Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, and Allen, and I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation.

Some 50 plus years ago, I was a high school drop-out. I left school at the age of 17 to enlist in the Navy to serve this country in World War II. In the military, I earned the rank of Petty Officer 3rd Class, electronic technician's mate. And, it was in this role that I earned my first bit of technical education.

In return for my service, I was lucky enough to earn a GI Bill that helped me go to college at Washington & Lee University where I earned a degree in engineering. Subsequently, I joined the Marines and earned a second GI Bill that allowed me to attend the University of Virginia where I earned my law degree.

Without the GI bill, I certainly might not have earned the education that I was fortunate enough to receive, and I certainly would not be standing here today in the United States Senate. That is why I feel so very strongly that we must support education in this country. Today's generation of students should have at least the same opportunity to earn their education that I had, if not more.

We are fortunate in America that we have several important Federal programs to help make education more affordable for today's generation. Whether it is the GI Bill, the Americorp stipend, subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans, or any number of other Federal education programs, many Americans today who wish to obtain higher education have access to a variety of educational programs. I support strengthening these programs to increase access to higher education.

Of all the educational grant programs, the Pell Grant program is the largest source of grant aid to help students pay for the costs associated with higher education. Eligibility for Pell Grants is based on financial need, and this year alone, Pell Grants helped 5.3 million undergraduate students attain higher education.

Now, I am a strong supporter of the Pell Grant program. The $13.1 billion

that is being spent by the Federal Government on Pell Grants in fiscal year 2004 gives students access to higher education that otherwise might not have such access. But, I also recognize that the Pell Grant program was created in 1972 when the world was entirely different.

Our world today is much more dangerous than it was back then, and much more dangerous than when I served this country with brief tours of duty in World War II and the Korean War.

Today, while we're sleeping, people in other parts of the world are contriving of every possible way to take our business, our economy, our security, and our freedoms away from us. September 11, 2001, should remind us of this.

Once, great oceans protected this Nation. But now, with the advent of the Internet and other modern technologies, the world is more connected than ever, and America is more vulnerable than ever in a lot of ways. Computer hackers all over the world try on a daily basis to hack into government computers. If successful, this could wreak havoc. Furthermore, each day, for whatever reason, people create computer viruses, and even the smallest virus can cost our economy billions of dollars.

Simply put, in today's day and age, our country faces new challenges like never before. I ask--are we prepared to meet these challenges?

Unfortunately, our institutions of higher learning are not producing enough American graduates with certain majors to meet our new challenges. In engineering, math, computer sciences, hard sciences, and certain foreign languages--America is coming up short.

The statistics are alarming: the Third International Math and Science Study reports that U.S. 12th graders scored in only the 7th percentile in math worldwide, and only the 3rd percentile in science. This is near the bottom among major industrialized nations. The National Science Foundation reports that the fraction of U.S. Bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining for nearly 2 decades when compared to the rest of the world. While nearly two-thirds of Bachelor degrees in China and Singapore are science or engineering, they account for only about 17 percent in the United States. In fact, we currently rank 61st out of the 63 countries surveyed. Similarly, the National Science Board reports that the fraction of foreign born scientists and engineers in the U.S. workforce rose to an all time high by 2000. Amazingly, 38 percent of all people working in the United States with doctorate degrees in science or engineering are now foreign born.

The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: the American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

Despite these statistics, up to now, this country has been able to meet its new challenges by importing brain power from foreign countries. We are fortunate to have so many smart minds from other countries willing to come to the United States to fill critical science and engineering positions. However, the need for home-grown talent is becoming more and more apparent.

First, international competition for this foreign brain power has become intense. As the National Science Board notes, ``Governments throughout the world recognize that a high-skill S&E workforce is essential for economic strength. Countries beyond the United States have been taking action to . . . attract foreign students and workers, and raise the attractiveness to their own citizenry of staying home or returning from abroad to serve growing national economies and research enterprises.'' This increased global competition for science and engineering workers ``comes at a time when demand for their skills is projected to rise significantly--both in the United States and throughout the global economy.''

Without action on our part, though, America will lose out in the competition for these technically talented workers. According to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America.

Increased global competition is not the only reason, though, that we have to promote a home-grown S&E workforce in America. In the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a security perspective to have American citizens performing certain tasks.

The National Science Board put it best when they said, ``The ready availability of outstanding science and engineering talent from other countries is no longer assured, as international competition for the science and engineering workforce grows. Threats to world peace and domestic security create additional constraints on employment of foreign nationals in the United States.''

I think the message is clear: Our S&E workforce is in crisis. If we do not act to encourage more American citizens to enter the high shortage areas in engineering, math, and science, then America may lose its historical advantage as the world's innovator.

The consequences of this trend are also significant from a national security perspective. The defense-related research that goes into giving our men and women in the Armed Forces the best technology and equipment requires the special skills of engineers, scientists and computer scientists. Our military has always recognized these facts, and historically has been a tremendous supporter of science and engineering on a broad scale, from applied research to the most pure and esoteric of pursuits.

Let me quote some numbers which make clear what a huge investment our defense community makes in science and engineering: According to the National Science Foundation, the Defense Department is by far the largest single supporter of science and technology in the Federal Government, accounting for about half of the total research dollars spent; the proportion of defense funding for University research in critical disciplines is very significant. For example, 90 percent of basic astronautical research is defense-funded. And, as you all must realize, University research is vastly important for training subsequent generations of high-quality researchers; and in terms of technical manpower, defense-related scientists and engineers make up nearly 46 percent of the total Federal workforce. And, this includes 28 percent of all physical scientists, 48 percent of computer scientists and mathematicians, and 67 percent of all engineers.

For well over a century these investments have given us advantages in technological fields that have provided our men and women of our Armed Forces the most advanced and powerful tools in existence, from submarines and airplanes to unmanned vehicles and the Internet. These technologies not only give our military an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield, they also save many lives.

Yet, alarmingly, it is in the precise disciplines that produce these technologies and equipment where we see some of the greatest potential shortages in our science and engineering workforce. Numerous studies show that the number of domestic students in these critical fields has been falling steadily for years. And, without major investments to encourage more Americans to enter these critical fields, America is going to lose its status as the world's innovator and be placed in the precarious situation of having to rely on foreign countries to sell us the best equipment and the best technology for our troops. That is why it is paramount for America, from within, to produce the home-grown technical talent it needs.

The consequences of inaction are enormous. And, while America's challenge is substantial, it is not insurmountable. Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help.

Under current law, the $13.1 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, 2 people

from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national security, homeland security, and economic security needs.

That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every 2 years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded through a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education.

We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have over $13 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand.

In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a commonsense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, and Allen, and I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation.

Some 50 plus years ago, I was a high school drop-out. I left school at the age of 17 to enlist in the Navy to serve this country in World War II. In the military, I earned the rank of Petty Officer 3rd Class, electronic technician's mate. And, it was in this role that I earned my first bit of technical education.

In return for my service, I was lucky enough to earn a GI Bill that helped me go to college at Washington & Lee University where I earned a degree in engineering. Subsequently, I joined the Marines and earned a second GI Bill that allowed me to attend the University of Virginia where I earned my law degree.

Without the GI bill, I certainly might not have earned the education that I was fortunate enough to receive, and I certainly would not be standing here today in the United States Senate. That is why I feel so very strongly that we must support education in this country. Today's generation of students should have at least the same opportunity to earn their education that I had, if not more.

We are fortunate in America that we have several important Federal programs to help make education more affordable for today's generation. Whether it is the GI Bill, the Americorp stipend, subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans, or any number of other Federal education programs, many Americans today who wish to obtain higher education have access to a variety of educational programs. I support strengthening these programs to increase access to higher education.

Of all the educational grant programs, the Pell Grant program is the largest source of grant aid to help students pay for the costs associated with higher education. Eligibility for Pell Grants is based on financial need, and this year alone, Pell Grants helped 5.3 million undergraduate students attain higher education.

Now, I am a strong supporter of the Pell Grant program. The $13.1 billion

that is being spent by the Federal Government on Pell Grants in fiscal year 2004 gives students access to higher education that otherwise might not have such access. But, I also recognize that the Pell Grant program was created in 1972 when the world was entirely different.

Our world today is much more dangerous than it was back then, and much more dangerous than when I served this country with brief tours of duty in World War II and the Korean War.

Today, while we're sleeping, people in other parts of the world are contriving of every possible way to take our business, our economy, our security, and our freedoms away from us. September 11, 2001, should remind us of this.

Once, great oceans protected this Nation. But now, with the advent of the Internet and other modern technologies, the world is more connected than ever, and America is more vulnerable than ever in a lot of ways. Computer hackers all over the world try on a daily basis to hack into government computers. If successful, this could wreak havoc. Furthermore, each day, for whatever reason, people create computer viruses, and even the smallest virus can cost our economy billions of dollars.

Simply put, in today's day and age, our country faces new challenges like never before. I ask--are we prepared to meet these challenges?

Unfortunately, our institutions of higher learning are not producing enough American graduates with certain majors to meet our new challenges. In engineering, math, computer sciences, hard sciences, and certain foreign languages--America is coming up short.

The statistics are alarming: the Third International Math and Science Study reports that U.S. 12th graders scored in only the 7th percentile in math worldwide, and only the 3rd percentile in science. This is near the bottom among major industrialized nations. The National Science Foundation reports that the fraction of U.S. Bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining for nearly 2 decades when compared to the rest of the world. While nearly two-thirds of Bachelor degrees in China and Singapore are science or engineering, they account for only about 17 percent in the United States. In fact, we currently rank 61st out of the 63 countries surveyed. Similarly, the National Science Board reports that the fraction of foreign born scientists and engineers in the U.S. workforce rose to an all time high by 2000. Amazingly, 38 percent of all people working in the United States with doctorate degrees in science or engineering are now foreign born.

The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: the American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total.

Despite these statistics, up to now, this country has been able to meet its new challenges by importing brain power from foreign countries. We are fortunate to have so many smart minds from other countries willing to come to the United States to fill critical science and engineering positions. However, the need for home-grown talent is becoming more and more apparent.

First, international competition for this foreign brain power has become intense. As the National Science Board notes, ``Governments throughout the world recognize that a high-skill S&E workforce is essential for economic strength. Countries beyond the United States have been taking action to . . . attract foreign students and workers, and raise the attractiveness to their own citizenry of staying home or returning from abroad to serve growing national economies and research enterprises.'' This increased global competition for science and engineering workers ``comes at a time when demand for their skills is projected to rise significantly--both in the United States and throughout the global economy.''

Without action on our part, though, America will lose out in the competition for these technically talented workers. According to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America.

Increased global competition is not the only reason, though, that we have to promote a home-grown S&E workforce in America. In the post 9/11 era, it is more important than ever from a security perspective to have American citizens performing certain tasks.

The National Science Board put it best when they said, ``The ready availability of outstanding science and engineering talent from other countries is no longer assured, as international competition for the science and engineering workforce grows. Threats to world peace and domestic security create additional constraints on employment of foreign nationals in the United States.''

I think the message is clear: Our S&E workforce is in crisis. If we do not act to encourage more American citizens to enter the high shortage areas in engineering, math, and science, then America may lose its historical advantage as the world's innovator.

The consequences of this trend are also significant from a national security perspective. The defense-related research that goes into giving our men and women in the Armed Forces the best technology and equipment requires the special skills of engineers, scientists and computer scientists. Our military has always recognized these facts, and historically has been a tremendous supporter of science and engineering on a broad scale, from applied research to the most pure and esoteric of pursuits.

Let me quote some numbers which make clear what a huge investment our defense community makes in science and engineering: According to the National Science Foundation, the Defense Department is by far the largest single supporter of science and technology in the Federal Government, accounting for about half of the total research dollars spent; the proportion of defense funding for University research in critical disciplines is very significant. For example, 90 percent of basic astronautical research is defense-funded. And, as you all must realize, University research is vastly important for training subsequent generations of high-quality researchers; and in terms of technical manpower, defense-related scientists and engineers make up nearly 46 percent of the total Federal workforce. And, this includes 28 percent of all physical scientists, 48 percent of computer scientists and mathematicians, and 67 percent of all engineers.

For well over a century these investments have given us advantages in technological fields that have provided our men and women of our Armed Forces the most advanced and powerful tools in existence, from submarines and airplanes to unmanned vehicles and the Internet. These technologies not only give our military an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield, they also save many lives.

Yet, alarmingly, it is in the precise disciplines that produce these technologies and equipment where we see some of the greatest potential shortages in our science and engineering workforce. Numerous studies show that the number of domestic students in these critical fields has been falling steadily for years. And, without major investments to encourage more Americans to enter these critical fields, America is going to lose its status as the world's innovator and be placed in the precarious situation of having to rely on foreign countries to sell us the best equipment and the best technology for our troops. That is why it is paramount for America, from within, to produce the home-grown technical talent it needs.

The consequences of inaction are enormous. And, while America's challenge is substantial, it is not insurmountable. Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help.

Under current law, the $13.1 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, 2 people

from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science.

While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national security, homeland security, and economic security needs.

That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every 2 years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded through a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education.

We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have over $13 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand.

In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a commonsense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, my understanding is that the pending business is the Lautenberg amendment.

At this time, Mr. President, my colleague from Arizona is seeking recognition.

Mr. President, that is correct. I thank the Senator from Arizona. It is my understanding that our distinguished Senator from West Virginia desires to address the Senate, in which case the pending business is the amendment in the second degree, and we will return to that.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. Senator Levin and I have had 26 years on that committee, and we work side by side for the highest degree of bipartisanship achievable.

I want to say to all members of the committee--and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia knows this--this is the third hearing, and it has been 100-percent attendance, except for one individual who is out of town, in each of the hearings, showing the intensity of the subject, the solemnity of the proceeding. I believe all members of our committee, both sides, comported themselves in the finest traditions of the Senate, given the seriousness of this problem. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, we wish to restore the time the Senator asked for, but I want to say I share that about Senator Levin. Senator Levin and I and Senator Nunn were taught by some of the greatest teachers in the Senate, foremost the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, John Stennis, John Tower, Barry Goldwater, and Scoop Jackson.

As I look back on my quarter of a century in the Senate, those were the teachers who set the course and speed of that committee, and the Senator from Michigan and I do our best to do that with the help of the Senator from West Virginia. We thank the Senator from West Virginia.

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

Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, and myself, together with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Kyl, are endeavoring to structure a program for the next 2 or 3 hours, hopefully.

In the meantime, our distinguished colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, would like to respond to some earlier remarks made in the Senate.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, I say to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, we are prepared to accept, on both sides, the important amendment you had yesterday.

Actually, it is at the desk. We could ask for its adoption, to meet your convenience.

Mr. President, I offered an amendment yesterday. Somebody said it had been withdrawn.

Here we are.

Mr. President, I think the Senator has his amendment.

Mr. President, I commend our distinguished colleague. This is a very important, innovative approach to one of the serious problems facing the world. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

I believe my distinguished colleague from Michigan has cleared it on his side and we are ready for action.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Yes, I have.

I see a Senator seeking recognition, so we will withhold a quorum call. My understanding is the Senator from Arizona wishes to talk about the proposal now under consideration, if that is agreeable.

The Senator is correct. We have under consideration by our respective leadership at this time a program you and I have put to them to continue debate this afternoon on the Lautenberg amendment and the second degree by my colleague from Arizona at which time votes will be scheduled in the 5 to 6 timeframe.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3191

Mr. President, the terminology is being worked on right now. Nothing is agreed upon at the moment.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, and working with my ranking member, the Senator from Michigan, I make the following unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 be divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees as follows: 55 minutes to Senator Levin, 30 minutes to the Senator from Virginia; provided further that the Senate vote in relation to the Kyl amendment, which is to be drafted as a first-degree, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment; provided further that no second- degree amendment be in order to either amendment prior to the votes. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes the Senator from Virginia or his designee be recognized in order to offer the next amendment, and following that, that the Senator from Michigan be recognized in order to offer the sequential amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the underlying amendment. In the opinion of the Senator from Virginia, the amendment would make it more difficult for the President to impose sanctions on states that support terrorism. At present, the President must weigh the benefits of imposing sanctions against the costs of such sanctions, including costs to U.S. businesses that may be affected. Second, the amendment will introduce a new factor into this balance, weighing against the imposition of sanctions: the objections of foreign countries to the extension of U.S. sanctions laws to reach companies organized under their jurisdiction. European countries in particular have strenuously objected to U.S. actions they perceive to involve the extraterritorial application of U.S. law.

Because the amendment leaves the President no discretion not to cover companies organized under the laws of other countries, and thus avoid such objections, the amendment introduces a new cost the President must overcome in any decision to use sanctions to fight terrorism.

The amendment is unnecessary because existing law already provides the President the ability to prevent U.S. companies from evading U.S. sanctions through the use of foreign subsidiaries. Existing U.S. sanctions regulations prohibit actions by U.S. companies to evade or avoid U.S. sanctions. U.S. companies that create foreign subsidiaries for the purpose of evading U.S. sanctions laws may be prosecuted for such evasions. Existing U.S. sanctions regulations also prohibit U.S. companies from approving or facilitating actions by their foreign subsidiaries that would constitute violations of U.S. sanctions laws if undertaken by a U.S. company. Similarly, U.S. sanctions regulations prohibit any U.S. citizen employed by a foreign company from taking actions in violation of relevant U.S. sanctions.

I yield the floor.

I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky may wish.

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

Madam President, I understand the vote is set for 5:30.

I see the distinguished Senator from Alabama, and I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but that does not preclude a motion to table.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: Is not the Lautenberg amendment the pending amendment?

Mr. President, I yield our time to Senator Kyl.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, several colleagues are anxious to address the Chair, so I yield the floor momentarily.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the ranking member on the committee, Mr. Levin, and I will momentarily process a number of agreed-upon amendments. So at this time, seeing no Senator seeking recognition, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as is the practice with my distinguished colleague, Mr. Levin, we have arrived at an agreement on a series of amendments. I would like at this point in time to proceed with perhaps a dozen or so.

Amendment No. 3205

Mr. President, this is a technical amendment which has been cleared by both sides.

Am I correct?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment that makes a technical correction. The amendment has been cleared on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I offer an amendment to make a technical correction related to military construction.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Levin, I offer an amendment to make a technical change in title 10, to conform with actions taken in last year's bill.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment for myself and Senator Levin to authorize the Secretary of Defense to continue home health benefits for covered beneficiaries as the Department implements legislative changes to home health services enacted in fiscal year 2002.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I offer an amendment for myself and Mr. Levin that will provide temporary authority to the Secretary of Defense to waive collection of TRICARE payments made on behalf of certain individuals who were unaware of the requirement to obtain Part B coinsurance under Medicare in order to remain eligible for TRICARE actions underway by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to offer a new enrollment period for those individuals as a remedy to this matter.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Allard, I offer an amendment which clarifies that local stakeholder organizations working in cooperation with the Department of Energy after closure of environmental management sites will be made up of local elected officials and their designees.

This amendment, I believe, has been cleared on the other side.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has support on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3169

On behalf of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, I offer an amendment which clarifies how the Department of Energy, working with the contractor for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, will provide support for the Los Alamos public schools.

I move to reconsider the vote.

It has been cleared on this side. I urge its adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3214

I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Sessions to authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to authorize the exchange of land at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

I move to reconsider the vote.

We accept on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3165

This is our final amendment. I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Coleman, which would direct the Secretary of Defense to carry out a study on feasibility of the use of Camp Ripley National Guard Training Center in Minnesota as a mobilization station for Reserve components ordered to active duty.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I certainly will not object, but we should clarify that the vote will now go off at 11:30 a.m. Therefore, why don't we equally divide the time and the Senator from New Mexico take such time as he wishes, and our distinguished colleague from Arkansas wishes to speak. I do not think there is any rush. The Senator can take the time he wishes.

Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senator Bingaman and Senator Pryor and acknowledge our colleague in the House, Mr. Snyder. I would like to add to that Congressman Ike Skelton. He talked to me about it. He feels very strongly. He is a marvelous man. He is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

So I think this is a splendid initiative. I strongly urge Members of this Senate to support it. It is H.R. 3104, the act to provide for the establishment of separate campaign medals for those uniformed services participating in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The bill before us passed the House in late March by a vote of 423 to 0. During the markup of the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 on May 6, the committee unanimously decided to include the text of this provision in the bill as section 542. At the same time, in order to expedite its enactment, the committee also voted favorably to report out this bill. So we covered it in both ways in the Armed Services Committee, again showing our strong support.

I will touch on a little bit of history. Going back to World War II, we had a campaign medal called the Asiatic/Pacific Campaign Medal, and that covered all of the operations in the Pacific region. There was another separate medal for the Philippine campaign, to my recollection, but basically it was one to cover the many actions in the Pacific. Likewise, a second was the European/African/Middle Eastern Campaign Medal awarded to those who served between 1941 and 1946, which covered all of the operations in those three theaters.

There was a third medal which was sort of a medal that covered those who saw service, but their training and other duties did not require them to go overseas. They were largely in the continental limits of the United States and participated in actions along the coastlines of America, the Atlantic side, and, of course, the Pacific side.

Then when we came down to the campaigns in Korea, there was the Korean Service Medal given from 1950 to 1954. My distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman, worked on a slight revision for the qualifications, which I supported, expanding the period of time, which I thought was a wise decision.

Then when we came down to the question of the service in Vietnam, again, we had the Vietnam Service Medal. So there are many precedents for this type of action regarding the very important recognition of the individuals who participate.

These particular categories of decorations indicate the geographic area where that individual saw service during the periods of conflict. Through experience I have found that the men and women of the Armed Forces--again, I say with the deepest humility I was entitled to the Korean Service Medal for very modest service--but I remember this weekend, as other Members do, where we traveled back to our States to seek out those who saw service in Iraq, and I met with six individuals in connection with a graduation speech. They had been reservists at this small college. They had been called back into active duty, and coincidentally with my visit they had just gotten home from their year obligation of service in Iraq.

The first question they asked me was, What sort of recognition do we get for service over there? Now, two of them had been wounded and, of course, received the Purple Heart, but they were anxious to know was recognition forthcoming. That is why I have joined in total support of this effort to bring to the attention of those people in this country the remarkable service that has been performed in both these theaters of operation in the past year or so.

So I strongly support this bill. The superb service rendered by our Nation's fighting forces since September 11 fully warrants the establishment of campaign medals for service in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

I again thank those who have taken a leadership role, our distinguished colleagues Senators Bingaman and Pryor, and the two individuals on the House side.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I can proceed for a minute or two in a colloquy with my distinguished friend from Nevada.

If I could have a brief colloquy, the leadership needs to focus on working with Senator Levin and myself, as we always do each year on this bill. We are hopeful to finish this bill this week. I think that is shared by the other side of the aisle.

Our Members are going back for the Memorial Day weekend, and the provisions in this bill are provisions that relate to so many of the men and women in the Armed Forces with whom they will undoubtedly be associating over the course of this weekend. It is definitely in the interest of Members to move forward on this bill.

While we have a hearing in the Armed Services Committee tomorrow morning on the questions related to prison abuse, the bill is going forward. Members of our committee will be in the Senate intermittently as the hearing is going on. That will not in any way, I hope, be viewed as an impediment to forward progress.

I, personally, am willing to stay here as long into the evenings as desired by our leadership to get this done. In years past, my distinguished colleague from Nevada has been most helpful in moving this piece of legislation.

I thank my distinguished colleague. I emphasize tomorrow morning's hearings will not interfere with progress on the bill. We have three of our combatant commanders, coincidentally, in Washington for a variety of reasons.

The letter Senator Levin and I sent to the Secretary of Defense scheduling additional witnesses offered the option of a teleconference hearing, thinking they would not be back, but we are fortunate they have returned for not only this hearing but a wide range of additional duties they are performing in Washington by way of consultation. That will not be an impediment. We will move forward tomorrow as scheduled with our work on the committee.

Mr. President, we are prepared to move ahead.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend and leader for bringing up this amendment at this time. I approached him on the floor saying we are anxious to get the bill moving, and he accepted the challenge. I am not sure If I am going to support him on this amendment, but, nevertheless, we will have a good and thorough debate.

My distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and I conferred earlier this morning. We are both of a frame of mind that we want to move with tremendous momentum. Today is a good day to move on. I urge Senators to bring their amendments to the floor. We are willing to stay here into the evening and participate in the process.

During the hearing of the Armed Services Committee tomorrow morning at 8:30 to sometime midday, we will have members of the committee on the floor. We will not lose a step in moving forward on this bill. It is important to have this hearing tomorrow. We are fortunate that the Department of Defense brought back commanders for a variety of reasons, not just our hearing. Senator Levin and I had made the offer to do it by telephone conferences. It is important we continue the continuity of the hearings of our committee.

The point of this is, I would hope, if I can frankly say to our leadership, that perhaps we could get a unanimous consent agreement later tonight to lock in those amendments that we know are out there on this bill. I hope we can do that. I have seen a list of 50 amendments. Yet I think it is an incomplete list. Perhaps within the course of the day we can explore that option with our leadership.

Yes.

I thank my colleague. We are off to a very good start.

I ask unanimous consent that the hour for purposes of discussing these opening remarks be extended to 12:45.

We could have some division between Senator Levin and myself. Perhaps if we could----

You have 12:40. Why don't we reserve, say, 5 minutes within that period, or 6 minutes for the Senator from Michigan and myself and allocate the remainder of the time to our other two colleagues.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we certainly could come back after the caucuses. I am trying to help to get a little bit of time.

This is a very significant amendment, in light of the history of the Senate now for consecutive years, deciding to go forward with the BRAC process that is well underway.

I share the viewpoints expressed by Senator Lott, Senator Snowe, and the Senator from North Dakota, the need to address the overseas situation. When time permits later on, I will explain what has been done to date by the Department of Defense in conjunction with the ongoing BRAC Commission regarding these bases. It is very significant.

The Department of Defense has moved forward. I think shortly they will submit to the Congress drawing down forces and bases in both the areas referred to by Senator Lott and others; I might add also significant drawing down of forces inside Korea. That is underway.

Part of this proposed legislation in this amendment is the 2-year delay. I draw on the very comment made by my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, of the turbulence in the communities engendered by the existing law as they are struggling to get high-powered assistance and expert advice from every possible source, depending on the community budget, to try to preserve their military installation. That process is now continued for another 2 years. This is a somewhat heavy burden on many of these small communities to try to do the best they can to fight the existing law.

That is the key question Members have to consider: Are they going to extend these hardships under the existing law for 2 more years as we address the overseas situation, which I can assure Members later this afternoon is being thoroughly addressed by the Department of Defense in the context of the existing law.

I yield the floor.

I simply add that right in this letter, and I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record at this point, a comprehensive overseas basing review is nearly complete. It is significant.

I yield the floor.

First, Mr. President, I yield back all time on our side. I believe that completes the debate, at this point, on this side.

Reserving the right to object, might I suggest, and I ask my good friend--and the Senator knows I will support him--could you withdraw that at this time so Senator Levin and I, together with the leaders, can determine the order in which we will take amendments?

I have to object. I fervently asked that the two managers work with our respective leadership and those desiring to bring up amendments. So I suggest that we continue with the Lott amendment and you be ever so kind to hold yours in abeyance.

Correct.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, and I ask that we pursue the opportunity to have a time agreement on the Lott-Dorgan amendment.

First, I ask the distinguished Senator from Mississippi how much time the Senator desires--and we will talk about it in terms of it being equally divided.

I ask my distinguished colleague.

Forth-five minutes to the side?

Well, we want to keep moving with this bill. It seems to me the subject is pretty well understood. I was hoping maybe an hour.

Very well, I am agreeable if the----

This issue has an intensity of its own.

If an hour and a half is agreeable to the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may take.

I ask my distinguished colleague from Maine, have you had an opportunity to examine the letter that was sent by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all of the other Chiefs in which they say ``a comprehensive overseas basing review is nearly complete.'' I have other documentation. They have done a conscientious job on the overseas base structure. They are coming forward with a very balanced program to work with the existing law.

My concern is, if we dislodge the existing law by adopting this amendment, it would have the effect of delaying the process another 2 years and putting on to the Department of Defense the added cost of continuing to maintain structure that they simply do not need for today's and the foreseeable military strength of our country.

I have to tell my distinguished colleague, in the course of the lunch period, I talked with a number of individuals. They said: John, the most persuasive case to me is that I have called home and talked to several of the communities that have hired the lobbyists, and they pleaded with me: We can't afford this infrastructure that we felt necessary to defend our base under the existing 205 BRAC procedure. You add another 2 years, you are going to draw down those precious small amounts of tax dollars in those communities by another 2 years. Is the sentiment in your State to go on for another 2 years with all of the uncertainty?

A lot of communities cannot attract new business for fear that the base may leave. They have to have a decision and get on with this.

I yield the floor.

Will the Presiding Officer kindly advise the Senate as to the time allocation remaining?

And the Senator from Virginia?

Of course; whatever time our distinguished colleague wants.

Mr. President, some colleagues have represented that this BRAC, which is law today, preceded September 11. The record is very clear: Congress authorized BRAC in December of 2001. After careful discussion with DOD as to whether we still require and should proceed, eight former Secretaries of Defense wrote Congress in 2002 that support for another round is unequivocal in light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

I hope that is right in the Record. I hope it does not influence the earlier statements some of my colleagues made. This situation is extremely serious. If we were now to virtually repeal that law in many respects and thrust upon these communities the enormous expense to continue to try and work their cases such that BRAC does not take their case, I commend them for it. It is essential they do that. But the cost is enormous to so many small communities.

This question of the overseas bases, we all recognize that structure has to be brought down. Our Nation's basic defense policy for years has been to engage our adversaries beyond our shores. To do that, we had to have a base structure. We are now addressing how with terrorism there are no boundaries to the threats. This country no longer is protected by two mighty oceans. It is a one-world terrorist threat, and every single American citizen is on the front line in the war on terrorism. No one is behind any barricade anymore.

The Pentagon recognizes this and is beginning to restructure our overseas base forces in such a way as to reduce and bring the forces back home and to have fewer and fewer installations. But they have to integrate that into the various procedures now going on, consistent with the law of the land, the BRAC that we passed. For instance, General Jones and General LaPorte testified before the Armed Services Committee this year on their plans in Europe and South Korea, respectively, to draw down and consolidate forces at each location.

The committee has also received testimony from department heads to submit their Global Posture Review to Congress within the next 3 weeks. It is on target.

I wish to accord the opportunity for other Members to speak, including the Senator from Alabama, a valued member of our subcommittee.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. Yes, we are very proud of our base structure. Almost every one of our communities now has engaged the lobbyists, and so forth. Listen to this, I say to the Senator. Delaying BRAC benefits one group; and that is, the lobbyists and the consultants paid by these communities and, indeed, State taxpayers.

The Congressional Research Service has estimated over $23 million will be spent in fiscal 2004 to pay lobbyists and consultants for services to defend installations. A delay of BRAC by 2 years will cost the taxpayers of one State, that is paying a firm $50,000 a month, over $1.2 million.

There is the debate.

Yes. We better check on the time.

Mr. President, how much time, please, does the Senator from Virginia have?

There is 6 minutes. My distinguished colleague from Mississippi?

There is 14 minutes.

I beg your pardon. I say to the Senator, you have the floor now?

I will step down.

Let's ask Senator Lott, who authored it. As I read it, there is a 2-year delay.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend, he has correctly described how this operates, but the reality is, by killing the domestic BRAC program and putting it in abeyance subject to a future vote by the Congress--and mind you, any Member of Congress can trigger that vote; am I not correct?

All Presidents have supported BRAC. You know that message is coming up. So what happens to the lobbyist? He tells the community: Keep me on the payroll, that vote is coming, and you do not know which way that vote is going to go. They will breathe fear into these communities, unlike anything before, to keep those lobbyists on the payroll. Those communities will be shelling out the money year after year.

I will close with the following comment: We are to soon receive a letter which will have this statement in it: Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC--the administration strongly opposes any provision to modify, delay, or repeal the BRAC authority passed by the Congress 3 years ago. If the President is presented a bill that modifies, delays, or repeals the BRAC authority, the Secretary of Defense, joining with other senior advisers, would recommend that the President veto the bill. Rather than waiting for the resolution of infrastructure issues as proposed by the committee, BRAC needs to move forward so it can be done in concert with such a resolution. A delay would postpone the achievement of a basing structure more suited to 21st century threats and delay billions and billions of dollars in savings. The current excesses in base and facility capacity create unnecessary demands on the Department of Defense resources needed to maintain military readiness and transform for the future.

I yield to my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

I yield that to my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

All time has expired?

Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend, a very valuable adviser for these many years, this BRAC legislation is to take Congress and remove it, once we make the decision to go forward with a BRAC, because the very essence of BRAC was so distorted by a certain political individual some years ago.

I have to tell my dear friend, it took a lot of effort to get this law in place. To dislodge it and terminate it, as this amendment does-- this is a killer amendment to BRAC--and then leave in limbo these communities with 2 years of uncertainty, not being able to attract business, not being able to do things in their community, with this cloud over their head as to the probability or improbability of their base remaining, is a dangerous situation.

I will be happy to grant my good friend----

Thirty minutes?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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 thank all Senators for their cooperation today. We made some progress on the bill. But at this time, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, in reply to my distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee, at this time I am not in a position to suggest how we proceed tomorrow, other than to say we, as a matter of comity, will rotate one amendment to another. The pending business, of course, at this time on this bill is the Lautenberg amendment. I would presume if that is disposed of tomorrow, then we would go to an amendment on our side, and we would then come back to your side.

But at this time I would not be able to participate in trying to line up with certainty any amendments other than the fact that the Lautenberg amendment is the pending amendment.

Mr. President, at this time I am not prepared to enter into any unanimous consent request.

Filing is a Senator's right.

He can file, but I did not hear the word ``file.''

The Senator participates in the withdrawal of the quorum call. Yes, the quorum call can now be withdrawn. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call----

That is correct.

No objection.

Mr. President, I repeat, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I would like to say, with regard to our distinguished colleague from New Mexico, he had an amendment, and I would hope tomorrow in the course of the day, that amendment could be cleared. I do not believe it would require a rollcall vote. I wish to give that assurance to the Senator from New Mexico.

Am I correct on that?

Anyway, I say to the Senator, you have my assurances I will endeavor tomorrow to have that amendment adopted.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, thank you very much. I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Rick Stroyan, a military fellow, and Mr. Shay Webster, both of Senator Cornyn's office, be granted floor privileges.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kate Kaufer, a detailee with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, be granted floor privileges during consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization and Defense Appropriations bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a legislative fellow, Marie Lage, from Senator Snowe's office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on S. 2400, the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Authorization bill.

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

Mr. President, in connection with the work on this bill, which is scheduled for this week, Senator Levin and I ask unanimous consent that the staff members of the committee on the Armed Services, those names appearing on the list which is attached to this request, be extended the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 2400, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. President, it is my privilege to again address the Senate on this bill, which I commend the Committee on the Armed Services for marking up in a record period of time. I first wish to thank my distinguished colleague, these now 26 years working together, the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and his staff who worked very diligently, such that the two of us together, with the tremendous support of each and every member of the Armed Services Committee, were able to proceed through the year with our series of hearings and to do a very thorough and expeditious markup.

So we bring to the floor the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005 for the Senate's consideration. This bill was unanimously reported out of committee on May 6. I believe it is a testament to the strong support of our men and women in uniform by the Senate if adopted.

As we begin debate on this bill today, over 300,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, Active and Reserve, and countless civilians are serving bravely around the world, including the Persian Gulf region, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in the cause of freedom. All Americans are proud of what the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition partners have accomplished thus far in Iraq and in the global war on terrorism. We are ever mindful that the defense of our homeland begins on the distant battlefields of the world.

As we begin this debate, we must pause to remember that military success is not achieved without significant sacrifice. We, the members of the committee--indeed, all Members of the Senate--extend our sympathies to the families and the loved ones of those who sacrificed their lives or were injured in operations to make America and the world safer. We will forever honor their service.

The military successes in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are a testament to the dedication and professionalism of the U.S. Armed Forces and to the support and sacrifice of their families. It is also a tribute to American technology and ingenuity. 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 to be measured.

As I have said repeatedly over the past few weeks, the horrific evidence of abuse of Iraqi prisoners perpetrated by a small number--and I repeat, thus far to the comparison of the totality of our Armed Forces, a very small number of our Armed Forces--together with a number of civilian contractors, is an aberration, a total departure from the high standards and the professionalism that we have in our U.S. military. That series of incidents must never be permitted to happen again.

I am very proud of what the Committee on the Armed Services has done thus far by way of its oversight responsibilities of this tragic situation, and we will continue, in consultation with my distinguished ranking member and all the members of the committee, to pursue the facts.

These incidents are counter to every human value that every American has been taught. It is counter to what this country stands for, and it is counter to what the U.S. Armed Forces are fighting to protect. These acts of a few in some respect diminish us all. Nonetheless, we must not permit these acts to tarnish the honor of the many dedicated men and women in the Armed Forces, the 99.99 percent who are vigilantly upholding the values for which this country stands, and who are doing a great mission, wherever it is in the world, often at high personal risk.

With Senate passage of the bill before us, we have the opportunity to send a strong message of support to our men and women in uniform. The bill contains much deserved pay raises and benefits for our military personnel and their families, much 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 address future threats. I urge my colleagues to debate this bill in a constructive spirit and to support its rapid adoption.

The President's budget for defense for fiscal year 2005 continues a momentum of recent years in providing real increases in defense spending to combat terrorism and secure the homeland, to enhance the quality of life of 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 provides $422.2 billion for the Department of Defense and the defense programs of the Department of Energy, an increase of $20.9 billion, or 3.4 percent in real terms, over the amount authorized in fiscal year 2004.

This bill reflects six priorities we established to guide our work on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.

First, our committee wanted to provide our men and women in uniform with the resources, training, and technology and equipment they need.

Second, enhance stability of the Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities.

Third, continue to improve the quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces--Active, Reserve, Guard, and Retired--and their families.

May I say at this point, having had many an association with the Armed Forces--and I use that term collectively to include the Guard and Reserve--they have performed magnificently, the Guard and Reserve, and

have earned the respect of the regular forces who look upon them now as coequal partners.

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

Fifth, support efforts to develop the innovative capabilities necessary to modernize and transform the Armed Forces.

And sixth, continue active oversight of Department programs and operations, particularly in the areas of acquisition reform and contract management, to ensure proper stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

The committee's first priority was to provide the Department of Defense with the resources it needs to combat terrorism and win the war on global terrorism. This bill authorizes a temporary increase in the active-duty end strength of the Army of up to 30,000 soldiers from the 2005 through 2009 fiscal years. This authorization is consistent with the manpower plans of the Army.

In addition, the bill authorizes an increase of almost $1.2 billion over the budget request for programs to help our troops in the field. Funding highlights include, for the Army: $1.2 billion for helicopters to support Army aviation and modernization, in order to get needed airlift and attack helicopters to troops in the field; $272.2 million for aircraft survivability equipment to ensure all aircraft used in combat operations have the best possible protection; $905 million to continue procuring the Stryker armored vehicles that are already proving valuable in military operations in Iraq; and almost $1.1 billion for up-armored HMMWVs, including an increase of $925 million to accelerate procurement of up-armored HMMWVs, as well as add-on ballistic armor for medium and heavy trucks, to protect our troops on patrol in hostile environments.

To improve the ability of special operations forces, a major component of the war on terror, the bill authorizes an increase of $65.4 million above the President's budget request to accelerate the availability of important new capabilities.

For naval forces, the bill authorizes an increase of $150 million to accelerate fielding of an amphibious assault ship that will greatly improve the mobility and lethality of the U.S. Marine Corps operations, increases the amount requested for amphibious assault vehicles by $23.2 million, and it adds almost $50 million for personal protection equipment for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

Overall, the bill adds over $600 million for force protection gear and combat clothing, such as improved body armor, to meet urgent requirements of the Armed Forces. The committee fully supports the budget request of $2.9 billion for C-17 new aircraft, to add to the existing fleet which is performing magnificently all over the world. This will improve the global mobility of our U.S. forces.

To enhance the Department's homeland defense capabilities, the bill fully supports the President's budget request of $8 billion and authorizes an additional $46.9 million for seven additional weapons of mass destruction civil support teams. With this increase, the committee has reached the goal of funding 55 teams which will support local and regional first responders in every State and territory of the United States. May I add, our committee has had a long history of strong support for this program and increases the budget amounts each of the fiscal years to make certain that all 50 States are given this capability.

In addition, the committee has added an additional $33.9 million for innovative technologies to combat terrorism and defeat emerging asymmetric threats, and $26.5 million for the development of chemical and biological agent detection and protection technologies. To protect America from ballistic missile threats, the bill authorizes $10.2 billion for missile defense.

This bill continues our commitment to improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, and their families, by authorizing a 3.5- percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed service personnel, as well as increases in housing allowances that will eliminate average out-of-pocket expenses for off-base housing for service members. The bill authorizes a permanent increase in the monthly family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250 per month, and a permanent increase, from $150 a month to $225 a month, for special pay for duty subject to hostile fires or imminent danger. The bill also supports the initiatives taken by the Department to increase the pay of troops whose tours of duty have been extended for more than 12 months in the Iraq theater.

In a significant health care initiative for members of the Reserves and National Guard, this bill authorizes permanent increases in coverage before and after mobilization, and a new health care option which would make TRICARE coverage available to all members of the Select Reserve and their families, in an affordable way. I urge my colleagues to support this innovative approach to enhancing health care benefits for members of the Reserve and National Guard and their families.

The administration requested $9.4 billion for military construction and family housing. The bill before the Senate includes an overall increase of $342.4 million in military construction, including increases of more than $100 million in critical unfunded projects identified by the military services, and an additional $172 million to fund improvements to the facilities supporting our National Guard and Reserve Forces.

Over the past several years, the Armed Services Committee has worked with the Department of Defense to ensure that necessary modernization, transformation, and long-range research are maintained, even in times of high operational tempo.

This bill continues support for these transformational activities, for example, by authorizing $131.1 million for tactical UAVs that have proven so valuable in recent military operations, an increase to $30.6 million above the budget request; and more than $11 billion for cutting-edge science and technology programs, an increase of $445 million above the budget request. These increases are in the critical areas of force protection equipment and devices, counterterrorism technologies, information assurance unmanned systems, and training innovations for the future defense force.

With our Armed Forces deployed 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 battlefields, where the courage of our men and women are displayed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and elsewhere in the world.

This National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2005 builds on the advances made in recent years. I urge my colleagues to join me and send a strong message of bipartisan support for our troops at home and abroad. We honor your service. We stand with you now and we will stand with you always in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?

I thank him for his full cooperation. We are now studying a draft by which the two of us would put forward to the committee a suggested amendment on this full amount of $25 billion.

Mr. President, we welcome other Senators coming to the floor and discussing this bill. The bill is now open for amendment. We anticipate the senior Senator from Texas will come forward shortly with a very important amendment which is subject to leadership concurrence and which could be the subject of the vote that is now, according to leadership, scheduled for around 5:30. Senator Hutchison will probably be on the floor shortly after 4 o'clock to discuss that.

As we commence the floor debate this afternoon, I think we are obligated to bring to the attention of the American public who haven't already heard it the disturbing news about a threat posed to our forces in the Iraqi region. Indeed, it could be elsewhere in the world but for the moment in this particular region; that is, the use of a weapon which would fall within the definition of a weapon of mass destruction and used in Iraq on Saturday.

News reports from Baghdad, confirmed by the Iraqi Survey Group--as you know, that is a group which was specifically tasked by the Secretary of Defense and specifically budgeted by the Congress of the United States to work on weapons of mass destruction issues. The report today, confirmed by the Iraqi Survey Group, indicated that on Saturday a roadside bomb was implanted on the road by terrorists who obviously attempted to use an artillery shell filled with deadly Sarin gas as an improvised explosive device. They are referred to as IEDs. This shell had no distinctive marks. Fortunately, the device only partially operated. There was an explosion, but fortunately only a small amount of the deadly nerve gas agent was produced by the explosion.

Two U.S. demolition experts were treated for exposure to Sarin, and the reports are they are, fortunately, recovering.

It is important to note, however, that this was an Iraqi military round. In other words, it was apparently identified clearly as one made some years before or sometime before our invasion. Its origin is unclear. What is clear is it was part of the Iraqi military arsenal that was not declared as required by the United Nations inspectors and that regime when they were operating in that region.

We all know Saddam Hussein's regime had chemical weapons in the early 1990s. We also know his regime continued the aggressive development activities on chemical and biological weapons. David Kay confirmed that as he reported to the Congress. Under the terms of the 1991 gulf war cease-fire, some chemical weapons were destroyed but tons of chemical and biological agents remain unaccounted for as to whether they were destroyed or are still in existence. Apparently, Iraq did have undeclared weapons as well.

The discovery of this weapon is troubling and begs the question: How many more chemical weapons--weapons of potential mass destruction--are in Iraq and could fall into the hands of terrorists and other antagonists to the coalition forces named to bring freedom to the people of Iraq? Where are these various caches of weapons hidden? The question must be answered. It is the reason the important work of the Iraq Survey Group must go on.

It has certainly been my opinion throughout that weapons of mass destruction materials and technology is the greatest threat to our Nation, and indeed all nations in the free world today. But materials or technology in the hands of terrorists could bring unimaginable destruction.

Winning the global war on terrorism depends on stopping this proliferation. We have taken an important step forward in Afghanistan and an important step forward in Iraq.

I hope that rapid passage of this bill will send a strong message because it reinforces our efforts worldwide to interdict weapons of mass destruction.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Arizona. He has been in the very forefront of these issues regarding missile defense for many years. He has spent much of his time, and he speaks of his knowledge. I assure him that our committee, in the course of its markup, stood steadfast on these issues. I am hopeful we can continue to do so in the event such amendments as the Senator from Arizona contemplated would be brought to the floor. We would hope that he would find time to engage with us in support of the mark as it now stands.

Earlier today the distinguished Senator from New Jersey advised the managers of the bill that he has an amendment. I also see the distinguished Senator from Maine. I would think as a matter of comity, we would hear from our distinguished colleague from New Jersey. It is my understanding that the managers of the bill will make a request that this matter be laid aside, after, in fact, he offers the amendment. The bill is open for amendment. The

parliamentary situation affords the Senator from New Jersey this opportunity, and we welcome amendments being brought up. We anticipate a second amendment to be brought forward this afternoon. So at some point, there will be a vote, but that is subject to the leadership. I also have just seen the amendment. We will need time on both sides to study it. I anticipate we will ask the Senator to lay it aside at the conclusion of his remarks. Then the distinguished Senator from Maine would be recognized next.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3151

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished colleague from New Jersey. I want to confer with the distinguished ranking member, who will soon be back. In the meantime, if it is agreeable with the Senator, we will lay his amendment aside. I so request that.

Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished colleague from Maine for all of her hard work on the Armed Services Committee. I very much enjoyed her strong remarks in support of this bill.

I believe the distinguished Senator from Texas is now ready to present an amendment.

I yield the floor.

I thank the distinguished Senator for her inquiry. I will give her assurance that we will take it into consideration. For the moment, though, we are on this amendment. To my understanding it is now pending at the desk?

Shall we ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. President, so I understand it, I would like to hear again from the distinguished proponent of the amendment. Clearly, the midshipmen at the Naval Academy, cadets at West Point and the Air Force Academy, get very clear treatment. I want to clarify exactly what the college ROTC, NROTC, Air Force ROTC--what is it they get? Is it less than the midshipmen?

This bill goes a long way to improve it, as I read it. I want to make it clear. I don't want to raise expectations too high.

The three service academies.

Mr. President, I think that is exceedingly helpful. I commend the distinguished Senator. My notes show she started back in 2001 on this issue, and at that time we reached a consensus that we would let the Department of Defense issue a report. That comprehensive report was issued the 1st of May in 2003.

Again, I thank the Senator for bringing it to the Senate's attention. I urge all Senators to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague.

I would like to say a few additional words, but I will defer to our distinguished colleague from Michigan if he would like to speak.

Mr. President, I have gone through the report in support of this amendment issued by the Department of Defense. I find the history very interesting. There are four academies because the Coast Guard is very much included.

Until the enactment of the Career Compensation Act of 1949, disability retirement was a prerequisite of commissioned officer services. The most significant reform of the provisions of this legislation was the inclusion of enlisted personnel within the group eligible for benefits. Prior to 1949, cadets and midshipmen, as well as the enlisted personnel in the Armed Forces, were denied disability benefits. It is amazing to think back about how that could have been possible.

There is no record of cadet disability being seriously considered until the review of pay and benefits that led to the Career Compensation Act of 1949. At that time, however, it is clear that Congress established a policy that exists today. During the hearings on H.R. 5007, which became the act of 1949, the following colloquy occurred before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator Baldwin asked:

On page 63, in the provisions of the law as written here,

with reference to retirement for disability, does service at

the Coast Guard Academy, Annapolis, and West Point--is that

included in the period of service?

Admiral Fechteler. Now----

The Chairman. Suppose a man is disabled while he is at the

Naval Academy or the Coast Guard Academy or at West Point;

suppose he breaks his leg in such a fashion that he cannot

walk well any more, and you gentlemen decide that he is

unfit? What happens to him if he is in one of the three

academices?

Admiral Fechteler. He is just discharged.

The Chairman. Does he get any severance pay?

Admiral Fechteler. No, Sir.

The Chairman. He is just out of luck?

Admiral Fechteler. That is right.

The Chairman. Through no fault of his own, while actively

engaged in the curriculum prescribed for these men?

Admiral Fechteler. He still gets nothing.

Senator Baldwin. I would hat to see a good back for the

Navy going around an Army end for a touchdown, break his leg

and come to such an end.

Senator Chapman. That is the present law?

Admiral Fechteler. That would continue under this.

The Chairman. That is an interesting observation,

nevertheless.

For some reason, they went ahead and exempted these young men, the midshipmen in the ROTC. And now, many years later, the Senator from Texas very wisely has corrected our predecessors, I say to Senator Levin, who allowed this to slip these many years. I think it is an interesting chapter in history.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Hutchison amendment with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; I further ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I see no Senator at this time seeking recognition. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, at this time I see no one on either side of the aisle seeking recognition. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Monday, May 17, 2004 from 2 p.m-5 p.m., in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of Senator McCain's staff, Mr. Frederick Latrash, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 2400.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tranche Montague, from my staff, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of S. 2400.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I ask unanimous consent that Chris Alexander be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 2400.