Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am very concerned because what I see coming at us right now is a very fast train. And that train is a giant giveaway entitlement program. We might be in a position to do something about now, but if we wait, we will not be able to do anything about it.

Medicare already accounts for roughly 12 percent of the Federal spending and will only grow as more and more baby boomers retire. When Medicare was proposed in 1965--and I am one of the few people around old enough to remember that--I can recall the estimate of Medicare Part A that would cost $2.9 billion in 1970. This was 1965. The actual expenditures in 1970 were $5.3 billion, roughly twice what they were estimating back in 1965. The estimate for 1980 was $5.5 billion. This is Medicare now. The actual expenditures that year totaled $25.6 billion. That is five times the estimated amount.

The predicted expenditures for 1990 were $9.1 billion, but the actual expenses totaled $67 billion, nearly seven times the estimated amount. Currently, 76 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries already have some form of drug coverage.

We have talked about the fact that something that is not broken does not need to be fixed. When we start looking at establishing an entitlement program today and go by the Medicare model, this is something that none of our kids and grandkids are going to be able to afford.

So if we keep in mind that 67 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries already have some form of drug coverage--much of it is better than the proposal on the table now--many of these individuals could lose this coverage if a prescription drug benefit is added to Medicare.

CBO estimates that 37 percent of the beneficiaries with employer- based prescription drug coverage would lose that coverage. This accounts for 11 percent of the total Medicare population.

Many pharmaceutical companies already offer programs that give low- income seniors their prescription drugs for free or for reduced prices. If this bill is passes in this form, the companies may eliminate these programs, forcing more people into the Medicare rolls.

One might say, well, we can legislate this and not allow them to do that. That solution is not going to work. That would be an attempt to micromanage the private sector, and that would not work. I do not think there is any Member of this Senate who, if they owned a company that was giving away free programs, then the Government came along and offered something, that they would continue that practice. That is exactly what would happen.

The need to get this legislation to the floor and passed by the end of June, along with the need for bipartisan support, has led to a series of compromises that have resulted in a hodgepodge of a bill. There are elements of this bill that are not only bad policy but will have a detrimental effect on the system as a whole; for instance, the extension of instant Medicaid benefits to illegal aliens, placing an additional burden on Medicaid; loss of employer-based benefits, thus expanding an already large entitlement program.

According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Monday, seniors already own 60 percent of all the wealth of the country and their worth is only increasing. We cannot continue to finance entitlement programs on the backs of current American workers, which is what this bill does.

The bill is not means tested. We are giving multimillionaires, even billionaires, the same benefit offered to seniors on fixed incomes. In other words, the Bill Gateses and Warren Buffetts would get the same benefit as a retired schoolteacher.

There is a need for Medicare reform to ensure the solvency and stability of the program. However, the current version of this bill does not meet those needs.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this legislation through amendments designed to encourage employers to retain the drug coverage they currently offer, to allow seniors to take advantage of private plans and better options, and to keep the costs low.

I will read a little bit of the editorial I read on the plane coming back to Washington. It says:

The bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week

would cover just 50 percent of the drug expenses between $276

and $4,500 annually, then zero up to $5,800, and 90 percent

thereafter. That's nowhere near as good as many seniors

currently have with employer-sponsored coverage. Most

employers will drop or scale back that coverage once they

realize that the feds are willing to pick up part of their

tab.

That is human nature. That is what we are talking about.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 37 percent

of those with employer coverage could lose it.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

We want something to happen. We know there are some plans out there that have been offered that take into consideration that we do not want one Government program that is going to end up being an entitlement program. If it ends up the way it is today, I am going to serve notice right now that after every effort we can make to pass amendments, if they do not work and we end up with what we have today, I am going to be opposing this plan, and hopefully there will be several others who will do the same thing.

Exhibit 1

Medicare Drug Folly

Runaway trains are hard to stop, but someone has to try and

derail the bipartisan folly now moving ahead under the guise

of Medicare ``reform.'' Permit us to put a few facts on the

table, in the (probably fanciful) hope that somebody in the

White House still cares more about the long-run policy than

the short-term politics.

Let's start with the amusing irony that the supporters of

this giant new prescription drug benefit are many of the same

folks who were only recently moaning that a $350 billion tax

cut would break the budget. That tax cut will at least help

the economy grow. But the new Medicare entitlement is nothing

more than a wealth transfer (from younger workers to

retirees) estimated to cost $400 billion over 10 years, and

everyone knows even that is understated.

The real pig in the Medicare python doesn't hit until the

Baby Boomers retire. Social Security and Medicare Trustee Tom

Saving told us last week that the ``present value'' of the

Senate plan--the value of the entire future obligation in

today's dollars--is something like two-thirds the size of the

current $3.8 trillion in debt held by the public.

Bill Clinton's Medicare administrator, Nancy-Ann DeParle,

correctly calls it the ``biggest expansion of government

health benefits since the Great Society.'' She's delighted to

see it, but for the rest of us it is a recipe for tax

increases as far as the eye can see.

And these estimates are before Democrats ``improve'' the

benefit, as they are already agitating to do. That's because

the dirty secret of this bipartisan lovefest is that the

proposed drug benefit isn't all that great.

The bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week

would cover just 50% of drug expenses between $276 and $4,500

annually, then zero up to $5,800, and 90% thereafter.

That's nowhere near as good as many seniors currently have

with employer-sponsored coverage. Most employers will drop or

scale back that coverage once they realize that the feds are

willing to pick up part of their tab. The Congressional

Budget Office estimates that 37% of those with employer

coverage could lose it.

A Goldman Sachs analyst last week called this bill the

``automaker enrichment act,'' saying companies like Ford and

GM would see a 15% reduction in their annual drug spending

and a huge decrease in unfunded liabilities. So unborn

taxpayers will soon have to pick up the tab for sweetheart

labor deals negotiated by carmakers and their unions a

generation or two ago.

Understood in these terms, a universal drug benefit is

neither necessary nor morally justifiable. Some 76% of

seniors already have some prescription drug coverage, as the

nearby chart shows. The average Medicare beneficiary spends

an affordable $999 a year out of pocket on prescription

drugs, and less than 5% have out of pocket expenses over

$4,000.

Seniors already own 60% of all the wealth in this country,

and are getting richer. A report in Health Affairs estimates

that by 2030 about half will have incomes of $40,000 and

about 60% will have assets of $200,000 or more. We're all for

a prosperous old age, but it is hardly a step toward social

justice for comfortable retirees to be further subsidized by

working taxpayers with mortgages and kids. The problem of

genuinely poor seniors can be handled with a drug discount

card or a means-tested subsidy.

We understand, of course, that these facts are unlikely to

interfere with the political calculus driving this giant step

toward Canadian health care. The Democrats want to expand the

welfare state, while Republicans have convinced themselves

that they'll get credit with seniors and be able to take

health care off the table for 2004.

The Republicans are fooling themselves in the long run, and

perhaps even about next year. Republicans can never win an

entitlement bidding war. They will spend the rest of their

public lives sounding like Scrooge for not expanding

benefits, or raising taxes on their own voters to pay for the

subsidies, or imposing price controls on drug makers that

will stifle innovation. This is how parties of the right

became me-too socialists in Europe.

The sheepish support for this from the likes of otherwise

conservative Senators Rick Santorum and Mitch McConnell gives

the game away. They're playing loyal spinners, but their

heart doesn't seem to be in it. They're going along for the

ride with a Republican White House that seems to have

forgotten that it has an obligation to more than its own re-

election.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I think it appropriate I make a few comments. My committee does have jurisdiction over any environmental aspects of the OCS. I consider this to be significant. I think it is very important for us. We hear all the stuff about the environment and we hear some extremist groups who are saying they don't want this to take place. There are some out there, maybe even some Senators, who might believe this somehow is going to authorize exploration or authorize drilling.

Section 105 of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis of oil and natural gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. It does not in any way authorize any type of exploration; it doesn't authorize any kind of drilling. It will provide the American people, for the first time, using new technology-- and we have new technology--a comprehensive overview of the country's offshore oil and natural gas resources.

This 3-D seismic technology--I have heard the chairman of the Energy Committee talk about this modern technology. It was developed in the 1990s and has allowed us to identify 100 trillion cubic feet more natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico than was previously found.

We have surveys for the rest of the country's natural resources. We have surveys of how many forests we have, how many trees we have, how many fish we have, how much coal we have. Why is there so much resistance to knowing how many oil and gas resources or reserves are out there? How can we have a comprehensive national energy policy without knowing how much oil and gas the country has? That is really the key to this.

I have criticized Republican and Democrat administrations alike for not having a comprehensive energy policy. I remember, during the Reagan administration, trying to get a comprehensive energy policy. We were not able to

do it. During the first Bush administration, we were not able to do it.

Consequently, back when I was so concerned about our dependence upon foreign oil for our ability to fight a war, during the Reagan administration, our dependence was only 36 percent. Now it is 57 percent. So it has just gotten worse and worse.

Finally, I applaud the President for saying we are going to have a comprehensive energy policy, and I applaud the Senator, the chairman of the Energy Committee, for coming up with a well-thought-out plan. But, again, how can we have a comprehensive policy if we don't even know what resources the Nation has?

Many colleagues are concerned that section 105 undermines the State's right to determine what happens in Federal waters off its shores.

How can that happen? It is just a study. In fact, not knowing what oil and gas is off States' shores infringes upon a State's right to make an informed decision. Indeed. The liberal mantra here is the right to know. Given that, how can they oppose knowledge? No State has the right to infringe upon interstate commerce. That would be unconstitutional. If legislators are successful in prohibiting the access to the people's resources, then no amount of information about America's oil and natural gas reserves is going to change that protection.

Secretary of the Interior Norton, in a recent letter to my colleagues, Senators Graham and Nelson, states:

The language does not affect the moratoria.

You have to understand that. I just hope the people of America are watching this because we are really just saying we don't want the knowledge. We are facing a natural gas crisis. I don't think anyone is going to stand up here and say that we are not. This crisis is universally acknowledged through widespread awareness. This crisis has really just begun in the past year or so.

In a wonderfully bipartisan way, Congress has come together to try to reduce America's reliance on foreign sources of energy, including oil and natural gas.

Limiting the American people's access to knowledge about the American people's resources, let alone the resources themselves, is a guaranteed way to increase dependence on foreign sources of energy. It is sort of an ``ignorance-is-bliss'' strategy.

Also, many States are facing budget shortfalls. They turn to us for options for addressing these shortfalls. The ones I have talked with are appreciative of the fact that we need to know what resources are off our shores.

Again, this amendment authorizes only a study and will allow us to make good and informed decisions about resources. I can't imagine anyone being against something which is merely shedding light on what we have and informing the people of America what the resources are so we can intelligently address those resources in the future.

I certainly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment which would strike the people's right to know what kinds of resources are out there.

Again, I repeat that it has nothing to do with exploration. It has nothing to do with drilling oil. All it deals with is finding out what our resources are.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, first of all, I would like to say this is a noncontroversial amendment which everyone is for.

That is not true. But it is a very old subject. I say that in two ways.

It is a subject that has been around for a long time and one that needs to be addressed one way or another.

Second, I am offering an amendment that passed out of the Commerce Committee last year. It does one very simple thing. Currently, the age limit for a commercial pilot is age 60. That was established some 40 years ago. The life expectancy since that time has increased by about 12 years. There is no medical reason that anyone has ever put forward why a pilot should have to stop flying at age 60. Quite frankly, I know pilots who are too old to fly at age 50. I am an exception. I am age 68, and I am a better pilot than I was 40 years ago. But age is arbitrary. There are no two people alike.

For that reason, age 60 being an arbitrary number and having been around for some 40 years, my preference would be not to have any age limit at all. Frankly, I think we should have very strong, stringent medical requirements. That is in the law today. And we should have very strong proficiency requirements. That is in the law today. So long as a person is able to do that, that person should be able to continue. But, realistically, I believe people are going to say, well, that could lead up to very old ages--even my age. They do not want that to happen.

So we are putting an arbitrary age limit of 65 so we can at least look at it for a period of time. There have been a lot of studies. Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene did a study as to what age someone would not have the proficiency in flying an airplane. They came back and said age has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are other predictors that are much more important. In fact, some studies have shown that airline pilots exceed population norms for physical health and mental ability. I believe that is true because they are required to take physicals on a regular basis.

I am a commercially rated pilot. I have been for some 40 years. I can tell you from personal experience in my particular case. Some of you in this Chamber will remember this. I had an experience just a couple of years ago with a single-engine airplane where the front end of the airplane came off in flight. Normally, with that situation you are through. However, drawing upon experience, I was able to determine where the new stalling speed was, which was three times what the stalling speed normally would be for that aircraft, and come back and made somewhat of a crash landing, I guess, only because I didn't have any gears down there. But, nonetheless, quite frankly, I wonder if I would have been able to do that before.

At this time, I would like to yield the floor so I can see what type of opposition is here today.

I would like to tell you that everyone is for it. Quite frankly, ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, is not for it. There is a very good reason. It is not a safety reason. It is not an age reason. It is a monetary reason. I have a great deal of respect for younger pilots who are commercial pilots working for the

airlines. By getting rid of older pilots, that leaves more upward mobility. That is true. I think that is one of the reasons they are opposed to it. In fact, I think that is the only reason they are opposed to it. Many of the airlines are for it, and some are against it. Some of them are in opposition to my amendment as an economic issue. As a pilot becomes older, he is paid more money. Consequently, the payrolls in an ailing industry would go up. I am sensitive to that. I have weighed that carefully and have determined this is the best thing.

With that, I yield the floor.

It was actually a twin-engine plane.

Mr. President, first of all, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from North Dakota, and some of the things he says certainly do make sense. I would have to say this, though. There is not a bureaucracy out there that, now and then, does not have to be prodded a little bit because it is the very nature of a bureaucracy not to change. They do not want to change.

Not long ago, I had a bill, on which I believe the Senator from North Dakota supported me, called the emergency revocation bill. It took 3 years before we got the votes to pass it. It was something that should have been done, I believe, by the FAA; and I think most of them would agree. Many of them in the field have told me since then that it was something they should have done. They are very busy, they have their hands full, and probably the furthest thing from their minds is making a change.

When it gets down to age, when you talk about 60, age 60, when this rule was put in, is the same as age 72 today. Everything that is tied to an index--whether it is retirement, Social Security--they all have increased in age, except this one issue.

As far as safety is concerned, I do not think the FAA would tell you the arbitrary age of 60 or 65 is going to relate to safety. But what they relate to safety is the medical and proficiency requirements, which are very stringent. And the older you get, I suggested to my friend from North Dakota, the more stringent they become, because I have had to live through this myself.

On the argument that there is not a shortage of pilots, now we are going through a temporary phase. I think, as everyone in this Chamber knows, we are going through a rebuilding process of our military, and the supply and demand of pilots is something that is going to change. I just hope that does not influence a person into making that decision on a vote.

I say to the Senator, he is right, safety is the big issue. But we can show--and have testimony, a lot of which I have already talked about--that safety is not related to age; it is related to medical conditions and proficiency.

With that, I yield the floor to see if there are those who want to be heard. If not, I will yield back the remainder of my time.

Forty years ago.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I would suggest that this is exactly like the bill that came out of the Commerce Committee last year or the year before, the 107th Congress. I really believe it is time for us to do this. I know where the pressures are against it.

If there is no one else on the other side who wants to be heard, I will yield back.

Yes.

Mr. President, I think we have responded to everything the Senator from North Dakota has said. I would only say that there are a lot of forces out there against it. But every argument that is against it, that is a legitimate argument, is an economic argument.

I believe everyone in this Chamber has to understand that what was being age 60, 40 years ago, is not the same as being age 60 today. And everything else, every other schedule we have written into law, has changed more than this amount during that 40-year period.

Mr. President, the three arguments used by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi are, first, economic. The pilots' union is opposed to it. I said that in my opening statement. There is a justified reason for that. If I were a young pilot and a member of the union, I might feel the same way because they want more upward mobility. As far as the airlines are concerned, yes, they are going to have to pay a little more. The average older pilots have greater salaries and benefits. These are economic reasons.

I think we should consider these reasons but I don't want anybody voting on this and believing in their heart that they are doing it for safety or because of the supply and demand of pilots. We all know that will change; we

know that with the restructuring of our military.

As I said, if it is a good age--first, it should not be an age at all. It ought to be based on medical tests and proficiency tests. If 40 years ago 60 was a good age, 65 would be better now.

We will have a chance to look at this. I think there are a lot of people who would like to see a realistic approach to this. I think we used the same thing for 40 years and certainly it is justified to raise that at this time.

I yield the floor.

Yes.

In terms of proficiency tests, I am a flight instructor. I test people, and I think everybody doing that takes into consideration age, and they are more stringent with them as they get older.

Again, a person could be more proficient at age 70 than at age 40. This happens to some people. That is why age should not be the determining factor; proficiency and health should be. Certainly, economic factors should not.

I yield the floor.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I have two technical amendments. They have been agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. Nuclear power is a clean, reliable, stable, affordable, and domestic source of energy. It is an essential part of this Nation's energy mix. And if we care about energy stability and the environment, then nuclear power must play an important role in our energy future.

I am a strong supporter of nuclear power and I want to commend Senator Domenici for his commitment to nuclear energy in this bill. His legislation provides incentives to enhance and expand our energy base and usher new advanced-design nuclear power technologies. It has been nearly 20 years since a new nuclear plant has been built. The safety and efficiency record of the industry over that time has been astounding. Through increased efficiency, nuclear plants have increased their clean generation of energy. The increased electricity generation from nuclear powerplants in the past 10 years was the equivalent of adding 22 new 1,000-megawatt plants in our Nation's electricity grid. But with energy demand increasing by at least 30 percent over the next 15 years, more generation will be necessary to meet our needs. As we look to the future, if we are to meet those needs, provide stability in the marketplace, and ensure clean air, then we will have to continue to expand our nuclear base load. Nuclear energy is America's only expandable large-scale source of emission-free electricity.

The Environment & Public Works Committee--the committee of which I have the honor to serve as chairman--has jurisdiction over the Nuclear Regulatory Agency and I have been active in overseeing that agency, both as the nuclear subcommittee chairman, and now as chairman of the full committee. In 1998 I began a series of NRC oversight hearings. I did so with the goal of changing the bureaucratic atmosphere that had infected the NRC. By 1998, the NRC had become an agency of process, not results. I knew that if we were to have a robust nuclear energy sector, we needed a regulatory body that was both efficient and effective--and one in which the public could be sure that safety is the top priority. If the agency was to improve it had to employ a more results-oriented approach--one that was risk-based and science-based, not one mired in unnecessary process and paperwork. I am pleased that in the last 5 years, we have seen tremendous strides at the NRC. It has become a lean and more effective regulatory agency. I have the utmost confidence in the NRC ability to ensure that nuclear energy in this country is safe and reliable.

We have all of the pieces in place to move to the next generation of nuclear power. If we are to meet the energy demands of the future and we are serious about reducing utility emissions, then we should get serious about the zero emissions energy production that nuclear power provides. And that means that we should not be discouraging the development of new, safe nuclear technologies. Quite the opposite, we should provide the incentives and the assurances in order to meet the energy needs of this country.

The bill before us provides a sensible incentive for future nuclear power projects. Unfortunately, the Wyden/Sununu amendment will remove those incentives--it is a step backward--away from long-term stable and clean energy supplies.

Mr. President, to respond to the question asked by the distinguished Senator from California, why are we fighting it? One of the biggest problems is, you get in this quagmire of lawsuits and nothing ever gets done in terms of cleanup. This is something we have been fighting for a long time.

This is going to be a more brief statement than it was going to be before because right now we have a very significant piece of legislation before the committee I chair on the clear skies legislation, which is the most far-reaching reduction in powerplant pollutions in the history of clean air. So it is very significant, and I do have to get back.

I have stated on many occasions my concern about the fact that this country does not have a comprehensive energy policy. I have also criticized Republicans and Democrats alike. We didn't get a comprehensive energy policy in the Reagan administration or the first Bush administration or the Clinton administration. We are going to get one with this. That is why this is so significant.

As Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, it is a serious strategic issue. This is a national security issue.

The amendment we are talking about, the underlying bill, the Frist- Daschle-Inhofe amendment, represents a compromise on a lot of contentious issues. As with all compromises, there are provisions I like and I don't like. I am afraid there is a lot of misinformation being circulated about the safe harbor provision. Time and time again, we hear if the safe harbor provision is enacted into law, first, citizens cannot take refiners to court under our tort system; and, second, any responsible ethanol contamination that happens in the future would not get cleaned up. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, let me address the statement that any tort claim that has not been filed by the date of enactment of this section will be forever barred. Even with the enactment of the safe harbor provision, if a plaintiff makes a case, here are just a few tort theories that can be used in environmental cases: Trespass, trespass is not affected by safe harbor; nuisance, not affected by safe harbor; negligence, not affected; breach of implied warranty, not affected by safe harbor; a breach of express warranty, not affected by safe harbor. Safe harbor does not affect any of these tort theories.

In fact, ethanol has been approved by the EPA as a fuel additive. Now Congress is mandating the use of ethanol. So the Federal Government has given ethanol its stamp of approval and now Congress is mandating it. How can we now say that refiners and blenders are open to suits for claims that the ``product has design or manufacturing defects''? Design defect claims actually hamper cleanups by interfering with regulatory agencies. Regulatory agency oversight--Federal, State, and local--is frustrated by the product liability claims because these agencies lose control of the remedy process. These agencies are supposed to be in control of the remedy process. That answers the question asked, Why are we concerned about this? We want to get these things cleaned up.

When product liability claims are permitted, the plaintiff's motive becomes recovery of a large money judgment rather than a judgment mandating a remedy to be performed by the party who released the gasoline. Very often, the only thing getting cleaned up are the trial lawyers' mansions purchased with the spoils of these settlements. In fact, a recent report from the Council of Economic Advisors found that using the tort system in this way ``is extremely inefficient, returning only 20 cents of the tort cost dollar for that purpose.''

Now, I would like to address the rumors that sites will not get cleaned up or that polluters will not pay. The Safe Harbor provisions-- in no way--affects liability, and therefore, cleanups under any Federal or State environmental law. Any statement to the contrary is false. Enforcement of these laws is by the authorized Federal agency and States. If there were a spill, here are some examples of environmental laws that offer cleanup and liability provisions:

1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); 2. Clean Water Act; 3. Oil Pollution Act (OPA); 4. Superfund. Generally speaking, Congress intended that oil spills be cleaned up by the Oil Pollution Act. However, the Inhofe Amendment to last Congress' Brownfields bill signed into law by the President is taking hug strides in cleaning up nearly 250,000 petroleum contaminated sites, such as abandon gas stations.

No. 5, Natural Resource Damages (NRD), under the Oil Pollution Act, Superfund, and the Clean Water Act.

So as you can see, there are enormous protections through the tort system as well as through environmental laws. Again, I ask my colleagues to oppose the Boxer amendment and support the motion to table.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what we are doing here is not giving our stamp of approval on ethanol. We are not mandating. The vast majority of Members here feel more strongly about this than I do.

I know the Senator from California would not deliberately mislead you. What she is saying is just flat wrong.

I keep hearing it over and over again: If a safe harbor provision is enacted into law, No. 1, citizens will not be able to take refiners to court under our court system; and, No. 2, any possible ethanol contamination that happens in the future wouldn't get cleaned up.

It just isn't true. Even with the enactment of the safe harbor provisions, if a plaintiff makes his case--that is a very significant part of this--there are just a few court theories that could be used in environmental cases: Trespass, not affected by safe harbor; nuisance, not affected by safe harbor; negligence, not affected by safe harbor; breach of implied warrant, not affected by safe harbor; breach of express warranty, not affected by safe harbor.

As far as cleanups are concerned, if there were a spill, here are some examples of environmental laws that are on the books right now that would take care of the problem and are not affected by safe harbor: No. 1, Resource Conservation Recovery; No. 2, Clean Water Act; No. 3, Oil Pollution Act; No. 4, Superfund; and it goes on and on.

Neither of these assertions is true. They would be able to have their day in court, and at the same time we have adequate laws in the court system and environmental laws to accommodate any cleanup that would take place.

Mr. President, it is important that Congress make available all possible options for refiners to ensure compliance with the renewable fuels standard and decrease chances for gasoline price and supply volatility. One such option for meeting the renewable fuels standard that has shown promise is ethyl tertiary butyl ether ETBE.

ETBE is a High-octane, low-vapor pressure, gasoline-blending component produced from a combination of ethanol and butane. Because both of these raw materials are produced in abundance domestically, ETBE will help expand US gasoline supplies, moderating possible gasoline price volatility.

ETBE is fully fungible with gasoline. This allows ETBE to be blended into gasoline at any point in the gasoline logistical chain and transported in gasoline pipelines to regions of the country where it is more costly to transport and blend ethanol into gasoline. Moreover, ETBE does not have a negative impact on gasoline vapor pressure, making it easier and more cost-effective to blend ETBE into gasoline-- especially during the summertime ozone control season when gasoline vapor pressure is restricted.

ETBE reduces more gasoline evaporative and tailpipe emissions, lowers air toxics and carbon monoxide, and provides 20-percent more carbon dioxide emission reduction than other gasoline-blending components.

ETBE is 75 percent less water soluble than MTBE. This means use of ETBE substantially reduces the risks to ground water resources should gasoline leak from an underground storage tank. ETBE also has other physical properties which make it migrate slower and shorter distances--and easier to remediate--should a gasoline spill or leak occur.

I support the development of ETBE because of the benefits it provides for cleaner air, enhanced gasoline supply, and the ability to transport the fuel in the current infrastructure. Congress, in enacting a RFS, should not do anything to preclude its use. The marketplace should be allowed to determine how it will meet the requirements of the RFS.

Vote on Amendment No. 850

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and recognize the brave men and women who flew and supported the mission of the B-2 bomber. The B-2 is a critical asset of our U.S. military and must be supported in the future. The B-2 can carry up to 40,000 pounds of munitions and can strike up to 16 targets in a single pass. The first night of the bombing in Baghdad, 6 B-2s destroyed 92 targets on the first night. B-2s flew nonstop, 36-hour missions from Whiteman AFB in Missouri to Iraq, unscathed. The B-2s targeted everything from airfields to surface-to-air missiles, sometimes changing targets while airborne enroute to Iraq. No other military has this capability with such accuracy and survivability. It is essential we fund the Global Air Traffic Management, GATM, system, the Secure Nuclear Communications and Broadband Connectivity capabililty, and the repair of the Aft Deck Durability issue for the B-2. We must ensure the B-2 is maintained and modified to keep its lethal edge.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for his remarks, and also the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

I would like to start off by saying, I was elected to the other body in 1986. In 1987, a very distinguished Congressman, Dick Armey, came up with the whole idea of how to get rid of excess infrastructure, using this system that should be free of political influence, or as free as possible. I supported it and voted for it. I went through four BRAC rounds. The first one was in 1988, the second one was in 1991, the third in 1993, and the fourth was in 1995.

During that period of time, it worked very well. We closed or realigned some 300 installations but 97 specific major installations were closed. There was a lot of pain that went with that. There were probably a few people who were defeated on the basis of that. But, nonetheless, the idea he had worked.

I made the statement during that time that with regard to the installations we have in my State of Oklahoma, if they came out through this process and said they, in fact, wanted to do something, and it was necessary to close a classified, excess infrastructure in one of my installations, I would support that statement. As it turned out, it did not happen.

There are three major reasons, that even though what my colleagues have said sounds very good--and I believe most of it is true and factual; and I know they believe it--but three things are different today than were in those four BRAC rounds.

No. 1, I look across the Chamber and I can see a chart that makes reference to the fact that the threat is different since September 11. Well, I will not belabor that point because I was not on the floor and I assume that point has been made.

When you talk about the threat that is out there, you are talking about a threat that could not have been foreseen 10 years ago or even 5 years ago or even 3 years ago. It is a totally different threat.

I can remember sitting in a hearing when we had expert testimony by individuals who were saying at that time that we will no longer need ground forces in 10 years. That was 10 years ago, and we have had two major victories--primarily on the ground--in the last year. So these things were not foreseen at that time. The change in the threat is going to cause us to make other adjustments.

The second thing that I have strong feelings about is this: I was listening to the distinguished Senator from Michigan talk about the amount of money that has been saved. I would question that. There are a lot of cleanups that have not been concluded yet. We hear glowing figures about how much is going to be saved by each installation that is closed. Some installation closings have resulted in no savings whatsoever. But there is one thing that is a certainty; and that is, when you close an installation, for the first 2 or 3 or 4 years, it is going to cost a lot of money. For that reason, and that reason alone, I would want to adopt this amendment so we do not have a 2005 BRAC round because we do not have any idea how many installations will be closed and how much money that will cost us.

Right now we are in a crisis in our defense system. I know a lot of people do not like to say this. A lot of people do not believe it. But we went through the last administration, when the proper attention was not given to defending America, and a lot of people had this great euphoria that the cold war was over and thinking there was no longer

a threat out there and that we could cut down the size of our military; and, as the Senator from Arizona said, we did cut it down from some 3 million troops to 1.4 million. I am certain a mistake was made.

Now we look at the problems we have in our military and they go all the way across the board. No. 1, we have inadequate troop strength. We know that. That is a fact. We can't do what has to be done in Iraq and other places and have enough reserve for a contingency that might happen in North Korea, Syria, or any other place. This is something that has concerned us.

No. 2, force strength deficiency is resulting in a crisis in our reserve component. Our Guard and Reserves are all overworked. They are unable to carry on the responsibilities they have. We can't expect the employers to continue with all these deployments and pay these people, hold these jobs, particularly in an economy that is not robust. This problem is serious.

A third problem that took place over the last administration was a slowing down of our modernization program. I have said in the Senate that we are sending our troops out to fight on the ground with artillery that is World War II technology. The best thing we have in artillery right now operating is called Paladin. Paladin technology came about in the 1950s. When you tell people you have to get out and swab the breach after every shot, they don't believe you until they see that is the case. There are four countries, including South Africa, making artillery pieces better than that which we have.

Then with all of these problems out there, we find out that the threats are greater today than they were during the cold war. People don't like to hear that, but back in the cold war, we had one great threat. That was the Soviet Union. We were the two superpowers. They were predictable. We knew what each other had. We developed a program under a Republican administration that I did not agree with. That was a program of mutual assured destruction. That is, I will make you a deal: You don't defend yourself against us and an incoming missile; We will not defend ourselves. So if you fire on us, we will fire on you. Everybody dies and everybody is happy.

That seemed fairly reasonable at that time. Now we have a little sense of the changing threat out there and recognize it is not coming from one place. We have some 20 countries that have weapons of mass destruction or that are developing them. It is not something we can quantify now as to what kind of force structure we need.

That brings me to my second point one more time. While we don't know how much savings will be effected, we do know it is going to cost millions and millions of dollars for every installation that is closed. We cannot afford it now. We cannot afford to leave our force structure where it is, our modernization program where it is. We cannot allow the Russians, who are selling on the open market their S.U. series that are better than our F-15s and F-16s--we want to give our troops, the most capable troops in the world, the resources and modern resources to make sure they have something that is better than the enemy has.

The third reason it is very significant is, we are going to rebuild. We have been asking the administration to give us as much detail as to what our future force structure should look like. I am not criticizing them for not being able to come back with it because this is a moving target. We have threats that are out there we didn't have before. We have to learn how to accommodate these threats and how to combat them. Until such time as we know what the force structure is going to look like, I don't believe we should be closing any infrastructure. If we have an inadequate force structure right now that is down to here and we have perhaps more infrastructure, it does not make sense to bring the infrastructure down to an inadequate force structure and then build that up and wonder, wait a minute, why do we have something that can't be used.

So for that reason, until we find out what our force structure is going to look like, we don't know what remaining installations will be needed. Let's stop and remember, we had 97 major installations that have been closed. That is behind us. We supported that. Those were the four BRAC rounds. We are now to a point where we do not know what the threat is going to be. We don't know how we will have to rebuild our force structure and our system. So we don't know what kind of infrastructure it is going to take to accommodate that.

These three reasons were not present in 1989. They were not present in 1991, 1993, and 1995. But they are present today. So we have to face this crisis, which we will, and rebuild our military. And when we get to the point where we know what it is going to look like and how to adequately defend against this new threat, we had no idea it would be out there as recently as 3 or 4 years ago, then it is time to maybe look and reevaluate where we might be. It would be premature to do it at this time.

I support the amendment. These are three very good reasons that were not present in the future rounds.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business until 2:50 today with time equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that time consumed during the quorum call be equally divided.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

If the distinguished Senator from Virginia would yield, Mr. Chairman, I also have concerns about this provision and the effects it would have on our ability to meet production needs to get necessary meals to our service men and women in the field.

I thank the chairman and the Senator from Indiana and look forward to working with them on this issue as we proceed with the bill.

the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons

Mr. President, I strongly agree with the Senator from Georgia. I truly believe our depots are a national asset and we should address the basic question of ``core'' requirements. Currently, there is no acceptable definition of ``inherently governmental'' functions or ``core'' which can guide the administration and the Department of Defense as they decide which functions should be competed for outsourcing. As we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States does not have the luxury of time in addressing the threats of tomorrow. Before we start making short-term decisions, we need to look at the long-term effects and requirements in support of national defense.

Mr. President, as the war in Iraq demonstrated, our troops are the finest in the world. Through their mastery of precision- guided weapons, they minimized casualties of noncombatants and effectively contained war's inevitable destruction. In just 21 days, they liberated Iraq, a country almost the size of California, from a brutal tyranny.

Many factors contributed to the success of the Iraq war. In my view, the most important--and this, I believe, is true of any war--was training. To be strong in battle, soldiers must train as they fight. On U.S. training ranges, our troops engage in highly realistic, combat ready exercises, preparing them to fight and protect themselves in battle. This is what they deserve.

But gradually, those readiness exercises--so critical to the military's training mission--are steadily being constrained and inhibited. Slowly, but surely, training simulations bear little connection with the true-to-life. The cause is straightforward but very disturbing: the extreme agenda of some environmental groups, whose hostile lawsuits are precipitating a crisis in training .

Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity have launched an unconscionable war on the military. They believe there are no compromises, even when the issue involves protecting and preparing our troops for battle. They would rather file lawsuits--something they are quite good at, incidentally--than find commonsense solutions to balance environmental protection with the best military training available.

These lawsuits are gradually eroding not just the land available for training and readiness, but are gravely diminishing the actual training exercises and live-fire simulations that are so critical to prepare for real-life combat.

Despite the claims made by environmental groups, the Pentagon has demonstrated a strong commitment to environmental stewardship. The evidence is overwhelming. But land development is fast encroaching upon military facilities, driving wildlife and endangered species into the relative sanctuary of training ranges.

The military has made environmental accommodations time and time again, but there is only so much it can do. The flood of environmental lawsuits is diverting the military away from its all-important training mission. As a result, training slowly but surely is dying a death of a thousand cuts.

There are too many egregious examples to recount here. The situation facing Camp Pendleton in California bears special mention. Camp Pendleton is considered the premier training base for the Marines. Because of a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council to list the gnatcatcher as endangered, 57 percent of the base may become ``critical habitat,'' which in effect means no training and readiness exercises in that area.

Also, there are 17 miles of beach at Camp Pendleton--because of environmental restrictions, only 200 yards of beach are available to practice amphibious landings. All military vehicles that come ashore during an amphibious landing are restricted to designated roads. Troops can only come ashore in single file columns, which is hardly a good simulation of actual warfighting conditions.

To address these problems, the Pentagon has a reasonable, commonsense proposal to clarify existing environmental laws. Contrary to statements by some of my colleagues, the Pentagon is not seeking blanket exemptions from current laws. To say otherwise is simply false.

Take, for example, the provision clarifying how the Endangered Species Act applies to training bases. DoD wants to continue a policy first implemented by the Clinton administration's Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposal would codify Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, INRMPSs, in place of critical habitat designations.

INRMPs, which are required to provide for, among other things, fish and wildlife management, land management, forest management, fish and wildlife-oriented recreation, and wetland protection, allow the military to balance species protection and training needs.

DoD's proposal explicitly requires DoD to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of ESA. Also, the Interior Secretary must approve INRMPs in writing. Other provisions of ESA, as well as statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act, also would continue to apply.

Thus it is simply unconscionable that this is characterized as a ``sweeping exemption.'' My Democratic colleagues also contend that such a clarification isn't necessary because ESA already contains national security exemptions. Ironically, while complaining about a proposed provision that, in effect, continues to subject DoD to ESA, my colleagues want to pursue exemptions under current law. In practice, those exemptions mean DoD could ignore existing statutory requirements altogether under ESA.

Yesterday, 51 Senators voted for an amendment sponsored by Senators Lautenberg and Jeffords that effectively guts the ESA provision in the fiscal year 2004 Defense reauthorization bill. The amendment upsets the balance stuck between species protection and training. It tilts irresponsibly in favor of species protection, which is not the mission of DoD.

The amendment says DoD must ``conserve the species,'' rather than, as stated in the bills original language, provide ``conservation benefits.'' The distinction is significant because ``conserve' means DoD must recover species. This is an unacceptably high threshold, one that even Fish and Wildlife has been unable to meet under ESA.

According to original 1973 ESA, conserve means ``to use and use all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include but are not limited to all activities associated with scientific resources and management, such as research, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance promulgation, live trapping, and transplanting.'' As is obvious, the burdens on DoD training and readiness would be enormous.

DoD opposes the amendment because it could have perverse and unintended consequences, such as removing the Fish and Wildlife Service's flexibility to make decisions based on the differing circumstances facing each training range. Also, DoD and the Department of the Interior believe it will lead to more lawsuits, not less-- exactly what DoD is trying to prevent.

The question remains: What should DoD's most important focus be, training or recovering the gnatcatcher?

I am also very disturbed by statements an characterizations of DoD's training predicament. Some Senators alluded to the March 13 testimony of EPA Administrator Christie Whitman before my committee. Governor Whitman, said, ``I don't believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because of the environmental protection regulations.'' With all due respect to Governor Whitman, the EPA does not have jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act,

which, of all the existing laws addressed in the Pentagon's proposal, is responsible for the most serious training restrictions.

Moreover, I am extremely troubled by the way some Senators have summarized a General Accounting report on military encroachment. To say ``the GAO found the military has presented no evidence that the Endangered Species Act has impaired training'' is utterly false and irresponsible.

Here is what the GAO said about encroachment in its report:

Over time, the impact of encroachment on training ranges

has gradually increased. While the effect varies by service

and individual installation, in general encroachment has

limited the extent to which training ranges are available or

the types of training that can be conducted. This limits

units' ability to train as they would expect to fight and/or

requires units to work around the problem.

Barry Holman, director of the GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management section, and author of the June 2002 encroachment report, stated in his testimony before the House Government Reform Committee on May 16, 2002:

One thing I want to make clear, I would not want anyone to

conclude from looking at that report that GAO is saying `no

data, no problem.' We're not saying that. I think it's very

clear . . . that there are limitations on training.

In addition to the ESA clarification in the base bill, I filed an amendment to clarify how the Superfund law applies to military training and readiness. Though it appears this issue will not be addressed as part of the Defense authorization bill this year, it does deserve some explanation.

Live-fire training, which is the ``capstone event of a unit's training cycle,'' has come under heavy fire from environmental groups. The Army at Fort Richardson is engaged in a lawsuit that could shut down firing munitions at Eagle River Flats range. If environmentalists succeed, live fire operations at every Army range--more than 400 sites--could be severely constrained, seriously threatening training and readiness for our men and women in uniform.

This suit is not an isolated incident--there is another one much like it regarding the range at Vieques in Puerto Rico. The pattern is clear, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works received testimony as to the real agenda behind this pattern of lawsuits.

Describing yet another lawsuit by an eco-radical group against the Department of Defense, witness Frank Gaffey, president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, stated illuminatingly ``a plaintiff in the lawsuit was Melanie Dutchen who was described in the New York Times as an Anchorage activist with Greenpeace who said, `Obviously the hope of this litigation is that delay will lead to cancellation.' She went on to say, `That is what we always hope for in these suits.' I believe this is sort of an instructive insight into why the Defense Department is concerned, not only about the circumstances that you personally observed, in terms of limitations and impediments to training, but the train wreck that is coming. It is not something that is coming up by accident. It is coming about, I believe, by people, at least some of whom, have very little interest in the readiness of our military.''

My amendment will try to stop this by clarifying how RCRA and CERCLA apply to live-fire training ranges. I worked closely with the Pentagon and State officials--in particular, Doug Benevento of Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment--in drafting compromise language that will balance training needs with environmental protection.

This amendment would codify and confirm longstanding regulatory policy of EPA and every State concerning regulation of munitions on operational ranges under RCRA and CERCLA. The amendment excludes military munitions from the definition of ``solid waste'' under CERCLA. That way, the military can perform live fire training exercises without having to break up those exercises with extensive, time-consuming clean-up operations.

But this change would still offer environmental protections under existing law. Again, as stated previously, this is not an exemption. Cleanup of operational ranges is not required so long as material stays on range, but if such material moves off range, it still must be addressed under existing law. Also, if munitions cause an ``imminent and substantial endangerment on range, EPA will still retain its authority to address it on range under CERCLA.

If we fail to address these and other issues the Pentagon has put before us, we are doing a great disservice to our men and women in uniform. Unfortunately, it appears that Congress will pass only a few pieces of the Pentagon's proposal this year. I think it is imperative, for the sake of our troops, that we address the remaining pieces next year.

Mr. President, today I join my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, in introducing by request a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration.

EDA works with partners in local communities to create wealth and minimize poverty by promoting favorable business environments to attract private investment. Studies show that EDA uses Federal dollars efficiently and effectively. EDA's average cost of creating and retaining long-term jobs is among the lowest in government.

In my home State of Oklahoma, we have some communities that struggle with economic distress, and EDA has worked long and hard with those communities to bring in private capital investment and jobs. In fact, over the last ten years, EDA projects have resulted in more than 15,000 jobs being created or saved. With an investment of about $53 million, we have leveraged another 50 million in State and local dollars and more than 1.1 billion in private sector dollars. I would call that a wonderful success story.

I am pleased that the President has chosen to send to Congress a reauthorization bill for this agency. His bill promotes coordination, flexibility and performance--all excellent goals. The EDA's authorization is set to expire on September 30, 2003, and I look forward to working with the Administration, as well as my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, to try to reauthorize it before then.

Madam President, I yield myself such time as I consume.

Madam President, I have been listening with great interest to the debate. I start out saying I have some similarities to the previous speaker from Vermont. I am a veteran, I should say.

Also, the reference was made to the Environment and Public Works Committee. I do agree with the Senator from Vermont that there is a jurisdiction thing there in which we are interested. However, there is also one having to do with the readiness, with the authorization bill that is under consideration now.

I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this particular amendment. This is something we have been discussing now, not for just days or weeks but for years. We have actually had several hearings. Right now, we have had some 12 hearings in the past 2 years on this subject. Some of this was when I chaired the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We have had hearings there and, of course, hearings in the Environment and Public Works Committee.

I share the compliments to Senator Ensign, in the way he has been chairing this committee and spending the time on this very critical subject.

Let me just remind everybody that when INRMP first came along, the Integrated National Resource Management Plan, they came along not in a Republican administration, they came along in the Clinton administration. They recognized at that time the seriousness of proper training and the fact that we have a very serious problem affecting some of the environment encroachments on our limited land area. It is something that is measured, not by cost of training, not by effectiveness of training, as much as it is human lives.

The Senator from New Jersey talked about the Endangered Species Act. I spent 3 years and lost trying to stop the prohibition of live-fire training on a Navy range on land we own in Vieques. I have a background, as does the Senator from Vermont, in having gone through training. I am sure he would share this with me. When we went through training and crawled under inert fire, it was quite a bit different from crawling under live fire. This is the kind of training that I think we had in Vieques--integrated training, which we don't have today. In Kuwait, we lost five lives, four of whom were Americans. If you read the accident report, it very clearly states that we lost those lives because we didn't have adequate live-fire training. It was denied us right before that time at the range in Vieques.

I am going to talk about Camp Pendleton.

Before I do so, the Senator from New Jersey had talked about Camp Pendleton and how compatible everything has been in Camp Pendleton. He suggests that in Camp Pendleton there are some 17 miles of shoreline. We can only train in some 200 yards of that area. It is a very serious matter.

I agree that we have very well-trained troops in the field. But I also say we are not enjoying the state of readiness that our troops are entitled to have--unlimited capability of training in a live and integrated relationship.

The Lautenberg amendment would essentially gut the bill language because it would impose an unachievable standard of recovering species according to the legal definition of concern. DOD would be forced to guarantee sufficient funding to accomplish species recovery while the Department of Interior and Endangered Species Act have not been able to recover species.

This is very important. We have had since 1973--30 years--the Endangered Species Act. Yet no species have come off the list as a result of operation of the Endangered Species Act. In other words, he is putting on a test that cannot be fulfilled. In other words, we are not going to be able to have this type of training.

This is the quote from a committee hearing which we had. This was the Deputy General Counsel for Environment and Installations. It gets into the question as to how this is going to affect the training:

With respect to the ESA, what our proposal seeks to do is

to codify a policy that was adopted during the Clinton

administration with respect to the INRMPs.

Then Craig Manson said:

I concur as to the ESA provision.

The amendment is very similar to the amendment that Senator Akaka tried to get approved in committee. Normally, Senator Akaka and I agree on these issues. During the years when I was chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he was my ranking member, and during the years he was chairman, I was his ranking member, we normally agreed on these issues.

However, I believe the Lautenberg amendment goes much further than the Akaka amendment went because it is an amendment that gets very serious in terms of forcing something to come off the list.

The essential difference between Senator Akaka's failed amendment in committee and Senator Lautenberg's amendment is a subtle but crucial difference between ``provide conservation benefit for the species,'' which Senator Akaka wanted to do and which I can understand, and provide a conservation benefit as Senator Lautenberg wants to do, which is ``conserve the species.'' In other words, recover. Recovery is something that can't happen. It has never happened. I will read to you from the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It said in addressing the terms ``conserving'' and ``conservation'' that it means ``to use and use all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include but are not limited to all activities associated with scientific resources and management, such as research, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance promulgation, live trapping, transplanting,'' and it goes on and on.

It says you must be able to recover. As he said, never have we been able to recover a species that was actually a result of the operation of the ESA.

The Department of Defense opposes the amendment because, No. 1, the language could have perverse and unintended consequences such as depriving the Fish and Wildlife Service the flexibility to refine the conditions in light of further experience or to tailor them more specifically to diverse sites. The language would give rise to litigation.

As the chart shows, again quoting Craig Manson:

In fact, the process of using the Integrated Natural

Resources Management Plan is a collaborative process that

requires the agreement of the Fish and Wildlife Service and

INRMP and cannot be approved without the agreement of the

Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service will continue to be

involved. Habitat will continue to be afforded the

protections that are necessary for the conservation of the

species.

I think most of us understand. That is the seriousness that we are dealing with right now.

The next concern we have is the lawsuits which are now preventing continuation of a policy started by the implementation of the Clinton/ Gore administration. And we are talking about the INRMP.

This is Jamie Irappaport Clark, the Clinton administration's Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He said:

Do I believe that Integrated Natural Resource Management

Plans can provide the needs for conservation of listed

species? Absolutely.

This came from the Clinton administration--not from the current administration. That was the Clinton Fish and Wildlife Director, Jamie Clark, who initiated the practice and gave the testimony before our committee.

The marine field training is rated ``not combat capable'' at Camp Pendleton.

I am glad the Senator from New Jersey brought up Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton is a good model to use as to what we don't want to do. Camp Pendleton has all of these 17 miles of shoreline. We can only use some 200 yards. In fact, if you look at the shoreline, that 200 yards is so small that it doesn't even show up on the map. This shows the proposed critical habitat at the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton, 57 percent. That tells us what is happening to our training area.

What is the result of that? The encroachment impact of training degradation at Camp Pendleton in the field of ``not combat capable'' is fifty percent. Fifty percent of the training that takes place has that category of T-4, which is ``not combat capable,'' and 69 percent is ``combat capable'' for only a low threat. That is what is happening.

How does that translate into lives? We don't know. As I mentioned, we have lost lives because of a lack of training. This is one that is very serious.

The Department of Defense set out to establish quantity of data on encroachment selecting the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton as the subject of the study and came to the conclusion that 50 percent of that training would not be combat ready.

That is how serious this is.

More holistic than mere designation of critical habitat, the management plan we are talking about, the INRMP approach, pioneered by the Clinton-Gore administration, considers habitat, food, water, predators, noise, and many more factors.

The Fish and Wildlife Service opposed the Lautenberg amendment.

Let me conclude by saying this is very serious. I could be talking about ranges other than Pendleton. Pendleton I talked about because that was brought up by the Senator from New Jersey. In the case of Camp Lejeune, in the case of Fort Bragg in the southeastern part of the United States, we are down now to just a small portion that can be used for training.

I invite my colleagues to go down to Fort Bragg, go down to Camp Pendleton, and look and see how they are inhibited from being able to have the type of training that will really prepare them properly for combat in harm's way to which we will be sending them.

I think it is very significant. There is not an issue in this bill that is more significant now than trying to do what we can to provide good training. It has been said before--and I would have to echo it-- that the military has been an excellent steward of the environment. And that is part of the problem. If you go to Fort Bragg today, after having been there 2 years ago, you see many more of these red ribbons around areas precluding them from being able to train there because of the urban sprawl and other encroachments on our training capabilities.

Our language is very good, and I would encourage us, at the time we vote, to reject the Lautenberg amendment.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent John Swisher, a military fellow, be granted access to the floor during debate.

Mr. President, first, let me make real clear things that somehow get lost in the discussion. I have heard it said by the last four or five speakers that doing this is moving forward with the development and production of low-yield nuclear weapons. Nothing could be further from the truth.

By repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research, our nuclear weapons experts will be able to explore weapons concepts that could help us to respond to new threats. We ought to treat research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons like research and development of any weapon. For any weapon that we have had, any weapon, conventional or otherwise, we have had to go through this period of time. That doesn't mean we are going to make one. It means we are going to be prepared if need be.

By repealing the ban as we did in the Senate bill, the administration is still required to specifically request funding at each phase of the research and development as required by the National Advanced Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2003. The Congress has the prerogative whether to authorize and appropriate for such activities. With the many new and emerging threats in the world, we cannot afford to be unprepared.

I was listening to the Senator from Wisconsin talk about how, somehow, this starts some kind of a nuclear race.

Really that is just not true. People argue that research on nuclear weapons would encourage nuclear proliferation. Since 1993, when the ban went into effect, the ban we are seeking to repeal right now, several nations have sought and in some cases achieved nuclear capabilities--in other words, countries such as India and Pakistan and North Korea. There is no correlation between U.S. weapons research and proliferation. More significant is the U.S. track record of nuclear reductions.

Our top military people and diplomatic leaders support repeal of this prohibition: ADM James Ellis, GEN John Jumper, Secretary of State Colin Powell.

In 1994, Congress prohibited any research and development which could lead to the production of a low-yield nuclear weapon. That is less than 5 kilotons. This is an arbitrary restriction and it impedes the ability of scientists and engineers who support our national defense to explore a full range of scientific and technical concepts for the nuclear weapons stockpile.

It has a chilling effect on creative thinking when scientists have to consult a lawyer before exploring concepts involving nuclear weapons. It restricts the ability of this or any administration to explore options to modify our nuclear weapons capability to prepare for changing defense needs in the 21st century.

These needs are changing. I remember 8 years ago, sitting in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, when there was a proposal that said we would no longer need ground troops in the next 10 years. It was about 10 years ago. Yet here we come up with the problems that we had in Afghanistan. We had the great battles there, ground troop battles. We went into Iraq. That was on the ground; it wasn't in the air. Now we are looking at other options and possible risks and we don't know what they are going to be.

The point is, we have to be ready for whatever does come. It is prudent national security policy to allow the administration to consider weapons concepts that would hold at risk deeply buried and hardened targets to defeat chemical and biological agents and reduce collateral damage.

Reducing collateral damage--if we were to be able to do this research and ultimately it became necessary to have this, we would be able to penetrate deeply into the ground to knock out chemical threats, to knock out biological threats, maybe even nuclear threats, and not cause any collateral damage. In the absence of that, you would have to use something else, a MOAB, for example, that would clear an area of maybe 5 or 10 square miles, killing everything within that range. So it would be an effort to reduce collateral damage.

Repealing this prohibition would not authorize the administration to build any nuclear weapon. I think it is very important people understand that.

What happens if all of a sudden there is a changing threat out there and we discover we need to be able to develop a low-yield nuclear weapon, if every Senator in here, every Democrat and every Republican, agreed that we had to have this? If we don't do research and development now, it could be years before we would be able to have it. If we go ahead, then we would be able to have it in a very short period of time.

I chaired the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness for quite a number of years. I see my colleague from Hawaii over there, who is my ranking member. Of course he chaired it also. We know that the threats change all the time. The whole idea of readiness is to be ready for anything that should come up. Unfortunately, we cannot predict what the future holds.

We predicted it wrong 10 years ago. We predicted it wrong 5 years ago. We could predict it wrong this time. Just by doing research and development, we are not coming out with any kind of production on any kind of low-yield nuclear weapon. It is just a matter of being prepared in the event that everyone should decide that we have to have this capability.

I hope we vote down this effort to stop our ability to be able to do research and development in this area. Again, on every weapons system we have, we have had to go through an extensive and long period of time on research and development. It doesn't cost us any more to be ready in the event that capability should be required.

I thank you very much.