $86 to fly in $14
sheets of plywood from the United States of America. The Army official
in charge was shocked when he found out.
In 2000, GAO found more evidence that Brown & Root was inflating the
Government's costs and its products by, for example, overstaffing work
crews and providing more goods and services than necessary. And how
about this: Brown & Root was the subject of a criminal investigation
for overbilling the Government on another contract. According to a
former employee, the company routinely and systematically inflated
contract prices it submitted to the Government for work it performed on
a military base in California, and Brown & Root paid $2 million to
settle that case.
Brown & Root's parent company Halliburton has its own problems. The
SEC is investigating accounting practices of the company. The company
recently restated its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2002 and
Halliburton has admitted paying $2.4 million in bribes to a Nigerian
official in an attempt to gain favorable tax treatment in the country.
So I say to my colleagues, why on Earth would the Army Corps give
this company this incredible sole-source contract to the tune of $7
billion?
We have had a series of answers to that question. At first we were
told this was just for emergencies. Remember those newspaper articles,
just for

[[Page S6917]]

emergencies? Now we are finding out it goes well beyond emergencies.
In March 2003, the administration awarded Brown & Root a contract to
repair and operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. The administration has
been reluctant to provide complete or even basic information about the
contract. Remember, the contract was awarded March 8 but it was not
publicly disclosed until March 24. The Corps did not reveal until April
8, in response to a letter from Representative Waxman, that the
contract had a potential value of up to $7 billion.
It was not until May 2, in response to another request from
Representative Waxman, the Corps disclosed the scope of the contract
was significantly broader than previously provided information had
suggested.
We have a chance to end this embarrassment today. If we have a strong
vote on the Boxer-Lieberman-Lautenberg-Durbin-Graham of Florida-Clinton
amendment--and I hope many other colleagues will join. I hope many on
the other side will join--what are we saying? We are saying if they do
not correct the problem as they have stated they would do--and they
have stated they would in fact end this sole-source contract and they
would go out for bid by the end of August--all we are saying is send us
a report, tell us the reason why you are carrying on.
Under Senator Warner's amendment, which I have no objection to at
all, and I am going to vote for it, let's hear what it says. It says it
is the sense of the Senate--which, by the way, has no force of law--
that the DOD should fully comply with the Competition in Contracting
Act for any contract awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq and
should conduct a full and open competition for performing work needed
for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry as soon as
practicable.
I am not a lawyer, but I can tell my colleagues when we see the words
``as soon as practicable,'' get nervous.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. BOXER. I would be so happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I am a lawyer, and those are known as weasel words
because if that phrase can be included, it has no meaning. The question
is whether we are going to hold the Department of Defense accountable.
I ask the Senator from California this question: The sense-of-the-
Senate resolution which she offers not only raises a question of
whether this is evidence of profiteering, evidence of a sweetheart
arrangement, evidence of the kind of sole-source agreement that frankly
is not in the best interest of either American taxpayers or America's
national defense, is she specific in the accountability she is holding
the Department of Defense to in terms of when they will report as
opposed to as soon as practicable?
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. My particular amendment that will be voted on
is more than a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate plus it
is a requirement that if the Department of Defense does not meet its
own stated goal of having a fully competitive contract in place by
August 31, 2003, to replace this boondoggle, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit a report to Congress by September 30, 2003, detailing the
reasons for allowing this sole-source contract to continue.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Chair if the Senator would yield for this
question. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. In this situation, has the Department of Defense made any
statements that they are planning on making some sort of a revision to
this $7 billion Halliburton contract?
Mrs. BOXER. That is correct, they have. In a letter to Representative
Waxman, who has kind of uncovered this entire matter--if it was not for
him, this thing might be buried somewhere in somebody's drawer--they
said, we are now completing--this is the Department of the Army: We are
now completing the competitive acquisition strategy and plan, preparing
the statement of work, and preparing the solicitation that will request
proposals to perform work. The solicitation will be advertised on the
Federal Business Opportunities Web site by late spring or early summer
and the estimate for the award of the contract is approximately the end
of August.
So they have given a date by which they say they will be able to take
the rest of this contract and bid it out.
By the way, there is nothing to say that the Halliburton subsidiary,
Brown & Root, can't compete on the rest of the contract when it goes
out. It ought to be open.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will further yield for a question, what
the Senator from California is asking the Senate to do, is hold the
Department of Defense to their own promise to the Congress that they
will put an end to this $7 billion Halliburton sole-source contract and
actually open this up to bidding. The Senator is only asking Congress
to hold the Department of Defense accountable for written promises they
have already made to Congress.
Mrs. BOXER. That is all I am doing.
I say to my friend, I can tell from the sound of his voice, he is a
little incredulous that this has not been accepted by the other side.
This is such a simple, straightforward commonsense kind of approach.
We are saying that this was not right. The Army Corps has said they
will fix it. They have given us a date; they will fix it. All we are
saying is, if you do not, we want to hold you accountable. We want a
report.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, in most
instances, when you are considering this kind of arrangement--here we
have a major company, sole-source contract for $7 billion, without
anyone else competing with them. The question it raises is whether it
is improper or has an appearance of impropriety.
I say on its face there is an appearance of impropriety, that one
company, without competitive bidding, would end up with a $7 billion
contract. Is the Senator from California saying that if Halliburton is
that good, that this is the only company in America that can possibly
bid on it, Halliburton will have its chance?
The Department of Defense is going to say to all the companies in
America that might provide the services, you have your chance to
compete with Halliburton. If it is that good, Halliburton can win this
contract fair and square on the up and up and eliminate any appearance
of impropriety. Is that what the Senator from California is trying to
achieve?
Mrs. BOXER. I am trying to say what you stated. If Halliburton or
subsidiaries wish to do more work in Iraq, let them stand shoulder to
shoulder, toe to toe with every other company in this country.
I have heard from so many businesspeople who are outraged at this.
That is why the amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator
Lautenberg and you and others is a probusiness amendment; it is a
protaxpayer amendment and a proconsumer amendment.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question? This could be
described as ``business unusual.''
Mrs. BOXER. I think my friend, a very successful businessman, has put
his finger on it: It is business unusual.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. Often we say business as usual; this is business
as unusual.
Does the Senator, in the resolution proposed, talk about terms or
performance? Is it not worth noting if this contract were done, if not
in the dark of night, certainly at dusk--we do not know the terms--that
not only means price could be many times over, there are no performance
standards, either, which is pretty darn unusual?
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, it is very unusual. When we ask them,
they say: We are just going to use this contract to put out the fires.

Then it turned out, thank God, there were not that many fires; and we
thought, OK, fine, it was a sole source.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. It turned out to be a fire sale.
Mrs. BOXER. Another excellent point.
I am happy my friend from New Jersey is back. I was losing my sense
of humor. I am glad he is back.
This chart shows the congressional notification of this contract. The
light of day never came to this until way after it was issued. Now we
finally got it after the fifth task order. Estimated value, $7 billion.
They called it a bridge contract, by the way, when they started out,
and they started to let out these task orders.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

[[Page S6918]]

Does it say the maximum amount the Government could spend?
Mrs. BOXER. The estimated face value.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. So if $7 billion became $10 billion--is there any
limitation?
Mrs. BOXER. Legally, as I look at it, it says estimated face value.
Here it says ``bids received: One.''
``Bids solicited, sole source.''
This is stunning.
I ask the President how much time remains on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes twenty seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Jersey and retain
the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend and colleague from California. I
support Senator Boxer's amendment regarding the questionable--and it is
questionable; friends here know I spent a lot of my time, most of my
life, in business, more than I have in the Senate. No-bid contracts are
practically nonexistent when they have significant value to either the
company, the government, or otherwise.
The contract given to Halliburton in early March regarding Iraq's oil
infrastructure, this no-bid contract, has raised serious concern. There
is good cause. There is no accusation here. It is just a question of
what is a good, sensible business practice.
I ask every Senator in this body to take a look and ask if they would
give out a contract to cut the lawn at their house or cut down trees or
paint the house without getting some formal response as to what it
might cost. We have a strange happening: no-bid contract. It could be
as much as $7 billion, with no ceiling on it. That is the interesting
aspect. For whatever reason, the administration has attempted to
conceal the scope and the terms of the contract. This attempt to hide
information has generated plenty of suspicion.
Initially, it was announced that the contract with Halliburton was
for the specific and limited purpose of extinguishing Iraqi oil fires.
That could be described as emergency and repairing equipment. The
initial value of the contract, the initial value, was $50 million. We
are now talking about approximately $7 billion, give or take $2 billion
or $3 billion--mostly take; I guarantee there is no give, in the hope
that no one would ask any questions.
This was a no-bid contract given to a company that has strong ties to
the administration. Then the details began to change. Six weeks after
the contract was originally disclosed, the Army admitted that the
contract was not only for putting out the fires and making some
repairs--repairs, $7 billion?--suddenly the Army Corps revealed that
the contract called for Halliburton to operate the oil wells and
distribute Iraqi oil. That is a huge difference.

There is the issue of the no-bid process. Perhaps we ought to have a
Senate resolution to see how our friends would vote if we said let's go
to all no-bid contracts for Government purchases. Sound like a good
idea? I doubt it.
Asked why the Halliburton contract was awarded in a no-bid fashion,
the Army Corps asserted that there was no time for a competitive
process and this contract would be of short duration. You can spend $7
billion in a hurry, I guess.
We now learn the contract could be worth up to $7 billion. For the
past 6 weeks, each time the Army Corps has been questioned about the
contract, we hear a different story.
I recently have written a letter to Senator Collins and Senator
Lieberman, the chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental
Affairs Committee of which I sit, asking them to hold a hearing to
investigate this contract. I believe the hearing will allow us to
finally determine the true scope of this contract and why the
administration chose not to have a bidding process and why the
information was withheld.
Something here is not right. Not only do we need to investigate the
process under which this contract was awarded, but we also need to put
a competitive contracting process in place for this work in Iraq. We
need to ensure for the American people that the Government is not
engaged in sweetheart deals for its corporate friends.

The amendment of Senator Boxer encourages that the current no-bid
Halliburton contract be replaced shortly through a competitive process,
and I congratulate the Senator from California for that thought. That
is the way it ought to work.
The reconstruction of Iraq, particularly the rebuilding of the Iraqi
oil industry, is an extremely sensitive endeavor. I believe it is
vitally important for the Pentagon to divulge information as to how it
awards contracts in a public and systematic fashion. The Halliburton
contract and the cloak of secrecy around it must not set a precedent
for future contracts in the reconstruction process.
In this time of budget difficulties, with our inability to finance
programs that have been an important part of the structure of the
United States--whether it is education, whether it is prescription
drugs or otherwise--for us to go ahead and spend $7 billion without
knowing how, why, and when this work is going to be performed is an
outrage. I don't think the American public ought to stand still for it.
I hope my colleagues on the other side will agree. Many of them are
good business-people who have been out there and understand what has
been appropriate process in business.
I urge my colleagues to support the Boxer amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment. I will send the modification to the desk.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I don't know whether I
will object. I would like a chance to look at it. I just got a chance
to look at it a minute ago. So if you could put the unanimous consent
off for a couple of minutes so I can take a look at it?
Mr. WARNER. Fine. Let me just explain to the Senator what it is. The
Senator, in the course of her comments, more or less criticized the
amendment by the Senator from Virginia as not having in it the full
force and effect of law. So, acting upon the suggestion of the good
Senator from California, I have now provided that this amendment will
have the full force of law. Let me read it to you.
Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator wants to give me 2 minutes, I am just
looking at it now. You can read it to me or I can get a copy and read
it myself. Either way is fine. I do not have it in front of me.
Mr. WARNER. Let me read it.

The Department of Defense shall fully comply with the
Competition in Contracting Act (10 U.S.C. 2304 et seq) for
any contracts awarded for reconstruction activity in Iraq and
shall conduct a full and open competition for performing work
needed for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry. . .
.''

It is straightforward.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I am
just going to chat with my friend for a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed as
if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________