Floor Statements

Mr. President, currently approximately 19,500 Colorado seniors are beneficiaries of Medicare health plans called ``cost contracts.'' Under current law, cost contracts will expire. Along with Senator Wyden, Senator Smith, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, and Senator Coleman, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act of 2003 to refine and to allow seniors to continue using these valued health plans.

Medicare cost contracts are managed care plans that are reimbursed at the cost of providing health benefits. Currently, seniors have three Medicare plans to choose from: basic Medicare fee-for-service, Medicare+Choice, and Medicare cost contracts.

Cost contract plans offer more benefits than basic Medicare and is available in more areas than Medicare+Choice. Cost contracts also offer lower out-of-pocket expenses and more benefits than supplemental Medigap, such as preventive care and prescription drug benefits. In addition, cost contract premiums cover Medicare deductibles and additional benefits not covered by basic Medicare. Further, for the costs of a normal Medicare fee-for-service copayment, seniors with cost contracts can use any Medicare provider whether they participate in the health plan's network.

Cost contracts are especially important in rural Colorado. Of the 19,500 Coloradans with cost contract plans, about 90 percent live in rural Colorado, where few basic Medicare and Medicare+Choice providers operate. If Medicare cost contracts are eliminated, then thousands of seniors will be forced into these other Medicare programs.

Seniors with cost contracts value them. According to the 1999 Medicare Managed Care Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study, conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare beneficiaries gave Medicare cost contract health insurers higher ratings than non-cost contract providers. Beneficiaries noted cost contracting HMOs solved problems, provided care, and provided customer service better than the majority of non-cost contracting providers. These ratings demonstrate that cost contract plans provide the quality service seniors want and need.

Unfortunately, under current law cost contracts soon will terminate. In 1997, in an effort to refine Medicare+Choice, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Among other provisions, this bill terminated the Medicare cost contract program effective December 31, 2002. To prevent the termination of this valuable plan, in 1999 I introduced legislation to extend cost contracts. That year Congress passed the Balanced Budget and Refinement Act, which extended cost contracts for two years through 2004.

Congress should extend Medicare cost contracts further. Legislation I am introducing, the Cost Contracting Extension and Refinement Act, would accomplish this by extending by ten years the cost contract sunset date of December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2014.

While the goal of Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to provide an alternative to basic Medicare through Medicare+Choice, Medicare+Choice has not yet met this goal in rural Colorado. Until Medicare+Choice coverage is readily available to rural cost contract recipients, Congress should extend the current cost contract sunset for an additional 10 years.

This legislation would provide another reform. It would apply certain existing requirements under the Medicare+Choice program to Medicare cost contract plans in order to allow better administration, education, and protections to patients, providers, and insurers. The legislation would allow beneficiaries to be informed and educated about the option of cost contracts, apply quality assurance requirements, prevent plans from discriminating against certain patients by offering lower premiums, and prohibit States from taxing cost contract premiums. These provisions help refine and strengthen the Medicare cost contract program, and they help streamline the dual administration of Medicare+Choice and cost contracts.

Last, the Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act would allow certain health plans, called group model health plans, to offer Medicare patients a cost contract plan. These group model health plans have traditionally been shown to provide care efficiently and at a cost lower than the costs that would be incurred if the services are furnished under the Medicare fee-for-service program. Group health plans are health insurers that offer health care through providers that are employed by the insurer, such as the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. If, for example, Kaiser provides Medicare patients the cost contract option, then Colorado's approximate 50,000 seniors, who are now enrolled in Kaiser's Medicare+Choice plans, would be eligible to obtain a cost contract plan.

Medicare beneficiaries deserve a choice in how they receive their health care. Congress should allow one of these choices to remain Medicare cost contracts. On behalf of the 19,500 Colorado Medicare beneficiaries who obtain their health care from cost contract plans, I am pleased to sponsor the Medicare Cost Contract Extension Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record

Mr. President, currently approximately 19,500 Colorado seniors are beneficiaries of Medicare health plans called ``cost contracts.'' Under current law, cost contracts will expire. Along with Senator Wyden, Senator Smith, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, and Senator Coleman, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act of 2003 to refine and to allow seniors to continue using these valued health plans.

Medicare cost contracts are managed care plans that are reimbursed at the cost of providing health benefits. Currently, seniors have three Medicare plans to choose from: basic Medicare fee-for-service, Medicare+Choice, and Medicare cost contracts.

Cost contract plans offer more benefits than basic Medicare and is available in more areas than Medicare+Choice. Cost contracts also offer lower out-of-pocket expenses and more benefits than supplemental Medigap, such as preventive care and prescription drug benefits. In addition, cost contract premiums cover Medicare deductibles and additional benefits not covered by basic Medicare. Further, for the costs of a normal Medicare fee-for-service copayment, seniors with cost contracts can use any Medicare provider whether they participate in the health plan's network.

Cost contracts are especially important in rural Colorado. Of the 19,500 Coloradans with cost contract plans, about 90 percent live in rural Colorado, where few basic Medicare and Medicare+Choice providers operate. If Medicare cost contracts are eliminated, then thousands of seniors will be forced into these other Medicare programs.

Seniors with cost contracts value them. According to the 1999 Medicare Managed Care Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study, conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare beneficiaries gave Medicare cost contract health insurers higher ratings than non-cost contract providers. Beneficiaries noted cost contracting HMOs solved problems, provided care, and provided customer service better than the majority of non-cost contracting providers. These ratings demonstrate that cost contract plans provide the quality service seniors want and need.

Unfortunately, under current law cost contracts soon will terminate. In 1997, in an effort to refine Medicare+Choice, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Among other provisions, this bill terminated the Medicare cost contract program effective December 31, 2002. To prevent the termination of this valuable plan, in 1999 I introduced legislation to extend cost contracts. That year Congress passed the Balanced Budget and Refinement Act, which extended cost contracts for two years through 2004.

Congress should extend Medicare cost contracts further. Legislation I am introducing, the Cost Contracting Extension and Refinement Act, would accomplish this by extending by ten years the cost contract sunset date of December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2014.

While the goal of Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to provide an alternative to basic Medicare through Medicare+Choice, Medicare+Choice has not yet met this goal in rural Colorado. Until Medicare+Choice coverage is readily available to rural cost contract recipients, Congress should extend the current cost contract sunset for an additional 10 years.

This legislation would provide another reform. It would apply certain existing requirements under the Medicare+Choice program to Medicare cost contract plans in order to allow better administration, education, and protections to patients, providers, and insurers. The legislation would allow beneficiaries to be informed and educated about the option of cost contracts, apply quality assurance requirements, prevent plans from discriminating against certain patients by offering lower premiums, and prohibit States from taxing cost contract premiums. These provisions help refine and strengthen the Medicare cost contract program, and they help streamline the dual administration of Medicare+Choice and cost contracts.

Last, the Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act would allow certain health plans, called group model health plans, to offer Medicare patients a cost contract plan. These group model health plans have traditionally been shown to provide care efficiently and at a cost lower than the costs that would be incurred if the services are furnished under the Medicare fee-for-service program. Group health plans are health insurers that offer health care through providers that are employed by the insurer, such as the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. If, for example, Kaiser provides Medicare patients the cost contract option, then Colorado's approximate 50,000 seniors, who are now enrolled in Kaiser's Medicare+Choice plans, would be eligible to obtain a cost contract plan.

Medicare beneficiaries deserve a choice in how they receive their health care. Congress should allow one of these choices to remain Medicare cost contracts. On behalf of the 19,500 Colorado Medicare beneficiaries who obtain their health care from cost contract plans, I am pleased to sponsor the Medicare Cost Contract Extension Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record

Mr. President, I just received word that a dear friend of mine, the Air Force Academy, and the State of Colorado passed away last night and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize retired Chief Master Sergeant Louis Brown Jr. One of Colorado's finest citizens, CMSgt, Ret., Louis Brown Jr., has made numerous contributions to the young men and women--past, present and future--of the United States Air Force Academy. Chief Brown has been a steadfast proponent and volunteered more than 10 years of service to recruit, advise, interview, and mentor cadets for the Air Force Academy with my congressional office. Additionally, he has spent over 30 years of tireless interaction with some of the Air Force's finest officers and Academy graduates.

Chief Brown has made a difference to the Air Force, the Air Force Academy, and to Colorado as a whole. Specifically, he has worked countless hours with members of my staff since my tenure in the United States Congress helping to interview potential candidates to the academy, educating them on the appointment process, and encouraging these young men and women to contribute to the United States armed forces. He has been a mentor and a role model to countless cadets who have gone forward to become Air Force officers.

I want to honor the life of Chief Brown who served the Air Force first as an enlisted Airman and later in life as an advocate for recruitment of future officers. His contributions to the State of Colorado and the United States Air Force will not be forgotten. I ask the Senate now to join me in thanking Chief Brown and his family for these contributions and also to pray for his loved ones in their time of mourning.

Mr. President, the Senate will resume debate on the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2004. Under the previous order, there will be 20 minutes remaining for debate in relation to the first- and second-degree amendments which are pending to the Defense bill. Following that debate, the Senate will vote in relation to the Warner second-degree amendment regarding low-yield nuclear weapons. Senators should therefore expect the first rollcall vote to occur at approximately 10 o'clock this morning.

Following the disposition of these amendments, additional amendments are expected, and therefore rollcall votes are expected throughout the day. It is still hoped we will be able to complete action on this important legislation during today's session.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Warner second- degree amendment to the Reed amendment in the form of a substitute.

The amendment would strike the Reed-Levin amendment, thereby retaining the repeal of the ban on research and development of low- yield nuclear weapons that is in the committee bill. The amendment would also require that the Department of Energy receive an authorization from the Congress for engineering development, and all subsequent phases of weapons development, before commencing with such activities. This amendment would make it absolutely clear that it is the prerogative of Congress to decide on the funding necessary for the administration to proceed with engineering development of a low-yield nuclear weapon, but it will not stop the military planners and weapon designers from considering and proposing such development.

Even after repealing the ban, as we did in the committee bill, the administration is still required to specifically request funding at each phase of research and development, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. With this amendment, the Department of Energy would be required to receive an authorization from Congress before commencing with the engineering development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Congress would have another opportunity to review such activities if they are requested by the administration.

This amendment provides for appropriate congressional review and oversight without incurring the disadvantages of an outright ban on some portions of research and development. Retaining a ban on development, acquisition, and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons, would continue the ``chilling effect'' on exploration of certain advanced nuclear weapons concepts because few will choose to work on these concepts if their development or production is prohibited. Also, the Department of Defense will not spend precious research dollars on a weapon type they have little chance of fielding.

I urge support of this amendment. I believe this amendment addresses in a serious way the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues. This amendment would provide all the transparency required to ensure the administration can proceed with research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, but not until Congress has an opportunity to review the request and affirmatively authorize engineering development activities.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. Before I make any more comments, right at the very start, I want to make one thing clear: We are not building new nuclear weapons. We are modifying existing nuclear weapons. Somehow the other side is trying to imply that we are building new nuclear weapons, and we are going to continue to add to the number of nuclear warheads we have. We are continuing to reduce the number of nuclear warheads under the Moscow Treaty.

The Senate bill includes an authorization of $15 million to continue a 3-year feasibility study on the robust nuclear penetrator. I repeat, to continue the feasibility study. This is not a new issue for the Congress to consider. In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, the Congress authorized $15 million for the first year of the feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator which is now under way.

This bill authorizes only the continuation of the feasibility study. It does not authorize the production or deployment of such a capability.

The RNEP for feasibility--referring to the robust nuclear earth penetrator--will determine if one of two existing nuclear weapons can be modified to penetrate into hard rock in order to destroy a deeply buried target. That is the challenge we face. Our potential enemies are trying to avoid any vulnerability to targets by going deeper and deeper underground. In order to destroy deeply buried targets that could be hiding weapons of mass destruction or command and control assets, this new technology needs to be an option, not that we are necessarily going to use it.

The Department of Energy has modified nuclear weapons in the past to modernize their safety, security, and reliability aspects. We also modify existing nuclear weapons to meet new military requirements. The B-61-11, one of the nuclear weapons being considered for the RNEP feasibility study, was also modified once before to serve as an earth penetrator to hold specific targets at risk. At that time, the modification was to ensure the B-61 would penetrate frozen soils. The RNEP feasibility study is attempting to determine if the same B-61 or another weapon--for example, the B-83--can be modified to penetrate hard rock or reinforced, underground facilities. Authorizing research on both options, nuclear and conventional--and we hope we will never have to use the nuclear; we hope we can continue to advance the conventional technology so that would be the preferred method of choice to go after these deep underground hardened targets--for attacking such targets is a responsible step for our country to take

Again, we are not producing new nuclear weapons. We are doing a modification. It is a continuing modification. We have modified the B- 61 before. We are looking at the B-83 to see if perhaps we can't do a modification on that.

The sponsor of the amendment made the comment that the United States is setting an example for the rest of the world. We are continuing to set the example for the rest of the world by reducing the number of nuclear warheads. The problem is countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan don't care what we are doing. Despite our best efforts to set an example, they are continuing to develop nuclear warheads. They are doing more than we are today as far as the triggering mechanism for nuclear warheads. If that continues, where will that put us as far as the defense of this country is concerned?

I commend President Bush. He has taken the lead in reducing the number of nuclear warheads. It is great that we are able, through these kind of programs, to take covert silos, as my friend from North Dakota mentioned, and we are planting sunflower seeds. We are still doing that today as a result of the Moscow Treaty. Even before the treaty, the President announced that he would take down the Peacekeeper which is buried in silos in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado. That effort is moving forward. We are continuing to do that. The point is, we need to have some flexibility. Times are changing. Our targets are changing. We need to have new technology. We need to study. That is what this provides, a feasibility study of these various options. We simply cannot afford to be caught shorthanded. Too much is at risk. America is at risk.

ADM James Ellis, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, confirmed in testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, on April 8, 2003, that not all hardened and deeply buried targets can be destroyed by conventional weapons. That is his view. Many nations are increasingly developing these hardened, deeply buried targets to protect command and communications and weapons of mass destruction production and storage assets. It is prudent to authorize the study of potential capabilities to address this growing category of threat.

What the Senate bill authorizes is simply the second year of the 3- year feasibility study and nothing more. Should the National Nuclear Security Administration determine through this study that the robust nuclear earth penetrator can meet the requirement to hold a hardened and deeply buried target at risk, NNSA still could not proceed to full- scale weapons development, production, or deployment without an authorization and appropriation from Congress.

We do the study. Say the study says there is a feasible alternative. Still they cannot move forward until they have the authorization for development and production through authorization and appropriation from the Congress.

We should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets to assess what would be collateral damage associated with such a capability. Then Congress would have the information it

would need to decide whether development of such a weapon is appropriate and necessary to maintain our Nation's security.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Dorgan amendment as it now stands. This is an important issue. We are talking about the defense of this country. A lot is at stake. I think we need to keep in mind that despite the fact we are doing a lot today to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our arsenal, other countries are continuing to test. I put in the Record yesterday a whole page of tests that have occurred since we quit testing underground. Other countries are continuing to develop their weapons. We need to continue to use our technology to make sure we have the proper defenses and the wherewithal to protect our troops in the field, to protect America, and to protect freedom.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

There is no objection on this side.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote at 12:30 relative to the Dorgan amendment; that our time be equally divided between both sides; and that after the vote, Senator Byrd be allowed to speak for 20 minutes.

It is my understanding Senator Reid discussed this with the chairman and it was agreed that Senator Byrd would have an opportunity to speak for 20 minutes after the vote.

Madam President, I renew my request.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, this is an issue on which we have held discussions. We have put together the provisions that deal with many of the modernization elements of the defense and Armed Forces of the country. This is an amendment that did not get brought forward during deliberation in the subcommittee, nor deliberation in the Armed Services Committee, as far as I recall.

I am concerned about continued efforts on the floor of the Senate to stymie our reaching out to new technology. We have had an amendment concerning low-yield nuclear weapons that allows for a study to think about what our alternatives might be. We have had amendments here concerning robust nuclear earth penetrators, just to study the concept.

Here is another concept that the committee has decided we should study. It seems to me that in a modern military, these are things we should be looking at. Things are changing.

I commend the President's Secretary of Defense. He is trying to modernize our military forces, get them to work together on the battlefield more than we ever had before. We saw that happen in Iraq. These are all issues that are part of a joint force effort.

I hope we can defeat the amendment. I oppose the Bingaman amendment. Again, it prohibits us even taking the time to study the concept. After you do the study, you list the pros and cons and then decide if this is something you want to move forward, whether it is feasible. We need to gather facts on actual costs. We may decide, after doing the study, that it is too expensive. On the other hand, we may do the study and look at the threats facing the country and say: This is something we need to be doing.

It is foolhardy that we have amendments that continually keep coming up that don't allow us to study our alternatives. We need to have the studies. We need to be thinking about what kind of threats and what we want the military to look like 10, 20, 30 years down the road.

I hope other Members of the Senate will join me in opposing this amendment.

About 2 minutes.

First, I thank the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Bingaman, for working in this compromise language. We do maintain, out of the ballistic missile defense system interceptors account, we have the $14 million kept available for research and concept definition for the space-based test bed. I thank Senator Levin and his contribution to help us work out the compromise, as well as the chairman, Senator Warner.

I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. The other side is prepared to yield back the remainder of their time. Then we are ready to voice vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 783 To Amendment No. 725

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2003. The purpose of this meeting will be to consider the nominations of Glen Klippenstein, Julia Bartling, and Lowell Junkins to be members of the Board of Directors of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and Tom Dorr to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation and to be under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development.

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 21, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``national export strategy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. on SPAM, in SR-253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2003, 2:30 p.m. on TEA-21 Reauthorization, in SR- 253.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21 at 10:00 a.m. to consider pending calendar business.

Agenda Item No. 2--S. 520--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District in the State of Idaho for sure.

Agenda Item No. 3--S. 625--A bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies in the Tualatin River Basin in Oregon, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item No. 5--S. 500--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study certain sites in the historic district of Beaufort, South Carolina, relating to the Reconstruction Era.

Agenda Item No. 6--S. 635--A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item No. 7--S. 651--A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the System, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item No. 8--H.R. 519--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the San Gabriel River Watershed, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item No. 9--H.R. 733--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the McLoughlin House National Historic Site in Oregon City, Oregon, and to administer the site as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

Agenda Item No. 10--H.R. 788--To revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona.

Agenda Item No. 11--S. 203--A bill to open certain withdrawn land in Big Horn County, Wyoming, to locatable mineral development for bentonite mining.

Agenda Item No. 12--S. 246--A bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State of New Mexico.

In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2003.

The following agenda will be considered: S. 1053, Genetics Non- Discrimination Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 at 10 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 at 10 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 226.

Panel I: Senators.

Panel II: R. Hewitt Pate to be Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, Wednesday, May 21, 2003, from 9:30 a.m. at 1 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 21, 2003, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``SARS: How Effective Is The State And Local Response?''

Mr. President, I have a statement I would like to make on the bill. It is my understanding we are in order to move forward with the debate.

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2004. While there will be much debate on a few of the provisions in this bill, there is one thing we can all agree on--the defense of this Nation is our No. 1 priority.

The bill before us is a reflection of that priority. With the passage of this bill, we are saying this body is determined to ensure our Armed Forces have the resources, tools, and equipment they need to effectively combat those who threaten the United States, its interests overseas, and its friends and allies. With the passage of this bill we are saying our military personnel are the best in the world and should be paid and equipped as such. Modern equipment and sophisticated technology were certainly critical factors in recent operations. However, it was the extensive training, superb leadership, and valiant service of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen which has been the deciding factor time and time again.

With the passage of this bill, we are also admitting that threats to our way of life persist in many parts of the world. The global reach of terrorist networks is extensive, as demonstrated by the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is growing. There are reports, for example, that North Korea may try to sell a nuclear weapon. These threats and others require us to remain vigilant. Our military must be prepared and ready to respond in a moment's notice.

I would like to take a few moments to draw the attention of the body to some of the more important provisions in this legislation.

Section 534 of the bill, which I sponsored, lays out several actions the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of each military department must take to address sexual misconduct at service academies. These include promulgating policies on sexual misconduct, conducting annual cadet surveys, and submitting a report to Congress on the board of visitors of each academy. The recent sexual assault scandal at the United States Air Force Academy highlighted the importance of being proactive and taking appropriate action at the first sign of trouble. This provision will be helpful in discovering sexual misconduct problems at the academies. This provision will also help academy leaders develop new tools for addressing sexual misconduct and give Congress and the board of visitors insight into the size and scope of the problem.

Another provision which I sponsored focuses on improving the Defense Department's management of travel credit cards. This provision builds on the purchase card legislation of Senators Grassley and Byrd which was approved by this body last year in the Defense appropriations bill. Federal agencies are required by law to use purchase cards for certain transactions and travel cards for official trips. While utilization of these cards has yielded considerable savings for the American taxpayer, abuse has continued.

Recent GAO audits have reported these cards have been used at brothels, adult clubs, sporting events, and even Internet pornographic Web sites. Section 1013 will help address this deficiency. It requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe guidelines and procedures regarding disciplinary action against personnel guilty of improper, fraudulent, or abusive use of Defense travel cards. The provision recommends to the Secretary that he consider enforcing various penalties allowed in law, including assessing a fine three times the size of the abuse, requiring the guilty party to pay court and administrative costs, and firing or court-martialing Department of Defense personnel.

Lastly, the provision requires the Secretary to report to Congress on these guidelines and provide legislative proposals should legislative action become necessary.

The bill before us also includes two provisions I sponsored regarding military voters. With the current deployments resulting from the war on terrorism, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and numerous other military actions, we must do all we can to ensure these military men and women are given every available opportunity to exercise their right to vote. I believe it is our duty to remove as many barriers as possible for military voters to be heard.

One provision included by the Armed Services Committee addresses those voters who fall through the cracks when they leave the military and move before an election but after the residency deadline. The other provision addresses problems with overseas military absentee ballots. After the 2000 election there were numerous reports of ballots mailed without the benefit of postmarking facilities. Sometimes mail is bundled from deployed ships or other distant postings and the whole group gets one postmark which would invalidate them under current law. The provision adopted will change the law so our military personnel would be ensured their votes count.

I am encouraged by the $40 million added to the President's request for formerly-used defense sites, better known as FUDS. As noted in the committee report, there are over 9,000 FUDS in the program which historically have been underfunded. The longer these sites wait to be remediated, the more expensive they become. That is why I am pleased to see the extra funds and encourage the Army to address these problems in an expeditious and thorough manner.

Turning to the provisions that originated from the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which I chair, these provisions reflect a net increase of $85 million in procurement, a net increase of $202 million in research and development. They also reflect the requested level of funding for the Department of Energy programs and activities. The total net increase was $287 million.

These provisions fully fund the President's $9.1 billion request for missile defense. I was pleased that my ranking member, Senator Bill Nelson, and I were able to work together effectively on these issues. I am hopeful any missile defense amendments considered as part of this debate will be noncontroversial.

Significant funding actions in the committee's bill for missile defense include an increase of $100 million for the

ground-based missile defense system for additional testing and hardware improvements to reduce risk and enhance operational effectiveness, and a $70 million decrease for the ballistic missile defense system intercept project.

The bill before us also includes a number of space-related provisions that originated from my subcommittee. One would help to more fully develop an effective cadre of space professionals. Another would establish assured access to space for national security payloads as national policy.

Significant funding actions for space include the following: An $80 million increase for the GPS III, which is an advanced navigation satellite; a $60 million increase for the Advanced EHF Satellite communication system; a $60 million increase for assured access to space; and a $50 million decrease for the Advanced Wideband system, which will put this program on a sounder schedule.

There are two significant legislative provisions regarding the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, referred to as ISR. The first would require establishment of a Department of Defense ISR Integration Council, and formulation of a 15-year ISR roadmap to ensure the development of an efficient, interoperable, complementary ISR architecture for the Department.

The second reemphasizes the committee's support for the acquisition and use of commercial imagery to meet Department of Defense and Intelligence Community needs. The bill also adds funds to a number of high-priority ISR programs.

Another set of provisions originated from my subcommittee focuses on Department of Energy programs. These provisions authorize the weapons activities within the National Nuclear Security Administration at the budget request level of $6.4 million; the Naval Reactors program at $788 million; and the Defense Environmental Management program at $7.7 billion.

Another DOE provision would authorize $21 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration to begin research on advanced concepts, and $15 million of that research money will be used to continue the feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator. A repeal of the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research and development was also included--emphasizing just the repeal, and this involved the research and development.

Mr. President, our Armed Forces are highly capable, superbly led, and devoted to the protection of the American people. During Operation Enduring Freedom, the Taliban unwittingly discovered our military has the capability to deploy and supply thousands of soldiers in the most remote of regions of the world. And during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam Hussein experienced firsthand the devastating precision firepower our forces can unleash from a multitude of platforms.

Yet despite these capabilities, we cannot stand still because, most assuredly, our enemies will not. We must be determined, committed, and focused on the task before us. It is our duty.

The Armed Services Committee, under the outstanding leadership of Chairman Warner, has spent many hours developing, analyzing, and reviewing the provisions in this bill. I also want to thank the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Senator Bill Nelson, and his staff for their cooperation and leadership during our hearings and committee markup. While we may not all agree on the merits of some of the provisions, we can all agree the overall bill will go a long way toward meeting the growing needs of our men and women in uniform.

The American people depend on us, just as we depend on our Armed Forces. Let us do our duty and quickly approve this bill.

I yield the floor. Seeing no other member seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Reed amendment. First, there have been a number of issues that Senator Reed and myself have worked together on, and I think quite effectively. It is with considerable regret that I stand today and oppose his amendment.

It is an amendment that would add a number of reporting requirements for the Missile Defense Agency and the Office of Test and Evaluation. I cannot buy into the argument that a few good, well-thought-out regulations does the job; that if we just put in more regulations it is even better. There is a good balance we need to sustain. We have found that balance. This is an issue that in previous years has been hotly debated within the Armed Services Committee and within my subcommittee in which this issue comes out.

This year we did not have any amendment--we had some debate but no amendment in the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which I chair; we did not have any amendments in the full

committee. Now we are dealing with this issue in the Senate.

The Missile Defense Agency is attempting to develop an effective missile defense system as rapidly as possible. They are structuring the program to meet the threats we currently face, while recognizing that the missile threats will unpredictably evolve in the future. That is one of the problems I have with the Reed amendment, its unpredictability. To do so, the Missile Defense Agency has taken a capabilities-based approach that focused on developing a number of systems.

The Reed amendment attempts to relate ballistic missile defense element performance criteria to specific threats that these elements are designed to defeat. If it takes effect, the amendment would push the Missile Defense Agency back toward threat specific development and acquisition, away from capabilities-based development and acquisition.

Why is that a problem? We do not always understand the threat facing the United States. I can take us back to a couple of current situations where we did not understand what was happening with potential adversaries. In 1991, for example, in the Persian Gulf conflict, we got into Iraq. Only then did we begin to recognize how far along the nuclear development program was in Iraq. That was 1991. The people in the Defense Department, our experts, were surprised. People in defense intelligence were surprised. We looked back to the North Korea situation. For some time we suspected there was, perhaps, nuclear development going on but we were not able to get that confirmed until just recently where North Korea finally admitted they were developing nuclear weapons.

My point is, when we have the development of a weapons program based on what you think the threats are, it may not truly reflect what is happening. The best thing we can do is decide, for example, on missile defense, it is a capability that we need to have and we base it on the capability of being able to develop that technology so we have the best technology. That is where we get the best deterrence in a program such as the ballistic missile system.

The systems or capabilities will be upgraded on a 2-year spiral, or blocks, as the technology matures. The Missile Defense Agency is seeking to develop a single integrated missile defense system consisting of a seamless web of sensors and shooters tied together by command and control, battle management and communication systems. Each system element, such as THAAD or PAC-3 or the sea-based aegis systems, can support the other, and it makes the other more effective.

Congress has already approved a number of Missile Defense Agency reporting and process requirements in the fiscal year 2002-2003 National Defense Authorization Acts. Yet the Reed amendment requires another layer of reporting requirements.

In response to the previous 2 years of legislation, the Missile Defense Agency provided a 300-plus-page system capability specification that describes block 2004 system specifications and metrics in painful detail, including battle manager, sensor, weapons by each element such as THAAD, PAC-3, and ABL and ground-based, midcourse, among others.

ABL also provided over 1,000 pages of a 2-volume adversary capabilities document which describes all the performance characteristics that might be embodied in foreign threat missiles that U.S. missile defense systems might have to defeat. The budget justification document provides a funding breakdown by element and block--a detailed set of goals for 2004 and more general goals for block 2006 and beyond.

The amendment in question appears to require much that is already provided by the Missile Defense Agency as well as reporting that is already required by law. The Director of the Missile Defense Agency already provides performance criteria. The Director of OTNE already established and provides operational test plans for missile defense systems and also provides an annual assessment of the Missile Defense Agency test plan.

Here we are, saying a few well-thought-out regulations are good, they are fine, and we are making the assumption if a few are good, more regulations ought to be better. I don't agree with that. That takes away from and delays a program that needs to be moving forward in an expeditious and thoughtful way. What we have in the present system provides the accountability we need as lawmakers.

The other point is, when you tailor your development of your technology to the threats or perceived threats from your enemy, you will be left in the dust. We do not always know what our enemies or potential enemies are doing. We have a capability to defend this country. If we want a strong defense system, we need to move ahead with that defense system. It does have a deterrent effect.

It should be noted that the Missile Defense Agency already provides more reporting than any other program in the Department of Defense. There is no reason for Congress to require duplicative reporting on top of what is already authored or required. We cannot and should not be in the business of micromanaging missile defense.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I might make a comment or two?

Our committee has worked and put in hours of effort and testimony on this issue of spiral development, or whether we have an inflexible program, which I think the Reed amendment leads us, to where you have specific timelines for specific parts of the system. What happens if you run into a problem in one particular part of the system? It delays the whole development.

With the spiral concept, it gives the developers of the system, the Missile Defense Agency, the opportunity to move forward in other aspects of development. It is a multifaceted system. It has to do with communications for a number of different systems and parts.

In my view, one of the problems we have had in the past, with cost overruns and whatnot, is where you have had inflexibility in the system and you

find one real problem area and then all of a sudden it ties up moving forward.

That is the whole concept between spiral development. We have had hours upon hours of this concept of spiral development. We have General Kadish and many of the individuals who are ``in the know'' testify about how important it is that we take this new approach so we can move forward with some of the more difficult and more technologically advanced programs, such as missile defense.

Again, the assumption is that we have some regulations which I think are reasonable which we put in bills in years past, and we put some more in this year's bill. The assumption has been made that if we have fewer regulations, it is better. That is not an assumption we should make. I think there is a proper balance. I think the committee has worked and studied that issue.

That we didn't have any amendments in the Strategic Subcommittee, as well as the Armed Services Committee, indicates that members of those committees having heard testimony for hours upon hours are comfortable where we are right now.

I hope we oppose the Reed amendment.

I think maybe we can sit down and have some further discussion. All of a sudden, this gets brought up on the floor of the Senate and we need some time to maybe talk with the parties.

As the Senator mentioned in his comments, we felt as if we pretty well worked this out in committee. The various members on my subcommittee who are knowledgeable on the subject, the Senator from Virginia and myself have worked out what we thought was a reasonable level of rules and regulations. Now we have an amendment that is calling for more rules and regulations. We might be able to work it out. I think we need some time. I hope this could be set aside at least for the time being to give us an opportunity to kind of work this issue a little bit more on the floor of the Senate and then perhaps come back to it at a later time.

I wish to make a few comments in regard to the Kennedy- Feinstein amendment currently before us.

Madam President, I think it behooves all of us to take the time and review where we are in this debate.

The current law prohibits research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. It prevents scientists from even thinking about low- yield nuclear weapons. There is a provision in the bill before us that says we will be able to think about low-yield nuclear weapons, but it specifically prevents testing, acquisition, or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons unless you come to the Congress and ask permission to move forward with that type of effort.

The Kennedy-Feinstein amendment we are currently considering takes it back to the current prohibition of even thinking about what it is we need to do about low-yield nuclear weapons.

During the Easter break, which was a 2-week break, I spent the first week on townhall meetings in Colorado. The second week I spent visiting our National Laboratories.

Our National Laboratories are pretty much known for their responsibility of managing the nuclear stockpile to make sure that it is safe and reliable. As I visited these laboratories, I found out they do much more than that. They give a lot of thought to what type of deterrence should we have as far as being a superpower. They do a lot of thinking about our vulnerabilities. They think about our potential threats and what might be the proper response to those threats.

So the nuclear laboratory scientists tell me that they wish at least they could study the low-nuclear weapon alternative. I agree. I think at least we ought to look at the pros and cons. We ought to try to gather the scientific data and understand which situations may be needed. Maybe we do not need low-yield nuclear weapons, but they at least need to think about it and they need to have a study.

Ambassador Linton Brooks testified before the Armed Services Committee, and he was the acting administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. He also testified before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on April 8, 2003. This is what he said: Repeal of the low- yield restriction simply removes the chilling effect on scientific inquiry that could hamper our ability to maintain and exercise our intellectual capabilities and to respond to the needs that one day might be articulated by the President.

He also noted that such warhead concepts could not proceed to full- scale development, much less production and deployment, unless Congress authorizes and appropriates the funds required to do this.

As a point of reference in the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons--low yield is defined as below 5 kilotons as a comparison. So in nuclear technology, we are talking about a relatively small type of warhead.

I respect the view of the scientists I visited at our various laboratories. One thing I came away thinking is they are dedicated Americans. They are dedicated scientists. They have a lot of ingenuity, and they are supported by a tremendous workforce that is dedicated to making sure we have a safer world and that we can actually preserve freedom. They are concerned that we remain a world leader. My view is we are a world leader, but we are a world leader in reducing nuclear weapons.

Earlier the Senator from North Dakota commented about the fact that where he had silos for missiles with nuclear warheads, he now has sunflowers growing in the field. Well, right now, under the Presidential directive of President Bush, we are removing peacekeepers from the ground. We are taking out a sizable proportion of some of the cold war relics that are supposed to act as deterrents as far as a nuclear war is concerned.

While these sunflowers are growing and the President is removing more of our nuclear warheads, what is the rest of the world doing? What I have observed is that there are countries such as Iran and Iraq--no longer Iraq but at one point in time at least--Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea are building more nuclear weapons. They are trying to develop that technology.

We have been a leader. The problem is nobody is following. I think these countries are more concerned not so much about what the United States is doing but about what their neighbors are doing, what it is that they are going to have to require to defend their borders. So this is beyond what we do in this country.

Even though this country remains committed and has shown leadership in reducing our nuclear weapons, we have to remember that other countries are moving ahead, regardless of what we are doing. We need to give some thought to that. We need to study that issue.

I am looking at some figures on nuclear testing which we postponed on September 23, 1992. That was the last date of underground nuclear tests by the United States. Since that date, we have had a number of nuclear tests by China, France, India, and Pakistan. I have a whole list of them.

I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

I do not see that other countries are responding to our efforts. So I think we need to think about our own vulnerabilities and our own potential threats. That is what we are trying to do in the armed services bill. We are trying to at least give our scientists an opportunity to study our nuclear weapon vulnerabilities.

Earlier on in the debate, some comment was made--I think we had a dialogue between a couple of Members who were supporting the Kennedy- Feinstein amendment. The point was made during that dialogue that this provision we have in the bill would lead to the building of new weapons. That is not true. We have a specific provision in the bill that says nothing in the provision shall be construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons.

What it does provide for is study and thinking about our vulnerabilities, our deterrence efforts, and our potential threats.

I mentioned that Ambassador Linton Brooks testified in front of our subcommittee. I have a letter from General Jumper explaining how important it is that we at least study the low-yield nuclear weapons. I have a letter from Admiral Ellis talking about that need. We also have a letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell talking about the need of having low-yield nuclear weapons. I ask unanimous consent these three letters be printed in the Record.

Many rogue nations have built and are continuing to build hard and deeply buried facilities to protect their most valuable assets such as their leadership, communications equipment, and facilities for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. We know that conventional weapons cannot hold all of these targets at risk. A recent report by the Congressional Research Service cited a DIA estimate of some 1,400 known or suspected strategic underground facilities world wide. It further states that the only way to destroy them is with a strong shock wave that travels through the ground.

The question that the Congress and the administration must now grapple with is how to ensure the continued credibility of the Nation's nuclear deterrent into the 21st century. We must recognize that today's stockpile was designed and manufactured to deter the threat by the former Soviet Union. As we all know, that threat no longer exists. Today, we are faced with a multi-dimensional challenge that requires a different set of tools.

By repealing the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, this does not mean the United States is about to resume nuclear weapons production. In fact, the United States has not manufactured a new nuclear weapon for more than a decade. The advanced concepts initiative merely allows the labs to explore the technical boundaries of providing solutions to new and emerging national security challenges. Advanced concepts work will allow the labs to train the next generation of scientists and engineers that the Nation will need to ensure a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent.

The fear of the erosion of the firewall between the use of nuclear and conventional weapons use is another unfounded issue. During the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, when U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were deployed throughout the world and warfighting plans were in place, no U.S. nuclear weapons were ever used. We still maintain the policy that only the President can authorize the use of nuclear weapons and there are no plans to change that very important policy, nor is there any desire on the part of the Department of Defense to develop battlefield nuclear weapons to accomplish what our conventional weapons can already do.

Now I will review the bill that is before us.

It states specifically in the legislation that nothing in the repeal made by section A shall be construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

We are just talking about studying, thinking about low-yield nuclear weapons.

The key is if the U.S. President is faced with a situation so grave that the use of nuclear weapons is considered, we must have a full sweep of options. Options in our current stockpile are very limited and would result in a significant level of collateral damage if the nuclear weapon is required to resolve a crisis in terms of the best interests of the United States.

These are challenging times, but they are crucial times, important times, and it is important we make the right decision because the world is changing. We need to know that. We need to know what the parameters are as we move forward in determining what is best to protect America. To have a provision in law that says you cannot study or think about all the options when you are looking at your vulnerabilities and where you need to go to protect America is foolhardy.

I hope the Senate today will defeat the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment and at least allow for study and our scientists to think about various alternatives, including a low-yield nuclear weapon. I am here to ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in voting no on the Kennedy- Feinstein amendment.

I think we are getting to the point where we are ready to wrap up debate. I will make a few comments and we will move to table and have a vote in a relatively short period of time. I am warning everyone we are getting close to a vote.

I thought I would take a few moments to review some of the comments made by individuals in the administration about the need to allow for research, at least, and study as far as the low-yield nuclear weapons were concerned.

I rise in opposition to the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment. Let me read from a letter from Secretary of State Powell, dated May 5, 2003.

I am writing to express support for the President's FY2004

budget request to fund the feasibility and cost study for the

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), and to repeal the

FY1994 legislation that prohibits the United States from

conducting research and development on low yield nuclear

weapons. I do not believe that these legislative steps will

complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea.

This is a statement from our Secretary of State.

ADM Ellis, U.S. Navy, had this to say in a letter to the chairman:

The nation needs to understand the technical capabilities

of threats under development by potential adversaries and to

thoroughly explore the range of options available to the

United States to deter or defeat them. Once we complete the

precise engineering analyses necessary to validate facts

related to nascent advanced concepts, the results of the

research will enable dispassionate, fact-based decisions on

very important defense and policy issues.

If you repeal the law on low-yield nuclear weapons, you end up producing nuclear weapons which will cause less collateral damage if used and, therefore, the United States is more likely to use that. That is the assertion.

First, in response to that, NNSA cannot produce or deploy a new nuclear weapon without an authorization and appropriation from Congress. Second, there have been thousands of deployed

low-yield nuclear weapons during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and today, and that has not lowered the nuclear weapon threshold. Nuclear weapons are still a very high threshold that only the President can initiate.

On April 8, 2003, Admiral James Ellis said:

. . . it's not clear to me there is a direct linkage

between the size of the weapons and the awesome

responsibilities embodied in that decision.

Ambassador Linton Brooks quoted, as then acting director of NNSA, in an April 8, 2003 hearing:

Is there a logic to saying that we have older low-yield

weapons, but that we now know we are not going to ever want

to produce new low-yield weapons. Now to some extent I admit

we are talking about--since I'm not going to develop or

produce anything without the permission of the Congress and

if the Congress decided to give me permission, it could

modify the ban . . .

Now, we are looking at both administrations that have basically taken the position that we need to have a nuclear response to either chemical or biological weapons or weapons of mass destruction.

On December 7, 1997, President Clinton issued some guidelines which would permit nuclear strikes after enemy attacks involving chemical or biological weapons, which was reported widely at that time.

Finally, I point out some language and remind my colleagues we have specific language in the bill, and I will again repeat that language:

Nothing in the repeal made by subsection (a) shall be

construed as authorizing testing, acquisition, or deployment

of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

The issue is clear. I am now willing to move forward with the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

For Members' information, we are going to proceed to a vote. I want Members to understand we are going to hold this vote open an extra length of time to accommodate those who are expecting the vote to occur at 7:45. This will allow Members who are anxious to get home early tonight to leave early, and then we will keep the vote going later on.

Having made that announcement, I will move to table.

I understand we have some time to be yielded back on both sides.

I have contacted the leader on the Republican side. He is expecting us to leave this open to somewhere around 8:10.

Now we both have time to yield back.

I yield the remainder of the time on the Republican side.

Now I move to table the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment. 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Rimback, a military fellow in my office, be provided floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 1050.

Mr. President, an historian and poet once penned that the history of Colorado would be written in water. In the midst of Colorado's worst drought in 300 years, this prediction has proven an accurate account of life in the headwater State and has proven a strong reminder that water is indeed our most precious natural resource. Yet in Southeastern Colorado, home of the Arkansas River, finding clean, inexpensive water, can be difficult. That is why today I am introducing legislation that will ensure the expedited construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit--a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By creating a Federal/Local cost share formula to help offset the costs of constructing the Conduit, this legislation will protect the future of Southeastern Colorado.

By way of background, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized by Congress forty years ago as a part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project. Due to the authorizing statute's lack of a cost share provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has degraded to a point where it is no longer economical to use as a means of transport. At the same time, the Federal government has continued to strengthen its unfunded water quality standards.

In order to comply with these standards, the region's municipalities have begun exploring options for water treatment, some of which are estimated to cost between $20 million and $40 million. Taken together, the municipalities alone are facing potential expenditures of up to $640 million simply to comply with federally mandated water quality standards. Construction of over a half a billion dollars worth of water treatment facilities is simply not a feasible alternative for the financially strapped farming communities along the Arkansas River. With the Conduit, the communities will not need to build new water treatment facilities.

In an effort to resurrect the Conduit, last year, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I, worked to secure $200,000 for a Bureau of Reclamation Re-evaluation Statement on the project. Thanks to this effort, the people of the valley are beginning to realize that the Conduit is much more than just a pipedream, and that Congress is serious about fulfilling the promise of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

According to the draft feasibility study, the Conduit is estimated to cost $200 million. My legislation calls for a 75/25 Federal/Local cost share, meaning that the local communities will be required to come up with at least $50 million to pay for their share. This is a sizeable sum, but is a far cry from the $640 million it would cost to build the new treatment facilities that would be required if the Conduit is not built. This will leave $150 million for the Federal government's share. However, I would like to point out that this $150 million undoubtedly would be exceeded if the communities were forced to seek Federal grants to help build new treatment plants.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to dozens of valley communities and thousands of people along the river. The local sponsors of the project have initiated and are nearing the completion of an independently funded feasibility study of the Conduit, and have developed a coalition of support from water users in Southeastern Colorado. They continue to explore options for financing their share of the costs, and are working hard to develop the organization that will oversee the Conduit project.

With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, an historian and poet once penned that the history of Colorado would be written in water. In the midst of Colorado's worst drought in 300 years, this prediction has proven an accurate account of life in the headwater State and has proven a strong reminder that water is indeed our most precious natural resource. Yet in Southeastern Colorado, home of the Arkansas River, finding clean, inexpensive water, can be difficult. That is why today I am introducing legislation that will ensure the expedited construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit--a pipeline that will provide the small, financially strapped towns and water agencies along the Arkansas River with safe, clean, affordable water. By creating a Federal/Local cost share formula to help offset the costs of constructing the Conduit, this legislation will protect the future of Southeastern Colorado.

By way of background, the Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized by Congress forty years ago as a part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project. Due to the authorizing statute's lack of a cost share provision and Southeastern Colorado's depressed economic status, the Conduit was never built. Until recently, the region has been fortunate to enjoy an economical and safe alternative to pipeline-transportation of Project Water: the Arkansas River. Sadly, the water quality in the Arkansas has degraded to a point where it is no longer economical to use as a means of transport. At the same time, the Federal government has continued to strengthen its unfunded water quality standards.

In order to comply with these standards, the region's municipalities have begun exploring options for water treatment, some of which are estimated to cost between $20 million and $40 million. Taken together, the municipalities alone are facing potential expenditures of up to $640 million simply to comply with federally mandated water quality standards. Construction of over a half a billion dollars worth of water treatment facilities is simply not a feasible alternative for the financially strapped farming communities along the Arkansas River. With the Conduit, the communities will not need to build new water treatment facilities.

In an effort to resurrect the Conduit, last year, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I, worked to secure $200,000 for a Bureau of Reclamation Re-evaluation Statement on the project. Thanks to this effort, the people of the valley are beginning to realize that the Conduit is much more than just a pipedream, and that Congress is serious about fulfilling the promise of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.

According to the draft feasibility study, the Conduit is estimated to cost $200 million. My legislation calls for a 75/25 Federal/Local cost share, meaning that the local communities will be required to come up with at least $50 million to pay for their share. This is a sizeable sum, but is a far cry from the $640 million it would cost to build the new treatment facilities that would be required if the Conduit is not built. This will leave $150 million for the Federal government's share. However, I would like to point out that this $150 million undoubtedly would be exceeded if the communities were forced to seek Federal grants to help build new treatment plants.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit will deliver fresh, clean water to dozens of valley communities and thousands of people along the river. The local sponsors of the project have initiated and are nearing the completion of an independently funded feasibility study of the Conduit, and have developed a coalition of support from water users in Southeastern Colorado. They continue to explore options for financing their share of the costs, and are working hard to develop the organization that will oversee the Conduit project.

With the help of my colleagues, the promise made by Congress forty years ago to the people of Southeastern Colorado, will finally become a reality.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last year, I joined eleven colleagues in an effort to pass legislation that dealt with the eradication, monitoring, and surveillance of chronic wasting disease. Today, I am offering similar legislation, the ``Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003.'' Before I discuss the legislation further, I first want to thank Senator Feingold for his leadership on this matter and for working diligently to eradicate the disease. I also want to congratulate the State of Colorado, especially those Departments and Divisions that have been on the leading edge of disease management and eradication. They faced a horrendous task--processing tens of thousands of tests on a tight time frame. While more work lies ahead, they are to be commended for their effort.

What was first a serious problem in the western United States, chronic wasting disease now poses a serious threat to every State of the union. As a United States Senator, chronic wasting disease presents not only a great animal health challenge, but a scientific quandary as well. As a veterinarian, chronic wasting disease presents an even greater challenge to the scientific communities of both the States and the Federal Government because we know so little about the disease. This legislation, cosponsored by Senators Feingold, Kohl, Roberts, Campbell, Burns and Craig, is a bipartisan effort to defeat the disease and to send a message that CWD must remain a priority for the Federal Government.

The importance of this bill to both the State and Federal Government cannot be emphasized enough. It authorizes $34.5 million in the battle against chronic wasting disease. Although the bill authorizes a substantial amount Federal funding to fight and eradicate the disease, the States will retain their undisputed primacy and policy-making authority with regard to wildlife management. Nothing in this act interferes with or otherwise affects the primacy of the States in managing wildlife generally, or managing, surveying and monitoring the incidence of chronic wasting disease. It is important that all members of our delegation and in both the House and the Senate, coordinate our efforts as we fight the disease.

Chronic wasting disease, or CWD, may be a new threat to some. Others may not be familiar with it at all. However, it is not new to those of us in Colorado and Wyoming, who have been dealing with it for over twenty years, and if the disease continues to spread, those unfamiliar with the fatal disease will, unfortunately, become experts in CWD policy. The scientific community has gone to great lengths to deal with the disease on limited budgets. These experts, through scientific publication and Congressional hearings, have told us that, although we have learned a tremendous amount about chronic wasting disease, there is much that we do not know and much that we must do to eradicate it.

One thing we do know is that sound science is the answer, and that the Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003 is intended to greatly increase research, monitoring, surveillance, and management of the disease on all levels. It bolsters testing capacity, diagnostics capabilities, and funding authorization.

Increased research and research funding is necessary because the disease is quite simply a mystery--the origin and transmission of CWD remains unknown. Unfortunately, the only way to treat an animal with CWD or to contain the disease is to destroy the animal and cull the herd. Together, we must embark on an ambitious and sound scientific commitment for research and investigation to end chronic wasting disease. That is what this bill calls for--cooperation and collaboration, working together at both the State and Federal level to achieve a common objective. We must end chronic wasting disease, and we must begin our eradication efforts now.

The impact CWD will have on wildlife and agriculture is undeniable, and the economic and emotional toll of the disease cannot be overstated. Communities that are economically reliant upon deer and elk related enterprises will feel the impact of CWD as concern about the disease grows. But we can stop this, and we must stop this. We have an opportunity to restore cervid health, to contain the disease, and, most importantly, to eradicate the disease. This is the challenge that I urge my colleagues to accept, and to take decisive action; adequate research funding that is directed toward the complete eradication of chronic wasting disease starts with this authorizing legislation.

In those States that are already dealing with CWD, the fiscal demands required to manage the disease is quite apparent. State budgets are stretched thin as they cull wild and captive herds and research for workable solutions to stop the disease. With State budgets already strained, an infusion of Federal resources and technical assistance is required to help the States keep CWD from spreading, to treat infected or exposed populations, and to greatly expand research for testing and possible cures. This bill does just that by providing assistance in the form of grants, Federal research programs and incidence reporting, as well as scientific assistance. State and Federal cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, provide relief to family elk ranchers, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health.

The Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003 provides the foundation for a nationwide increase in diagnostic capabilities. Undoubtedly, the spread of CWD and the increased awareness of the disease, will cause the demand for testing to grow exponentially--this bill helps us prepare to handle a large volume of cases efficiently and reliably. The legislation calls for the development of new testing methods to help us understand the disease, as well as developing a live test.

Chronic wasting disease presents a common problem to the States and the Federal Government. The Federal conduit role that is provided in the bill will allow animal health experts to unravel the CWD mystery. The challenge we face is to achieve what we all recognize as a common objective--to understand CWD and to eradicate it. But, we must act quickly or this disease will redefine the wildlife characteristics of our States.

Thank you, Senator Feingold. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last year, I joined eleven colleagues in an effort to pass legislation that dealt with the eradication, monitoring, and surveillance of chronic wasting disease. Today, I am offering similar legislation, the ``Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003.'' Before I discuss the legislation further, I first want to thank Senator Feingold for his leadership on this matter and for working diligently to eradicate the disease. I also want to congratulate the State of Colorado, especially those Departments and Divisions that have been on the leading edge of disease management and eradication. They faced a horrendous task--processing tens of thousands of tests on a tight time frame. While more work lies ahead, they are to be commended for their effort.

What was first a serious problem in the western United States, chronic wasting disease now poses a serious threat to every State of the union. As a United States Senator, chronic wasting disease presents not only a great animal health challenge, but a scientific quandary as well. As a veterinarian, chronic wasting disease presents an even greater challenge to the scientific communities of both the States and the Federal Government because we know so little about the disease. This legislation, cosponsored by Senators Feingold, Kohl, Roberts, Campbell, Burns and Craig, is a bipartisan effort to defeat the disease and to send a message that CWD must remain a priority for the Federal Government.

The importance of this bill to both the State and Federal Government cannot be emphasized enough. It authorizes $34.5 million in the battle against chronic wasting disease. Although the bill authorizes a substantial amount Federal funding to fight and eradicate the disease, the States will retain their undisputed primacy and policy-making authority with regard to wildlife management. Nothing in this act interferes with or otherwise affects the primacy of the States in managing wildlife generally, or managing, surveying and monitoring the incidence of chronic wasting disease. It is important that all members of our delegation and in both the House and the Senate, coordinate our efforts as we fight the disease.

Chronic wasting disease, or CWD, may be a new threat to some. Others may not be familiar with it at all. However, it is not new to those of us in Colorado and Wyoming, who have been dealing with it for over twenty years, and if the disease continues to spread, those unfamiliar with the fatal disease will, unfortunately, become experts in CWD policy. The scientific community has gone to great lengths to deal with the disease on limited budgets. These experts, through scientific publication and Congressional hearings, have told us that, although we have learned a tremendous amount about chronic wasting disease, there is much that we do not know and much that we must do to eradicate it.

One thing we do know is that sound science is the answer, and that the Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003 is intended to greatly increase research, monitoring, surveillance, and management of the disease on all levels. It bolsters testing capacity, diagnostics capabilities, and funding authorization.

Increased research and research funding is necessary because the disease is quite simply a mystery--the origin and transmission of CWD remains unknown. Unfortunately, the only way to treat an animal with CWD or to contain the disease is to destroy the animal and cull the herd. Together, we must embark on an ambitious and sound scientific commitment for research and investigation to end chronic wasting disease. That is what this bill calls for--cooperation and collaboration, working together at both the State and Federal level to achieve a common objective. We must end chronic wasting disease, and we must begin our eradication efforts now.

The impact CWD will have on wildlife and agriculture is undeniable, and the economic and emotional toll of the disease cannot be overstated. Communities that are economically reliant upon deer and elk related enterprises will feel the impact of CWD as concern about the disease grows. But we can stop this, and we must stop this. We have an opportunity to restore cervid health, to contain the disease, and, most importantly, to eradicate the disease. This is the challenge that I urge my colleagues to accept, and to take decisive action; adequate research funding that is directed toward the complete eradication of chronic wasting disease starts with this authorizing legislation.

In those States that are already dealing with CWD, the fiscal demands required to manage the disease is quite apparent. State budgets are stretched thin as they cull wild and captive herds and research for workable solutions to stop the disease. With State budgets already strained, an infusion of Federal resources and technical assistance is required to help the States keep CWD from spreading, to treat infected or exposed populations, and to greatly expand research for testing and possible cures. This bill does just that by providing assistance in the form of grants, Federal research programs and incidence reporting, as well as scientific assistance. State and Federal cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, provide relief to family elk ranchers, help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health.

The Chronic Wasting Disease Support Act of 2003 provides the foundation for a nationwide increase in diagnostic capabilities. Undoubtedly, the spread of CWD and the increased awareness of the disease, will cause the demand for testing to grow exponentially--this bill helps us prepare to handle a large volume of cases efficiently and reliably. The legislation calls for the development of new testing methods to help us understand the disease, as well as developing a live test.

Chronic wasting disease presents a common problem to the States and the Federal Government. The Federal conduit role that is provided in the bill will allow animal health experts to unravel the CWD mystery. The challenge we face is to achieve what we all recognize as a common objective--to understand CWD and to eradicate it. But, we must act quickly or this disease will redefine the wildlife characteristics of our States.

Thank you, Senator Feingold. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the proposed North American Treaty Alliance expansion before the Senate today.

When the NATO countries met in Prague last November, they agreed to invite seven new countries to join the Alliance as full members. These seven countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have submitted their applications and proven their willingness and ability to respect the political and military obligations of NATO membership and to contribute to the Alliance's common-funded budgets and programs.

The NATO Alliance has been enormously successful over the last 50 years and will continue to do so for many to come. Too often some only see NATO as a coalition of nations organized for collective defense. It is so much more. NATO enhances the political and economic stability for all countries in the Euro-Atlantic area. By helping these new members as they strengthen good governance, rule of law, and human rights, NATO will also facilitate a better long-term environment for American trade and investment as well as collective defense and security.

In our war against terrorism, NATO serves a vital role. Strengthening the Alliance for this purpose is a positive development. From the conflicts in the Balkans, the war in Afghanistan or the most recent Operation Iraqi Freedom, the seven invitee nations have contributed, or have committed to contribute, critical support in the form of personnel, overflight or basing rights.

As a matter of fact, in this most recent war with Iraq, we received greater support from these seven countries than some of our more historical European allies. The value of loyal allies committed to democracy and making the world free from tyranny, regardless of any business dealings, cannot be understated.

These seven countries are committed to eliminating and addressing past wrongs. Whether it is the atrocities performed during the Second World War and the Holocaust to the proliferation of military weaponry known as Grey Arms, each of these countries has recognized the issues and is committed to correcting the wrongs done.

Expansion of NATO is not a new or unusual event. Throughout its tenure, NATO has continually added new members. Turkey and Greece were the first new members to join in 1952, followed soon after by Germany, in 1955. Spain entered in 1982 and the first former Warsaw Pact countries, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in 1999.

It is also likely there will be another round of expansion, inviting such countries as Albania, Croatia and Macedonia. President Bush has espoused an ``open door'' policy to NATO membership.

Today the door should not be held open for some and kept shut for others. The defined membership criteria encourages all that satisfy these requirements will be welcomed.

NATO expansion will serve U.S. interests by strengthening both NATO and our bilateral ties with these new allies, who have already done a great deal to support our vision for NATO and collective security.

I do have concerns regarding NATO and its future viability. We need to take a long look at the arbitrary and politically motivated, but indefensible use of the ``consensus rule'' NATO employs, and those nations who try to manipulate the path to peace for less than honorable purposes.

I understand my good friend from Virginia, Senator Warner, and Senator Levin will offer an amendment related to the ``consensus rule.'' I think the amendment is a good idea and deserves the support of this body.

Finally, the path to peace is broad enough to allow all those who wish to traverse it in good company. We should welcome them with open arms.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness, but greater pride, that I rise today to recognize a true warrior and Colorado native who gave of the ultimate sacrifice. SFC Randall Rehn, of Niwot, CO, served with honor and distinction.

Sergeant Rehn was killed during one of the most significant events of this war. His vehicle was destroyed during the fight to take Saddam International Airport. It is because of sacrifices such as Sergeant Rehn's, a tyrant and his oppressive regime will be defeated.

While I grieve for the loss of Sergeant Rehn, my pride and respect abound. I know that Colorado, as Gov. Bill Owens said, ``has gained a hero.'' My prayers go out to the family of this fallen hero and hope they know this country honors Sergeant Rehn's sacrifice and recognizes their loss.

Mr. President, I wish to salute a fallen soldier of the great State of Colorado. Capt. Russell Rippetoe gave the greatest sacrifice in the service of his country and for the freedom of his fellow Americans.

Captain Rippetoe joined an Army ROTC unit while he attended Metro State College in Denver. He entered the Army's elite Ranger unit and served in Afghanistan before being deployed to Iraq. Captain Rippetoe continued his family's proud tradition of serving his country. His father retired as a lieutenant colonel.

I think his family said it best when they said, ``Russell loved this nation and America has lost a true American hero.'' I want to echo that sentiment by saying that Colorado has lost a warrior, a great citizen, and a son.

Mr. President, I also stand today to acknowledge a true hero. Colorado said farewell to one of its own. Marine Cpl Randall Rosacker was laid to rest, as he requested, in a Colorado veterans graveyard with full military honors.

Corporal Rosacker served this great Nation proudly in Afghanistan and gave the ultimate sacrifice in the war with Iraq. He was killed in a firefight early in the war, but paved the way to future success on the battlefield. His service to the country will always be remembered and appreciated.

Corporal Rosacker was born in Alamosa and still has strong Colorado roots with grandparents and great-grandparents still residing in Colorado. My prayers go out to the family of this fallen hero and hope they know this country honors Corporal Rosacker's sacrifice and recognizes their loss. Today I ask the Senate to recognize this great American as Colorado has.

And I ask we recognize one of the heroes of the war in Iraq. LCpl Thomas Slocum of Thornton, CO, was killed in action while defending the principles of freedom and justice against a brutal dictator's regime.

Corporal Slocum's unit was ambushed by a group of Iraqis who cowardly indicated they were surrendering and then opened fire. He was a brave and patriotic son of Colorado. He will be remembered by all as ``proud to be a marine.'' He believed in what he was doing over there.

Though any loss of life is tragic, we as Americans can hold our heads high because of the sacrifices of our servicemen such as Thomas Slocum. My prayers go out to the family of this fallen hero and hope they know this country honors Corporal Slocum's sacrifice and recognizes their loss.