Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 2003

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. President, I thank the distinguished leader. Perhaps in the course of the debate this morning we can reach that agreement quickly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 707, as Modified

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.

It is cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 787, As Modified

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed.

Amendment No. 788, As Modified

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.

Mr. President, it is cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 808

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.

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. 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.

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.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an amendment to support Army research and development for portable mobile emergency broadband systems.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an amendment which would add funds for research and development of boron energy cell technology.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cochran and others, I offer an amendment which makes available funds for the Arrow ballistic missile defense system.

Mr. President, likewise, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 811

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.

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 737

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 812

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.

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.

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 816

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.

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.

Mr. President, the matter is cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 819

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I offer an amendment which supports the network centric operations at minority colleges and universities.

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.

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.

We have no objection. This has been cleared on both sides.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

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.

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 824

There has been a clearance on this side.

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. President, it has been cleared on this side. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed.

Yes.

May I suggest we put in a quorum call.

The Senator from Virginia suggests the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Yes, that is acceptable.

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.

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.

I say to my distinguished colleague, there is a Boxer amendment regarding contracting, subject to a relevant second degree.

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.

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.

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.

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

Mr. President, is the Murray amendment called up?

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.

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----

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.

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.

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

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?

Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my colleague from Alabama.

On your time, Mr. President.

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. President, we have no objection to this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 805

I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Sarbanes that would provide for the conveyance of 33 acres of land in Fort Ritchie,

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.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

There is no objection.

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. 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.

I am not sure I can hear the Chair.

We do.

It has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 806

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.

No objection on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 807

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.

Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment.

There is no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 723, As Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 809

Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 810

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 760

Mr. President, there is no objection on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. President, we support the Warner amendment.

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.

We have no objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Th motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 813

Mr. President, we support the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 814

Mr. President, we have no objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 815

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.

We have no objection to the amendment on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 817

We have no objection on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 818

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.

Mr. President, we support the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 789, As Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 820

We have no objection to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 821

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 727

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 822

There is no objection to the amendment on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 823

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.

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.

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.

I apologize.

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.

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.

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.