Economic Security Act of 2003

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William Buhrow, a legislative fellow in the office of Senator George Allen, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1050.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Hamm, of the staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff members of the Committee on Armed Services, majority and minority, appearing on the list I send to the desk be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1050.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy Commander Edward Cowan, be granted privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1050.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Michigan on the floor. I advise my good friend and partner on this venture that I will proceed for some 10 minutes and then yield the floor, on the assumption that he will proceed, and then I will resume with the remainder of my statement.

On behalf of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased and honored to bring the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 to the Senate for consideration. The bill was reported out of the committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. I may say, as a tribute to excellent staff work and excellent work by the chairman and ranking members of the subcommittees and, indeed, by the full cooperation of my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, we achieved this markup in what is regarded to be record time. I didn't keep the time, but I certainly recognize that we did it in a very brief period; basically over a 2-day period, where many times heretofore it has been 3, 4, and 5 days for markup.

I think the committee, both members and staff, were aware of the tremendous support across this Nation by the people for the men and women of the Armed Forces today and a recognition of the responsibilities of the Congress of the United States--in this case the Senate--to provide for those men and women of the Armed Forces.

Having said that, I believe that contributed to the swift action we had on our bill in committee markup, and I anticipate--I say this respectfully--in the Chamber a number of amendments will come forth, but I believe we will be able to complete this bill in a relatively short period of time, owing again to the support in the Chamber for the men and women of the Armed Forces and the desire to have a strong bill in place to go to conference with the House.

As we stand here beginning the debate on this bill today, over 300,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, Active Guard and Reserve, and countless civilians who support them, are serving bravely in not just the Persian Gulf region but Afghanistan.

It is remarkable. I want to mention the civilians. I recently said to the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when we talked about the total force concept, I remembered so well that that concept was originated when Melvin Laird was Secretary of Defense and I was privileged to serve as the Secretary of the Navy during the Vietnam war. I said to Mr. Rumsfeld recently that we really ought to broaden the term ``total force'' now to incorporate the many civilians who quite often are in positions of personal risk and other situations not unlike those of the men and women of the Armed Forces, right up on the point of the spear of military action.

In my judgment, they are just as much a part of the total force as the uniformed contingent, and I think the uniformed contingent would want me

to state that. This total force is there to secure peace and freedom for the people, specifically of Afghanistan and Iraq. Other men and women in the Armed Forces, as we all fully recognize, are serving in outposts and at sea across this world. How proud we are of our forces who are deployed throughout the world. Some of those personnel are assuming personal risks as great as those who have been fighting in Afghanistan and in the Persian Gulf. All Americans are proud of the Armed Forces of the United States.

We also want to pay recognition to the various nations that have joined us in these military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world and that stand guard with us to enforce the principles of freedom throughout this globe.

We are engaged in an international war on terrorism. The principal battlefronts are Afghanistan and Iraq, but indeed there is no less of a challenge in many other parts of the world away. Therefore, we are very thankful to all those who make possible this total force in the cause of not only combating terrorism but other military objectives we have to fulfill in the cause of freedom throughout the world.

I will pause now a moment to reflect on perhaps the most serious consequence of military life. I went back in history and gathered a few statistics. We will, throughout the course of this deliberation in the Senate, as we go about our daily responsibilities, have in mind those who paid the ultimate sacrifice with their loss of life and those who were wounded in the course of serving the cause of freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the world. I went back in history, and I would like to recite the following figures:

The total casualties in the Iraq campaign thus far have been approximately 612, of whom 117 were killed in direct combat and 495 were wounded. A total of 151 have lost their lives as part of operation Iraqi Freedom. In Afghanistan: Total casualties, 252, of whom 31 lost their lives and 221 suffered wounds. I think it is important to bear those casualty figures in mind as we think with reference to previous engagements. Vietnam: 211,000 casualties, 58,000 killed, 153,000 wounded. Korea: 139,000 total casualties, 36,000 killed, 103,000 wounded. World War II: 1,077,000 casualties, 405,000 killed, 671,000 wounded. We still have missing. I know the Korean conflict alone has some 8,000 American individuals who remain unaccounted for.

Whatever we do, we all join in mourning their loss and resolve to forever remember their service. We care for their families as best we can. We are blessed truly as a nation to have this new generation of great Americans, those who have recently suffered as casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq operations, and indeed many others throughout the world in other actions. This new generation of great Americans is so committed to the traditions, mindful of the sacrifices of their forebears, and they have performed their services in exemplary fashion in keeping with the tradition of the military men and women who have gone before them--indeed, their values and their ideals and likewise the suffering of the families.

I will bet all of us here in the last few days have attended graduations and spoken at them. I have been privileged to do them myself. Each time I look at these young graduates, I say the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere around the world are young men and young women of the same age basically--from the years 18 through 24. Some are older, but basically those generations graduating today, looking upon the joys of their college or university careers, should pause for a moment to reflect on those who are elsewhere in the world enabling them to achieve their goals and their respective graduations.

The stunning and very swift military success we had in Operation Iraqi Freedom, achieving the military goals laid out in the plan devised by the Commander, U.S. Central Command, General Tommy Franks and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the joint staffs of the coalition nations, and in approval with that of the President and the Secretary of Defense primarily, and I expect to some extent the Secretary of State--those achievements are a testament to the dedication and professionalism of the men and women in the Armed Forces. The precision and the skill with which recent operations have been conducted are a tribute not only to their bravery and commitment, and indeed their sacrifice, but also to the industrial base of America, which is providing the weaponry, providing the means by which they pass through each day, and the requirements for human existence and human protection. So we pay tribute to that industrial base today, for the American technology and ingenuity, which has made a definite contribution to the welfare and the survival of the men and women in the Armed Forces.

Those statistics I gave about earlier military engagements--obviously high in contrast to the current losses--tell a story of how high-tech weaponry can save lives--not just the smart bombs and smart ordnance but indeed the very uniforms and protection devices the Armed Forces wear today. We had, in the course of our update briefings, a visit by several soldiers who came in and showed us the armored vests, the night vision, the special scopes on their weapons. It is far different from what this humble person witnessed in Korea, in World War II, and in training commands. Today's weapons bear little resemblance to the basic weapons that fought through the battles of World War II and Korea and, to a lesser extent, Vietnam, because we had a transition of the basic weapon in Vietnam. This is a magnificent tribute to the industrial base of this country that has provided this weaponry. That is what this bill is about: the need to have ever-changing technology to afford even greater protection to the men and women of the Armed Forces as we face the uncertain, unchartered, and unknown threats that face us in this century.

Military strategists and historians will study the Afghanistan and Iraqi military campaigns for years to come and will recognize them as a total new chapter in military history in many ways. Without a doubt, the U.S. military is the most capable military force in the world today, a model of excellence and the standard by which others are measured.

Senator Levin and I visited Afghanistan on Thanksgiving almost two years ago, as those operations were just beginning to get underway. We witnessed how small units, anywhere from 15 to 25 individuals, would get in their helicopters and go in to the darkness of night, all enlisted, save one officer, and perform extraordinary feats of heroism and professional courage in achieving their objectives.

We witnessed it again, just weeks before the start of military operations in Iraq, in its full measure, when we both visited Qatar and Kuwait in February of this year.

It is precisely for this reason we must send a strong message of support to our men and women in uniform by passing this important bill this week. This bill contains much deserved pay raises and benefits for our military personnel, for their families, needed increases in family housing and quality of life projects on military installations, as well as prudent investments in the equipment and technology our military needs to deal with the future in uncertain and ever-changing threats.

I urge my colleagues to participate in the debate of this bill to the fullest measure desired, to come forward with such amendments that they may have to improve and strengthen this bill, and hopefully to gather together and support the final and swift passage of this bill.

The President's budget request for defense for fiscal year 2004 continues the momentum of recent years in making real increases in defense spending to sustain readiness and enhance the quality of life for our military personnel and their families, and to modernize and transform the U.S. Armed Forces to meet current and future threats.

The bill before us would provide $400.5 billion for defense, an increase of $17.9 billion, or 3.2 percent in real terms, over the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003.

Since the beginning of the 108th Congress, the Armed Services Committee has conducted 44 hearings and received numerous policy and operational briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 and related defense

issues. As a result of these deliberations, we identified six priorities to guide our work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

First, to enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities by providing the resources and the authorities necessary for the department to assist in protecting this Nation against all current and anticipated forms of attack, primarily terrorist attacks, at home.

I mention at home, and I will repeat it several times because it is so important, because our President has quite wisely put as his top priority homeland defense. The Congress, and most particularly the Senate, went through long debates about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security which is now up and running.

Homeland defense, however, in my humble judgment, does not start here at home. It starts on the farflung outposts of the world on land and at sea where the men and women of the Armed Forces are serving. To the extent they can deter, interdict, and defeat imminent threats to the U.S., especially terrorist operations, it lessens the chances of that operation finding its way to homeland USA--right here at home.

That is my definition of homeland defense, and this bill is constructed to do everything we can to equip and protect those men and women of the Armed Forces in their role of homeland defense beyond our shores and, indeed, their role in homeland defense, those who are stationed in the continental limits of the United States, Hawaii, and Alaska.

Second, to continue our committee's commitment to improving the quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces--Active, Reserve, Guard, Retired--and their families.

Third, to provide the men and women in uniform with the resources, training, technology, and equipment they need to safely and successfully perform their missions both now and in the future.

Fourth, to sustain the readiness of our Armed Forces to conduct the full spectrum of military operations against all current and anticipated threats.

Fifth, to support the Department of Defense efforts to build the innovative capabilities necessary to continue the transformation of the Armed Forces to enable them to successfully confront future threats, particularly by enhancing technological advances in areas such as unmanned systems. That is an initiative on which this committee has placed great emphasis for some several years now.

Sixth, and final, to improve the efficiency of the Department's programs and operations to reduce the cost and time required to develop and acquire the new capabilities and needed services in the entirety of this bill.

I will yield the floor. This is a suitable point at which I can return to my opening remarks. I assume my colleague from Michigan will seek recognition.

I thank my colleague, Mr. President, for all his hard work, not only on this bill but for the now quarter of a century we have been together working on this committee. How many times we have been on the floor together on our respective bills.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his very fine statement, for his kind reference to the chairman.

The committee's first priority was to enhance the Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities to combat terrorism both at home and abroad. In these areas, this bill authorized an increase of $400 million over the budget request, including $88.4 million for 12 additional civil support teams. Now, these are the teams that join with the first responders should we have the misfortune of a weapon of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, or fissionable, utilized in the United States. That is a very important initiative that this committee has taken over several years now and the inclusion of this in the budget represents our strong unequivocal support of this program particularly by adding 12 additional teams, to get us closer to the goal of a team in every State and territory.

Likewise, we added $181 million for the development and fielding of chemical and biological agent detection and protection technology. In addition, the committee supports the President's request of $9.1 billion for missile defense, a key component of homeland defense.

As we all know, our most valuable military asset is our people. We will always fulfill our commitment to improve the quality of life of the men and women in uniform and their families. This bill authorizes a 3.7-percent across-the-board pay increase for all uniformed service personnel as well as a targeted pay raise of up to 6.25 percent for certain senior noncommissioned officers and midcareer personnel. Those provisions are necessary in order for the Armed Forces to compete with the pay scales and the job opportunities in the private sector.

This bill also contains several key provisions to recognize unique sacrifices of the members of the Armed Forces and their families, including increases in the family separation allowance and hostile fire pay, designation of assignment incentive pay for those stationed in Korea, and approval of a ``high tempo'' allowance for those service members deployed away from home for extended periods of time. We have experienced this, particularly in the Navy.

I hope these provisions are acceptable to the Department of Defense. We are still working our way through that at this particular time.

The services all try very hard to limit the time of deployment away from home, particularly unaccompanied tours, for our service members, but there are isolated cases where you simply go beyond those times. One was recent, with a carrier setting one of the longest records in contemporary history for the away-from-home deployment of a carrier and its crew.

The administration requested $9 billion for military construction and family housing due to pending realignments of overseas bases. This bill contains adjustments to the administration program which resulted in increased investment in installations in the United States and a reduced but prudent investment in overseas locations that will be of long-term value to the United States.

This bill contains an overall increase of approximately $400 million in military construction, including increases of over $200 million in quality-of-life projects such as barracks, family housing, and child development centers.

Over the past several years, my colleagues and I have encouraged the Department to increase procurement spending to a level that could sustain the timely recapitalization, modernization, and transformation of the Armed Forces. This year, the bill before the Senate authorizes $75.6 billion in procurement funding, a $1.1 billion increase over the budget request. Key procurement items include over $12 billion in shipbuilding and conversions which will fund seven new ships just for the year 2004. That is in keeping with the Chief of Naval Operations's commitment to this body last year

that he, in conjunction with the whole Navy Secretariat, would increase the number of ships--not a very large number, but it is an increase over the past.

Further, we have the continued investment in aircraft programs, such as $3.5 billion for 20 F/A-22 Raptor aircraft and over $2 billion for 11 additional C-17 lift aircraft; and over $1 billion for the Army's lighter, high-mobility stryker combat vehicle.

Additionally, it is critical we invest in future capability. This bill authorizes $63.2 billion for research and development, test and evaluation, activities, an increase of over $1.3 billion over the President's budget request. Key R&D funding items include $1.7 billion for the future combat system, the Army's centerpiece of transformation, $5.8 billion for development of various tactical aircraft, including $4.4 billion for the continued development of the joint strike fighter, and $10.7 billion for advanced science and technology initiatives, an increase of over $500 million over the budget request.

This committee has strongly encouraged the Department to invest in unmanned systems. This bill fully funds the budget request of $1.7 billion for major unmanned aerial vehicle programs and adds $130 billion to enhance unmanned technologies.

Together, the investments in procurement necessary to sustain current capabilities and research and development needed to transform to a more capable force would give the men and women of the Armed Forces the equipment they need to deter threats, and if deterrence fails, to prevail across the full spectrum of military operations both now and in the future.

The sustained readiness of the Armed Forces is what protects America. The success of recent military operations represents the real return on added investments made by the Congress in recent years in training, munitions, maintenance, and spare parts. As the force reconstitutes after operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we must closely monitor whether additional funds are needed for those items not covered by supplemental funding to pay for these operations and to ensure the overall readiness of the Armed Forces.

Readiness accounts funds were increased to address currently identified shortfalls such as equipment maintenance and testing, depot maintenance, technical assistance, corrosion control, and systems testing as well as additional funding for Active and Reserve Forces to accelerate fielding and replacing personal and field equipment.

Transformation of the Department of Defense will depend on effective management and stewardship of DOD resources. This bill contains numerous legislative provisions to improve the management of the Department. Some of these provisions will streamline the acquisition process, provide for greater personnel flexibility to manage the acquisition workforce, and ensure that joint requirements can be more rapidly achieved. Acquisition authorities to facilitate the war on terrorism, and support contingency operations were extended, and proposed new authorities will give State and local governments rapid access to antiterrorism technologies and services available to the Department. Again, that is another very important contribution to homeland defense.

The Department of Defense and the Congress have been and must continue to be good stewards of the environment. Military readiness and prudent conservation can and must be complementary principles. This bill assures access to military training ranges in a way that safeguards the protection of endangered species and contributes to the readiness of the Armed Forces.

Some will argue we have not covered all the subjects that were brought before the committee. Indeed, the committee did delete a number of items from the President's request, but that is the judgment that the committee must render. We are an independent but coequal branch of the Federal Government. While we have great respect for the President's budget, some of those provisions were deleted from his budget and not incorporated in this bill.

While I am proud of this legislation and the remarkable spirit of bipartisanship that enabled our committee to move this bill to the floor, we did have areas of disagreement within the committee, which will be revisited during the floor debate.

With our Armed Forces poised on distant battlefields and countless others standing watch at home, we are committed to providing the resources needed for the men and women of the armed forces, and their families. The Congress's past support for increased defense spending has proven to be a wise investment. There is no greater evidence than the successes witnessed on the battlefield of Iraq.

I strongly believe that this National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 builds on the advances made in recent years. I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a strong message of bipartisan support for our troops at home and abroad: we honor your service, and we stand with you now, and in the future.

Madam President, on behalf of the whole committee, I express appreciation to our colleague from Maine. She no longer will be subcommittee chairman on our committee because she is the full chairman now of one of the major subcommittees of the Senate as a whole, but she is very active.

I wonder if I might ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, the issue of transformation by the Secretary of Defense was addressed in the House and to some extent addressed by our committee. But basically, the committee over which the distinguished Senator from Maine is chairman has the primary oversight responsibilities. In the course of the debate on the floor, I hope--if not now at some point--she will give some guidance to me as to how this committee can address such amendments as may be brought up in the context of responsibilities of our committee. If she could find some time to consult with me on that, I would be very appreciative, as will the Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, I thank our colleague on this point. But bear in mind that there are some in the House bill. We will have to deal with them in conference.

To the extent we can have any interlocking on this bill with those provisions of the House bill, which the Senator's committee and our committee and the Senate as a whole feels should be incorporated into the bill, it would be helpful to do that.

I think in general the Secretary of Defense is on the right track in the sense that when you stop to think, today's military is so different than it was 2 or 3 years or even a decade ago.

As I mentioned earlier, before the Senator from Maine joined us on the floor, the total force today is not only the uniformed men and women of the Armed Forces, they are very much part of the civilian force. There are thousands of civilians over in the Iraqi situation and in Afghanistan right now taking risks commensurate with those of uniformed personnel and performing services to give infrastructure to the military to do their missions.

The Secretary of Defense has to have some flexibility in how he assigns and reassigns civilian personnel. I hope we could achieve some measure commensurate with what the wisdom of the Congress enabled the Secretary of Homeland Defense to have. It seems to me that is sort of the bar at which we ought to look.

Might I inquire, does the Senator share views similar to the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues. But before we conclude this very valuable and important colloquy, I ask the Senator from Maine, who speaks with such conviction if we are going try to do something on this bill or is the thought that it is just not achievable? Because we have an issue with the House right now.

And the question is, are we going to address that issue in part-- maybe not all, but in part--in such a way that we can do constructive advancements in this field to assist the Secretary and the administration in this enormous Department with a diversity of responsibilities? Can we conclude we are going to give it a try, and that would move it along pretty quickly? Because hopefully this bill will be voted on early this week.

I will have one more word, but I yield--not necessarily yield--to my colleague from Michigan if he wishes to reply to the Senator from Maine.

Right.

Do you think the provisions the Congress provided for in the Department of Homeland Security offer certain precedents we should achieve in this legislation?

Well, as both my colleagues recognize, this will be, for the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself, our 25th conference, and we know full well at this stage of deliberations on this bill we cannot predict what is going to come out of conference, nor can we take a stance that not one single one of these provisions which are in the House bill will not survive the conference. So having said that, time is of the essence, I hope, in the reconciliation of views.

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

It is my understanding that the Senate, at the hour of 5 o'clock, will proceed to a rollcall vote and that the vote will be held open for the period of 1 hour, until 6 o'clock; is that correct?

My distinguished colleague, the ranking member, and I hope Members could come up to see either of us, if we are here--and if we are not here, both staffs will be here--and indicate the possibility that they may have amendments that will be forthcoming and the time, say tomorrow, that would be convenient for them to bring up those amendments.

Tonight we will be addressing some amendments after 6 o'clock. We will resume with amendments in the morning. We have gotten excellent cooperation from those desiring to offer amendments. But by midday tomorrow, we should, at our respective caucuses, be able to give the Senate some idea during the caucuses of the progress of this bill and the likelihood of when final passage could be achieved. Am I not correct on that, I ask my colleague?

In any event, Mr. President, there have been some rumors to that effect.

There is nothing in the Record as to post-6 o'clock as to further votes tonight. That is the case until we hear from the majority leader; is that correct?

I yield the floor.

I thank our distinguished assistant leader.

With respect to amendments, I urge colleagues to look at the daily calendar in which the reference is made, on the covering page, to the order with regard to this bill and the proviso:

Provided, That all first degree amendments be relevant and

that any second degree amendment be relevant to the first

degree amendment to which it is offered.

There are restrictions on the subject matter. We want to cooperate with our colleagues. But it is very clear that this is the order that has been adopted by the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments in the exchange between the Senator from Maine and our chairman and ranking member. I have heard through the outreaches of the Senator from Maine there has been a good-faith effort to try to deal with this issue. I am not carefully briefed on the various proposals, but at least there has been an outreach by the Senator from Maine to try to develop some common ground in this area. So I think this is important.

I think the seriousness with which she is addressing this issue, as well as the chairman and the ranking member, is, of course, of enormous importance because basically we are talking about the 650,000 to 700,000 civilians who work in the Defense Department. The basic concept was the development of the civil service so that we were going to have highly skilled, highly motivated, highly trained individuals who were going to work for all Americans and not be working for political parties, so to speak, not finding out, every time there is a change in administration, there could be a change in the way they are compensated for their work.

This is enormously important work. We are finding individuals who are going to be involved in the selection of various weapons systems in the whole areas of the development of command and control, communication, and intelligence. The jobs of many of these civilians are enormously important in terms of the security interests of this country.

So the caution which has been expressed by our chairman and ranking member, as well as by the Senator from Maine, is entirely appropriate. It is certainly reasonable to always try to find ways of strengthening and improving the system. But we do come back to the question that this was developed initially with all the kinds of challenges it is facing now, with the concept that we would have highly motivated, highly trained individuals, who would serve whatever administration was going to be successful at the polls. I think that basic and fundamental view is still a commendable one.

But I just want to indicate to the Senator, my friend from Maine, that she has approached this as she does all issues, with an openness and commitment and determination to try to make a very constructive contribution, and she has certainly been reaching out to the Members. So I am thankful for those efforts.

I am also concerned about contracting out, and that we are going to find those with the best lobbying opportunities are going to be able to get these contracts that are important and require high-quality work.

Mr. President, as we begin considering the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill, I, too, congratulate Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their skillful leadership in preparing this bill. It does reflect a thoughtful response to the ongoing and changing needs of our military in these difficult years for our country, and it clearly provides a strong national defense.

I also thank and commend Senator Talent for his leadership on the seapower portions of the bill in his first year as the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee. It is a privilege to work with him on that subcommittee, and I look forward to continuing that work in the years ahead to make sure we are going to keep our Navy strong, and, of course, the Marines strong as well.

In particular, this legislation contains numerous provisions to give additional support to the men and women who serve the Nation so well in the Armed Forces. Without their courage and their commitment, we could never achieve the brilliant military successes of the war in Iraq.

First, and most important, this bill is intended to improve the quality-of-life programs our soldiers and sailors and marines and members of the Air Force deserve in the areas of pay and allowance. It recognizes the special sacrifice military service often requires from the service members and their families.

For service members who are repeatedly deployed to assignments far from their home bases, including Reservists and Guard personnel, the bill authorizes a high deployment allowance, up to $1,000 a month in additional compensation for the hardships imposed on them and their families. The bill also continues support for the significant progress made in the past 4 years in reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses by improving the basic allowance for housing, and the bill also provides for strong national defense in the years ahead by investing in transformational technologies while ensuring that our military capabilities do not suffer any gap during the needed modernization that must take place in our forces.

My principal concern with this legislation involves the provisions that authorize the fateful change of course in our longstanding policy on nuclear weapons. Of all challenges our country has faced over the past half century, the prevention of nuclear war is by far the most important. It is no accident that in all the years and the half century since World War II, no nuclear weapon has ever been used in any of the conflicts that have taken place anywhere on Earth. Few in 1945 would have predicted that extraordinary success, and few today would disagree that the effective world leadership of the United States under Presidents of both political parties on nuclear arms control throughout those years has been primarily responsible for that success.

The danger today is that with the passing of the World War II generation in our own country and nations throughout the world, a new generation of leaders has been rising to power who did not live through the dawn of the nuclear age themselves and for whom the mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are images from history, not vivid recollections from their own lives. Greater vigilance is clearly needed to continue the success of our nuclear arms control policy since 1945 and ensure that nuclear weapons are not used by any nation in the future.

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other nuclear materials to other nations and to terrorists is the most urgent aspect of that challenge today. We all pray the Bush administration will be successful in the current negotiations with North Korea and that the tenuous progress made in recent weeks will improve so a successful conclusion can be achieved.

Many of us are increasingly concerned, however, that with Congress and the Nation preoccupied over the past year with the war against terrorism and the war in Iraq that the administration has been quietly laying the groundwork for a far-reaching and highly dangerous U turn in our longstanding policy against the first use of nuclear weapons.

Because of their unique and massive destructive power, nuclear weapons have always been kept separate from other weapons as part of our strong commitment to do all we can to see they are never used again. The Bush administration's proposal to veer away from that commitment should have been a wake-up call for Congress and the Nation many months ago.

In the decade after the first two nuclear bombs were used in World War II and the nuclear arms race began with the Soviet Union, nations and peoples throughout the world began to realize both the danger posed by the use of nuclear weapons and the danger from the testing of nuclear weapons. To deal with those dangers, a remarkable series of international treaties was proposed, negotiated, and approved that had broad support in the world community, restrained the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, and dramatically reduced the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations.

An excellent chronology of the many significant events in the history of nuclear weapons, beginning with the discovery of radioactivity in 1896, is available on the Web sites of the Global Security Institute which was founded by our former colleague Senator Alan Cranston to enhance our understanding of these issues. I urge Members of the Senate to consult with it.

One of the landmark achievements in reducing the spread of nuclear weapons was the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which came into effect in 1968 and under which nuclear and nonnuclear nations alike agreed to halt the development of these weapons. Currently 185 nations have signed the extension of the NPT. The reason the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has been so successful is the presumption that nuclear weapons will not be used by the principal nuclear powers except in the most extreme circumstances. For 25 years Republican and Democratic administrations alike have emphasized our commitment not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations. This assurance to other nations that nuclear weapons will not be used against them has been a major factor in avoiding nuclear war, slowing the nuclear arms race, and preventing the proliferation of these weapons to other countries and to terrorists.

Control of current nuclear stockpiles is especially critical. The danger is very real that terrorists may be able to acquire nuclear material or even nuclear warheads. Even before 9/11, Congress and the administration had recognized this significant threat and, under the leadership of our former colleague Senator Nunn and our colleague Senator Lugar, we enacted a threat reduction program in 1991 to safeguard and reduce the nuclear arsenals of Russia and other former Soviet states. The Nunn-Lugar program has been effective in deactivating or destroying literally thousands of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles and hundreds of tons of fissionable material. Nevertheless, we have done far from enough to prevent the proliferation of these weapons.

Shortly before President Bush's inauguration, a task force reported that the most urgent national security threat to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen, sold to terrorists, or

hostile nation states, and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home. The 9/11 terrorists clearly demonstrated their willingness and ability to cause catastrophic damage to America. Yet the Bush administration continues to spend less on the Nunn-Lugar program than we did before 2001.

In January of 2002, the administration released a nuclear posture review that could take us in a new and far more dangerous direction. The review blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. It suggests that certain events might compel the United States to use nuclear weapons first, even against nonnuclear nations. It also relies much more heavily on a nuclear threat by America in dealing with the difficult challenges we face in the world. The administration has even indicated it might use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack. There is no justification for that kind of escalation. Our conventional weapons are more than adequate to deal with that threat. We gain no greater deterrence by threatening to go nuclear. It makes no sense to break down the firewall we have always maintained between nuclear weapons and other weapons and that has succeeded so well for so long in preventing nuclear war. Other nations have complied with this basic principle, too. A nuclear weapon is not just another item in our arsenal, and it is wrong to treat it as if it were. In fact, the Nuclear Posture Review specifically discusses circumstances in which the United States might engage in the first use of nuclear weapons, such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan.

The administration also appeared to be considering the use of nuclear weapons against Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. We reap what we sow. If we brandish our own nuclear weapons, we only encourage other nations to do all they can to develop their own.

It is ominous as well that the administration is asking the Nation's weapons laboratories to consider the possibility of resuming nuclear testing in order to protect our current stockpile and meet new requirements in the future. They want funds in the budget to be used to prepare for testing new nuclear weapons and to cut in half the time needed to do so. They have asked the Department to consider global strike capabilities with new nuclear weapons, which would have to be tested as well. It makes no sense to abandon our moratorium on nuclear testing. That moratorium has stood for over a decade, and it has served us well.

The pending bill continues this dangerous shift in other ways as well. Last year, the administration received $15 billion. The current bill proposes another $15 billion this year to study the feasibility of modifying existing warheads to create what they call a robust nuclear earth penetrator, a bunker buster, with 10 times the size of the Hiroshima blast, to be used to destroy hardened enemy targets buried deeply underground. It is difficult to believe that any administration in its right mind would propose such a weapon. A nuclear explosion in a bunker could spew tons of radioactive waste into the atmosphere, with a devastating plume that could poison huge areas in its path. Surely, if there is any need for such a weapon, we can develop a conventional weapon to achieve the purpose of the bunker buster.

In yet another far-out nuclear proposal, the Bush administration has proposed to lift the current statutory ban on low-yield nuclear weapons, which now prevents the development of weapons with yields under 5 kilotons--about half the size of the Hiroshima blast. The precision-guided conventional munitions and standoff weapons we have today make these many nukes unnecessary. They would be no more effective than conventional munitions and would be far more dangerous to our troops and to our planet.

In the debate in recent weeks on tax policy, President Bush has criticized the Senate and come out strongly against what he called ``iddy-biddy'' tax cuts. What we should be really against is iddy-biddy nukes.

The hardliners in the Bush administration seem to believe that the longstanding firewall between nuclear and conventional weapons is obsolete and is making us more vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. They claim that lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons will make our own nuclear threat a stronger and more credible deterrent. That is the last thing we need.

The clear and present danger of the administration's change in nuclear policy is that it will encourage other nations to develop nuclear deterrents of their own. The entire world will be at greater risk that these weapons will be used--and used against us.

Unfortunately, the real debate on these all-important issues of nuclear policy is only just beginning. Certainly, these issues demand far more attention than Congress and the country have been giving them. They have been eclipsed for too long by the war on terrorism and the war against Iraq. We can ignore them no longer. We have an obligation to our Nation and our people, and to all nations and all peoples, to see that nuclear weapons are never used again.

In the debate in the coming days, I intend to offer an amendment to maintain the firewall between conventional and nuclear weapons. It strikes the provision repealing the prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons that was put in place in the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. That act prohibits research, testing, and development on low-yield nuclear weapons, and there is no reason to weaken it.

Some suggest we should compromise and allow at least a little research. I say to the Senate, don't let the administration even start down that road. Don't feed the nuclear addiction. It is essential to continue to prohibit even the research on any such weapons. We do not want our descendents, surveying a devastated planet, to say that in this legislation the United States breached this firewall and took the decisive, shameful step that led to nuclear war.

Unanimous Consent Request S. 923

Mr. President, our men and women in uniform are committed to protecting the security of our Nation. They work hard and make sacrifices every day. And they are willing to give their lives for the country.

As many begin to return from Iraq and other places abroad, we owe it to them to protect their economic security and the economic security of our Nation.

These heroes are coming home to a failing economy--and for too many a loss of jobs. Today, more than 18,000 veterans are out of work. These are our Nation's fighting men and women, returning from Iraq, or who fought in the last gulf war. We owe it to them to protect them and their families' livelihood.

President Bush claims that tax cuts for the rich will create the jobs these former service men and women need. But we tried the Bush administration's approach in 2001, and we lost 2.5 million jobs. Surely, we can do better for our returning troops who are now trying to rejoin civilian life. We can do better for all Americans who are without jobs in this recession.

Today, nearly 9 million Americans are unemployed--2.8 million more than when President Bush first took office. This widespread unemployment has touched so many American lives, and it often seems the biggest in the face of those who have served their Nation in the Armed Forces.

There is good news for some. The law requires employers to take back reservists after their deployments. Many of the men and women currently in or returning from Iraq will continue their service in our Armed Forces. But too many recently discharged service members are facing the same fate as millions of other Americans--they just cannot find jobs.

We have an opportunity to extend the benefits for these brave Americans. We have an opportunity to make sure those ex-service members who still cannot find work after 9 months--the long-suffering and long- term unemployed--are not left without a safety net. They put years of their lives into serving their country. Now unemployed after only 9 months, we are going to say: Sorry, you have been out of work too long. We are going to stop your unemployment checks.

We must not, and we cannot, do that to these workers. We must ensure that those long-term unemployed continue to receive unemployment checks so they can meet their mortgages, put food on the table, and take care of their children.

The American people understand fairness. They understand that with

one hand we are providing billions of dollars to the wealthiest individuals in this country, and we ought to extend the other hand to our hard-working men and women who played by the rules, worked all their lives, and paid into the unemployment compensation fund. They need that assistance now.

For 80,000 workers a week, unemployment checks will stop coming at the end of this month if we take no action whatsoever--80,000 who have paid into the unemployment compensation fund, which currently has in it over $20 billion.

Unemployment benefits are a lifeline available for millions of hard- working Americans. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics and join to assist the unemployed--just as we have during recession for the past 50 years. We know the extension of unemployment compensation has been supported by President Reagan, President Nixon, President Eisenhower, as well as President Kennedy, President Clinton, President Bush, and President Ford--all of them. In the 5 years in the 1990s when we extended it, it had strong bipartisan support. Four of those votes were in excess of 90 votes. We want to take that same kind of action. We want to take it this evening before we go off for a Memorial Day recess.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 923, a bill to provide for a 6-month extension of unemployment compensation, including 13 weeks of benefits for the long-term unemployed--exhaus- tees--and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the amendment that is at the desk to remove the temporary enhanced regular unemployment compensation provisions be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I hear the objection on the other side. Action is needed in these several days. Some 80,000 of our fellow citizens starting next week will begin to lose all of their coverage, for which they have paid into the fund.

This is a deplorable situation certainly for those Americans, and I think for all Americans. We are going to continue this battle throughout this week and beyond. I have heard an objection voiced.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak about the subject of taxation from a little different perspective, a legislative proposal which, if adopted, would add very considerably to productivity in America, and that is a proposal for a flat tax. In the fall of 1994, Richard Armey of the House of Representatives introduced a flat tax. I studied it, then in the spring of 1995, I introduced a flat tax for the Senate. That was the first one introduced. I have introduced it in successive years.

I usually pick April 15, because April 15 is tax filing day. But this year we are going to be in recess for the spring break. I had thought today would be the last day we would be in session. That is open to debate at this point. I just came from a conference of the Appropriations Committee, and there are a great many unresolved issues. I posed the question to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee: What time do we vote on Sunday?

Some of my colleagues may be listening on C-SPAN2, and that will give them a jolt: What time do we vote on Sunday? Or we might not vote as early as Sunday. We might pick a time on Monday.

I got the attention of the clerks, too, by talking about something important: When are we going to finish the business of the Senate? The distinguished Parliamentarian is nodding his head in chagrin as to what is happening here.

Some suggestions have been floated around the Appropriations Committee of a way to solve this impasse between the House and the Senate on appropriations, the impasse between the House and the Senate on the budget, and that is a constitutional amendment for a unicameral legislature. That would be a shocker. For anybody watching C-SPAN2, that means one chamber. Then the question would come up: Which chamber will it be?

Nobody is going to go to a unicameral legislature, and I do not know when we are going to conclude the business of the Senate. I may be offering this flat tax legislation on the wrong day. Perhaps I ought to wait, because we may still be here on April 15, which would be next Tuesday.

In all seriousness, we have the most extraordinarily complex system for filing taxes ever devised. In the midst of an overwhelming bureaucracy and a regulatory system in Washington, DC, nothing compares to the Federal tax code.

The Federal tax code has grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6.9 million words and 17,000 pages at the present time. A study showed that more than 13 hours are consumed by the average American--rather, more than 13 hours are consumed on average--there is no such thing as an average American--on average by taxpayers in filling out the principal Form 1040. And if one goes to the various schedules, it can be another 5\1/2\ hours or 7\1/2\ hours.

I just finished filling out my tax return, and it is inordinately complicated. It is insufficient to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the Federal tax code, and then the State taxes, and then city taxes, the wage tax, the property tax, and the real estate tax. It is a nightmare.

It is possible to change all of that by going to a flat tax, and then the tax return would be on a postcard. The wonders of television. People can see the postcard. It will take about 15 minutes to fill out a postcard, which would identify the individual, specify the total compensation, specify the allowance, the number of dependents, and in the course of 15 minutes it would be finished.

This tax would be calculated on a flat rate of 20 percent. It would be very beneficial to people at all levels of the income strata except for those who engage in tax shelters. The average American today, or in the middle income, a family of four, which does not itemize deductions, pays taxes on all income over $19,850. Under this flat tax, there would be a personal exemption of $27,500 for a family of four, and taxes would be paid only over that amount.

After having just criticized charts, my staff has brought me a chart which they prepared. I certainly would not want to omit the showing of this chart. The writing is too small for reading on C-SPAN2, but it specifies the identity of the person, the total compensation, the personal allowance, and it can be filled out in the course of 15 minutes.

A superior depiction, in my opinion, is the postcard. People can deal more easily with postcards than they can with charts.

I have provided for two deductions which I am maintaining, deductions on interest and charitable contributions. It may be that ultimately we will have a totally flat tax, which would reduce another percent down to 19 percent. I have included interest on home mortgages because it is so prevalent, and I believe Americans might be very surprised not to be able to deduct their interest on home mortgages. That interest on home mortgages has been a great stimulus for housing construction and also a great encouragement for people to own their own homes. That is very important as a societal matter.

I have also retained the deduction on charitable contributions, which remains very important. That was reinforced by the Senate earlier this week by providing an increase in charitable contributions deductibility looking toward faith-based initiatives.

What I would like to do most emphatically would be to get the debate started. This body, the House, and the Treasury Department have never seriously considered a flat tax. It ought to be seriously considered. Whether it would be accepted or not would be the outcome of the debate. The flat tax proposal which I am bringing to you today, which is modeled after the outline by Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka of Stanford University, has been very carefully thought through. It is a neutral tax scheme. An analysis of people at various income levels shows that it is universally beneficial for all except those who engage in tax shelters and pay no tax at all.

The greatest benefit would be the savings to the American people of some 5.8 billion hours a year and some $194 billion in preparation expenses. I have actually seen estimates on the cost of tax compliance as high as $800 billion. Again, these estimates are such that nobody really knows, but as lawyers say in litigation, the pain and suffering that goes with filing these returns, or the cruel and unusual punishment involved in making these computations and the study involved, it would be a great relief to the American people. It would be win, win, win. There would be great savings in time. There would be savings in individual taxes, and there would be a tremendous stimulus to the economy so that so many corporations and businesses would no longer have to have a special office, which is the practice in many places, for the tax collector who comes in to conduct the audit on a yearly basis.

To reiterate, in less than one week, American taxpayers face another Federal income tax deadline. The date of April 15 stabs fear, anxiety, and unease into the hearts of millions of Americans. Every year during ``tax season,'' millions of Americans spend their evenings poring over page after page of IRS instructions, going through their records looking for information, and struggling to find and fill out all the appropriate forms on their Federal tax returns. Americans are intimidated by the sheer number of different tax forms and their instructions, many of which they may be unsure whether they need to file. Given the approximately 325 possible forms, not to mention the instructions that accompany, simply trying to determine which form to file can in itself be a daunting and overwhelming task. According to the Tax Foundation, American taxpayers, including businesses, spend more than 5.8 billion hours and $194 billion each year in complying with tax laws. That works out to more than $2,400 per U.S. household. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to over 6.9 million words in 2000. By contrast, the Pledge of Allegiance has only 31 words, the Gettysburg Address has 267 words, the Declaration of Independence has about 1,300 words, and the Bible has only about 1,773,000 words.

The majority of taxpayers still face filing tax forms that are far too complicated and take far too long to complete. According to the estimated preparation time listed on the forms by the IRS, the 2002 Form 1040 is estimated to take 13 hours and 10 minutes to complete. Moreover this does not include the estimated time to complete the accompanying schedules, such as Schedule A, for itemized deductions, which carries an estimated preparation time of 5 hours, 37 minutes, or Schedule D, for reporting capital gains and losses, shows an estimated preparation time of 7 hours, 35 minutes. Moreover, this complexity is getting worse each year. Just from 1998 to 2002 the estimated time to prepare Form 1040 jumped 96 minutes.

It is no wonder that well over half of all taxpayers, 56 percent according to a recent survey now hire an outside professional to prepare their tax returns for them. However, the fact that only 29 percent of individuals itemize their deductions shows that a significant percentage of our taxpaying population believes that the tax system is too complex for them to deal with. We all understand that paying taxes will never be something we enjoy, but neither should it be cruel and unusual punishment. Further, the pace of change to the Internal Revenue Code is brisk--Congress made about 9,500 Tax Code changes in the past 12 years. And we are far from being finished. Year after year, we continue to ask the same question--is there not a better way?

My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present Tax Code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20 percent tax rate for all individuals and businesses. This proposal is not cast in stone but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness, and economic growth.

My flat tax plan would eliminate the kinds of frustrations I have outlined above for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations, and instructions and delete most of the 6.9 million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of billions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard- sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity or for more time with their families instead of poring over tax tables, schedules, and regulations.

My flat tax proposal is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a taxation system that is simple, fair and designed to maximize prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are:

A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 5.8 billion hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules, regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6.9 million words and 17,000 pages currently. It would also allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of 117,000 employees.

Economists estimate a growth of over $2 trillion in national wealth over 7 years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in personal wealth for every man, woman, and child in America. This growth would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs.

Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to even greater economic expansion.

Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many of the current disincentives to savings.

Americans would be able to save up to $194 billion they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud, which now amounts to over $120 billion in uncollected revenue annually.

Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on the $7 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal Revenue Service.

The most dramatic way to show what the flat tax is to consider that the income tax form for the flat tax is printed on a postcard--it will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10- line postcard. This postcard will take 15 minutes to fill out.

At my town hall meetings across Pennsylvania, the public support for fundamental tax reform is overwhelming. I would point out that in those speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: 1, my copy of the Constitution; and, 2, a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax postcard. Many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital gains and estates.

This is a win-win situation for America because it lowers the tax burden on the taxpayers in the lower brackets. For example in the 2002 tax year, the standard deduction is $4,700 for a single taxpayer, $6,900 for a head of household and $7,850 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $3,000. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay taxes on all income over $19,850-- these are personal exemptions of $12,000 and a standard deduction of $7,850. By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax on only income over that amount.

The tax loopholes enable write-offs to save some $393 billion a year. What is eliminated under the flat tax are the loopholes, the deductions in this complicated code which can be deciphered, interpreted, and found really only by the $500-an-hour lawyers. That money is lost to the taxpayers. $120 billion would be saved by the elimination of fraud because of the simplicity of the tax code, the taxpayer being able to find out exactly what he or she owes.

This bill is modeled after legislation organized and written by two very distinguished professors of law at Stanford University, Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka. Their model was first introduced in the Congress in the fall of 1994 by Majority Leader Richard Armey. I introduced the flat tax bill--the first one in the Senate--on March 2, 1995, S. 488. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate, resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation- adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. I re-introduced the bill two Congresses ago on April 15, 1999--income tax day--in a bill denominated as S. 822. More recently, I introduced my flat tax legislation as an amendment to S. 1429, the Tax Reconciliation bill. The amendment was not adopted.

Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our Nation's Tax Code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the Tax Code over 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operations for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Einstein himself is quoted as saying ``the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.''

The Hall-Rabushka model envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With only those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible.

In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19- percent rate, is based on a well-documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19 percent to 20 percent to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions.

This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the Tax Code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans.

The key advantages of this flat tax plan are threefold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts.

Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within 7 years of enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6-percent increase in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth and prosperity. My flat tax legislation will afford Americans such a tax system.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide State and local governments the flexibility they need for preparedness activities associated with the planning, procurement and training for homeland security and counter terrorism activities.

Quite simply, this legislation would permit State and local governments to use up to twenty percent of any funds provided for the procurement of new equipment to train first responders in the use of that equipment and secondly, allow State level Emergency Management personnel to conduct activities such as FEMA related strategic planning on behalf of smaller communities that may not otherwise have the resources to adequately perform that planning.

I became acutely aware of this need when I visited the Maine Emergency Management Agency and learned that, although they had been provided the funds to purchase new chemical and biological protection equipment, they had not received any funds to train personnel to use that equipment.

As we are all aware, homeland security needs at the State level vary widely. From State to State, there are varying degrees of risk, varying percentages of full-time versus volunteer responders, and different areas of strengths and weaknesses in the responder community. Any successful Federal program that seeks to improve response capability must therefore have flexible rules for implementation.

For example, in fiscal years 2000 through 2002, FEMA funded states for terrorism preparedness activities. The State of Maine received $246,000 annually for these activities and the funds were administered through the Emergency Management Performance Grant. Those funds were based on a strategic plan submitted by each State that outlined its most urgent needs, and the steps to be taken to meet those needs. If planning was the need, the State could put an emphasis on planning. If training or exercise was the need, they could stress that.

While there was no set quota for how much money had to go to local communities, States were required to track performance measures that showed how local communities were benefitting because in rural States such as Maine, it is often more efficient and cost-effective for States to sponsor programs for the benefit of local officials, rather than providing funds to communities that may not have the organizational infrastructure to plan and execute programs.

States were given wide authority to reimburse communities for time and equipment costs, purchase training materials, and contract for services--whatever was necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal of improved preparedness for responders. These dollars could also support basic emergency management activities, such as incident command training, emergency planning or exercise design, which supported the communities' overall all-hazard preparedness as well as their capability to react to a terrorist incident.

By contrast, let's go back and look at FEMA's FY2002 Supplemental Budget and the Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for emergency response equipment for it was during this cycle that the previous flexibility began to be restricted. First, while the FEMA FY2002 Supplemental Budget supported emergency operations planning, Citizen Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams, CERT, and emergency operations center assessment and improvement, 75 percent of the funding for planning and for Citizen Corps and CERT efforts was required to be passed through to local communities, even if the capacity to administer those funds was generally lacking and the communities would have been better served by programs brought to them by the state.

In addition, planning dollars could not be spent on exercises to test plans, or training to support those plans. Funds for Citizen Corps and CERT programs, which are voluntary efforts, could not be used for any other preparedness purpose, even if no communities came forward desiring to participate in those programs. It is likely that Maine will return a portion of these funds because the local need for them does not exist. Furthermore, emergency operations center assessment funds could only be spent on assessment, even if a current assessment of facilities was in place.

The Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for the procurement of equipment has been equally restrictive. The lion's share is of course for equipment, and only equipment that provides protection, detection, decontamination and communications could be procured.

Beyond the fact that it took two rounds of funding to build a critical mass of resources such that equipment purchases could begin in earnest, much of this equipment is highly technical in nature, and requires extensive training to operate safely and properly. However, of the funds provided for that equipment, none could be used for training. While there were some exercise funds, they were specifically targeted to weapons of mass destruction. With the FY2003 allocation, some funding has been allocated for training, which is a positive step but, again, it comes with very strict limits and dollars allocated for exercise cannot be used for training, or vice versa.

In the emergency management world, planning comes first, then training, then exercise.

If you need a plan, you can't substitute an exercise and get the same result. If you need an exercise, you can't substitute training. Even within the training and exercise grants, there are restrictions that make it extremely difficult for full-time departments, for example, to free up employee time to take needed training or participate in exercises. And with the focus on homeland security, the need for flexibility to improve basic response capability has also been overlooked. In communities that do not have the resources to create special response forces for every hazard--and that includes all towns in Maine--it is imperative to be able to build a base of planning and training for all hazards, on which one can build the capability to respond to a terrorist incident.

Our strategy in Maine has been to build a regional response capability. In some areas we could build that capability around existing response capacity, and in others we have had to build capability from the ground up.

For example, the Portland and South Portland fire departments have formed a regional response team and are undertaking training required to stand up a fully qualified hazardous materials response team. This entails 80 hours of training for each individual. But, I'm told the City of Portland is in the process of cutting 20 fire positions and some police officers because of budget constraints at the local level, as they are facing additional security requirements around the city. This makes it very difficult to free up responders for the required training, especially as there are no budget dollars for overtime, and no Federal grant currently

available will reimburse training costs to include overtime.

In other parts of the State, private paper companies have stepped up and volunteered their already-trained hazardous materials teams to respond off site. During the anthrax scare in the fall of 2001, these teams responded to any and all ``suspicious package'' calls, at a cost of $2,000 per hour to field a team of 22 people.

These companies have responded out of patriotism and a sense of civic responsibility, and despite challenging economic times in the paper industry. These teams are now faced with maintaining the full ``level A'' capability and further facing more than 20 hours of additional training to be fully WMD compliant. No grant monies currently available allow reimbursement for their response or for their training time.

In Maine, we have by necessity been flexible in our approach to each region, looking at the different needs in planning, training, exercise and equipment procurement. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to practice flexibility when the Federal programs that provide the resources to build capability are becoming more and more rigid.

The events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks have brought our Nation to heightened level of awareness. Nowhere is this more evident than in Maine's hospitals, upon which we rely to respond quickly and effectively in the event of any disaster affecting our residents' health.

While hospitals have always had disaster plans in place, recent events have dramatically changed the definition of ``disaster''. Since September 11, 2001, hospitals have stepped up their readiness efforts to be better prepared in responding not only to conventional disasters, but also to the more concrete threat of previously unimaginable terrorist attacks using chemical, biological or radiologic agents that could lead to large-scale emergencies with mass casualties.

Hospitals have to change their mind-set on established norms and standard ways of operating to embrace a broader spectrum of roles and responsibilities. The relationship between traditional first responders and the non-traditional role of hospitals in community-wide first response overall is moving closer, emphasizing the need for collaboration and compatibility.

No one doubts that in the event of a weapons of mass destruction event, hospitals are likely to see large numbers of potentially contaminated patients seeking treatment. The reality is that hospital emergency department staff and hospital providers in general are truly the new ``first responders.'' Hospitals are critical elements of the community response system and if they are not prepared and protected, there will be serious gaps in the system that could cause it to break down completely.

One of the largest barriers to optimal emergency preparedness is staff education and training. To date, hospitals have had to absorb all these costs, as the limited funding assistance available to hospitals has not been permitted to be spent on education and training. The full costs of providing training is daunting, particularly in these lean economic times of declining reimbursement to hospitals.

The costs of the courses and/or instructors' fees pale in comparison to the staff time that must be paid to attend any given course. Staff time must essentially be paid twice--first to pay the staff person's on-duty time to attend the course or drill, and once again to pay another staff person's time to replace the worker being trained. The cost of staff time is significant, and even finding staff to replace the one attending training is especially costly due to the nursing shortage in hospitals. Consider the following facts: The vacancy rate for hospital staff nurses in Maine has been 8-9 percent. The average hourly rate for registered nurses in Maine is $21.67, and rising. Any staff training must be done on a large scale so that trained staff are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

As just one example of training needed, Maine recognizes that hospitals need to be prepared to manage contaminated patients who come to their facility. The Maine Emergency Management Agency is working to provide hospitals with the necessary equipment, but the training necessary to competently use that equipment is extensive and currently underfunded.

According to Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, staff must be trained to the hazardous material ``operations'' level in order to safely use the equipment. Meeting Federal Government standards for that level of training requires at least two full days of initial training, with refresher courses required annually. Conservatively speaking, if 35 Maine hospitals train 25 nurses to that level, the approximate cost of nursing staff time alone for the initial course would be $606,760. And remember, because six to eight staff members are required to man the decontamination line, the nursing costs are just the beginning.

The same staffing costs apply to sending staff to local and regional emergency drills and training sessions--which are absolutely critical components of Maine's disaster readiness. It is simply not possible for hospitals to absorb all of these costs, given the declining reimbursements. Hospital operating margins in Maine declined from an average of 2.3 percent in 2001 to 1.7 percent in 2002 and about one third of all Maine hospitals experienced zero or negative operating margins in 2002.

Yet, our hospitals continue their efforts to provide the best possible patient care while simultaneously increasing their level of emergency preparedness. Federal assistance with training funding would provide excellent support for hospitals, as they work to respond to any crisis and protect their staff so they can perform the critical functions of caring for the citizens of Maine in any crisis.

These are but a few examples of the burdens being experienced by State, local and private industry responders as they struggle to prepare themselves and the citizenry to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other crises. This legislation will provide some of the flexibility emergency management personnel require to be truly prepared. I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

Mr. President, I look forward to many more times.

Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Warner for shepherding the Defense authorization bill to the floor again. I do not know how many times he has led the effort--I lost count--but each time he has handled the very difficult duties with great fairness and, I think, timely, perhaps with record dispatch. He is always efficient and, it seems to me--and I agree with Senator Warner--this may set a record in the committee, for many of the reasons our chairman mentioned, including the determination that we be together totally as a body in support of the men and women in the Armed Forces who are in so many dangerous places in the world as we speak.

I also join Chairman Warner in commending all of the committee members for their hard work; our staffs, for the long hours they put in to produce this bill. As always, it is a complicated bill, a detailed bill and, more than ever perhaps, a critically important bill.

As we begin the consideration of this bill this afternoon, our men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve who are deployed in harm's way in many areas of the globe, are being subjected almost daily to armed attack in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our Armed Forces have demonstrated extraordinary military prowess. Their success is a tribute first and foremost to their own skill, dedication, and professionalism, and to the skill of their leaders. It is also the result of the investments in national defense that many administrations and Congresses have made over the years.

Our success on the battlefields of the future will depend on the investments we make today to prepare, train, and equip our military. The bill provides our Armed Forces with the means they need to meet today's challenges and it makes the investments that will be needed to respond to the challenges of this century.

It also continues the increases in compensation and quality of life for our service men and women and their families.

Chairman Warner has described in some detail what is contained in the bill, and I will not attempt to duplicate his summary, but I would like to make a few general comments and point out a couple of matters where there is a divergence of view within the committee.

This is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It is balanced for many reasons. It equips the Armed Forces to deal with today's threats and it makes the investments necessary to transform our forces to meet the threats of the future. It is balanced in that it does not prematurely seek to apply lessons some may believe have been learned from Iraq even before the Department of Defense has had an opportunity to study and analyze that conflict and to report to us on what lessons they believe have been learned.

In his briefing of Senators in S-407 on May 8, General Franks specifically noted that it would take some time to identify the lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom, and we could do harm to our national defense if we sought to apply the wrong lessons from those operations or if we too speedily determined what, in fact, were the lessons learned.

The bill is also balanced in that it seeks to incorporate those provisions of the Department of Defense's transformation proposals that provide appropriate flexibility for the operation of the Department in a manner that preserves congressional oversight responsibilities. For example, the bill contains provisions that would repeal dozens of reporting requirements, establishes a new defense modernization account to fund life cycle cost reduction initiatives. It authorizes a pilot program to test new procedures for conducting public/private competitions. It provides the Department with special pay authority to help it fill critical positions.

It is also balanced because of the provisions it does not include. The bill before us does not include provisions that would undermine the ability of the uniformed military to provide independent advice to the civilian chain of command, and to the Congress. It does not include provisions which would undermine congressional oversight by repealing the requirement that the Department of Defense provide us with basic information on the costs, schedule, and performance of major weapons programs.

The bill before us does not authorize the reorganization of the Department of Defense without regard to statutory requirements or establish a foreign military assistance program to be conducted by the Department of Defense rather than by the Department of State. The bill does not authorize the Department to move money from one program to another without congressional authorization.

Perhaps the most pointed evidence of the balanced nature of this bill is that it was reported out of committee with the unanimous support of all of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a tribute to the balance of the bill but also to the leadership of our chairman.

That does not mean there are not any provisions in the bill on which there is disagreement, because there are. There are a number of areas that are troublesome and on which I expect there will

be significant debate this week. For example, there are provisions in report language that move us in the direction of developing new nuclear weapons and modifications of current nuclear weapons. Current U.S. law bans research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to their production. The specific weapons covered by the ban are so-called low yield nuclear weapons which have a nuclear explosive yield of 5 kilotons or less. Five kilotons is roughly a third the size of the nuclear bomb that was used at Hiroshima which immediately killed an estimated 140,000 people and left many more injured. The administration has asked this ban be repealed. If the ban is repealed, the purpose is to make nuclear weapons more usable.

As stated by Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I

have the bias in favor of something that is the minimum

destruction. . . . I have a bias in favor of things that

might be usable.

The language approved by the majority of the Armed Services Committee would repeal the ban on the development of low yield nuclear weapons. Without this ban, there is no impediment in law to research, development, testing, production, or deployment of new low yield nuclear weapons.

The bill also provides the National Nuclear Security Administration with funds the administration requested to continue work on a robust nuclear earth penetrator. This effort would modify one of two existing high yield nuclear weapons to create a nuclear weapon that will penetrate rock. Both weapons being looked at for possible modification are high yield nuclear weapons with yields approximating 30 and 70 times the nuclear explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb.

Without a requirement that that nuclear earth penetrator weapon be authorized by Congress, there is no legal impediment to its development, testing, production, or deployment.

At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and when we suggest that indeed we may use military force to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, when we are spending billions of dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, materials, and technology, these proposed actions by the administration would send the opposite message we are trying to give to the world. We are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons, but instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are recklessly driving down that same road.

The United States should not follow a policy that we do not tolerate in others.

In the area of ballistic missile defense, one of the problems lies in what is not in the bill rather than what is in the bill. The missile defense program continues to move along, spending billions of dollars without performance criteria. Moreover, the Department of Defense has cancelled plans for 9 of the 20 ground-based midcourse interceptors that have been planned from 2003 to 2007. Surely we have an obligation to test the limited ballistic missile defense and to understand the extent to which it will or will not work. Yet one of the key tests the Department proposed to cancel is the most significant test. It was scheduled before the end of the fiscal year 2004. We restored that funding in committee.

If we want a missile defense system that actually works, rather than one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should not be cancelling tests. The administration actually requested that operational testing not be required on a limited missile defense system. We refused that request and we struck the language the administration had proposed. Again, thankfully, our bill restores an intercept test with a missile defense program in 2004. More needs to be done to assure that this system is tested adequately and proven to really work. The rest of the canceled tests should be restored. There will be debate on these and other areas relating to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

I conclude by stating, again, the bill the committee has reported out under the leadership of Chairman Warner is a good bill. His leadership made it happen. I commend him.

I know the Senator from Massachusetts wished to speak. Is Senator Collins ready to go? Perhaps the Chair could recognize whoever is ready to go.

Madam President, will the Senator yield before yielding the floor just for a question?

First of all, I join my good friend from Virginia in commending the Senator from Maine for her great work in both our committee and also as chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee where she is doing an absolutely superb job. Part of that job is to take a look at proposals that are as far-reaching as the one that was very suddenly dropped upon us by the Department of Defense.

This is a far-reaching proposal. We have had very little time, as these matters go, to look at it. This Senate is a body which deliberates over these kinds of changes. I would hope that we would, No. 1, try to fashion a draft for consideration which would give greater flexibility--and I know Senator Collins is working extremely hard to do just that--but I also commend her for her caution, it seems to me, in saying that we are going to put together a draft and then we are going to propose it. Because there are some procedures which really should be followed here to protect the men and women in our civilian force, just the way we have those procedures for our uniformed forces.

The quality of life, which we talk about all the time and we try to protect, is important, surely, for our uniformed men and women, but it is also important for the civilians, and they are entitled to have a proposal which they can look at, which they can comment on, and not one which is just suddenly sprung upon them by the Congress, whether it is the House, which acted very quickly on this far-ranging proposal, or by the Senate.

So I want to just suggest that we try to arrive at something which does give greater flexibility, but we do so in a way which shows the kind of deliberation and the kind of consideration which this body has been renowned for and which I know both my colleagues have been very supportive of throughout their careers.

I think one of the important words in the question asked by the Senator from Virginia is the word ``constructively.'' I would just add the word ``fairly.'' So if we can do something that is constructive and fair for the people impacted----

It seems to me we ought to give it a try. Those are important conditions, in my book.

There were precedents of many varieties, some good, some not so good.

I have no objection whatsoever. I am curious as to whether we are under time limits.

That is fine with me. I am happy to yield. How much time does my friend need?

That makes two of us. So I am happy to yield some additional time.

The Senator from Virginia is, of course, correct.

I join with him in asking Senators to share with us or our staffs at the 5 to 6 o'clock hour what amendment they would expect to be offering either tonight or tomorrow.

I also point out, I believe--I want to make sure I am correct--the vote that occurs at 5 will be the only vote today. I ask the Chair, is that correct?

I thought that had already been agreed to. Am I incorrect on that?

I withdraw that. I thought an announcement had been made and it would be, of course, inappropriate for anyone other than the majority leader to make that announcement.

The distinguished whip came to the floor just in time to save my reputation. I very much appreciate that.