Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to the underlying bill.

Mr. President, as is so often the case here in the Senate during the course of deliberations, colleagues find a mutual ground by which they can resolve such differences as exist. And in this instance, the distinguished Senator from California, myself, and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey have joined together.

The amendment in the first degree of the Senator from Virginia remains in a document that I will shortly send to the desk. And the basic report language required in the amendment of the Senators from California and New Jersey is, likewise, in this document. They are coupled together.

So I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by the Senator from Virginia be modified. And I send the modified amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I would so make that request. That was my understanding. I was going to do that after this amendment had been amended.

So if the Chair would rule on the modification of the amendment.

Mr. President, at this time I respectfully ask the Chair to withdraw the amendment by the Senator from California.

That is correct.

It is to be known as the Warner-Boxer--and also for the Senator from New Jersey, my friend, Mr. Lautenberg. The two of us go back many years.

Yes, further back than we can remember.

And the amendment of the Senator from Virginia is now known as the Warner-Boxer-Lautenberg amendment?

Briefly, to explain to the Senate, basically what we have done is we have put into law the requirement that the Department of Defense shall fully comply with the Competition in Contracting Act for any contract awarded for reconstruction activities in Iraq and shall conduct a full and open competition for performing work needed for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry.

Second, a report to Congress. If the Department of Defense does not have a fully competitive contract in place to replace the March 8, 2003 contract for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry by August 31, 2003, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to Congress by September 30, 2003, detailing the reasons for allowing the sole-source contract to continue. A followup report shall be submitted to Congress each 60 days thereafter until a competitive contract is in place.

I yield the floor.

Take such time as you need.

Mr. President, by way of concluding remarks, we have set forth a joint statement which hopefully will be enacted into law. I commend my two colleagues for their work. I don't fully share some of the allegations raised with regard to the suspicions connected with this contract. It is for that reason the contract should see the full rays of sunlight and be explored. Committees of Congress will eventually be exploring this same issue.

This document simply establishes a procedure by which this can be done. It is my expectation we will recognize that those in authority in the Department of Defense, recognizing the urgency of time following the basic cessation, not the full cessation but basic cessation of hostilities, have to move with swiftness. That is the underlying reason. Eventually this contract can be substantiated as in compliance with the law.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

My distinguished ranking member, working in conjunction with our leadership, is of the view that we are rapidly approaching the point at which we can seek third reading and have final passage. I hope that within a matter of a few minutes we can determine that option and its availability.

Unless there are further matters that the Senators wish to address with regard to the underlying bill, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member and I will now proceed to continue with amendments that have been agreed to on both sides.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 806 be modified with the changes at the desk.

The amendment has been agreed to on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 829

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Voinovich, I offer an amendment which ensures that personnel who attend the Air Force Institute of Technology from the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, have the costs of their education paid for similarly to the naval postgraduate school.

It has been cleared on both sides.

This has been cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 830

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison, I offer an amendment which ensures that Impact Aid continues for military dependents at installations that have been conveyed to local communities such as Brooks Air Force Base but the military continues to reside in the base housing.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Domenici which expresses the sense of the Senate on the reconsideration of the decision to terminate the border and seaport inspection duties of the National Guard as part of its drug interdiction and counterdrug mission. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I have not seen the provision but it sounds like it might be a concern.

I was unaware of this matter, but want to assure the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Oklahoma that the Senate will give this provision a thorough review in conference with the House.

I appreciate the Senator's concerns and support his efforts in this area.

Mr. President, I would like to indicate to my distinguished colleague we are prepared to move to third reading.

If that is your wish, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our distinguished colleague, former majority leader of the Senate, has been on the Armed Services Committee for 25 years, the quarter of a century Mr. Levin and I have been on there.

The Senator invoked the name of Richard Russell. When I was Secretary of the Navy, I used to come up and testify before him. I don't think anybody--maybe Senator Stennis--could match his skill. It was remarkable. Senator Tower, Senator Goldwater idolized him as we all did. But I thank the Senator for his remarks about this Senator. I do respectfully disagree with some of his conclusions, but that is the nature of the magnificence of the Senate. We have argued and expressed to the people of this country our own views.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Levin and I, at the concurrence of the distinguished leadership on both sides, are prepared to proceed to a third reading and final passage.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following passage of S. 1050, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar No. 171, the nomination of Consuelo Maria Callahan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; further, there then be 10 minutes equally divided for debate on the nomination prior to the vote on the confirmation of the nomination, without intervening action or debate; further, I ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I am unable to give an answer to that, I say to my distinguished colleague. I am sure in the course of the colloquy preceding the vote on that jurist, that could be answered.

Mr. President, as we are proceeding, I first want to acknowledge my profound gratitude to my colleague and almost lifetime friend of 25 years in this Chamber, Senator Levin, for his support and that of his staff and indeed to my staff who, under the tutelage of Judy Ansley, have done a magnificent job, and for the support of our respective leaderships in making this bill pass, particularly the two whips, the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, that they be permitted before the close of business tonight to file such statements as they wish relative to this bill.

Mr. President, I express my profound gratitude to the members of the committee and, most notably, the Presiding Officer. I ask that the bill be read the third time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on passing of the bill.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I wish to thank all of our colleagues for their patience. I ask unanimous consent that S. 1050, as amended, be printed as passed.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration, en bloc, of S. 1047 through S. 1049, Calendar Order Nos. 93, 94, 95; that all after the enacting clause of those bills be stricken and that the appropriate portion of S. 1050, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof according to the schedule which I am sending to the desk; that these bills be advanced to third reading and passed, the motions to reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table, and that the above actions occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I have been working with the distinguished Democratic whip. There is a small matter that we wish to wrap up with a UC request.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 10 a.m., on Media Ownership, in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on Iraq Stabilization and Reconstruction: U.S. Policy and Plans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 10 a.m., in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the Status of Telecommunications in Indian Country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a mark up on Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen Room 226.

I. Nominations: Michael Chertoff to the U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit; David G. Campbell to the U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona; Robert D. McCallum to be Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Peter D. Keisler to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice; R. Hewitt Pate to be Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice; and David B. Rivkin to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission.

II. Bills: S. 554, A bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings [Grassley/Cornyn/Craig/DeWine/Graham/Schumer]; S. 1023, A bill to increase the annual salaries of justices and judges of the United States [Hatch/Chambliss/Cornyn/Durbin/Feinstein/Kennedy/Leahy]; S. 858, A bill to extend the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, and for other purposes [Durbin/Bunning]; S. Res. 136, A resolution recognizing the 140th anniversary of the founding of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and congratulating members and officers of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for the union's many achievements [Kennedy/DeWine]; S. Res. 92, A resolution designating September 17, 2003 as ``Constitution Day'' [DeWine/Hatch]; S. Res. 145, Designating June 2003 as ``National Safety Month'' [Fitzgerald/Feinstein]; and S. Res. 133, A resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South-Asian Americans, and Sikh Americans [Durbin/Biden/Chambliss/DeWine/Feingold].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 2 p.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel I: [senators].

Panel II: Richard C. Wesley to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit.

Panel III: J. Ronnie Greer to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee; Thomas M. Hardiman to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Mark R. Kravitz to be United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut; and John A. Woodcock, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 22, 2003, in Rural Wireless Broadband, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-562.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., on NHTSA Reauthorization, in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Economic Policy of the

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2003, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Jumpstarting the Economy: Increasing Investment in the Equity Markets.''

What is the balance of time remaining?

Mr. President, I thank both colleagues, the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan. I pick up on the statement of my working partner here for so many years, the distinguished ranking member.

What the Senator from Virginia is endeavoring to do today is much like what the Senator from Michigan was endeavoring to do during the markup.

Let us quietly try to assist our colleagues as they formulate their decisions as to what position to take. The Senate spoke yesterday to the effect that we are not going to impose a ban on research. I say to the Senate, that was a wise decision. We should continue with the basic theme that we are not going to impose a ban on this Nation with respect to this system or any other system which may be needed for the defense of this Nation--hopefully, never in terms of weapons of mass destruction--but we cannot send a message to the world that we are just going to ignore the fact that they exist in many parts of the world. We have to maintain a credible inventory ourselves as a deterrent against others who might threaten us. So we should not have a ban. But what we should have is in place a law which is clearly understandable.

Now my colleagues go back and try to revise the existing law which has been in effect since 1994, which I say, with no disrespect to my colleagues. But when it was written--it is very convoluted, it is very difficult to understand because it says: ``LIMITATION--The Security of Energy may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of, research and development''--now they strike those words and put in their own-- ``which could lead to the production by the United States of a low- yield nuclear weapon. . . .''

Now, I have here a list of the seven steps followed in the life of a nuclear system. The first three--the concept study, the feasibility study, the design definition and cost study--have been authorized by the Senate as of yesterday in this amendment.

So we are at this juncture, as my colleague from Rhode Island points to his chart, where the balance of these steps toward the full implementation of a nuclear system should be put in control of whom? And I say it should be put in control of the Congress of the United States, with very clear language.

The statute, I say to my friend from Rhode Island, which you are trying to amend simply says, ``The Secretary . . . may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of'' this next step, full-scale engineering development.

Theoretically, if you are so distrustful of the executive branch-- whether it is this one or a subsequent--they could jump over that--not easily but they could jump over and go on to the other steps. So the way this thing is written, it is very awkward. It says it only stops one step.

So I say that is a bad way to go about it. I say the better, wiser way, as Senator Levin said, is the constructive way, as he pointed out in my amendment. It simply says we are not going to point to one step, we are going to point to all the steps and say as follows: ``The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase''--that is the one you are endeavoring to block by amending this old statute--but I go on: ``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''

That language is as clear as crystal. This language is very awkward to interpret and read. It has a flaw in it, that you could literally jump over the one step that you are blocking and proceed, in some manner, albeit not the best, but proceed to the other steps.

My amendment stops it. It is like a stop sign that says: We will not proceed as a nation until this body, the Congress of the United States, acts to authorize and appropriate the funds.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, in the spirit of fairness, I am going to read, once again, the Warner amendment, which says: ``The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase''--that is the phase blocked--``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''

Where in the old statute is there any phrase as clear as the one in the Warner amendment which says: Mr. Secretary, you cannot do anything until you are authorized by the Congress?

Yes.

Let me provide it to you.

Mr. President, I reclaim my time.

You cannot point to any language which speaks to this issue with clarity, so it can be understood the world over, as does the Warner amendment. It is as simple as that.

Mr. President, the Senate did that yesterday.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, if I could address the Senate----

This amendment is in the nature of a substitute. However, in fairness to my colleagues, last night the distinguished ranking member and I made an agreement that we would vote once again because there could be colleagues who wish to now join in supporting this amendment.

The yeas and nays have been ordered. Am I correct?

Perhaps we could have a 10-minute vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I share the sentiments of my distinguished colleague, but I do observe that the delay on this vote, while it was the last vote on this side, there was a vote on the Democratic side not more than 5 minutes before. We share equally the burdens of the need to move forward on both sides of the aisle.

Right.

Mr. President, I will speak with my distinguished leader and ask if he will give me that unfortunate authority to exercise. If he does, I will exercise it appropriately.

I thank our distinguished leader. May I propound the UC first on the time? Then we will recognize the Senator from Maine for not to exceed 5 minutes. Then the distinguished Senator from North Dakota can proceed under the time agreement; is that agreeable?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes equally divided for the debate in relation to the Dorgan low- level yield amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and that no amendments be in order to that amendment prior to the vote.

The Senator is correct. There is a misstatement in the written text handed to the manager. I apologize. I read it. The Senator is correct. It is the other subject. I ask that the UC be amended accordingly to the statement by the Senator.

I think it is a fair issue to be raised. I was unaware there were additional speakers. If the Senator will give me a moment.

Ten minutes allocated? I ask the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I will make a deal, I will yield 10 minutes of my time under this UC request to take that up. How about that?

I thank the Senator.

I likewise encourage the adoption of the amendment. I think it is cleared on both sides. I commend the sponsors of this amendment for their hard work.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Under the order, my understanding is now we go to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, with 90 minutes equally divided.

Amendment No. 750

Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?

I listened very carefully to your statements. You say let's see if we can't stop taking the first step. Am I correct in that?

Am I not correct, last year the Congress of the United States spoke to that issue and took that first step and initiated that program? The first step has been taken.

Last year the Congress in the military authorization bill took the first step on this program, and put money in the bill. The research has already commenced.

I think the point of reference, to be accurate, I would say to my good friend--you are not taking the first step. In other words, this program is ongoing. In this bill are simply the funds to continue what the Congress authorized last year after debate and vote.

I just think accuracy on these very important subjects is absolutely vital to establish credibility among our colleagues. I read from the report language. It says:

This amount includes $21 million for advanced concepts, of

which $15 million is authorized to continue the feasibility

study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

So the Senator was incorrect in his representation that he was endeavoring as if to say I am going to stop it now before it gets started. I think that is fair, to let the Congress know, and particularly the Senate, this thing was authorized last year and voted upon, approved, funded. This is a second tranche of funds for research.

Essentially the amendment of the Senator is to establish a total ban on this entire program.

If I may say on my own time, of course, it is the intention of the Senator from Virginia, again in total fairness to our colleagues, to incorporate in this legislation, in this bill, a provision which is identical in purpose to the one we just voted on, the Warner amendment. It will say: The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase, that's the next phase, or any subsequent phase of the nuclear earth penetrator program unless specifically authorized by Congress.

So into this legislation--it had been my intent to put it on in the second degree, but the time agreement understandably precluded that. It may well be other Senators will join us. But this is the intention of the Senator from Virginia. I wish to represent to all colleagues I will endeavor, and I have every reason to believe there is going to be support on the other side, to incorporate this language which will put Congress entirely in control of this program, entirely in control, just as I amended the previous legislation to put Congress entirely in control of every step as it goes along.

The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee is here. I asked him to address the strategic implications and the necessity. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just yesterday, when I was consulting with him, said there is now a proliferation of effort by nations which have interests antithetical to ours, going deep into the ground to establish facilities to manufacture poison weapons, biological weapons, gas weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons. I think it is prudent that our arsenal of defense deterrence have in it weapons, if I may finish, both nuclear and conventional.

Mind you, there is an ongoing effort parallel to this one to determine whether or not we can achieve the same strategic goals of destruction of deep underground facilities with conventional weapons, which would certainly be used prior to the use of any nuclear weapon. So it is a parallel program of conventional and nuclear.

But I respect my colleague whose views are different than mine. His amendment bans forever this type of weapon--research, development, everything. It stops it cold.

That is correct.

Which study was authorized, I say to my colleague, last year.

Mr. President, I think I said when I took the floor, it would be charged to the Senator from Virginia. It is in the nature of a colloquy which takes place, so statements on my behalf are charged against my time, statements by the Senator from North Dakota on his time.

I readily state you have one position on the concept of whether this Nation should, you said, start up--but I think you agree with me now, it is ongoing--so stop where it is, this program. You make your point. I make my point.

What I am trying to do is to clarify, for the benefit of our colleagues, precisely what I understand your amendment does. What this Senator, or perhaps joined by others, intends to do is, namely, make the effect of the amendment parallel to what we have done three times now. Three times this body has voted not to ban research on a nuclear system. You are asking for a ban.

I draw your attention to your first sentence: ``Effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act, no funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Energy by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended for development, testing,'' and so forth.

Does that not capture the existing funds that were appropriated last year?

But if your amendment would pass, wouldn't it be the effect to the Department of Defense: Why waste last year's money if you are prohibited from spending another nickel?

I think we have clarified this situation as best we can. But I wish to state to my colleagues, it is the intention of this Senator--I hope to be joined by others; and, indeed, one on the other side of the aisle--to put in legislation, as a part of the consideration of this subject of the penetrator, the exact language we had and voted on very strongly here just 15 minutes ago.

Mr. President, that fence was met. The Department submitted its report. On receipt of that report, the program, as authorized last year, commenced. It is an ongoing program.

Mr. President, the use of fences is quite common in a number of areas in the Defense authorization process.

Is this a UC request?

That's correct. If I may add a word or two to this. In the course of my colloquy with the Senator from North Dakota, it was indicated there would be an effort to place in this bill language comparable to what was in the amendment that was voted on immediately prior to this one to give a consistency in the manner in which we are treating these very serious questions. So I will put this on the desk and I will represent to our colleagues that this language will be forthcoming and a part of this bill.

I have indicated to the ranking member that this language, I think, could be voice-voted because I think there is consensus on both sides in an effort to make parallel and to put the Congress clearly into play.

We are prepared to enter into that now.

It is my hope that in the course of Senator Byrd's 20 minutes, if that decision could be made, Senator Byrd would certainly understand the need to maintain the momentum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back the time on our side. It is my understanding they will be yielding back time on their side.

All time having been yielded back, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to table the amendment.

Madam President, we will consult with the proponent of the underlying amendment. But for the moment, the Senate has tabled this matter.

It is my hope we could proceed to the Nelson amendments. I thank our distinguished colleague from Florida for his cooperation. We can do both by voice vote, it is my hope.

On the one amendment, I would like to be associated with you because I represented throughout the vote, to my side, that the language be incorporated. I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I could bring some new information on that subject? The majority leader had a conversation with me just a minute ago. I have not had a chance to share it.

I intend to stay here, as will other Members on my side, tonight. The majority leader is open to having votes, if necessary, at about 9:30 tonight.

As we say in the law, I plead nolo contendere.

If we get the cooperation and Senators call--we are right here on the floor--and indicate that you desire to have an amendment, we will see if we can accept it. If we cannot, we will proceed to put it in line.

I say to the leadership that we are going to hear from the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Following that, I know of one amendment on this side by Senator Hutchison, the Senator from Texas. And we have the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey.

Is that my understanding?

Could we put those in order now, but maybe not lock them in?

I think I can make those arrangements.

Fifteen minutes, or less. We may be able to accept it without requiring a vote.

I am agreeable to that unanimous consent request.

How soon would the Senator be willing to share the text of the amendment with the managers?

We thank the Senator from Iowa for that cooperation because, frankly, we don't know of many more amendments. We are nearing the end.

There is no objection on this side.

I appreciate the patience of the Senator from Florida.

Madam President, I join in this amendment. It had been my intention to add the second-degree amendment to the amendment we just voted on. I so indicated to my colleagues on this side, recognizing I think it is a benefit for the amendment to originate by our distinguished colleague and member of the committee from Florida on this side of the aisle. This makes ``parallel'' almost to the exact word treatment of both of these initiatives with regard to nuclear weapons in the current 2004 authorization bill.

I commend the Senator. I urge its adoption.

Madam President, the modesty of my distinguished colleague sometimes is overwhelming. The concept of this language which he described and written in the King's English originated with him in the course of the markup of our bill. I then plagiarized it for the purpose of earlier legislation. I don't know whether the Senator from Florida has plagiarized it. But we owe him a great debt. I am so glad we had the early discussion today about the clarity of certain statutes and that the Senator recognized this one speaks with great clarity. That is why it prevailed on our side.

I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I wish to endorse the amendment because it has a very sound predicate, a very sound philosophy; namely, that we should do everything possible to channel all of our scientific efforts toward not using a nuclear weapon, and this does just that.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we thank our colleague from West Virginia. He has shown us the usual senatorial courtesy to allow the managers to move timely amendments.

The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is recognized now for a period of 20 minutes. I thank him very much.

Mr. President, could I just say, I appreciate the expression of those remarks by our senior colleague. Senator Levin and I are in our 25th year--that is a quarter of a century--in the Senate. Throughout that period of time, the Senator from West Virginia has been a tutor, and we have learned much. To the extent we may have progressed in our learnings, it is owing in part to his teachings. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

I say to our distinguished colleague, I compliment her on the need to have more focus on these very important subjects regarding families. As I listened, I harkened back to my days and the composition of the Armed Forces in World War II and Korea. Far less than half were family. Today, three-quarters are family. The Army--and I expect other services but I have certainly heard in the Army--today they call it a family army. As we marched along this road to where, say, three- quarters now are hopefully blessed by a strong family background, I guess we have not kept apace with those matters which the Senator has enunciated today.

So speaking for myself, I certainly indicate that I will work closely with the Senator, and knowing the interest of my good friend and colleague from Michigan in this area, I can assume we will work together to strengthen the concepts in the report.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague. Back in prehistoric times when I joined the Marines, on the first day you were issued your rifle and the second day they told you if you were contemplating a wife, you bad better wait. The Marine Corps would issue that, too, at the appropriate time. So things have changed.

Mr. President, as so many Members in the past few months, we have experienced moments of joy and moments of sorrow, sorrow in attending funerals for those who paid the ultimate price in our engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Members have attended those funerals and there we see the family in a way that brings to mind the importance of, up until that moment did we give them the care they deserved? And are we now giving them the care they need after the loss of their uniformed member?

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. She very much was active in the work of the committee. In years past, she was on the committee. She has not left it in a sense because the Senator gave us the encouragement to put in a number of these measures. So I thank my colleague.

I find that the Senate is heavily engaged in committee meetings and briefings, and if it is agreeable to the Senator from Texas, I suggest we do a voice vote. Is that acceptable?

Would that be acceptable to the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent there be a time limitation of 60 minutes equally divided in the usual form with debate on the Lautenburg-Jeffords amendment No. 722 prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and that no other amendments be in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment.

Madam President, I thank our colleague from Oklahoma. I also thank our distinguished colleague from this side. It looks as if we are going to conclude this debate such that the Senate can turn to a rollcall vote at about 2:45.

I do want our distinguished colleague from Nevada, who is the chairman of the subcommittee----

That would be helpful and enable Senators to speak.

Fine.

Right.

Right.

No objection on this side.

Madam President, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Michigan.

I say to the Senator from Iowa, really, in a way we appreciate what you have done because you have identified an issue that has been of concern to our committee for some many years. The Armed Services Committee has held hearings and sponsored much of the GAO's best- practices work. But there remain to be done some important aspects of this problem.

DOD has made some progress but much more needs to be done. We recognize that. I want to work with the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Michigan and other members of the committee to address the inventory management problems at the Defense Department.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, if I might say to my colleague, on a personal note, he and I have reminisced many times how we have been privileged to wear the uniform of our country. I am struck by the hundred years. That parallels the commode scene we had hear some years ago, if the Senator remembers.

People operating in the Department of Defense have good intentions, be they in uniform or civilians. It is their country and their taxpayers' money. What we have to do is provide them with the proper direction when they need it to try to correct these things. But we have always, being military persons ourselves, to remember readiness is foremost. We have to err sometimes on the side of caution to maintain the readiness needed, particularly in today's environment, where unlike when you and I served there was time to get ready for military operations.

World War II basically took a year to get cranked up and going. We don't have that time anymore with these modern weapons and terrorism and the like. We have to be ready because what is on the shelf and what is in inventory is about all the men and women in the Armed Forces have when they have to move out with such swiftness now to address the threats of today.

I thank the Senator, but I just wanted to bring up that one note.

There is no objection on this side.

We thank our colleague very much.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is that the Bingaman amendment is the order at this point in time.

Could that temporarily be set aside for 5 minutes so the Senator may be recognized and then we will return to that?

It is my understanding I have 15 minutes under my control.

I wonder if I may ask my colleague a question or two. For many years you served on the Armed Services Committee. You have a complete familiarity as to how we address issues. My recollection--and I don't think it is to be disputed--of the markup in the subcommittee is, when we looked at this line of funding, no one on your side of the aisle or anyone else raised an issue. We went to full markup, and no one raised an issue about it.

Essentially you are coming in, which you have a perfect right to do, but you are coming in to kill a program. Am I not correct, this amendment kills the program?

Mr. President, that is quite clear.

Is the answer to my question, yes, you are trying to kill the initiation of an element that could lead to space-based weapons? Isn't that correct?

I just point out that on your side of the aisle, participating actively in markup in the full committee, there was no effort to examine it.

The next question I ask my colleague: Are you aware how much money the taxpayers of this Nation put in previous programs for space-based weaponry prior to when President Clinton--I don't say this in a critical way; it is just a fact way--determined that we would not put another dollar in space based?

That is correct.

The Senator is on my time, and he is kind of getting into it a little bit. I need a few minutes here.

We spent, as a nation, $1.8 billion on space-based intercepts from 1985 to 1993. This is for $14 million to go in and take a look at what has taken place in years prior thereto, by virtue of an expenditure of $1.8 billion, to determine the feasibility of whether this concept should be resumed. Essentially you are stopping us from even taking a look at this enormous investment which has been expended to determine whether we should once again begin in a substantial way to look at space-based interceptors. That is what is before the Senate, $14 million to go back and look at a program of $1.8 billion. It is for that reason that we vigorously oppose the amendment.

I yield the floor at this time. I see the chairman of the subcommittee.

Each side had 15 minutes. I am not sure for which side the distinguished ranking member is speaking.

I think it is important that we hear from the ranking member because I have asked a question. We did not address this at all in the subcommittee or full committee markup. I presumed, since it was in our bill--I say respectfully to my colleague--I believe he was here to support the bill as written. I come at somewhat of a surprise now on exactly where my distinguished colleague from Michigan is on this amendment.

But there was no opposition in the course of the markup, either in subcommittee or full committee.

I will save this debate for another day.

I yield the floor.

I yield.

Mr. President, just a minute. In a conscientious effort to resolve this, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given another 5 minutes.

I draw the Senator's attention to the first words:

No amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act for

research. . . .

It is right in there.

Mr. President, I think there is some expression by our colleague to amend the amendment. I take that in good faith. I believe we need a little time to examine this proposal. The chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Colorado, is prepared to sit down with the Senator and see what we might be able to do to bridge the gap because this is essentially another vote, as it is now written, to stop the program cold, to put in a ban. We have been through a series of votes on that now and, thus far, we have prevailed to not let bans be put in place, and here is another one coming up.

So, in good faith, we will take a look at such amendments that the Senator may wish. Therefore, I simply ask unanimous consent that this amendment be laid aside for a period of time.

We have no objection if the Senator takes some time to speak.

And recognize that there could be a second degree.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We are ready to vote.

How much time does the Senator need?

Of course.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Before we commence the vote, I ask the distinguished Democratic leader if he would be willing to agree to a firm time agreement on this vote of 15 minutes to be followed immediately by a second vote of 10 minutes.

That would be 10 minutes?

So modified.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I think that is a bit strong. The understanding on this side is that we would proceed on into the night.

Quite candidly, I say to colleagues, we are hoping to, one way or another, either accept the amendments or stack votes tomorrow morning which would be consistent with the Senator's representation that there will no further rollcall votes tonight. But tonight many Senators are going to participate on the floor in the proposal of these amendments or action on them.

Mr. President, I think the Democratic leader and I have pretty well stated the case for the evening.

Might I inquire about the amendment of the Senator from California?

Mr. President, I am working on that problem. It is a very legitimate request. I am working on that tonight.

The Senator has made that case clear. So far as I know, I can say for my side, I know of no request at this time for a rollcall vote. We will work through the amendments this evening.

I think we are pretty near complete on that list. I have indicated to my colleagues that by this time they should have brought the amendments to the managers.

I object.

I apologize to the Chair. I have six things going on at one time.

Objection from the Senator from Virginia.

May I say to my distinguished colleague from Washington that I recognize through the years she has been a steadfast proponent for those women in the armed services faced with the difficult choice you have

outlined to the Senate tonight. I express regret, but the distinguished ranking member and myself have been, throughout the deliberations on this bill, not acting in any way as the Supreme Court to overrule the ruling of the Parliamentarian on these amendments. We have tried to be fair, equitable on both sides. We have not waived one time. It is with regret that I had to interpose this objection because I recognize the merits of the amendment which you have had. You have done it now how many years, Senator?

Seven years.

Yes, indeed.

Mr. President, I respond to my colleague, with all due respect, I will not try and engage in an evaluation of how the Parliamentarian goes about the votes; that is, determining whether or not each amendment is relevant. But I would say I do not recall in years past the issue of relevancy having been raised on the Senator's amendment. I stand to be corrected.

It depends on the content of the bill to which that ruling was addressed.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to allow time in which the Parliamentarian can examine the amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to commend our distinguished colleague from Delaware. He has worked very diligently on this issue since the first moment he joined the Senate. You have been very helpful to the distinguished ranking member and myself in bringing these matters to our attention and to other members of the committee. I think the Department of the Air Force and indeed the whole Armed Forces that are so heavily dependent on airlift owe you a debt of gratitude.

My understanding is you are not making a request, you are just advising the Chair and the Senate. I wish to, in courtesy, advise you I know of at least one amendment in the second degree and there could be two.

Mr. President, I would have to inquire of the language of the amendments.

Mr. President, we are endeavoring to do a good deal of work on the bill this evening. I don't know the duration of the time the Senator wishes.

As soon as we are able to conclude the matters relating to the amendment of the Senator from Washington, I can better answer the question.

Mr. President, I wish to advise my colleagues on our side we, of course, had relied upon the previous ruling of the Parliamentarian. Therefore, these amendments are not yet ready.

Yes.

I think there is an opportunity they could be ready. We are checking.

Do I understand the distinguished leader to say 40 minutes equally divided?

Mr. President, I am informed we have not seen the Boxer amendment.

I think it would be best served if we put in a quorum call so we can try and put the pieces together.

Mr. President, as I understand, the distinguished Senator from Illinois wishes to address the Senate as in morning business for 7 minutes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could I have just another 3 minutes to determine if there is a problem on our side with that? And I regret that I could not tell you before you started.

Fine. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I know colleagues and others are following the proceedings on the floor tonight. We have been able to achieve quite a good deal. As the distinguished Democratic leader mentioned, we will proceed now to 12 amendments which have been cleared on both sides.

Amendment No. 792

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I offer an amendment which realigns funds during the committee markup for the Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control System from the Navy procurement to the Navy research development, test and evaluation accounts. I believe this amendment is cleared on the other side.

I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer an amendment which makes the necessary technical changes to the National Call to Service Act which was enacted last year. This amendment, which was requested by the Department of Defense, will enable DOD to make payments for education benefits to volunteers under this program from the DOD education benefits program. This amendment has been cleared on the other side.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 795

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Roberts, I offer an amendment to enhance defense contracting opportunities for persons with disabilities. I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I want to consult with my colleague about this.

Senator Levin and I have read the text of the amendment. The text of the amendment is quite clear as to what the intent was of the proponent. We have no objection on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 740

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an amendment to provide military health care entitlement to Reserve officers awaiting orders to active duty. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 700

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an amendment which would express the sense of the Senate that the Senate strongly supports the Advanced Shipbuilding Enterprise of the National Shipbuilding Research Program, and that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy should continue to fund this program at a sustaining level.

The level of shipbuilding is clearly of concern to me. The Navy is in transition, and we find ourselves building the last of the older 20th century surface combatants, submarines, aircraft carriers, and amphibious assault ships and transitioning to those ships of the line for the 21st century. Understandably, there is a development period we are involved in as

well as recapitalization. The committee chose to support the Navy's proposals for DDX, LCS, LHA(R), LPD and CVN-21. These are the naval vessels of the future.

They key here is balance during the transition period. The ongoing global war on terrorism places enormous budgetary pressure on the Defense bills. For example, we were certainly aware that the LPD-17 design is in production, but at a very low rate. The committee supported funding for the fiscal year 2004 ship. I also understand that the Navy is attempting to accelerate production to allow procurement of a ship in fiscal year 2005.

I acknowledge the Senator's comments and concerns.

I move to reconsider the vote.

On behalf of Senator Allard, I offer an amendment on the protection of the operational files of the National Security Agency that would strike section 1035 of S. 1050 and replace it with this amendment. It is cleared on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 784

On behalf of Senator Chambliss, I offer an amendment to require the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to provide a report on certain imagery exploitation capabilities. It is cleared on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 739

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I offer an amendment to authorize reimbursement for travel expenses of covered beneficiaries of CHAMPUS for specialty care in order to cover specialized dental care.

The amendment is cleared.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment that would strike subsection (c) of section 2101 to authorize military construction projects for the Army. It is cleared on both sides.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, that concludes the total of cleared amendments that we can work on tonight. Our staffs will continue to work through the evening. Hopefully, another dozen or so will be ready first thing in the morning. I thank my distinguished colleague for his usual cooperation and advice.

Our Parliamentarians have been put to the test and they deserve a measure of recognition for a job well done. I thank the Chair and the staff. If you think this has been a late night, wait until tomorrow.

I believe we are making good progress on this bill. It is my hope and, indeed, my expectation that we can complete this bill by midday tomorrow. I know that my colleague from Michigan and I, together with our respective leadership, are endeavoring to achieve that. When I made reference to tomorrow night, it related to other matters of legislation, not this bill.

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

Mr. President, I understand that S. 1079 is at the desk and is due for a second reading.

I ask that the Senate proceed to the measure and I object to further proceedings.

Madam President, the ranking member of the committee and myself are prepared this morning to entertain any amendments that colleagues wish to bring to the floor. I will be on the floor, and I am sure my colleague will outline a timetable for the amendments he knows of thus far on his side. On my side, there are no amendments that I know of right now. I do urge our colleagues to come forward.

The distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader have made possible these 2 days for us to work on this bill. I know my colleague from Michigan, the ranking member, and I are ready to move right along on it. At this time, I yield the floor, hopefully for the purpose of my colleague speaking to the amendments he knows of.

I will consult with the majority leader. I will note a willingness on this side to voice-vote the Graham of South Carolina amendment.

The time the Senator is recommending would be?

Fine.

Will my colleague be willing to engage in a colloquy?

By way of senatorial courtesy, I bring to the Senator's attention the unanimous consent request drafted carefully and put into the calendar today. Would the Senator be willing to check with the Parliamentarian at his earliest opportunity?

On this amendment, the Senator is a cosponsor, I think I heard.

Would the Senator be gracious enough to check with the Parliamentarian? It seems to me before we get the body stirred up on the issue of BRAC, we ought to determine the relevance on that amendment with these unanimous consent requests. I say that by way of courtesy.

Madam President, I suggest maybe a revision in your commentary. It is not in this bill. You keep referring to ``it's in this bill.''

Some years ago this bill, by the authorization committee, did contain it. I happen to have been a drafter of it. But it became law. So it is in law today. But there is no provision, to my understanding, in this bill that relates to the generic subject of the BRAC.

Madam President, the distinguished ranking member and myself at the time, with the leadership, had no specific subject or amendment in mind. We simply recognized the magnitude of this bill, some $400 billion, covering many subjects; in years past we have been on the floor, I can remember in my 25 years, 2 weeks at a time. Given the urgency of this situation, the calendar before the Senate, we thought we could best serve the institution of the Senate by proposing the Parliamentarian the decisionmaking with reference to relevancy. We had nothing in mind, I assure the Senator.

Madam President, I would not agree with that.

I have to say to my friend, I would not want him to leave the floor under the illusion that if the amendment fails to meet the requirements of the Parliamentarian, that my colleague, the distinguished ranking member, and myself, would begin to sit as a supreme court with regard to the Parliamentarian's decision and render exceptions. If we were to do that, the whole efficiency of this process would soon disintegrate and put us in an impossible situation.

The institution of the Senate relies upon the fairness and objectivity of the Parliamentarians. It is an institution since the beginning of times here. We, as Members, should not be asked or put in a position in which to overrule them, as you are fully aware.

Madam President, I think this colloquy undoubtedly is being followed by a number of colleagues. I already now have petitions by several on my side of the aisle seeking to ask whether we can go ahead and take this up even though the Parliamentarian has indicated to those Senators in a formal and appropriate way that it is acting within the description of their job function here to say the amendment fails the test. Again, I do not intend to sit here in judgment and overrule the Parliamentarian. But the Senator is perfectly willing under the rules of the Senate to seek to do that.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Madam President, let us place before the Chair a parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not there has been any change in the definition of the word ``relevancy'' as used by the Parliamentarian, say, in the last decade.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield?

The Senator from Virginia propounded a question to the Chair. My distinguished colleague from Nevada suggested maybe we shouldn't follow that procedure.

I have now consulted with the Parliamentarian. They are prepared to answer the question propounded by the Senator from Virginia with regard to this practice over the last several years. Whatever period of time is stipulated I think is not that important. So I once again propound to the Chair the question of whether or not the means by which the Parliamentarian through the years has judged a question's relevancy-- has it changed, say, in the last 5 years?

We can't hear.

What did the Chair say?

Thank you.

Fine. I will repeat the question.

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

Mr. President, I would like to ask the following question: We have a process in our committee that is not unlike what other committees do. We have our subcommittee structure where these issues are brought up and worked through the subcommittee. Then they are fully worked in the full committee in a series of two markups.

I say to my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, one for whom I have tremendous admiration, you have been a watchdog on this subject for some period of time. I have listened carefully to the debate today.

Where I am perplexed is that in our bill, on pages 26 and 27--you need not go to that; I will just read it to you--``Oversight and procurement of ballistic missile defense,'' we enumerate a series of matters that we have in the nature of reports. This was carefully worked out by the staff of the majority and staff of the minority. Your concerns were not raised, as I understand it, at the subcommittee level. They were not raised at the full markup level. Here we are now confronting the entire Senate with the issue of whether we should go into more reporting requirements, above and beyond what is in the bill.

I say to my distinguished colleague, if you go back--for instance, last year you had similarly at the last minute, the last amendment on the bill, a series of further reporting requirements. We ended up working that out, accepting parts of it, and went ahead with the bill. But according to my calculation, the Armed Services Committee receives more than 2,000 pages of reporting each year now from the Missile Defense Agency. I repeat, 2,000 pages. We are putting more and more requirements on this Agency, requiring more and more staff on subjects which, for reasons perhaps you will give now, you did not raise in the subcommittee and you didn't raise in the full committee.

The purpose of our staffs is to try to work out and reconcile, in the course of the preparation of the bill before it is finally marked up and brought to the Senate, such matters as this. After all, reporting requirements are fairly arcane and as a general rule we try to accede to the requests of Members who feel strongly about it. Unfortunately, they pile up and become quite onerous, but nevertheless, the practice of the Senate is to accord courtesy to fellow Members.

But now we are up to 2,000 pages from one agency of the Department of Defense. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know how many people on the committee, members and staff, go through all these 2,000 pages at the moment.

Could the Senator, then, advise me as to the procedure in the subcommittee, procedure in the full committee, and why the staff didn't have these matters under their cognizance at the time they were trying to reconcile the differences and prepare the bill language on reporting requirements?

I take it from your reply that one Senator thinks it is a matter of enormous importance. Was there a reason it wasn't brought up in the subcommittee of jurisdiction? We have the distinguished chairman here. So those members who, on our committee, have the first--should we say the first response? I like that phrase, first response--to look at matters of this nature, if it is that important why wasn't it brought up then? Then we had the subsequent markup session. If it was that important, why wasn't it brought up then?

It seems to me that the way the members of the committee can best serve the Senate is to take those entrusted with specific subjects, put their minds on it, put it in the bill. If you had endeavored to put it in, it was rejected at subcommittee, rejected at full committee, then come on out on the floor and roll it out with all the guns and say: Look, colleagues, the committee didn't do its work.

I am not contesting that. You recognize that. I am just pointing out, in 25 years, how the committee has to do its work.

Mr. President, I do not in any way contest the Senator's assertion that this is an important subject. I simply ask, can't we as a committee better serve our colleagues if we make an assessment first at the subcommittee, where the members are fully conversant with all these issues, and then at the full committee where, again, members are conversant, rather than to spring it out on the floor?

If I may say to my good friend, it is almost as if the chairman of the subcommittee didn't do his work and the ranking member didn't do his work and the members of the committee didn't do their work because this matter is of such great importance because it goes to the very heart of the Missile Defense Program.

Mr. President, may I pose a question to my colleague? I see that Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is the ranking member on this subcommittee, together with Senator Byrd, Senator Reed, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator Dayton.

The Senator has looked at this very carefully. Is there a means by which to work this out in some way--as to portions of it which you believe we will not go back over, and the issue of why it wasn't raised but now that it is raised--is there a means by which we can do it rather than taking up further time in the Senate on reporting requirements?

Is that an acceptable offer?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside with due diligence and good faith to see what might be added. I will come back to the 2,000 pages.

I simply say to my colleague that if there was a serious issue in the function of the Missile Defense Agency, in your judgment-- and you attach enormous importance to this--why did we not consider it in the course of the subcommittee hearing?

It simply says: Agency, if it is that important in your judgment in reporting, it goes to the very heart of the oversight process. We should have raised it in subcommittee, adopted an amendment of this type, and worked it out.

I was told the staff worked very closely with one another on the provisions we did put in the bill as to reporting on missile defense which we believed was a closed-out item.

I thank both of my colleagues. We have had a good colloquy.

I yield the floor.

Those are matters we delegate to the leadership, the majority leader, and the Democratic leader.

There is no way we will deny you a vote, if we fail to work it out.

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

We are about to work out a timing for the vote on the Daschle-Graham or Graham-Daschle amendment. I simply ask that the 5 minutes equally divided be expanded to 10 minutes, so I think we are prepared to go ahead and set that, if that is the desire of the leader.

I believe we will propound that UC in a moment. In the meantime I will attend to some other housekeeping matters.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 147 which was submitted earlier today and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 148 which was submitted earlier today and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Graham amendment No. 696 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today, there be a period of 5 minutes prior to a vote in relation to the modified Graham amendment No. 696; provided further, that if the amendment is agreed to, the underlying amendment No. 689 then be agreed to, as amended.

Mr. President, for clarification, the 5 minutes will be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. President, the distinguished leader is correct. Efforts are being made to see if that can be worked out. If those good- faith efforts do not materialize, then, of course, the Senator is entitled to a recorded vote or a voice vote, whatever is his preference.

The Senator is correct. The Senator from Michigan spoke to me before he departed the floor saying that was his desire and he will be speaking.

We can now stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, we accept the expression of the will of the Senate on this matter. I had the difficult position to oppose it, which I did.

As we look toward the benefits for the Guard and Reserve, they are deserved, richly, in most instances, but there is a balance that is somewhere not clearly definable between what we do for the regulars and what we do for the Guard and Reserve. If it gets out of balance, we could precipitate a bit of civil strife between these two magnificent categories of men and women who proudly serve in the uniform for our country and carry out their duties side by side on the battlefield and here at home. We will move on.

It is my intention to carefully consider this amendment, which was strongly adopted by the Senate, in the context of the overall bill and such other amendments in the House and the Senate as may contribute to the benefit of the men and women of the Armed Forces.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we understood a number of Senators were going to introduce it.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I am perfectly contented and listening carefully to the debate. At the appropriate time I will make my remarks and then move to table. I

want to in no way inhibit the debate on this important subject. I feel very strongly a contrary form of view, as do a majority of the colleagues I know. We certainly witnessed in the Armed Services Committee a strong vote in favor of going ahead with this provision in our bill. I am respectful of the views of others, but I am mindful of what we did on the Committee on Armed Services in our vote on this issue.

In terms of alternating now, I think we should have the Senator from New Mexico address the Senate on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator can take such time as he feels necessary.

Because he brings to this debate a very important aspect of many years in the Senate dealing with this subject.

Madam President, I am in agreement with that. I want to consult my distinguished ranking member. The Senator from Michigan and I had worked out a schedule.

In that order.

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

Madam President, we have had excellent cooperation on both sides of the aisle in this very important debate. I would like to propound a unanimous consent request on which my distinguished colleague from Michigan, the leader, Senator Reid, and I have worked. This is on the pending Feinstein-Kennedy amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that prior to a vote in relation to the pending Feinstein-Kennedy amendment No. 715, the following Members be recognized to address the Senate: Senator Reed, 20 minutes; Senator Biden, 20 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 5 minutes; Senator Feinstein, 15 minutes; Senator Levin, 25 minutes; and under the control of the Senator from Virginia will be 60 minutes, which I will allocate.

With that addition, I say to my colleague, we would add more time for Senator Boxer?

That is acceptable.

Let me finish the request. I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the language proposed to be stricken prior to the vote.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I say to colleagues on my side of the aisle, I hope they will approach me as soon as possible to indicate such time

as they might wish to take of the hour under the control of the Senator from Virginia. The Senator from Colorado wishes to address the Senate. I yield the floor for that purpose.

Madam President, I say to the Senator, since we discussed what he intends to do, I yield to him such time as he may require.

Mr. President, we are now operating under a time agreement. We will have our distinguished colleague from Nevada here momentarily. For the moment, let's put in a quorum call and this side will bear the time on the quorum call because I see my two colleagues are engaged in a colloquy. So I observe the absence of a quorum and ask that it be charged to this side.

I yield to the Senator from Nevada such time as he may require.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote this evening on the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment, Senator Reed be recognized in order to offer an amendment on the subject of low-level nuclear weapons; provided further that immediately following the reporting of that amendment, Senator Warner be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment; provided further that following any debate with respect to the amendments this evening, the amendments be temporarily set aside, and when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill tomorrow morning, there will be 20 minutes equally divided for debate between Senator Warner and Senator Reed. Finally, I ask that following the use of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Warner second-degree amendment, and that if the amendment is agreed to, then the underlying amendment be agreed to, as amended.

Mr. President, I would like to proceed on this side for about 5 or 6 minutes and then we will rotate. I must say, I express my pleasure at the cooperation we are receiving on both sides of the aisle, particularly from our Members with regard to amendments. I might say there is a colleague on that side of the aisle who has a very meritorious commitment to be at a certain place at 7:45, and it is a family matter. We are going to try to yield back time on our side to accommodate the colleague on the other side. I am not announcing the time exactly, but I hope it can come about at about 7:42 or 7:43, enabling him to meet a very serious matter relating to his children. We are going to make that work; is that correct?

We are providing flexibility to my colleague from Michigan to try to make it work.

Mr. President, I think it is important that in the Record of this debate there at least be one statement, if I may say, on behalf of the Senator from Virginia which enables the reader of the Record to determine with ease exactly what the debate is about. For that purpose, I will make a broad unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following material be printed in the Record: First, the existing law passed in 1994, which is the subject of the debate we are now having. That is to be followed by the submission of the Department of Defense as to the rationale for removing this particular law. That is to be followed by the manner in which we did it in the Armed Services Committee--it is a copy of the bill section. That is to be followed by correspondence received by the Senator from Virginia, first from the Secretary of State in which he expresses his opinion in regard to the amendment; and then the statement by Admiral Ellis, Commander of the Strategic Command, stating his support for the work done by the committee. That is to be followed by a letter from General Jumper, expressing his support for the work done by the committee. Then I have listed as a matter of convenience for my colleagues the seven steps that are taken, traditionally, with respect to nuclear weapons.

That is the information relevant to this debate.

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment.

Research on precision low-yield nuclear weapon design is prudent in today's national security environment. Why would we want to prevent any type of research on weapons that might contribute to improving our national security? Authorizing the research does not authorize the production, testing, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon. Congress reserves the right to decide that as a separate matter, should such a step be requested by this or any future Administration.

I have received three letters on this matter: two from top military leaders, Admiral James Ellis, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and General John Jumper, Chief of Staff to the U.S. Air Force, and one from Secretary of State Colin Powell. All three of these distinguished leaders urged support for repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research.

In the current international environment, with many new unexpected threats, it is prudent to allow research on low-yield nuclear weapons to learn whether such weapons could add to the deterrent value of our nuclear force. A repeal of the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research and development would permit the scientists and engineers at our national laboratories to consider whether these types of weapons are feasible and for what purpose. For instance, could such a weapon destroy a laboratory with biological and chemical agents without disbursing them as a conventional weapon would do? What would be the collateral effect?

I do not agree with those who assert that even allowing this research to go forward would undermine our nuclear non-proliferation efforts. The United States is steadfast in its determination to prevent nuclear proliferation through many means including diplomacy, multilateral regimes to control the export of sensitive technologies, and interdiction of illegal exports. The U.S. also has a proven record of nuclear reductions.

Secretary Colin Powell confirmed this view in his letter sent to me on May 5th, 2003. In that letter, Secretary Powell stated: ``I do not believe [repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research and development] will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea.''

Over the past decade--while the current prohibition on this type of research has been in place--the United States has taken thousands of nuclear weapons out of the active stockpile, abided by a moratorium on underground nuclear tests, designed no new nuclear weapons, and refrained from research on low-yield nuclear weapons.

Some might argue that these activities served the purpose of encouraging

other countries not to develop or proliferate nuclear weapons. But let's examine the record.

Over the past decade, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons for the first time. Other nations have continued to seek nuclear weapons capabilities, including Iraq, Iran and North Korea. And many nation are pursing chemical and biological weapons capabilities. I believe this shows that other nations make decisions about whether or not to acquire nuclear and other WMD capabilities based on their assessment of their own national security need--not based on U.S. action in this area. The argument that some make that if U.S. refrains from certain types of activities, others will follow, just does not stand the test of time.

Some would also argue the authorizing of this research would lower the nuclear threshold. I disagree. As Ambassador Linton Brooks, Administrator of the Nuclear Security Administration, testified before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, on April 8, 2003, the ``[n]uclear threshold is awesomely high.'' If wars of the future are about winning hearts and minds, about liberating rather than conquering, then the threshold for using nuclear weapons remains very high indeed. But as long as we maintain a nuclear deterrence force, we would be remiss if we did not keep it safe, secure and reliable, and if we did not maintain our research capabilities both for ourselves and to understand what other countries might be exploring.

It is worth noting that the United States had a large number of low- yield nuclear weapons in our inventory during the '50s, '60s, and '70s which have now been removed from the inventory. During each of these decades there were significant national security challenges to the United States. None of those challenges came close to reaching the nuclear threshold, notwithstanding the availability of low-yield nuclear weapons.

We have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all Americans. We should not place artificial limits on the intellectual work of our gifted scientists to explore new technologies, to understand what is possible as well as what potential adversaries could be exploring. Should threats emerge which cannot be deterred or destroyed with conventional weapons, our President must have other options available to protect the citizens of the United States, our interests and our allies. This has been the policy of the United States for almost sixty years.

The provision in the Senate bill merely permits the research that will inform future decisions as to whether such weapons would enhance the national security of our country overall. It does not prejudice how Congress would decide that question in the future. Let us not fear greater knowledge to inform our future decisions.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we appreciate the cooperation of all Senators. We were able to accommodate one Senator who had a very serious problem. That is achieved and we are now completed. I believe the Senator from Rhode Island is to be recognized for the purpose of laying down his amendment.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment in the second degree and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the arguments by my two distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan.

The Senate has acted on repealing a portion of the ban, and I think it is important that the Senate be consistent and that it should be a total repeal unless it could be construed as not being the intention of the Congress to fully support the actions of the research in the first two steps.

My second-degree amendment would allow the entire repeal, as called for in the bill, to take place. But very importantly, I then make it eminently clear that not one step can go beyond the research phase unless--and I read section (c):

The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering

development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield

nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.

Laws should be written that are clear, so they are understandable. This second-degree amendment absolutely places in the mind of every reasonable person who reads it precisely what is the intent of the Congress. And that intent is that this is approved to go forward in the vote we have just taken. In the second degree amendment to the pending amendment, it is clear that Congress is fully in charge, working with the executive branch. The Congress, and only the Congress, can authorize and appropriate the funds necessary to go one step beyond what the earlier amendment provided.

Very simple. I do not need to prolong this argument. The second degree amendment is eminently clear.

Absolutely.

I do not want to get tangled up in the terminology, but the bill, as passed out by the Armed Services Committee that is pending before us, repeals, in the entirety, the law that was passed in 1994.

Then you are coming along and saying: All right, I cede the ground that was authorized by this bill that just passed, but I wish to reimpose the limitation on the subsequent steps to the research.

All I am saying is, let's be consistent. We have repealed. Leave it repealed. But insert the Congress at precisely the point the Senator raises there and say: Not one step more until the authorization and appropriation takes place.

I think the Senator is correct.

I think the advantages, if I may say with respect to my two highly esteemed colleagues, are that the second-degree amendment can be understood by anyone who can interpret the English language.

When I look at your amendment--I have been over here working it and reworking it--it leaves a little bit of a challenge.

My esteemed colleague is absolutely correct.

Which amendment are you discussing? The Reed amendment?

First, it has to be removed and nothing has been removed yet. The law of the land remains the same tonight as it has been since 1994. We are endeavoring to see what should be done about it. The bill reported out by our committee on a fairly significant vote in favor of repeal would have the effect of repealing it in its entirety.

My amendment says, yes, carry forward with the intent of the majority vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee but put in the steps of Congress having to authorize and approve funds for each step subsequent to research.

Which Senator's?

I wish we were arguing that case. Both of us were trial lawyers. If you had made that mistake on the floor of a trial courtroom, I would have you nailed right now.

You are working your way around trying to figure out exactly what it is you and the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island want to do.

In the committee?

Mr. President, I apologize. I did not intend to plagiarize your good work. Suffering from a middle-age crisis, I forgot that you might have done that.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for what I interpret as kind words. We remain to have a difference of opinion as to the advisability of not repealing this current prohibition in its entirety.

I have no further comments with respect to the pending amendments.

Mr. President, I am perfectly willing. That is a very good suggestion.

The Senator is correct. The modification was reviewed on this side, and we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, earlier today, when the amendment was being discussed, I did encourage the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Colorado to see whether or not they could bridge the gap. They have done that.

So I compliment my good friend and fellow member of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Senator from Colorado. They did a job that will be helpful.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, as a simple courtesy, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.

I thank the Chair. This concludes the matters on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2003, at 2:00 P.M. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``overview of the fair credit reporting act and issues presented by the re-authorization of the expiring preemption provisions.''

The committee will also vote on the nominations of Dr. Nicholas Gregory Mankiw, of Massachusetts, to be a member of the council of economic advisors, executive office of the president; Mr. Steven B. Nesmith, of Pennsylvania, to be assistant secretary for

congressional and intergovernmental relations, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Mr. Jose Teran, of Florida, Mr. James Broaddus, of Texas, Mr. Lane Carson, of Louisiana, and Mr. Morgan Edwards, of North Carolina, to be members of the Board of Directors, National Institute of Building Sciences.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 9:30 am on the CEO Compensation in the Post- Enron Era, in Room SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 2:30 pm on the North Pacific Crab, in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the Future of U.S. Economic Relations in the Western Hemisphere

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Narcco-Terrorism: International Drug Trafficking and Terrorism--A Dangerous Mix'' on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 10 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Panel 1: Mr. Steven W. Casteel, Assistant Administrator for Intelligence, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC; Mr. Steve McCraw, Assistant Director for Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC; and Ms. Deborah A. McCarthy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC.

Panel 2: Mr. Raphael Perl, Specialist in International Affairs, Congressional Research Service, Library, of Congress, Washington, DC; Mr. Rensselaer W. Lee III, President, Global Advisory Service, McLean, VA; and Mr. Larry Johnson, Managing Director, Berg Associates, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on the operations of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, May 20, 2003 at 2 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 2 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Drugs, Counterfeiting, and Arms Trade: North Korea's Crime Syndicate''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 20 at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing to review the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, the Administration's proposal to reauthorize TEA21. The hearing will take place in Senate Dirksen 410.