|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page | |
|
 |
| ||||||
|
|
|
||||
Congressional Record Weekly UpdateJune 17-21, 2002Return to the Congressional Report Weekly. 1A) Rocky Flats Security Team--Simply the Best I would like to congratulate Rocky Flats Wackenhut Services team members Muhtalar Dickson of Aurora, Chris Duran of Denver, Todd Harrison of Erie, Randy Irmer of Colorado Springs, Jim Krause of Westminister, and Chris Welseler of Highlands Ranch. These Rocky Flats employees are currently involved in the cleanup and closure of the plant, which involves nuclear material management and shipment, nuclear deactivation and decommissioning, waste management and shipment, and environmental cleanup and site closure. As always, the employees at Rocky Flats are making and keeping Coloradans proud.
1B) National Defense Authorization of FY 2003 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in behalf of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to bring the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to the floor. This bill would fully fund the fiscal year 2003 budget request of the administration of $393.3 billion for the national security activities for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. In the first 41 days of congressional session this year, the Armed Services Committee held 41 hearings to examine the administration's budget request and related issues. Last month, after meeting in markup for 3 days, the committee approved S. 2514, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. [Page: S5675] I thank all the members of committee for their hard work on this bill. There were two close votes on two funding issues that caused a few of our members to vote against the bill at the end, which, of course, we regret. But except for those two issues, I think we probably would have had a unanimous vote on our committee. As we take up this bill, America's Armed Forces are engaged around the world as never before. In the months since September 11, we have dispatched troops not only to Afghanistan but also to Pakistan, the Philippines, the countries of central Asia and the Persian Gulf. We called up the National Guard to assist in contingency operations and to assist in safeguarding our borders and protecting our airports. All of this has been done without relieving our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of ongoing deployments in Korea, the Balkans, Colombia, and elsewhere. This year, as much as ever before, we owe it to our men and women in uniform to act on this bill with dispatch. The events following September 11 have once again shown that the U.S. military is the most capable fighting force in the world. The success of our forces in Afghanistan has been remarkable. Osama bin Laden--if he is alive--is on the run and in hiding. Many of his al-Qaida terrorists have been captured or killed. The Taliban regime that harbored them is no more, and a new government is in place. Nations around the world have been put on notice: America is determined to protect itself from more attacks and to bring terrorists to justice. From Europe to the Persian Gulf to the Korean Peninsula, the presence of U.S. military forces and their contributions to regional peace and security continue to reassure our allies and deter potential adversaries. Over the last decade, U.S. forces have excelled in every mission assigned to them, including not only Operation Enduring Freedom, but also the 1999 NATO air campaign over Kosovo and ongoing enforcement of the no-fly zones over Iraq; humanitarian operations from Central America to Africa; and peacekeeping operations from the Balkans to East Timor. The excellence behind that success was not built in months. The success of our forces in Afghanistan is a tribute to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the investments in national defense that Congress and the Department of Defense have made over many years. Future success on the battlefield will likewise depend upon the success of Congress and the Department in preparing, training, and equipping our military for tomorrow's missions. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 builds on the considerable strengths of our military forces and their record of success. The Armed Services Committee identified five priorities to guide us in preparing this bill. These were to: No. 1, continue the improvements in the compensation and quality of life of the men and women in the Armed Forces, retirees and their families; No. 2, sustain the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned mission, including current and future operations against international terrorism; No. 3, improve the efficiency of Defense Department programs and operations and apply the savings toward high-priority programs; No. 4, improve the ability of the Armed Forces to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; and No. 5, promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century. First, compensation and quality of life: The bill reflects the committee's highest priority--ensuring that our men and women in uniform, retirees and their families receive the compensation and quality of life they deserve. Toward that end, we added more than $1.2 billion to the budget request for pay and quality of life initiatives. Specifically, the bill includes a 4.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel, with an additional targeted pay raise for the mid-career force; adds $640 million above the budget request to improve and replace facilities on military installations; and authorizes a new assignment incentive pay of up to $1,500 per month to reward military members who agree to serve in difficult-to-fill assignments. The bill would also begin to address a longstanding inequity in the compensation of military retirees by authorizing the concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for military retirees with disabilities rated at 60% or more. During our markup, the committee approved a separate amendment that would authorize concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for all disabled military retirees for non-disability retirement. Senator WARNER and I plan to offer this amendment on behalf of the committee at the earliest possible point in the debate of this bill. With regard to readiness, we propose to set aside $10 billion, as requested by the administration, to fund ongoing operations in the war against international terrorism during fiscal year 2003. The President requested that this money be reserved for the continuance of the war against international terrorism, and we believe that there is no more important purpose to which this funding could be dedicated. However, the Department is not yet in a position to state how long the war on terrorism will continue, or in what form, or to specify the specific programs for which the requested funds would be used. For this reason, the provision recommended by the committee would authorize for appropriation the $10 billion requested by the President upon receipt of a budget request which: No. 1, designates the requested amount as being essential to the continued war on terrorism; and No. 2, specifies how the administration proposes to use the requested funds, consistent with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, P.L. 107-40. In addition, the bill would add funding to address shortfalls in a number of key readiness accounts and help lessen the burden on some of the Department's high demand, low density assets. These funding increases include $126 million to protect and enhance military training ranges; $232 million for aircraft, ship, and Navy gun depot maintenance; $176 million for improvements to Air Force and Army facilities; $51 million for ammunition to meet new training requirements and supplement war reserve stocks; $55 million to address the Army's aviation training backlog; $110 million for the purchase of an additional EC-130J Commando Solo aircraft; and $114 million for modifications to help improve the readiness of the EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft fleet. Relative to combating terrorism, the bill before us would take a significant step towards addressing nontraditional threats by providing in excess of $10 billion for combating terrorism initiatives, as requested by the Department, including more than $2 billion for force protection improvements to DOD installations around the world. In addition, the bill would provide increases of $200 million to enhance the security of our nuclear materials and nuclear weapons in the Department of Energy, $43 million in funding for the U.S. Special Operations Commands, and $30 million for defense against chemical and biological weapons and other efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction. We have also included two important legislative initiatives that would require the Department of Defense to take a more comprehensive approach to installation preparedness for weapons of mass destruction attacks and authorize the Secretary of Defense to expand cooperative threat reduction activities beyond the countries of the former Soviet Union. Relative to transformation, the bill would provide significant funds to promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century. In particular, the bill would add more than $1.1 billion to the Navy's shipbuilding accounts to refuel a nuclear submarine and pay for advance procurement of an aircraft carrier, a Virginia-class submarine, a DDG-51 class destroyer, and an LPD-17 class amphibious transport dock. Our bill would add $105 million for funding for research and development on the Army's Future Combat System and more than $100 million for science and technology needed to help the Army achieve its Objective Force. It would fully fund the $5.2 billion requested by the Department for the F- [Page: S5676] It would add more than $300 million to the Department's science and technology budget, bringing the Department closer to the Secretary's goal of devoting 3 percent of all defense funds to the programs that promise to bring us the revolutionary technologies that will be needed to prevail in future conflicts. Relative to the Crusader Artillery System, in the middle of our committee markup of this bill the Secretary of Defense announced that he intended to terminate the Crusader Artillery System. This is a system which the Department of Defense had strongly supported until just a few days earlier. Because the committee had no opportunity to review the reasons for this sudden reversal, we did not address this issue in our markup. Instead, we scheduled a hearing with the Secretary of Defense and the Army Chief of Staff to consider the merits of the program. At that hearing, the Secretary of Defense favored termination. The Army Chief of Staff testified that the system was very important and very necessary and, as a matter of fact, an important part of transformation. The Chief of Staff is a very strong supporter of transformation. I think we all--as we perhaps will be debating the Crusader System--should recognize the contribution of the Army Chief of Staff to the transformation of the Army. He is not one who has resisted transformation. He has been a very strong supporter of transformation, and he views the Crusader Artillery System--or viewed this at the time he testified--as an important part of that transformation. On June 13, the committee met to discuss the Crusader Artillery System. At that time, the committee voted 13 to 6 to recommend an amendment that would do two things. First, it would take the $475 million out of the Crusader program and put the money into a separate funding line for future combat systems research and development. This is the Army's armored systems modernization line. Second, we would require the Army Chief of Staff, in our amendment, to conduct an analysis--or finish his analysis--of alternatives for the Army's artillery needs and to submit his findings to the Secretary of Defense no later than 1 month after the date of enactment of this act. This approach would enable the Secretary of Defense to terminate the Crusader program following the receipt of the Army's analysis which was truncated. The Army, in late April, was told that it could complete its analysis by the end of this fiscal year. And then, in early May, it was told that it could have until the end of May to complete this analysis. I emphasize the importance of this analysis. The Army's analysis is intended to answer seven questions. I am not going to go through them all, but I am simply going to say these are important questions. These are important questions for the future well-being of the men and women in the Army. They are critical questions. They have to do with risk. What are the risks in proceeding? What are the risks in canceling? These are questions which the Army was in the middle of analyzing when suddenly, a few days into May, despite the earlier decision to allow the completion of this analysis by the end of May, the Secretary of Defense simply said: We are going to terminate. Seven questions were to be answered. And I emphasize, these are questions which can be life-and-death questions for the men and women in the future armies of this country. They were going to analyze these questions in six combat scenarios. They were going to look at four different alternatives. We believe the answers to those questions in that analysis should be completed. The amendment, which I will offer on behalf of the committee, as I promised to the committee I would offer early in this debate, was adopted, as I said, by a 13-to-6 vote. We hope the Senate will approve this amendment. We think it is the correct balance. Not only should we have that information before we or the Defense Department--either one of us--finally decide on termination, that analysis is important as to how best to spend that money. Where should we jump to? Even if we, this Nation, decide to jump from Crusader, even if we take whatever risks are involved--and there are risks involved in that--the decision also involves, Where do we then allocate those funds? How do we allocate those funds? And that analysis is critically important to that issue as well. We hope our amendment will address both those issues in a rational, thoughtful way. Congress has a responsibility also to ensure that the resources our taxpayers provide for national defense are spent wisely. The administration has not complied with statutory requirements to provide Congress with a national security strategy and an annual report outlining detailed plans for the size, structure, shape, or transformation of the military. In the absence of that planning, again, required by law, the Department of Defense is going to have difficulty establishing a clear vision for the future for our Armed Forces. But a year ago, the Secretary of Defense testified before us saying: ``We have an obligation to taxpayers to spend their money wisely.'' He said that he had ``never seen an organization, in the private or public sector,'' to use his words, ``that could not, by better management, operate at least five percent more efficiently if given the freedom to do so. Five percent of the DOD budget,'' he pointed out, ``is over $15 billion!'' He testified that that $15 billion of savings from management efficiencies could be used to: increase ship procurement from six to nine ships a year; to procure several hundred additional aircraft annually rather than 189. He could meet the target of a 67-year facility replacement rate, and those savings could increase defense-related science and technology funding from 2.7 percent to 3 percent for the Department of Defense budget. To this date, it has been disappointing that the Department has identified less than $150 million of the $15 billion annual savings projected by the Secretary. Despite the largest proposed increase in defense spending in 20 years, the budget request would fund just 5 ships and 166 aircraft, way below the goals; replace facilities at a 122-year rate instead of the 67-year rate, which is desirable. It would leave the rate of defense-related science and technology unchanged at just 2.7 percent of the Department of Defense budget instead of the 3-percent target which is desirable. In short, despite the proposed $48 billion increase in defense spending, management efficiencies are needed now more than ever to ensure the taxpayers' money is well spent. Our bill includes a number of provisions to help address this problem, including a major initiative, based on recommendations of the Defense Science Board and the DOD Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to address budget shortfalls and organizational shortcomings in the Department's test and evaluation infrastructure that have led to inadequate testing of major weapons systems. It would provide for a continuation of last year's initiative by the committee to improve the way in which the Department manages its $50 billion of services contracts with resulting savings of $850 million. We include a provision that would address the Department's inability to produce reliable financial information and achieve $400 million of savings by deferring spending on new financial systems that would be inconsistent with a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture currently being developed by the Department. We include a provision requiring the Department to establish new internal controls to address recurring problems with the abuse of purchase cards and travel cards by military and civilian personnel. In the area of missile defense, the bill would reallocate $812 million for missile defense expenditures that appear to be unjustified or duplicative to higher priority areas. The bill would transfer $690 million from missile defense activities to fund advanced procurement of a second Virginia-class submarine as soon as fiscal year 2005; advanced procurement for a second LPD-17 amphibious transport dock in fiscal year 2004; and advanced procurement for a third DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in fiscal year 2004. [Page: S5677] Every defense budget requires choices, as every other budget of every other Department. Even with more than $390 billion to spend for national security activities, the administration was not able to fund every important national security priority. Each of the military services came to us with a long list of unfunded priorities, items not included in their budget, which they believe to be important to the national defense. There was unanimous agreement among the members of the Armed Services Committee that the President's budget did not provide adequate resources to maintain the Navy's surface fleet or attack submarines. The committee received extensive testimony from DOD witnesses and numerous DOD and Navy reports indicating that the Navy should be building 8 to 10 ships per year to recapitalize its current fleet. A number of Navy witnesses, including the chief of naval operations, have indicated they believe that the Navy should be building a fleet with as many as 375 ships in order to meet the requirements the Navy faces today. Two years ago, the Navy's shipbuilding plan called for 23 ships between 2003 and 2005. This year's plan calls for only 17 ships during that period. The Department's proposed budget for missile defense was not even reviewed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Earlier this year, each of the four service chiefs testified before the Armed Services Committee that they had not been asked for their views on the funding for missile defense programs relative to other priorities in the budget--all those unmet requirements that they told us about. They were not asked to weigh the importance of the missile defense budget against those other needed items. The committee, and the subcommittee chaired by Senator JACK REED, conducted an exhaustive examination of the proposed missile defense budget, holding two strategic subcommittee hearings alone on missile defense, reviewing 400 pages of missile defense budget documentation, and participating in more than 25 hours of staff briefings by the Department of Defense. Based on this lengthy review, the committee recommended funding the vast majority of the Department's missile defense requests, an amount that is sufficient to aggressively fund all of the specific systems that the Department has said it wants to develop. However, at the same time the committee identified $810 million of the missile defense request, which is 11 percent of the total request, that could not adequately be justified by the Department despite a detailed review of available documentation and repeated requests at hearings and in briefings. For example, the budget request included $1.1 billion in the ballistic missile defense program element. That is an increase of $250 million over the current funding level. The major purpose of this program element is to develop an integrated architecture of BMD systems. While this is an important goal, most of the systems that will comprise the BMD architecture are years away from being deployed, making the development and definition of a detailed BMD architecture impossible at this point. After receiving more than $800 million for this program element in fiscal year 2002, the Missile Defense Agency has yet to provide to Congress any indication what the overall ballistic missile defense architecture might be. In fact, the committee learned that of the $800 million appropriated for that program element in fiscal year 2002, only $50 million had been spent by the end of March, halfway through the fiscal year. Because of this slow execution, the Missile Defense Agency informed us that $400 million of these fiscal year 2002 funds will be available for expenditure in 2003. So half of the money that we appropriated in 2002 for that program element is not going to be spent. It is going to be available next year. Under those circumstances, it is hard to see why the Department would need a $250 million increase in that program element in fiscal year 2003. In short, we made a choice to make careful, well-justified reductions in missile defense programs to fund increases to the Department's shipbuilding accounts, and other critically important accounts, which are strongly supported by most members of the uniformed Navy and by members of the committee. The choice was the right one. One of the things we used the money for, one of the important areas that we used that funding for, was greater security of our Department of Energy nuclear facilities. The greatest threat we face is a terrorist threat. Those facilities are not adequately protected. We found some additional money--about $100 million--in those reductions in the missile defense accounts which we believed could not be justified, not just to build more ships, which are necessary, but also to give greater security to our Department of Energy nuclear facilities which are so critically important to be defended. Secretary Rumsfeld has written us that the Department opposes these changes and he would recommend that the President veto the bill if this change in missile defense funding remains in the bill. But again, this veto threat not only is addressed at the funding cuts in the bill but, in effect, is addressed at the items that we added in the bill which are so important to the national security of this country. We believe our bill would provide the Missile Defense Agency as much money as can reasonably be executed for the missile defense program in this year and would ensure that this money is expended in a sound manner. Mr. President, finally, I wish to say a few words on two items that are not included in this bill. First, the budget request of the administration included $15 million in the Department of Energy to begin studying the feasibility of the new robust nuclear earth penetrator. We had doubts about the need for this new nuclear weapon, particularly at a time when we are trying to convince other countries to forgo the development of nuclear weapons, and we adopted an amendment deleting funding for the robust nuclear penetrator and instead we directed the Department of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to submit a report to Congress on the requirements for this new nuclear weapon--how it would be deployed, what categories of targets it would be used against, and whether conventional weapons could effectively address such targets. Second, less than a month before we began our markup, the Department of Defense sent us a legislative proposal to exempt certain military installations and activities from the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act, or CERCLA. We did not consider those proposals because all those statutes fall outside the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. We did include two environmentally sound provisions in the Department's proposal that were in our committee's jurisdiction. These provisions authorize the Department of Defense to enter into agreements with non-Federal entities to manage lands adjacent to military installations and to create buffer zones between training areas and the surrounding population. America's Armed Forces are ready to help keep the peace, to deter traditional and nontraditional threats to our security and our vital interests around the world, and to win any conflict decisively. Our bill builds on the considerable strength of our military forces and their record of success by preserving a high quality of life for U.S. forces and their families, sustaining readiness, transforming the Armed Forces to meet the threats and challenges of tomorrow. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office is required to prepare a cost estimate for spending legislation reported by committees. The cost estimate for the bill reported by the committee, S. 2514, was not finished at the time the report on this bill was filed. The CBO cost estimate is now available. I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the Defense authorization bill reported by the Committee on Armed Services be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, May 21, 2002.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2514, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson
Enclosure. S. 2514--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
Summary: S. 2514 would authorize appropriations totaling $392 billion for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $14 billion in additional funding for 2002 for the military functions of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy (DOE). It also would prescribe personnel strengths for each active-duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts for 2002 and 2003 would result in additional outlays of $402 billion over the 2002-2007 period. The bill also contains provisions that would raise the costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2004-2007 period. CBO estimates that those provisions would require appropriations of $6.8 billion over those four years. The bill contains provisions that would increase direct spending by an estimated $5.6 billion over the 2003-2007 period and $17.6 billion over the 2003-2012 period, primarily from the phase-in of concurrent payment of retirement annuities with veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the military and the other uniformed services who have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater. Because it would affect direct spending, the bill would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures. S. 2514 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2514 is shown in Table 1. Most of the costs of this legislation fall within budget function 050 (national defense).
\2\ The estimates shown for the 2002 supplemental are amounts contained in the Administration's supplemental request for defense programs. The outlay estimate for 2003 includes $5,684 million of spending from funds requested as emergency appropriations. Excluding emergency spending would lower total outlays in 2003 to $376,181 million. Note.--This table excludes estimated authorizations of appropriations for years after 2003. (Those additional authorizations are shown in Table 3.) Basis of estimate
Spending subject to appropriation
The bill would specifically authorize appropriations totaling $391.5 billion in 2003 (see Table 2) and additional amounts as may be necessary for supplemental appropriations for defense in 2002, which CBO estimates would total $14 billion based on the Administration's request. Most of those costs would fall within budget function 050 (national defense). S. 2514 also would specifically authorize appropriations of $70 million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home (function 600--income security). The estimate assumes that the estimated authorization amount for 2002 is appropriated by the end of June 2002, and that the amounts authorized for 2003 will be appropriated before the start of fiscal year 2003. Outlays are estimated based on historical spending patterns. The bill also contains provisions that would affect various costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the fiscal year 2003 authorization and by authorizations in future years. Table 3 contains estimates of those amounts. In addition to the costs covered by the authorizations in the bill for 2003, these provisions would raise estimated costs by $6.8 billion over the 2004-2007 period. The following sections describe the provisions identified in Table 3 and provide information about CBO's cost estimates for those provisions.
\2\ These amounts comprise nearly all of the proposed changes for authorizations of appropriations for 2003 shown in Table 1; they do not include the estimated authorization of $92 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is shown in Table 3.
Note.--For every item in this table except the authorization for the Coast Guard Reserve, the 2003 levels are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Amounts shown in this table for 2004 through 2007 are not included in Table 1. Multiyear Procurement. In most cases, purchases of weapon systems are authorized annually, and as a result, DoD negotiates a separate contract for each annual purchase. In a small number of cases, the law permits multiyear procurement; that is, it allows DoD to enter into a contract to buy specified annual quantities of a system for up to five years. In those cases, DoD can negotiate lower prices because its commitment to purchase the weapons gives the contractor an incentive to find more economical ways to manufacture the weapon, including cost-saving investments. Annual funding is provided for these multiyear contracts, but potential termination costs are covered by an initial appropriation. Section 131 would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into a multiyear contract to purchase C-130J aircraft beginning in 2003 after the Secretary certifies that the C-130J has been cleared for worldwide, over-water capability. Based on information provided by the Air Force, CBO assumes that DoD will procure 64 aircraft over the 2003-2008 period--40 CC-130J aircraft for the Air Force and 24 KC-130J aircraft for the Marine Corps. CBO also assumes that the CC-130J and KC-130J aircraft would be purchased under one contract administered by the Air Force and covering six years of production beginning in 2003. CBO estimates that savings from buying these aircraft under a multiyear contract would total $473 million, or about $95 million a year, over the 2003-2007 period. CBO also estimates that additional savings of $182 million would accrue in 2008. Funding requirements to purchase these aircraft would total just under $3.4 billion over the 2003-2007 period (instead of the almost $3.9 billion that would be needed under annual contracts). Multiyear procurement of C-130Js would raise costs in 2003 because the KC-130J did not receive advance procurement in 2002 in anticipation of multiyear procurement starting in 2003, and because the Air Force would need to provide advance procurement for the aircraft that it would purchase in 2004. Military Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve endstrength levels for 2003. The authorized endstrengths for active-duty personnel and personnel in the selected reserve would total about 1,390,000 and 865,000, respectively. Of those selected reservists, about 68,500 would serve on active duty in support of the reserves. The bill would specifically authorize appropriations of about $94 billion for the costs of military pay and allowances in 2003. The authorized endstrength represents a net increase of 2,200 servicemembers that would boost costs for salaries and other expenses by $87 million in the first year and about $190 million annually in subsequent years, compared to the authorized strengths for 2002. The bill also would authorize an endstrength of 9,000 in 2003 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost about $92 million and would fall under budget function 400 (transportation). Section 402 would allow the Secretary of Defense to increase endstrength by 2 percent above the level authorized by the Congress. The provision would also allow an increase in endstrength equal to the number of personnel within the reserve components that are on active duty in support of a contingency operation. While there is the potential for increased costs, CBO believes that DoD would still have to manage their resources given the finite amount of money appropriated each year for military personnel. As such, CBO estimates that this provision would not significantly increase costs. Compensation and Benefits. S. 2514 contains several provisions that would affect military compensation and benefits for uniformed personnel. Military Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 4.1 percent across-the-board and authorize additional targeted pay raises, ranging from 0.9 percent to 4.4 percent, for individuals with specific ranks and years of service at a total cost of about $2.3 billion in 2003. Because the pay raises would be above those projected under current law, CBO estimates that the incremental costs associated with the larger pay raise would be about $276 million in 2003 and total $1.9 billion over the 2003-2007 period. Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would extend DoD's authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances to current personnel. Under current law, most of these authorities are scheduled to expire in December 2002, or three months into fiscal year 2003. The bill would extend these authorities through December 2003. Based on data provided by DoD, CBO estimates that the costs of these extensions would be as follows: Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel would cost $327 million in 2003 and $191 million in 2004; enlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel would cost $133 million in 2003 and $361 million in 2004; Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost $99 million in 2003 and $114 million in 2004; Special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would cost $67 million in 2003 and $72 million in 2004; Retention bonuses for officers and enlisted members with critical skills would cost $29 million in 2003 and $19 million in 2004; Accession bonuses for new officers with critical skills would cost $14 million in 2003 and $5 million in 2004; and Authorities to make special payments and give bonuses to certain health care professionals would cost $37 million in 2003 and $34 million in 2004. Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller costs in subsequent years because payments are made in installments. Assignment Incentive Pay. Section 617 would authorize a new incentive pay to servicemembers who volunteer for difficult-to-fill jobs or less-than-desirable locations. The authority would expire three years after the enactment date of this bill. Based on information from DoD, CBO expects that only the Navy would use this authority. Based on information provided by the Navy, CBO assumes that the special incentive pay would average $300 a month and that 11,250 servicemembers would receive this special pay by 2005. Given expected personnel turnover, CBO estimates that this provision would cost $1 million in 2003 and $46 million over the 2003-2005 period. Education and Training. Section 521 would allow the military services to increase the number of students at each of the service academies from the current ceiling of 4,000 to 4,400 students. Based on information from DoD, CBO expects that only the Navy would significantly increase its service-academy strength and that it would bring on about 100 extra academy students a year, so that the student body would increase, after several years, to about 4,400 students. Based on information provided by DoD, CBO assumes the other service academies would each increase their enrollments by an insignificant number of students a year. According to DoD, the additional cost to bring on 400 extra students at the Naval [Page: S5680] Section 652 would extend the period during which eligible reservists may use their education benefits from 10 years to 14 years. In 2001, over 82,000 reservists trained under this program and received an average annual benefit of $1,653. These benefits are paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the DoD Education Benefits Fund. Each month, DoD pays into the fund the net present value of the education benefit granted to each person who enlisted in the previous month. Based on information from DoD about current contributions to the fund and expected accessions, CBO estimates implementing section 652 would increase payments into the fund by about $2 million each year. (CBO estimates that there also would be direct spending of about $24 million over the 2003-2012 period for increased outlays from the fund. CBO's estimate of those costs is discussed below under the heading of ``Direct Spending.'') Concurrent Receipt. Section 641 would phase in over five years total or partial concurrent payment of retirement annuities together with veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the uniformed services who have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater. The uniformed services include all branches of the U.S. military, the Coast Guard, and uniformed members of the Public Health Service (PHS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Under current law, disabled veterans who are retired from the uniformed services cannot receive both full retirement annuities and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Because of this prohibition on concurrent receipt, such veterans forgo a portion of their retirement annuity equal to the nontaxable veterans' benefit. This section would phase in concurrent receipt of both benefits so that, beginning in 2007, individuals who have significant service-connected disabilities and have a retirement annuity based on years of service, would receive both benefits in full without the reduction called for under current law. Individuals whose retirement pay is based on their degree of disability would continue to forgo retirement pay equal to the VA compensation payment, but only to the extent that their disability had entitled them to a larger retirement annuity than they would have received based on years of service. The military retirement system is financed in part by an annual payment from appropriated funds to the military retirement trust fund, based on an estimate of the system's accruing liabilities. If this provision is enacted, the yearly contribution to the military retirement trust fund (an outlay in budget function 050) would increase to reflect the added liability from the expected increase in annuities to future retirees. Using information from DoD, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would increase such payments by $588 million in 2004 and $2.5 billion over the 2004-2007 period. Because the phase-in of concurrent receipt benefits would not take effect until January 1, 2003, the accrual payment for fiscal year 2003 would not be affected. CBO estimates that there also would be direct spending of about $17.3 billion over the 2003-2012 period for increased outlays from the fund. CBO's estimate of those costs is discussed below under the heading of ``Direct Spending.'' National Call to Service. Section 541 would give the Secretary of Defense authority to establish an enlistment program in which a participant, in exchange for a specified incentive, would enlist in the armed forces for a period of 15 months plus training time followed by service in the reserves, the Peace Corps, Americorps, or another national service program. The specified incentives would consist of either a cash bonus of $5,000, payment of student loans not to exceed $18,000, or education benefits similar to those provided for in the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) education program. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that DoD would seek to recruit about 1 percent of annual enlisted accessions (an average of about 2,000 enlistees a year) under the National Call to Service program. CBO assumes that all (or nearly all) participants would choose the $5,000 cash bonus option since DoD has indicated that the amount it would probably offer for the repayment of student loans would be less than or equal to $5,000. Moreover, while the education benefits offered under this program would be worth more than $5,000, CBO believes that few enlistees would choose these benefits because a participant who selected the cash bonus would also have the potential to be eligible for active-duty or reserve MGIB benefits. Thus, CBO estimates that the cost for providing the cash bonus to participants who enlist under the National Call to Service program would be about $10 million a year once the program was implemented. Based on information provided by DoD, CBO assumes that it would take about one year for DoD to implement this program. CBO also estimates that there would be an additional cost associated with administering this program. Since servicemembers who would enlist under the National Call to Service program would leave the military one year sooner than the average enlisted member who leaves after his or her initial obligation is fulfilled, DoD would need to induct more people into the military to maintain endstrength. CBO estimates that DoD would need to induct 1,000 additional enlistees a year to make up for the accelerated loss in personnel. With an average training period of about six months, DoD would need to add these enlistees about half a year earlier. Thus, the first bonuses would not be paid out until 2004 and the first replacements would not have to be inducted until 2005. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that the average cost for each additional enlistee would be about $16,250 in fiscal year 2003, which includes the cost of providing new uniforms, travel expenses, and six months of salary and benefits during training. After adjusting for inflation and assuming that new participants are brought into the program evenly throughout the first year, CBO estimates that the cost of these additional accessions would be $9 million in 2005 and an average of $20 million per year thereafter. Therefore, CBO estimates that the total costs for the National Call to Service program would be $10 million in 2004, $19 million in 2005, and about $85 million over the 2004-2007 period. Defense Health Program. Title VII contains several provisions that would affect DoD health care and benefits. Tricare is the name of DoD's health care program; Tricare Prime and Tricare Prime Remote are managed care programs, and Tricare Standard is a fee-for-service program. Tricare Prime Remote. Section 703 would affect dependents of servicemembers on active duty who live in a remote area, which is defined as roughly a one-hour-or-more driving distance from a military treatment facility. Under certain conditions, this section would allow dependents of personnel on active duty who live in a remote area to participate in Tricare Prime Remote if the servicemember is transferred to a different duty station and is not allowed to bring his or her family. Under current law, dependents of personnel on active duty living in remote areas must reside with the active-duty member to participate in Tricare Prime Remote. If the active-duty servicemember is transferred to a duty station where he or she cannot bring family members, the family can no longer participate in the Tricare Prime Remote program. Based on information provided by DoD, CBO estimates that about 27,000 dependents of personnel on active duty would be affected by this provision. According to DoD, about 40 percent of those dependents who would be eligible for Tricare Prime Remote under this section already participate in Tricare Standard. Based on data provided by the department, CBO estimates that the additional incremental cost of providing Tricare Prime Remote to those individuals would be $113 per person. In addition, CBO estimates that the new benefit would attract about 1,350 dependents to Tricare Prime Remote who had not previously used any Tricare program at an estimated annual cost of $1,900 per person. Thus, CBO estimates that the cost of providing Tricare Prime Remote to more individuals would be $4 million in 2003 and $22 million over the 2003-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. Transitional Health Care. Under section 707, family members of reservists who were called to active duty for more than 30 days would be eligible for health care coverage under Tricare for 60 days after the reservist is released from active duty. Under current law, only the reservist is eligible for health care coverage under Tricare for the 60 days after he or she is released from active duty. While there are currently more than 80,000 reservists on active duty, CBO assumes for this estimate that the number of reserves will fall to about 65,000 in 2003 and 10,000 by 2006. If the number of reservists remains at current levels over the 2003-2007 period, the estimated costs would be correspondingly higher. Based on data from DoD and the General Accounting Office, CBO estimates that about 50 percent of the reservists have families and that about 40 percent of those families would use the transitional health care. CBO further estimates that providing an additional 60 days of health care coverage to those families would cost, on average, about $600 per family. After accounting for inflation and the assumed decline in the level of reservists called to active duty, CBO estimates that this provision would cost $7 million in 2003, and $18 million over the 2003-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement Incentives. S. 2514 contains several provisions that would allow DoD and the Department of Energy to offer voluntary retirement incentives to their civilian employees. Taken together, CBO estimates implementing these provisions would cost $121 million in 2004 and $544 million over the 2004-2006 period. [Page: S5681] Section 1102 would provide DoD with the authority to offer voluntary retirement incentives of up to $25,000 to its civilian employees who voluntarily retire or resign through September 30, 2006. Current buyout authority for DoD is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003. Based on discussions with DoD staff, CBO assumes that about 16,500 DoD employees would participate in the buyout program in 2004 through 2006. CBO estimates that the buyout payments would cost $88 million in 2004 and $414 million over the 2004-2006 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. DoD also would be required to make a payment to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) for every employee who takes a buyout. The payments would equal 15 percent of the final basic pay of each employee and come out of the agency's appropriated funds. Assuming an average final salary for the affected workers of $45,000, CBO estimates these payments would cost DoD $24 million in 2004 and $118 million over the 2004-2006 period. (CBO estimates that enacting this section also would increase direct spending for federal retirement and retiree health care benefits by a total of $188 million over the 2004-2012 period. CBO's estimate of those outlays is discussed below under the heading of ``Direct Spending.'') Section 3163 would provide DOE with authority to offer voluntary retirement incentives of up to $25,000 to employees who voluntarily retire or resign in calendar year 2004. Current buyout authority for DOE is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2003. Based on information from DOE, CBO assumes that about 350 DOE employees would participate in the buyout program in calender year 2004. CBO estimates that the cost of the buyout payments would total $6 million in 2004 and $2 million in 2005. DOE would also be required to make a payment to the CSRDF for every employee who takes a buyout. The payments would equal 15 percent of the final pay of each employee and come out of the agency's appropriated funds. Assuming an average final salary for the affected workers of $75,000, CBO estimates these payments would cost DOE $3 million in 2004 and $1 million in 2005. (CBO estimates that enacting this section also would increase direct spending for federal retirement and health care benefits by a total of $8 million over the 2004-2012 period. CBO's estimate of those outlays is discussed below under the heading of ``Direct Spending.'') Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. Section 1103 would extend a provision of law into fiscal year 2007 that allows DoD and certain Department of Energy employees whose employment is terminated because of a reduction-in-force action to continue to participate in the FEHB health insurance program and only pay the regular employee's share of the insurance premium. The respective departments would be responsible for paying the normal employer's share of the premium. Under current law, this provision expires in fiscal year 2004. Based on information from DoD and the Office of Personnel Management, CBO estimates that this provision would affect about 500 people a year at an average annual cost of $5,500 per person over the 2003-2007 period. CBO estimates that extending this provision into fiscal year 2007 would cost $2 million in 2004, and $11 million over the 2004-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. School Impact Aid. Section 1064 would allow school districts with a large percentage of children from military families to continue to receive heavy impact aid when military families are temporarily relocated. Heavy impact aid is federal funding earmarked for school districts with large military populations. Many military families in those school districts live on federal installations and do not contribute to the local property tax base that is used to help finance school operations. Heavy impact aid helps to offset this loss of local tax revenue. Under current law, schools can only receive heavy impact aid if they meet strict criteria for numbers of federal students located in their districts, local tax rates, and per pupil expenditures. Because of population relocations associated with certain military housing initiatives, some school districts will temporarily be unable to meet these criteria and will lose their heavy impact aid for several years. Based on data from the Department of Education and the Military Impacted Schools Association, CBO estimates that about four school districts would initially be affected by housing privatization and that these school districts receive about $18 million in heavy impact aid annually. Because applications for heavy impact aid are based on school district statistics from three years prior, CBO estimates that the cost of implementing this section would not occur until 2006. After adjusting for the changes in student population within the affected districts, CBO estimates that restoration of this aid would cost about $14 million per year. Since the requirements of the School Impact Aid program are not always fully funded, CBO expects that the Department of Education would likely fund this increase through reductions in aid to other school districts. CBO expects this cost would reoccur annually only for the duration of the housing privatization effort within the affected school districts, which CBO estimates to be about three years. Section 1064 also would allow coterminous school districts (school districts whose boundaries are the same as a military base) to change the way in which they include students living off the base in their heavy impact aid calculations. CBO estimates that implementing this provision would change the calculation of heavy impact aid for 200 students in two school districts and that the impact aid for these students would increase by about $2,300 per student. CBO estimates allowing coterminous school districts to change the method for calculating heavy impact aid would cost slightly less than $500,000 each year beginning in 2003. Arctic and Western Pacific Environmental Cooperation Program. Section 1214 would authorize the Department of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to assist in mitigating the impact of military operations on the environment of the arctic and western Pacific regions, particularly nuclear or radiological impacts. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $29 million over the 2003-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. Revitalizing DoD Laboratories. Section 241 would allow DoD to establish a new three-year pilot program beginning in March 2003 at various DoD laboratories to pursue improved efficiencies for performing research and development work at these laboratories. The section also would extend through 2006 authorizations for similar pilot projects that will expire in 2003. Finally, section 241 would permit laboratories participating in this new pilot program to enter into public-private partnerships and other business arrangements with private firms to achieve improved efficiencies. The authority to enter into such partnerships would expire in 2006. Under section 241, one of the public-private partnerships could be established as a limited liability corporation where the federal and nonfederal partners could contribute capital, services, or facilities to the corporation. Under the new pilot program, DoD would be authorized to waive certain restrictions not required by law that hinder the objective of achieving improved efficiencies. The department also would be authorized to use innovative methods of personnel management and technology development. According to information provided by DoD, the laboratories participating in the existing pilot program were granted similar authorities. DoD reported that these laboratories did not substantially change their business practices because, in their view, they already had the authority to waive non-statutory regulations. Thus, CBO assumes that any laboratories selected for the new program would not change their business practices substantially. CBO estimates that spending under these new and extended authorities would not be significant--probably less than $500,000 annually over the 2003-2006 period. (CBO estimates that the provision allowing a limited liability corporation also would increase direct spending by a total of $15 million over the 2004-2006 period. CBO's estimate of those outlays is discussed below under the heading of ``Direct Spending.'') Multiyear Procurement of Environmental Remediation Services. Section 827 would give DoD the authority to enter into multiyear contracts for environmental remediation services. Under current law, the total cost of any multiyear remediation service contract must be fully funded at the beginning of the contract. DoD has found this difficult to do for contracts that are expensive and last several years. Instead, DoD often awards these contracts for environmental remediation to cover work for one year and then extends the contract on a year-to-year basis as funds become available. DoD states that contracting in this manner is generally more expensive because contractors charge higher prices when they don't know whether the contract will continue beyond the current year. Thus, allowing DoD to sign multiyear contracts for environmental remediation would most likely produce some savings. DoD could not provide CBO with the necessary data to produce a precise estimate of the annual savings. However, given the high cost of these contracts, CBO believes these savings could be significant. CBO estimates that DoD currently spends about $1.7 billion each year on environmental cleanup related activities. If 10 percent of future contracts were negotiated as multiyear contracts and those contracts produced savings of about 5 percent on average, multiyear contracting for environmental remediation efforts would save about $10 million annually after a five-year phase-in period. Disposition of Surplus Plutonium. In January 2002, the Secretary of Energy announced that the federal government plans to convert roughly 34 metric tons of surplus weapons grade plutonium currently located at various DOE facilities into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel that would be suitable for use in U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. The federal government would ship the surplus plutonium to a MOX fuel fabrication facility at its Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina. DOE plans to start construction of the facility in 2004 and expects that construction would be complete by 2007. The facility would be able to convert about 3.5 metric tons of plutonium a year and would complete the conversion in about 12 years. Section 3182 would require that the Secretary of Energy pay up to $100 million a year to the state of South Carolina beginning in 2011, if the planned conversion schedule was not met. The federal government could avoid these penalties, however, if it removes at least one metric ton of plutonium a year from South Carolina over the 2011-2016 period and removes all remaining plutonium after 2016. Based on delays in developing the construction plans for the proposed MOX facility, and delays in similar programs such as the Nuclear Waste Repository Site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Program at Carlsbad, New Mexico, CBO believes that there is some chance that construction of the MOX facility could be delayed for several years beyond the 2007 planned completion date and that construction would not be completed by 2011. If DOE does not remove the required surplus plutonium from the state of South Carolina, DOE would need to pay up to $100 million a year to the state starting in 2011. Direct Spending
The bill contains provisions that would increase direct spending, primarily from the phase-in of concurrent payment of retirement annuities with veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the military and the other uniformed services who have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater. The bill also contains a few provisions with smaller direct spending costs. In total, CBO estimates that enacting S. 2514 would result in an increase in direct spending totaling $5.6 billion over the 2003-2007 period (see Table 4).
Concurrent Receipt. Section 641 would phase in over five years total or partial concurrent payment of retirement annuities together with veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the uniformed services who have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater. Under section 641, the phase-in of concurrent receipt would not take effect until January 1, 2003. Under current law, disabled veterans who are retired from the uniformed services cannot receive both full retirement annuities and disability compensation from VA. Because of this prohibition on concurrent receipt, such veterans forgo a portion of their retirement annuity equal to the nontaxable veterans' benefit. This section would permit, beginning in 2007, individuals who have significant service-connected disabilities and have a retirement annuity based on years of service, to receive both benefits in full without the reduction called for under current law. Individuals whose retirement pay is based on their degree of disability would continue to forgo retirement pay equal to the VA compensation payment, but only to the extent that their disability had entitled them to a larger retirement annuity than they would have received based on years of service. This section also would repeal, as of January 1, 2003, a program that partially compensates certain severely disabled retirees for this reduction in their retirement annuities. This program currently pays a fixed benefit of $50 to $300 a month, depending on degree of disability. Taken together, CBO estimates that implementing section 641 would increase direct spending for retirement annuities and veterans' disability compensation by a net amount of about $356 million in 2003, $5.3 billion over the 2003-2007 period, and $17.3 billion over the 2003-2012 period (see Table 5). Retirement Annuities. Since the proposed legislation would treat retirees differently based on their type of retirement--nondisability or disability, the potential costs of the legislation depend on the number of beneficiaries, their type of retirement, their disability levels, and their benefit amounts. Nondisability Retirees. A nondisability retirement is granted based on length of service--usually 20 or more years. Section 641 would allow those longevity retirees whose degree of disability has been rated as 60 percent or greater to receive full retirement annuities and veterans' disability benefits with no offset in 2007, and to receive an increasing portion of their retirement annuities over the 2003-2006 period. Data from the uniformed services indicate that in 2001 the prohibition on paying both benefits concurrently caused about $1.3 billion to be withheld from the annuity payments of about 74,000 eligible DoD retirees with nondisability retirements, and about 900 eligible Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA retirees. Using current rates of net growth in the population of new beneficiaries, CBO estimates this caseload would rise to about 78,000 nondisability retirees in 2003, and 96,000 nondisability retirees by 2012. CBO assumes that future benefit payments will increase consistent with current rates of growth in average disability levels and also increase from cost-of-living adjustments. After phasing the benefits in over five years as specified in the provision, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase direct spending on retirement annuities for nondisability retirees of the uniformed services by $342 million in 2003, $4.7 billion over the 2003-2007 period, and $15.2 billion over the 2003-2012 period.
Disability Retirees. Servicemembers who are found to be unable to perform their duties because of service-related disabilities may be granted a disability retirement. Section 641 would allow eligible disability retirees to receive retirement annuities based on their years of service and veterans' disability benefits with no offset in 2007, and partial concurrent receipt of these payments in 2003 through 2006. Disability retirees would be eligible to obtain concurrent receipt of their retirement annuity and veterans' disability compensation if they served 20 or more years in the uniformed services and had a disability rating of 60 percent or greater. Data from the uniformed services indicate that in 2001, the prohibition on paying both benefits concurrently caused about $200 million to be withheld from annuity payments of about 11,400 eligible DoD retirees with disability retirements, and about 500 eligible Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA retirees. An analysis of retiree records by DoD indicates [Page: S5683] Other Effects of Concurrent Receipt. Enacting section 641 also would affect Veterans' Disability Compensation, receipts to the Treasury for Survivor Benefit Payments, Special Compensation to Severely Disabled Retirees, and the level of contributions to the Military Retirement Trust Fund. Veterans' Disability Compensation. Data from DoD indicates that an additional 15,100 disability retirees of the uniformed services--14,500 from DoD and about 600 from the other uniformed services--do not currently receive VA disability benefits that they are entitled to receive. Since many disability retirees are not taxed on their annuities, there is no incentive under current law for these retirees to apply for the tax-free VA benefits, as they will be offset, dollar-for-dollar, against their retirement annuities. Section 641 would provide a significant incentive for the more disabled of these individuals to apply for VA disability benefits. CBO estimates that about 7,000 disability retirees might be eligible for concurrent receipt under section 641, but, because many of these retirees are both disabled and quite elderly, CBO expects that only about half of that number would become aware of this improved benefit and successfully complete the application process. Based on their DoD-assessed degree of disability, CBO estimates that outlays for VA disability benefits would increase by $13 million in 2004, about $270 million over the 2003-2007 period, and $760 million over the 2003-2012 period. Because of the time needed for individuals to prepare and submit their applications and the current backlog in processing applications, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would not increase outlays for veterans' disability compensation in 2003. Survivor Benefit Plan Offsetting Receipts. Many retirees have a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) premium payment deducted from their retirement annuity. The SBP was established in Public Law 92-425 to create an opportunity for military retirees to provide annuities for their survivors. Those retirees who are not receiving a paycheck from DoD because their retirement annuity is totally offset by their VA disability benefit may still participate in the SBP by paying the monthly premium to the U.S. Treasury. These payments are recorded as offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending) to DoD. According to DoD, approximately 34,000 military retirees paid $23 million in SBP premiums to the Treasury in 2001. DoD also indicates that about $7 million of that amount was paid by about 8,000 retirees who would begin to receive annuity checks under section 641. CBO's estimate of the increase in retirement outlays presented above assumes that the SBP premiums of retirees who benefit from the legislation would be deducted from the retirees' annuities, and their payments to the Treasury would cease. Assuming continuation of current trends in population and benefit growth, CBO estimates these offsetting receipts would decrease by about $7 million in 2003, $40 million over the 2003-2007 period, and $90 million over the 2003-2012 period. Repeal of Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees. Section 641 also would repeal a special compensation program that currently pays a fixed benefit of $50 to $300 a month to certain uniformed service retirees who were determined to be 60 percent to 100 percent disabled within four years of their retirement. These special payments would stop on January 1, 2003, under section 641. Based on information from DoD and assuming the population growth trends continue, CBO estimates that about 36,000 DoD retirees and about 600 retirees of the other uniformed services will receive an average monthly benefit of $150 in 2002. Under current law, this benefit is scheduled to increase over the next two years to $172 a month. CBO estimates that the savings from repealing this program would be $49 million in 2003, about $320 million over the 2003-2007 period, and $690 million over the 2003-2012 period. Increased Accrual Payment Financing. The military retirement system is financed in part by an annual payment from appropriated funds (an outlay in budget function 050) to the Military Retirement Fund, based on an estimate of the system's accruing liabilities. If this provision is enacted, the yearly contribution to the fund would increase to reflect the added liability from the expected increase in annuities to future retirees. These discretionary costs were discussed earlier in the ``Spending Subject to Appropriation'' section. Education Benefits for the Selected Reserve. Section 651 would extend the period during which eligible reservists may use their education benefits from 10 years to 14 years. VA reported that, in 2001, over 82,000 reservists trained under this program and received an average annual benefit of $1,653. This average benefit includes both the basic benefit and a supplemental benefit that DoD can offer to enhance accessions or re-enlistment in critical skill specialties. This benefit increases each year by a cost-of-living adjustment and by the level of supplemental benefits being offered. Based on current usage rates, CBO estimates that enacting this extension would result in an extra 1,500 trainees a year. Based on information from DoD and VA, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would increase education outlays by $2 million in 2003, $10 million over the 2003-2007 period and by $24 million over the 2003-2012 period. Since DoD makes monthly payments into the DoD Education Benefits Fund in the amount of the net present value of the benefits granted during the previous month, this increase in usage of the education benefit would necessitate an increase in payments to the fund. (The discretionary costs associated with these payments are discussed earlier in the ``Spending Subject to Appropriation'' section under the heading of ``Education and Training.'') Mental Health Benefits. Section 702 would remove a statutory requirement that inpatient mental health care be preauthorized for retirees and dependents who are eligible for Medicare. Under current law, Tricare for Life (TFL), another medical program run by DoD, pays all Medicare copayments and deductibles for those benefits that are covered by both programs. Beginning in 2003, TFL spending for Medicare-eligible retirees and dependents will be considered direct spending. Under current law, Medicare does not require a preauthorization for inpatient mental health care but Tricare does. Removing this requirement would make the mental health benefits identical and reduce confusion among beneficiaries and health care providers. Although most individuals would seek preauthorization before receiving inpatient mental health care, CBO expects that, under current law, some individuals would fail to obtain the necessary preauthorization from Tricare and would have to pay the copayments and deductibles on their own. Because DoD does not have any available data on the frequency or costs of inpatient mental health care for Medicare-eligible retirees and dependents, CBO extrapolated this data from the general Medicare population. Under section 702, CBO estimates that in 2003 TFL would cover the copayments and deductibles for about 600 additional people at an average cost of about $1,700 per person. Thus, CBO estimates section 702 would raise direct spending by $1 million in 2003, $5 million over the 2003-2007 period, and $15 million over the 2003-2012 period. Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement Incentives. S. 2514 contains several provisions that would allow the DoD and DOE to offer voluntary separation incentives to their civilian employees. Taken together, CBO estimates enacting these provisions would increase direct spending for federal retirement and retiree health care benefits by $34 million in 2004 and $196 million over the 2004-2012 period. Section 1102 would provide DoD with authority to offer its civilian employees voluntary retirement incentive payments of up to $25,000 for employees who voluntarily retire or resign in fiscal years 2004 thorough 2006. Current buyout authority for DoD is set to expire on September 30, 2003. CBO estimates that enacting section 1102 would increase direct spending for federal retirement and retiree health care benefits by $31 million in 2004 and $188 million over the 2004-2012 period. Section 3163 would provide DOE with authority to offer payments of up to $25,000 to employees who voluntarily retire or resign in calendar year 2004. Current buyout authority for DOE is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2003. CBO estimates enacting section 3163 would increase direct spending for federal retirement and retiree health care benefits by about $3 million in 2004 and about $8 million during the 2004-2012 period. DoD Retirement Spending. CBO assumes that about 16,500 DoD employees would participate in the buyout program over the three-year period and that many workers who take a buyout would begin collecting federal retirement benefits several years earlier than they would under current law. Inducing some workers to retire earlier would result in additional benefits being paid from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. In later years, annual federal retirement outlays would be lower than under current law because the employees who retire early receive smaller annuity payments than if they had retired later. CBO estimates that enacting section 1102 would increase direct spending for federal retirement benefits by $24 million in 2004 and $136 million over the 2004-2012 period. (The discretionary costs over the 2004-2006 period associated with the buyout payments were discussed earlier in the ``Spending Subject to Appropriation'' section under the heading of ``Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement Incentives.'') DoD Retiree Health Care Spending. Enacting section 1102 also would increase direct spending on federal benefits for retiree health care because many employees who accept the buyouts would continue to be eligible for coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program. The government's share of the premium for these retirees--unlike current employees--is mandatory spending. Because many of those accepting the buyouts would convert from being an employee to being a retiree earlier than under current law, mandatory spending for FEHB premiums would increase. CBO estimates [Page: S5684] DOE Retirement Spending. CBO assumes that about 350 DOE employees would participate in the buyout program in calender year 2004 and that many workers who take a buyout would begin collecting federal retirement benefits several years earlier than they would under current law. Inducing some workers to retire earlier would result in additional retirement benefits being paid from the CSRDF. In later years, annual federal retirement outlays would be lower than under current law because the employees who retire early receive smaller annuity payments than if they had retired later. Under section 3163, CBO estimates spending for federal retirement benefits would increase by $3 million in 2004 and by $8 million over the 2004-2012 period. DOE Retiree Health Care Spending. Section 3163 would also increase spending on federal retiree health benefits because many employees who would accept the buyouts continue to eligible for coverage under the FEHB program. CBO estimates that these additional FEHB benefits would increase direct spending by less than $500,000 a year over the 2004-2006 period. Revitalizing DoD Laboratories. Section 241 would allow DoD to establish a new three-year pilot program beginning in March 2003 at various DoD laboratories to pursue improved efficiencies for performing research and development work at these laboratories. The section also would extend through 2006 authorizations for similar pilot projects that will expire in 2003. Finally, section 241 would permit laboratories participating in this new pilot program to enter into public-private partnerships and other business arrangements with private firms to achieve improved efficiencies. The authority to enter into such partnerships would expire in 2006. Under section 241, one of the public-private partnerships could be established as a limited liability corporation where the federal and nonfederal partners could contribute capital, services, or facilities to the corporation. CBO has little information about how this limited liability corporation would be structured, but one of the purposes of this corporation would be to finance improvements to DoD's research, test, and evaluation functions. CBO considers such hybrid entities as governmental. Hence, their activities should be recorded in the federal budget. CBO treats the assets that are expected to be contributed by the private party as borrowed by the federal government. Borrowing authority is treated as budget authority in the year and in the amounts that CBO estimates the private party would contribute to the limited liability corporation. This budgetary treatment is consistent with the recommendations of the President's 1967 Commission on Budget Concepts, which suggests that entities jointly capitalized with private and public assets be included in the federal budget until they are completely privately owned. CBO assumes that DoD would need about one year to develop the policies and regulations for the new corporation that would be authorized under section 241. Based on information provided by DoD, CBO estimates that the additional expenses of the limited liability corporation could total between $4 million and $7 million a year. Assuming costs fall midway within that range, CBO estimates that federal borrowing would be about $6 million starting in 2004 and total about $15 million over the 2004-2006 period. The budget also would record any cash proceeds collected by the corporation from the public. Any payments from federal agencies would be an intragovernmental transfer and would have no net budgetary impact. In contrast, any proceeds accruing to the corporation from nonfederal entities would be recorded as offsetting collections and would reduce the net cost of the partnership over time. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the government would use most of the services of this corporation. As a result, CBO estimates that proceeds from nonfederal sources would not be significant. Land Conveyance and Other Property Transactions. Title XXVIII would authorize a variety of property transactions involving both large and small parcels of land. Section 2824 would allow the Secretary of the Navy to convey 30.38 acres and 133 housing units located at Westover Reserve Air Base to the city of Chicopee, Massachusetts, without receiving payment for this property. Under current law, the Navy will soon declare this property excess and transfer it to the General Services Administration (GSA) for disposal. Under normal procedures, GSA sells property not needed by other federal agencies or by nonfederal entities in need of property for public-use purposes such as parks or educational facilities. Information from GSA indicates that the housing and land will likely be sold under current law after the entire parcel is screened for other uses in 2003. As a result, CBO estimates that this conveyance would result in forgone receipts totaling about $3 million in 2004. Section 2828 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the city of West Wendover, Nevada, and Tooele County, Utah, without consideration, two parcels of federal land located in those states and identified in the bill. According to the Bureau of Land Management, those lands, which are withdrawn for military purposes, currently generate no offsetting receipts and are not expected to in the foreseeable future. Hence, CBO estimates that conveying the lands would not affect offsetting receipts. According to the U.S. Air Force, portions of the lands that could be conveyed have been used as a bombing range by the Air Force. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Air Force would have to remediate any expended and unexploded ordnance prior to conveying those lands. Based on information from the Air Force, we estimate that initial remediation activities would cost at least $2 million, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Although we do not have sufficient information to estimate the cost of subsequent remediation activities that may be necessary, CBO expects that such costs could be significant. Any spending for additional remediation would be subject to appropriation. CBO estimates that other provisions in title XXVIII would not result in significant costs to the federal government because they would either authorize DoD to convey land for fair market value, to exchange one piece of property for another or would authorize DoD to convey land that under current law is unlikely to be declared excess and sold or is likely to be given away. Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an insignificant budgetary impact on direct spending: Section 111 would extend through 2004 the authority for a pilot program that allows industrial facilities within the Army to sell manufactured goods to the private sector even if the goods are manufactured in the domestic market. Section 111 also would direct that a portion of the sales proceeds in excess of $20 million a year be made available for ammunition demilitarization. CBO estimates, however, that there would likely be less than $5 million in annual sales under this pilot program over the 2003-2004 period, based on data provided by the Army, and that since the industrial facilities are allowed to spend any sales proceeds, the net effect on direct spending would be insignificant. Section 642 would increase the retirement annuity of enlisted servicemembers who are retired from a reserve component of the Armed Forces and have been credited by their service secretary with extraordinary heroism in the line of duty. Under section 642, these retirees would be entitled to a 10 percent increase in their retirement annuity. CBO estimates that enacting section 642 would increase direct spending by less than $500,000 a year. Section 1063 would extend through 2006 DoD's authority to sell aircraft and aircraft parts for use in responding to oil spills. Based on information from DoD, CBO does not anticipate any transactions would occur under this authority. Section 3151 would require that the program to eliminate weapons-grade plutonium production in Russia be transferred from the Department of Defense to the Department of Energy. Funds appropriated for the program for 2000 through 2002 would be transferred to DOE and would be made available for obligation until expended. Under current law, those funds have a three-year period of availability, thus this provision could result in a reappropriation because it would extend the availability of some funds that would otherwise lapse. CBO estimates that about $120 million has been appropriated for this program over the 2000-2002 period and that nearly all of those funds will be obligated and spent under current law. As a result, CBO estimates that reappropriations under section 3151 would not be significant--probably less than $500,000 annually from 2003 through 2005. Section 3162 would allow the Department of Energy to penalize contractors operating at DOE facilities for occupational safety violations. These penalties would most likely be levied by reducing the fees owed to the contractor. Based on information about penalties levied over the last few years for nuclear safety violations, CBO estimates that the reduction in contract fees due to occupational safety violations would be less than $500,000 annually. Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net changes in direct spending that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 6. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects through fiscal year 2006 are counted.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2514 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Previous CBO estimate: On May 3, 2002, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 1, 2002. The House bill would authorize approximately $382 billion in defense funding for fiscal year 2003 ($10 billion less than S. 2514 would authorize for 2003) and an estimated $14 billion in additional defense funding for 2002 (as also contained in S. 2514). Both H.R. 4546 and S. 2514 would increase direct spending over the 2003-2007 period, but the Senate bill contains about $200 million less spending. Both bills contain provisions that would phase in over five years total or partial payment of retirement annuities together with veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the uniformed services who have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater but the provisions specify different rates and schedules for phasing in the increased payments. Differences in the other estimated costs reflect differences in the legislation. Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Defense Outlays: Kent Christensen; Defense Laboratories and Department of Energy: Raymond Hall; Military Construction: David Newman; Military and Civilian Personnel: Michelle Patterson and Dawn Regan; Military Retirement and Education Benefits: Sarah Jennings; Health Programs: Sam Papenfuss; Multiyear Procurement: David Newman; Operation and Maintenance: Matt Schmit; Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement Incentives: Geoffrey Gerhardt; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elyse Goldman; Impact on the Private Sector: R. William Thomas. Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague, and I look forward again--as this will be our 24th year--of working together on the authorization bill. Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend, the chairman, he mentioned that the Bush administration has yet to provide a formal national security strategy. I note that the timetable for submitting this document is not unusual. The Clinton administration did not submit its first national security strategy until well into its second year in office. In my contacts with the administration, they will soon be submitting that national security strategy. I thank Chairman LEVIN for the work he has done on the bill which is before the Senate. I also want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their wise counsel and efforts, as well as the tremendous efforts of our committee staff. In large measure, this Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 is a good bill and an important step forward in our war against terrorism. In this time of national emergency it is essential that we provide our President and our armed forces the vital resources they need to defend our Nation, and to fight the scourge of terrorism at home and abroad. In the end, I joined with seven of my Republican colleagues on the committee in voting against this bill in committee--primarily due to the drastic cut of over $800 million in missile defense. Having worked hard for a year on the many critical issues related to this bill, I considered my vote against the bill necessary, but regrettable. Despite the fact that I voted against this bill, I support most of what is contained in this legislation. It represents the bipartisan work of all committee members--working together to support our men and women in uniform, and their families. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 contains the largest defense increase in over 20 years--an increase of $45.0 billion over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. The good news story associated with this much needed increase is that it has the full, bipartisan support of the Senate. While there is disagreement over how some of the money is allocated in this bill, there is virtually no dissent about the need for this significant increase in the top line for defense. This is a remarkable display of unity behind our President, so important and fitting with our nation at war. In line with the request of the President, the bill significantly increases all major defense accounts over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated levels: It increases spending on military personnel by over 12 percent, including a 4.1 percent pay raise for our servicemen and women. It increases funding for operations and maintenance by over 15 percent, providing the necessary resources to fully fund our war effort. The bill increases the procurement account by almost 10 percent. This will enable our military departments to procure the equipment they need to replace aging and heavily used assets, as well as to buy the things they need to protect our facilities, infrastructure and people in these increasingly uncertain and dangerous times. Additionally, the bill increases spending on research and development by almost 9 percent, ensuring that investment is being made in the future to develop the capabilities we need to deter and defeat emerging threats to our national security. The bill also sets aside a $10.0 billion reserve fund, as requested by the President, to pay for ongoing and future military operations in the global war on terrorism. The threats to our Nation and the ongoing war on terrorism demand this increased investment in national security, both now and in the future. The bill contains many key provisions which I support to improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, our retirees, and their families. In addition to the 4.1 percent pay raise for our uniformed personnel I mentioned earlier, additional funding is included for facilities and services that will greatly improve the quality of life for our service personnel and their families, at home and abroad. The bill includes a legislative provision that calls for the phased repeal of the prohibition on concurrent receipt of non-disability retired military pay and veterans disability pay for our military retirees with disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher. The committee also approved a managers' amendment, sponsored by Senator BOB SMITH, which will soon be considered by the full Senate, to repeal fully and immediately, the prohibition on concurrent receipt, a step which will allow all nondisability retired veterans with VA disability ratings to collect the full amount they have earned. This action is long overdue. It is important to note that this bill, with the exception of the cuts made to missile defense, supports and fully funds virtually all of the priorities established by the Department and the President for the development and procurement of major weapons systems, including Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 and the Army's future combat system. In addition, I was pleased that we were able to add $229 million to the CVN(X) new generation aircraft carrier to restore the original development and fielding schedule for this essential program. The carrier proved its worth once again in Afghanistan--a war which relied on carrier-based assets. This bill supports acceleration of this important program. Despite the very favorable aspects of this bill, however, I cannot support the bill in its current form. I was joined by seven of my Republican colleagues in opposing the bill as reported by the committee. For the second consecutive year, the Senate Armed Services Committee divided along party lines primarily over the issue of missile defense. Sincere, good-faith efforts were made by Republican Members to find common ground and compromise on this issue, but these efforts were voted down. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003 that we have before us, in my view, fundamentally alters the President's national security priorities and fails to send a clear message, on the issue of missile defense, to America's allies and adversaries that the Congress will provide the resources necessary to protect our homeland, our troops deployed overseas and our allies and friends from all known threats--including the very real and growing threat of missile attack. I will work in the days ahead, and into the conference with the House, to restore the cuts made to these important programs and to staunchly defend the priorities our President has established. The world as we knew it changed forever on September 11. We lost not only many lives and much property that day, but we also lost our uniquely American feeling of invulnerability; [Page: S5686] As we begin our floor debate on the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003, our nation is at war. U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, together with their coalition partners, are engaged on the front lines in the global war against terrorism, with a mission to root out terrorism at its source in the hopes of preventing future attacks. Our armed forces have responded to the call of duty in the finest traditions of our nation. It is critical that the Congress keep faith with our troops by providing the resources and capabilities our President--our Commander in Chief has requested. Homeland security is now, without a doubt, our top priority. We have a solemn obligation to protect our Nation and our citizens from all known and anticipated threats--whatever their source or means of delivery. As a candidate and as President, George W. Bush promised our Nation that homeland security was his most urgent priority. Our President submitted a responsible, prioritized budget request for fiscal year 2003 that addressed our most important security needs. The bill before us reflects the urgent security needs of our Nation by doubling the funding for combating terrorism at home and abroad. It invests in new technologies to detect weapons of mass destruction and to deter their development. The bill provides funding and authorities for the establishment of new organizations within the Department of Homeland Defense, including the formation of Northern Command, NORTHCOM, to provide coordinated land, sea and air defense of the United States. As we re-look and re-evaluate our security needs, it is especially important to remember that protection of our nation, our citizens, our deployed troops and our allies from ballistic missiles is also an integral part of homeland defense and an overall sense of security. The budget request for missile defense was reasonable. It was a request that represented no increase over last year's funding level, and a request that was less than two percent of the defense budget. We must use these resources to move forward now, without artificial limitations--either fiscal or legislative--to develop and deploy adequate missile defenses. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003, as reported out of committee, contains a drastic reduction, of over $800 million, from the President's request for missile defense programs, including over $400 million in reductions to theater missile defense programs. In addition, the bill contains a number of restrictions and excessive reporting requirements that will further hamper the rapid development of missile defenses. Together, these actions have resulted in a letter from the Secretary of Defense informing the Senate that he would recommend a veto of this legislation if the reductions and restrictions on missile defense remain. Three years ago, by a vote of 97 to 3, this body approved the National Missile Defense Act of 1999--the Cochran bill. This act established two clear goals: to deploy an effective ballistic missile defense for the United States, ``as soon as technologically feasible;'' and, to seek further negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. Last month, President Bush signed a landmark arms control agreement, in Moscow, that will ultimately reduce the number of U.S. and Russian deployed nuclear warheads by two-thirds over the next 10 years. The second goal of the Cochran bill has been achieved. This month, the United States formally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty--a 30-year-old treaty--which had hampered the U.S. missile defense program. With this action, all artificial restraints have been removed from the ability of the United States to research, develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. Both goals of the Cochran bill that the Senate so overwhelmingly supported are in sight. Congress should not now apply new limitations on the rapid, cost-effective development of defenses to protect our nation and deployed troops from missile attack. The funding reductions and program constraints contained in the bill before us are a significant step backward in our efforts to improve the security of our nation. The threat of missile attack against the United States and U.S. interests is real and growing. According to the January 2002 national intelligence estimate, NIE, on the missile threat, ``The probability that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the cold war, and will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature.'' Dozens of nations already have short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the field that threaten U.S. interests, military forces, and allies; and others are seeking to acquire similar capabilities, including missiles that could reach the United States. We must be prepared to protect our nation. I am also concerned with other key areas in the bill, particularly the level of funding for shipbuilding. While I understand the tough choices that our defense leaders must make in establishing priorities and putting forth budget recommendations, shipbuilding was severely underfunded in the President's budget request. The bill we are now considering provides some additional resources for shipbuilding, but I believe more must be done to reverse the downward trend in shipbuilding. We all know that we are not currently building enough ships to maintain an adequate Navy for the future. Ultimately, there will be a high price to pay if this trend is not reversed. It is with these concerns in mind that I urge my colleagues to join me in constructive dialogue to find a way to restore the President's fundamental national security priorities and to ensure we are making the right investments in future capabilities. It is imperative that we send our President, our fellow citizens and the world a message of resolve from the Congress--a national defense authorization bill that provides the resources and authorities our Nation's leaders and our armed forces require to protect our Nation, our citizens abroad, our vital interests, and our international partners who stand with us against terrorism. I thank the distinguished chairman. I am going to a meeting on this bill tonight as to how we can order the amendments tomorrow on which I will work with the chairman. Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one of my most important responsibilities throughout my almost 48 years in the Senate has been to vote on the annual national defense authorization bill. This bill not only provides for our Nation's security but, more importantly, it provides for the Nation's most valuable asset, the men and women who so proudly wear the uniform and their family members who are an integral part of our military. Today, I rise, ever mindful of my responsibilities, to offer my views on the last national defense authorization bill that I will vote on before I leave the Senate. Before discussing the bill, I want to congratulate Chairman LEVIN, and the ranking member, Senator Warner, for their leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The challenges they face in pulling together this annual bill are immense, yet, year after year they prepare a bill that reflects a bipartisan approach to national security. There may be differences on individual programs, but their leadership and the participation of every member of the committee crafted a bill that enhances the security of the country and improves the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and their families. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003, supports the President's budget request of $379 million, the largest increase to the defense budget in twenty years. It provides significant increases in military pay, readiness funding, and military construction. The bill includes a provision that would address long-standing inequities in the compensation of military retirees by authorizing the concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans disability compensation. This is an issue which I have supported for some time and I am pleased to see it resolved this year. Like all bills there are provisions that cause me concern. The most egregious in this bill is the reduction to the [Page: S5687] Mr. President, in closing I remind my colleagues that this bill also provides vital funding to support our forces currently engaged in the war against terrorism. This war is unlike any faced by my generation. It will not be won by large armies, but by dedicated, highly trained soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. I am extremely proud of what our military personnel have accomplished and I have no doubt that their professionalism and dedication will bring an end to the terrorist threat. We owe these men and women the best our Nation can provide and we must show them our support by voting for this bill. I thank the Chair. Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. CANTWELL). The clerk will call the roll. The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll. Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. END 1C) Report on National Emergency with Respect to Nonproliferation To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation is to continue beyond June 21, 2002, to the Federal Register for publication. The most recent notice continuing this emergency was published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2001, (66 FR 32207). It remains a major national security goal of the United States to ensure that fissile material removed from Russian nuclear weapons pursuant to various arms control and disarmament agreements is dedicated to peaceful uses, subject to transparency measures, and protected from diversion to activities of proliferation concern. The accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissible material in the
territory of the Russian Federation and maintain in force these emergency authorities to respond to this threat.
1D) What to do with Spent Nuclear Materials What would you think of the Federal Government's response to entering into a contract to take the high-level nuclear waste in 1998, and, 1998 having come and gone, the ratepayers who receive nuclear power into their homes have paid somewhere in the area of $11 billion to the Federal Government to take that waste in 1998? As we all know, 1998 has come and gone. The sanctity of the contractual relationship between the Government and the nuclear industry, obviously, has been ignored by our Government. As a consequence, there is potential litigation--litigation that has arisen as a consequence of the nonfulfilling of the contractual arrangement that was entered into to take the waste. So, clearly, we have a responsibility that is long overdue. Some people, relatively speaking, are inclined to ignore the contribution of the nuclear industry in our Nation. It provides our country with about 21 percent of the total power generation. It is clean energy. There are no emissions. The problems, of course, are what to do with the high-level waste. Other nations have proceeded with technology. The French reprocess. They recover the plutonium from the almost-spent nuclear rods. They reinject plutonium into a mixture that is added into the reactors and, basically, burn as part of the process of generating energy. The Japanese have proceeded with a similar technology. The rods, after they are taken out of the reactors, are basically clipped in the process of the centrifugal development, while the plutonium is recovered. It is mixed with enriched uranium, and it is put back in the reactors. The waste that does occur is basically stored in a glass form called vitrification. We have chosen not to proceed with that type of technology, and I believe ultimately we will change our policy and, indeed, recover the high-level waste that is associated with the rods. In any event, we are faced with the reality that we are derelict in responding to the contractual commitments into which we entered. We have before us a situation where this body is going to have to come to grips with the disposition of what to do with that waste. The House has already acted. On June 6 of this year, the Senate Energy Committee, by a vote of 14 to 10, favorably reported S.J. Res. 34, which is the Yucca Mountain siting resolution. The resolution approves our President's recommendation to Congress that the Nation's permanent deep geological storage site for spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste be located at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. What the resolution does not do is build a repository. It merely selects the site, and approval of the resolution would start the Department of Energy on the licensing process. This is a long-awaited step forward in the process to develop this Nation's long-term geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste. In making the decision, President Bush relied on the recommendation of Secretary of Energy Abraham and on two decades of science that has found, in the words of one Department of Energy assessment, ``no showstoppers.'' This is not something that has just come up. We have been at it for 20 years. The vote last month in the House was 306 to 117. As I indicated, the House has done its job. It affirmed the exceptional science, engineering, and public policy work that has gone into this very important national project. It reached a conclusion, exactly as I indicated earlier. Now it is the Senate's turn to vote on the resolution. The 20 years of work, the over $4 billion that has been invested in determining whether this site is scientifically and technically suitable for the development of a repository is a reality to which the taxpayers have already been subjected; $4 billion has been expended at Yucca Mountain. I personally visited the site, and I can tell you that for all practical purposes, the site is ready. For those who suggest we put this off, let me again remind my colleagues, we have not made this decision in haste. It has been 20 years in the process. In fact, the most recent independent review done by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in January of this year found, one, ``No individual, technical, or scientific factor has been identified that would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain from consideration as a site of a permanent repository.'' I am confident in the work done to date by the Department of Energy, but this work will not cease with this recommendation. On the contrary, scientific investigation and analysis will [Page: S5726] GPO's PDF I am often reminded how these things are resolved, and while it is appropriate to have public input, this is an area of technology in which we really need sound science and not emotional discussions or arguments. We have created this waste. We have to address it. Nobody wants it. Somebody has to have it. The Yucca Mountain site has been determined as the best site, and the science supports it. In fact, the review board addressed the very issue of science vis-a-vis policy and concluded that the ultimate decision on Yucca Mountain is one of policy and informed science. Policy decisions lie with our elected officials. That is why we are here, Madam President. We base them on sound science and facts, of course, but ultimately, we have to make the tough calls. We cannot vote maybe; we can only vote yes or no. The Secretary has acted. The President has acted. The House of Representatives has acted. Now the Senate must act. Nevada exercised its opportunity to object to actions taken by the Federal Government. That is their right as granted by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It should be pointed out that the veto authority given to the State of Nevada is rather unusual. A Governor of a State was able to veto a decision of a sitting President--indeed extraordinary--but now it is time for the Senate to act, and it is our obligation, indeed our duty, because some decisions, tough as they are, need to be made with the good of the entire Nation in mind. I should also point out that when the act was considered in 1982, the question of a State veto was somewhat controversial. The subsequent votes of both the House and Senate outlined very specifically the necessary balance to this State veto. If Congress is not permitted to act, as some have threatened in the Senate, then that carefully crafted balance will be lost. I wish the State of Alaska had been given an opportunity for a veto on the issue of ANWR. Nevertheless, that is a different issue for a different time. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act anticipated that this would be a tough decision and laid out some very strict, fast-track procedure to ensure that the decision would be put to a vote so that the will of the majority would be heard. This is one of those rare cases when Congress made the decision to not allow procedural games to obscure the substance of a very important decision. We will have to vote sometime before July 27 of this year, governed by certain rules on S.J. Res. 34, and a decision will be made, Madam President. That is the procedure that Congress decided back in 1982. We must make this decision, and we will make it soon. The Federal Government has a contractual obligation to take the Nation's spent fuel. That obligation, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, was due in 1998. That was a contractual commitment. The Federal Government is in violation of that contractual commitment. So far, no waste has been removed despite the fact that the nuclear waste fund now has in excess of $17 billion for the specific purpose of taking the waste. If the spent fuel is not taken soon, at least one reactor, the Prairie Island reactor in Minnesota, will have to shut down, and we cannot afford to sacrifice nuclear power, not in Minnesota nor, for that matter, anywhere. Madam President, 21 percent of all power generation comes from nuclear energy. Other States have spent fuel piling up: 1,860 metric tons in California, 1,542 metric tons in Connecticut, and a whopping 5,850 metric tons in Illinois. We have waste at other sites, including Hanford in the State of Washington. Nuclear , as I indicated, is 21 percent of the Nation's clean, nonemitting electrical energy. Nuclear is safe, solid, baseload generation that helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The Federal Government's obligation does not just extend to utilities. We also have a responsibility to continue to clean up our cold war legacy. These are Department of Energy weapon sites, several throughout the United States, that must be cleaned up. To accomplish cleanup, waste must be removed in sites such as Rocky Flats in Colorado, Hanford in Washington, Savannah River in South Carolina. For a variety of reasons, all based on sound science, we must proceed to affirm the President's site designation of Yucca Mountain as one of our Nation's safe, central, remote nuclear waste repositories. To borrow from Secretary Abraham's February 14 letter to President Bush: A repository is important to our national security. A repository is important to our nonproliferation objectives. A repository is important to our energy security. A repository is important to our homeland security. A repository is important to our efforts to protect our environment. We have a responsibility, Madam President, to site a repository. It is an overarching national responsibility. It is one we cannot shirk. The alternative would be to leave this waste at 131 sites in over 40 States--sites which were not designated to be permanent repositories. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
1E) Russian Uranium Agreement Under the HEU Agreement, the Russian Federation is converting 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium fuel for nuclear power plants. The United States then buys the low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants in this country to use to generate electricity. The benefits of this program, which is sometimes called the ``megatons to megawatts program,'' are obvious. Nuclear weapons scrapped under the program can never be used against us. Weapons-grade uranium blended down and consumed in power plants can never fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states. The United States and Russia entered into the HEU Agreement in 1993. The program will neutralize the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads over its 20-year life. More than 150 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, the equivalent of nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads, have already been converted into low-enriched reactor fuel. Another 350 metric tons, the equivalent of 14,000 more warheads, are slated to be converted over the remaining 12 years. Although the Russian HEU Agreement is a government-to-government agreement, it is being implemented for the Russian Federation by Tenex and for the United States by USEC Inc. USEC was originally established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to run the Department of Energy's uranium enrichment plants as a business. When the Russian HEU Agreement was first executed, USEC was wholly owned by the United States Government and it was tapped to implement the agreement as the Government's ``executive agent.'' In 1998, the Government sold USEC to private investors pursuant to the USEC Privatization Act, but retained the private company as its executive agent for the Russian HEU program. Remarkably, USEC is able to conduct the Russian HEU program without cost to the Government. USEC pays the Russians for the uranium, and recovers its costs when it resells the uranium to nuclear utilities. The price paid by USEC was originally set in the HEU Agreement and has since been subject to negotiation between the parties. Some time ago, USEC and Tenex reached an agreement on a new market-based mechanism for determining the price USEC will pay Russia for future deliveries. Yesterday, the State Department announced that the Governments of the United States and the Russian Federation have approved the new pricing mechanism. The new pricing mechanism puts the program on a more commercial basis. It does away with the need for the two governments to renegotiate the price periodically. By basing the price on market conditions, the new mechanism provides a more stable and predictable procedure for determining future prices and should help ensure the long-term success of the program. In addition, this past Tuesday, the Department of Energy announced that it had signed an agreement with USEC that resolves a number of issues between them. Earlier, there had been talk of the Government replacing USEC as its executive agent under the Russian HEU deal or appointing multiple agents. Under the accord announced on Tuesday, the Department of Energy agreed to recommend that USEC continue to serve as the Government's sole executive agent, and USEC committed to meeting the annual delivery schedules in the Russian HEU agreement over the remaining years of the agreement. The Russian HEU Agreement serves us well. Each Russian warhead that is dismantled and each ton of weapons-grade uranium that is converted to commercial reactor fuel reduces the risk of nuclear proliferation and enhances our security. USEC has made great progress implementing the program over the past 8 years. The two announcements made this week give us hope for further progress in the years ahead.
1F) Yucca Mountain My colleague from Alaska, for example, this morning discussed the issue of nuclear waste and transportation. I can remember Senator Bryan and I, when we had the pleasure of serving together in the Senate, traveled to St. Louis. The whole purpose of our trip was to meet with local officials about the transportation of nuclear waste. We did. We went to the governing body of St. Louis. We talked to them. We had a very nice visit. We visited an editorial board. We were on a radio station or two there. As a result, the people who run the city of St. Louis passed a resolution saying: We don't want nuclear waste transported through St. Louis. If you can explain the issue to people, they recognize quickly it is not a good idea. So that is why I want to respond to some of the points raised by my friend from Alaska. He discussed, for example, the shipments of waste to the WIPP facility, the waste isolation project in New Mexico. Comparing those shipments to the proposed spent fuel shipment at Yucca is like comparing a squirt gun to the most modern tank in America. They are just completely different substances. The items being shipped to WIPP are things such as rags, tools, and laboratory equipment. These are not spent fuel rods, which would give you a lethal dose of radiation in less than 3 minutes if you stood near them. You could be exposed to it for a matter of seconds and get sick. With the news of terrorists pursuing radioactive materials and weapons of mass destruction , now more than ever we need to be vigilant in protecting the welfare of the American people. The decision to approve or reject the Yucca Mountain site is the most important transportation decision of this new century. This decision could bring as much as 100,000 shipments of high-level nuclear waste by truck through our towns and communities, as many as 20,000 train loads. This year we learned they may ship some of it by barge - the most poisonous substance known to man -- traveling by our schools, our homes, our churches, our places of business. It doesn't make sense to ship this waste and allow terrorists to use any one of these shipments as the ultimate ``dirty'' bomb. A successful attack on a spent nuclear fuel shipping cask would be extremely dangerous. Each truck cask would contain up to 2 tons of deadly material and each rail cask up to 11 tons. These casks are packed full of the most dangerous high-level nuclear waste known to man. They contain Cesium-137, Strontium-90, and Plutonium-239. A release of less than 1 percent will affect tens of thousands of citizens, resulting in hundreds of long-term cancer deaths. This could shut down an entire city. My friend, Senator Conrad, was told by an expert that a ``dirty'' bomb would make Washington, DC, uninhabitable for 400 years. Spent fuel shipments to Yucca Mountain would create a target-rich environment. DOE would make daily shipments by barge, truck, and train, all going to the same place. There would be as many as six to eight shipments each day. There are very few targets now. There would be hundreds of targets, thousands of targets if we go forward. According to the NRC, there have only been at most one or two shipments per week in the entire country over the past 10 years. Current shipments are harder to attack because they go to many different destinations. For the DOE to say ``we have never had an accident'' isn't true. If you pin them down, they will say we have had no ``reported'' releases. Again, DOE has proposed putting tens of thousands of these casks out on the roads, waterways, and railways without a transportation plan. It would not be as bad if they had a plan they had let the Congress and the American people scrub, and if they had done an environmental impact statement, but they have not even done that. They have not done an environmental assessment. Don't take my word for it; look at what the Secretary of Energy said on the subject:
The DOE is just beginning to formulate its preliminary thoughts about a transportation plan.
After 9-11, proceeding with Yucca Mountain without a transportation plan is reckless and irresponsible. The Congress has the responsibility to hold the Department accountable. That can only come from rejecting this reckless resolution. I mentioned on the floor recently that there is a Web site which was started to educate the American people about these shipments. It is www.mapscience.org. Anybody within the sound of my voice, go to your computer and try this out. All you have to do is put in your address. It doesn't matter where it is in the United States. You put your address in and it will tell you where the nearest nuclear reactor is and where they are going to ship the waste--how close it will come to your home. We know that in at least 43 States, more than 60 million people will be within a mile of the possible routes. Everyone should try this Web site. This Web site is telling the American people what the Department of Energy doesn't want them to know: These proposed shipments will go right by their homes, right by the places they work, right by the places where their kids go to school. There has been a big response from the American people. This Web site has been up for 10 days, and there have been well over 100,000 hits. There is no rush to move forward. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman has stated that if this Yucca Mountain project did not go forward today, it would be no big deal. He said it can be kept safely on site for decades. More important, Yucca Mountain will never eliminate the waste that is stored around the country. Everybody within the sound of my voice should understand the big lie the DOE and the nuclear power industry is projecting. The big lie is that the 131 sites where we have waste now will be reduced to one site. Well, the fact is, that will never happen. It will never happen because there are 46,000 tons there now. They can move 3,000 tons a year, but they produce 2,000 tons a year. So do the math. You will fill Yucca Mountain before it ever opens. Remember, when you take out a spent fuel rod, 95 percent of the heat, the radioactivity is still in it. It is so hot the only thing they can do with it is stick it in water for 5 years to cool it off. After 5 years, they can put it into a dry cask storage container. So this statement that they will only have one site is not true. It is a big lie. There will always be 131 sites, plus Yucca Mountain, plus all the trucks and trains. So instead of having one site, we are going to have hundreds of thousands of sites. So when my friends march down here and say this is nothing, it is like moving the stuff to New Mexico, I repeat my analogy of a squirt gun compared to the most modern tank in America; that is the comparison. The American people need to understand that the millions and millions of dollars spent by the nuclear power industry is money that has been spent to deceive and mislead the American people. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will do the right thing and vote for the good of their constituents, not for the good of the big lobbying effort that has been conducted in Washington over the last 20 years, and not go the way of the many fundraisers or the way of the vacations that have been paid for by the Nuclear Energy Institute, where they send people to Las Vegas for a week so they can look at the hole in the mountain. I hope they will vote in their constituents' best interests. Jim Hall is a member of the National Academy of Engineering Committee on Combating Terrorism and was Chairman of the National Transportation [Page: S5894] GPO's PDF
Secretary Abraham has said there is plenty of time to create a transportation plan before Yucca Mountain begins receiving nuclear waste eight years from now. But safety issues will almost certainly get short shrift if they are not addressed before the repository site is approved. Congress needs to force the Department of Energy to reassess the dangers of transporting high-level nuclear waste and develop a secure plan before proceeding with the Yucca Mountain project.
2A) Demise of the ABM Treaty The ABM Treaty was signed by President Nixon in 1972 with the Soviet Union as an important element of U.S.-Soviet arms control and strategic stability. It served to prevent an arms race in defensive weapons that would have led to larger offensive nuclear missile forces. It thus helped pave the way for negotiated limits and reductions in strategic arms. It was supported by every U.S. President until President George W. Bush, including Presidents Ford, Reagan and the first President Bush. The ABM Treaty affected only defenses against long-range, or strategic, ballistic missiles, those missiles with ranges of 5,500 kilometers or more. It has no effect on defenses against missiles of shorter ranges, which are the only missiles that endanger our troops and allies today, and against which we have designed and built the Patriot theater missile defense system and helped develop Israel's Arrow missile defense system. Both the United States and the Soviet Union saw this treaty as a central component of their efforts to ensure mutual security. Russia, like the Soviet Union before it, saw the ABM Treaty as one of the foundations for the structure of arms control and security arrangements that had been carefully built over three decades to reduce the risk of nuclear war. As late as June 2000, at their Moscow summit, President Clinton and President Putin issued a joint statement emphasizing the importance of the ABM Treaty. That statement said the two Presidents ``agree on the essential contribution of the ABM Treaty to reductions in offensive forces, and reaffirm their commitment to that treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability.'' It also stated that ``The Presidents reaffirm their commitment to continuing efforts to strengthen the ABM Treaty and to enhance its viability and effectiveness in the future, taking into account any changes in the international security environment.'' Last December 13, President Bush announced that the United States would unilaterally withdrawn from the treaty. The treaty permits either side to withdraw from the treaty upon six months notice if either side decides that ``extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.'' Although President Bush and members of his administration said they would try to modify the treaty to permit the development, testing and deployment of a limited National Missile Defense system, in the end they did not offer an amendment to the Russians. When he was campaigning for the presidency, then-Governor Bush gave a speech at The Citadel on September 23, 1999, in which he stated the following: ``we will offer Russia the necessary amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty--an artifact of the Cold War confrontation.'' He went on to say: ``If Russia refuses the changes we will give prompt notice, under the provisions of the Treaty, that we can no longer be a party to it.'' That seems to be a clear and straightforward position. Candidate Bush said that the United States would offer amendments to the Russians to modify the treaty so as to permit the deployment of missile defense systems, and if Russia refused the amendments the President would withdraw the United States from the treaty. But the administration didn't propose any amendments to the treaty that would permit it to remain in effect in a modified form that, in turn, would have permitted the testing and deployment of limited missiles defenses. Instead, we tried to sell Russia on the idea of abandoning the treaty, not modifying it. That was something the Russians were never going to accept. Last year it was difficult to get a clear answer from the administration on its missile defense plans for fiscal year 2002, and whether they would be inconsistent with the ABM Treaty. First, Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization told us in June that he knew of no planned missile defense testing activities that would conflict with the treaty. Later in June, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told us he didn't know whether there would be a conflict because, even after the budget had been submitted to Congress, the missile defense program was undecided. Then in July, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said that our planned missile defense activities would inevitably ``bump up'' against the treaty in a manner of months, not years. He also said that by the time a planned missile defense activity encounters ABM Treaty constraints, ``we fully hope and intend to have reached an understanding with Russia'' on a new security framework with Russia that would include missile defenses. Next came an announcement on October of last year by Secretary Rumsfeld that several planned missile defense tests were being postponed because they could have violated the treaty, even though one of the tests had already been postponed previously for entirely different technical reasons. Finally, the President announced on December 13th that the United States would unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty to permit testing and development of missile defenses, something Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz had previously called a ``less than optimal'' choice. During all months of discussions and negotiations with the Russians we never heard details of any amendments proposed by the United States to modify the permit limited missile defenses. At the end we didn't offer an amendment to the treaty. Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged this fact in a letter dated May 2, 2002 after I wrote him in January to ask whether the United States had, in fact, ever presented Russia with any proposed amendments or modifications to the treaty. ``The direct answer to your question,'' wrote Secretary Powell, ``is that we did not table a proposed amendment to the ABM Treaty.'' The administration has made much of the argument that the ABM Treaty was the reason we could not develop and test missile defense technologies adequately, and thus the treaty was keeping us defenseless against ballistic missiles. Madam President, now that the ABM Treaty has ceased to exist, I expect the administration to assert that they are finally free to make unconstrained progress toward defenses against long-range ballistic. As one example, they plan to begin construction of a missile [Page: S5688] GPO's PDF All this may make good political theater, but it will not suddenly make possible rapid progress toward effective missile defenses because it wasn't the treaty that was preventing such progress; If these technologies prove workable, it will still take many years of rigorous development, integration, testing, and refinement, and probably hundreds of billions of dollars, to produce operationally effective missile defenses--even without the ABM Treaty. And or course, even if they prove to be technologically feasible and affordable, limited missile defenses still could be readily overwhelmed or spoofed by decoys and countermeasures that Russia or China might develop and possibly provide to others. In 1999, the intelligence community stated publicly that ``Russia and China each have developed numerous countermeasures and probably are willing to sell the requisite technologies.'' This would only make the task of developing missile defenses more difficult, more time consuming and more expensive. So although the ABM Treaty will come to an end after 30 years, its absence will not suddenly permit effective missile defenses. That task will remain inherently difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Furthermore, there may be long-term consequences of our withdrawal that we cannot yet foresee, but which may make us less secure. For example, two weeks ago it was reported that Japanese officials indicated the possibility that Japan may feel a need to pursue its own nuclear weapons. This was in response to Japanese concerns about China's increasing nuclear forces, which in turn seems to be, at least in part, a Chinese response to our pursuit of defenses against long-range ballistic missiles. Our security will not be enhanced if China increases or accelerates its nuclear missile forces, or if Japan then decides to pursue its own nuclear weapons. Madam President, this is just one recent example of the kind of repercussions or consequences that may result from our unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Other nations will act in their own self interest, and if our actions make other nations feel less secure, they will act in a manner designed to preserve their security--even if it makes us less secure. In a world with nuclear weapons, the United States cannot be secure by making other nations feel insecure. If our ballistic missile defense efforts make other nations feel less secure, they could take actions that would reduce our security. We cannot yet foresee all the long-term reverberations from our decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. By taking a unilateral approach, it makes it more likely that others will act unilaterally as well. That is not the best way to increase mutual security and international stability. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the correspondence between Secretary of State Powell and myself on this matter be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, Washington, May 2, 2002.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your recent letters concerning our discussions with the Russians concerning an amendment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The direct answer to your question is that we did not table a proposed amendment to the ABM Treaty. Although we did have ideas on what an amendment might look like and discussed them at length with Russia, the discussions never reached the point that such a proposal would have been appropriate. We were prepared to entertain any proposal, to include an amendment, that would allow us to do the missile defense testing we needed to do. The Russians, in the end, made it clear that, in their view, such testing would be inconsistent with the Treaty and an amendment to permit such testing would vitiate the Treaty. The way out of this impasse was for us to leave the Treaty as provided for by the Treaty. The Russians regretted our decision, but recognized our right to withdraw. The President was faithful to his 1999 campaign statement. We spent ten months trying to find a way to conduct our testing within the Treaty, with or without amendment. We could not find a way to do so and we, therefore, are leaving the Treaty. This issue is now behind us and we are working with the Russians on a new strategic framework. Sincerely,
-- U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, February 20, 2002.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I received a letter dated February 4, 2002 (attached) from Paul Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs in response to my letter to you dated January 10, 2002, regarding the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Mr. Kelly's letter did not answer my questions. These are important questions and I feel it is essential to receive clear written answers to them. To this end, I am asking you to provide answers to these questions. 1. Did the United States ever present to the Russian government any written proposal or proposals to amend or modify the ABM Treaty? If so, what specific proposal(s) did the U.S. present, where and on what date(s)? 2. If the United States did present any specific proposal(s) to the Russian government, what was the response of the Russian government to the U.S. proposal(s)? 3. If the United States did not ever present to the Russian government any proposals to modify or amend the ABM Treaty, please explain why that is the case, especially given President Bush's commitment to offer Russia ``the necessary amendments'' to the ABM Treaty. I look forward to your answers to these questions. Sincerely, Carl Levin,
-- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, DC, February 4, 2002.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of January 10, regarding Russia concerning the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. As you know, the Administration has been engaged in intensive discussions with the Russians on a broad range of strategic issues including the best way to meet the President's objective of moving beyond the ABM Treaty. The President made clear from his first meeting with President Putin last July, his determination to devise a new U.S. strategic posture better suited to meet today's threats. He explained how the ABM Treaty was hindering our government's ability to develop ways to protect people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks. We discussed with the Russians a number of ways in which we could devise a new structure that included the Treaty in many meetings over subsequent months but, in the end, we concluded that the best way to proceed was for the United States to withdraw unilaterally. We provided notification of our decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty on December 13. As President Putin made clear, Russia disagreed with our decision, but was not surprised by it, and judged that it was not a threat to Russian security. Our discussions with Russia on strategic reductions were given added impetus by President Bush's declarations of our intention to reduce our operationally deployed weapons to 1700-2200 and by President Putin's positive response and similar intention. We will be continuing our discussions with the Russians in the months ahead, with the objective of reaching further agreements codifying the strategic nuclear reductions we have both decided to undertake and providing for transparency and confidence-building measures relating to missile defenses. We would be happy to provide additional briefings or information if you have further questions. Sincerely,
Assistant Secretary,
-- U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, January 10, 2002.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On September 23, 1999, at a speech at The Citadel, then-Governor and presidential candidate George W. Bush stated the following:
``At the earliest possible date, my Administration will deploy anti-ballistic missile systems, both theater and national to guard against attack and blackmail. To make this possible, we will offer Russia the necessary amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty--an artifact of the Cold war confrontation. ..... If Russia refuses the changes we will give prompt notice, under the provisions of the Treaty, that we can no longer be a party to it.'' (emphasis added)
On December 13, 2001, President Bush gave notice of his intent to withdraw the United States from the ABM Treaty. Please provide answers to the following questions: Did the United States ever present to the Russian government any written proposal or proposals to amend or modify the ABM Treaty? If so, what specific proposal(s) did the U.S. present, where and on what date(s)? If the United States did present any specific proposal(s) to the Russian government, what was the response of the Russian government to the U.S. proposal(s)? If the United States did not ever present to the Russian government any proposals to modify or amend the ABM Treaty, please explain why that is the case, especially given President Bush's commitment to offer Russia ``the necessary amendments'' to the ABM Treaty. I would appreciate your prompt response to these questions. Sincerely, Carl Levin,
WMD TERRORISM *************************** 3A) Not All Lawmakers Back Plan on Iraq But I raise my voice out of concern for the recent announcements over the past weekend, now finding out that these are somewhat old in their pronouncements, that there are those who previously in months past were aware of the thinking of the administration dealing with covert action in Iraq . In fact, there are articles in our newspapers across the Nation suggesting lawmakers back action against Iraq . Let me step aside, Mr. Speaker, and stand outside of that circle and speak for what I believe to be many of those in the United States who will ask the question, are we prepared, and what is the basis of that action? I have already stated that the leader of this nation, the leader of the Iraq nation, that is, is not a person who advocates the values that we believe in. I have already indicated that I believe that the country needs a change in leadership. But in respect to the approach, the question has to be, What is the involvement in oversight of the United States Congress? What are the decisions that will be made with respect to these actions? We well know that, tragically, Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate one of our Presidents, and we cannot tolerate that; and I would not stand for that kind of action or advocate it or allow it to go unpunished. But we also know that there is no indication that he had anything to do with the horrible act of September 11. We also know that his activities can be classified as bumbling. We also realize that if we are to engage in a covert action that may include the killing of this leader out of self-defense, that we may also put this Nation's military personnel in the position of a ground war. It has been suggested that 200,000 men and women would be needed for a ground war in Iraq . We realize that Korea was not successful to the point we wanted. The DMZ still exists between North and South Korea, and there is the tragedy of terrible hunger and devastation going on in North Korea. Though we pay tribute to the men who fought in the Korean War, and we thank them, we still have North and South Korea. We also realize that though we pay tribute to the thousands of young men who lost their lives and those who served in the Vietnam War, we know that Vietnam was not successful to the point we wanted. We also recognize that out of the turmoil of the Cold War, that the Berlin Wall did fall, and it fell because those in Berlin desired it to fall and the people brought it down. I believe we need more oversight and insight into decisions to be made regarding Iraq . I oppose these pronouncements suggesting that the next step is for this Nation to enter into a war. We realize that four prior covert actions involving everything from radio propaganda to paramilitary plots have failed to dislodge the Iraqi leader, just as smart bombs, Cruise Missiles and stiff economic sanctions have failed as well. I believe we need more deliberation. But, most importantly, I am aghast, if you will, at the fact that we are making these pronouncements with what I believe to be little thought. What is the plan? If we have a plan, bring it to the United States Congress. Yes, I understand there is need for the protection of our intelligence sources, and as well that there are decisions that the Commander in Chief has to make. But I am extremely opposed to these kind of war mongering efforts without any facts and without any substance. It is important to realize that the lives of Americans are on the line. Yes, I am standing toe-to-toe and head-to-head and shoulder-to-shoulder on fighting terrorism in America. I supported the resolution that gave the President the authority to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. I am pleased that Chairman Karzai has recently taken over the leadership of Afghanistan so we will have a head of state to help us fight that war. But it is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, as I close, in light of the tragedy of September 11, in light of the questions about sharing intelligence between the FBI and the CIA, to know whether we are making the right decision of this covert action, whether or not we are putting our young men and women in jeopardy, in harm's way, without any facts and any study and any plan. No, lawmakers in totality are not for this plan, and we need to question it and stand up and be counted and not be afraid of being called unpatriotic, because I believe that that is what democracy is all about, is to ask the questions and get the solutions.
Mr. Speaker, amid a growing debate over whether to expand the post-September 11 ``war on terrorism'' to Iraq and amid fears that Iraq could provide weapons of mass destruction expertise to terrorist groups, President Bush has threatened unspecified action against Iraq to prevent its re-emergence as a threat. The House passed H.J. Res. 75 by a vote of 392-12, which said that Iraq's refusal to readmit U.N. inspectors is a material breach of its international obligations and a mounting threat to peace and security. The resolution did not explicity authorize U.S. military action. Amid U.S. threats, Iraq held a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Annan on the restart of inspections. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld suggested that the United States would accept new inspections only if such inspections were unconditional and comprehensive, a standard that some Administration officials believe Iraq will never meet. Several Western and most Arab governments are opposed to a U.S. military campaign against Iraq , a message reinforced by Arab leaders to Vice President Cheney on his trip to the Middle East in March. Arab leaders have voiced opposition to an attack on Iraq at the Arab League summit, during which Iraq and Kuwait took some steps to reconcile. Top U.S. military leaders see major risks and difficulties in a large U.S. ground offensive, which could require up to 250,000 U.S. troops, intended to overthrow Saddam and install a new government. President Bush said that he has not decided on whether to authorize a U.S. military offensive against Iraq . The CIA proliferation assessment for Congress repeats U.S. suspicions of Iraqi rebuilding of and research on weapons of mass destruction but presents little hard evidence of such activity. Britain considered releasing in April 2002 a dossier of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction rebuilding but decided not to. The British concluded that its evidence was not sufficiently convincing. There are also allegations of illicit Iraqi imports of conventional military equipment. Iraq has been illicitly obtaining spare parts for fighter jets and helicopters from Belarus, Ukraine, and the former Yugoslavia. Additional reports discuss weapons buys from Ukraine. As international concerns for the plight of the Iraqi people has grown, the United States has found it increasingly difficult to maintain support for international sanctions. The ``oil-for-food'' program has been progressively modified to improve the living standards of Iraqis. The United States has eased its own sanctions to align them with the program. Iraq does not deserve international respect; that I agree with. However, unilateral foreign policy decisions affirmed by some leaders of Congress are not good either. We need full congressional oversight and review, including more voices to be heard, on whether covert [Page: H3587] GPO's PDF
CHEM/ BIO WEPAONS *************************** 4A) Status of the Anthrax Investigation As Members may recall, Mr. Speaker, my office was one of three offices on the House of Representatives side of the Capitol building that tested positive for the anthrax bacillus in October. In addition to myself and my family and my staff and many constituent visitors to our office having to take a 3-month regimen of doxycycline and ciprofloxacin, also, as was the case in Senator Daschle's office and the Senate Hart Office Building, we were expelled from our offices for decontamination for a period of 4 months. It was, in addition to the loss of human life, an extraordinary disruption of our Federal Government as well as an occasion that truly terrorized the American people. Since the time of the attacks, virtually within a week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation offered a theory of the case, Mr. Speaker, that could be described loosely as an American mad scientist, a version of the Unibomber, who had simply preyed upon this season of uncertainty following the 9-11 attacks and used anthrax materials that had been absconded from a U.S. weapons facility to further terrorize Americans. It seemed like a very plausible case, to say the least; but there is a growing list of facts that seem to suggest the possibility of an international connection to the anthrax attacks and even possibly, Mr. Speaker, to a connection to Bagdad. Let me give some of those facts, which are uncontroverted allegations that have appeared in various arms of the national press. These are 10 different facts that I articulated in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking, as I did last week, for some explanation as to why the FBI seems to have ruled out an international source for the terrorist attacks. First and foremost, the letter to Senate Majority Leader TOM DASCHLE was actually dated September 11 and mailed, we believe, around that time, included phrases like ``Death to America,'' ``Death to Israel,'' and ``Allah is great.'' The evidence also suggests in media reports that one or more of the 9-11 terrorists visited physicians to be treated for skin lesions and infections that would be consistent with cutaneous exposure to anthrax. Also the material found in my office and elsewhere on Capitol Hill was a finely milled weapons grade anthrax that had been genetically modified to increase its virulence. These are highly technical methods that can be employed by governments with the resources to do them. This anthrax was also so powerful that not only had five people been killed, including two postal workers and two elderly women, but these deaths we believe occurred just through cross-contamination. This was a virulent strain developed to kill human beings. Now, DNA evidence, which has been reported in the press, suggests that the anthrax that was found here in the Capitol was part of the Ames strain of anthrax, which we had developed at Fort Detrick, Maryland. But what you may not be aware of, Mr. Speaker, was that the Ames strain was actually sent to England's Porton Down research facility, and in that facility in 1988, according to many intelligence agency reports, Iraqi germ warfare scientists sought to obtain that very same Ames virus, and many believe that they did obtain the Ames virus. [Page: H3566] GPO's PDF So the anthrax bacillus with the genetic coding of the Ames strain could have been and may well have been obtained by Iraqi germ warfare scientists. We also know that European government and CIA officials reported meetings between al Qaeda members and Iraqi intelligence officials before September 11, and the 9-11 terrorists also we know from confirmed accounts in the press, attempted to rent crop dusters, presumably as delivery vehicles, for chemical weapons. Lastly, according to U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, Iraq has conducted military exercises to explore the possibility of disbursing anthrax using crop dusters. These are all facts that suggest an international connection, perhaps even an Iraqi connection. This week I will urge the Justice Department and the administration to follow the facts wherever they lead.
HOMELAND SECURITY *************************** 5A) Proposed Draft of Homeland Security Legislation I hereby transmit to the Congress proposed legislation to create a new Cabinet Department of Homeland Security. Our Nation faces a new and changing threat unlike any we have faced before--the global threat of terrorism. No nation is immune, and all nations must act decisively to protect against this constantly evolving threat. We must recognize that the threat of terrorism is a permanent condition, and we must take action to protect America against the terrorists that seek to kill the innocent. Since September 11, 2001, all levels of government and leaders from across the political spectrum have cooperated like never before. We have strengthened our aviation security and tightened our borders. We have stockpiled medicines to defend against bioterrorism and improved our ability to combat weapons of mass destruction. We have dramatically improved information sharing among our intelligence agencies, and we have taken new steps to protect our critical infrastructure. Our Nation is stronger and better prepared today than it was on September 11. Yet, we can do better. I propose the most extensive reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s by creating a new Department of Homeland Security. For the first time we would have a single Department whose primary mission is to secure our homeland. Soon after the Second World War, President Harry Truman recognized that our Nation's fragmented military defenses needed reorganization to help win the Cold War. President Truman proposed uniting our military forces under a single entity, now the Department of Defense, and creating the National Security Council to bring together defense, intelligence, and diplomacy. President Truman's reforms are still helping us to fight terror abroad, and today we need similar dramatic reforms to secure our people at home. President Truman and Congress reorganized our Government to meet a very visible enemy in the Cold War. Today our nation must once again reorganize our Government to protect against an often-invisible enemy, an enemy that hides in the shadows and an enemy that can strike with many different types of weapons. Our enemies seek to obtain the most dangerous and deadly weapons of mass destruction and use them against the innocent. While we are winning the war on terrorism, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations still have thousands of trained [Page: S5692] GPO's PDF Immediately after last fall's attack, I used my legal authority to establish the White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council to help ensure that our Federal response and protection efforts were coordinated and effective. I also directed Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge to study the Federal Government as a whole to determine if the current structure allows us to meet the threats of today while preparing for the unknown threats of tomorrow. After careful study of the current structure, coupled with the experience gained since September 11 and new information we have learned about our enemies while fighting a war, I have concluded that our Nation needs a more unified homeland security structure. I propose to create a new Department of Homeland Security by substantially transforming the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to secure our homeland. My proposal builds on the strong bipartisan work on the issue of homeland security that has been conducted by Members of Congress. In designing the new Department, my Administration considered a number of homeland security organizational proposals that have emerged from outside studies, commission, and members of Congress. THE NEED FOR A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Today no Federal Government agency has homeland security as its primary mission. Responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different entities of the Federal Government. America needs a unified homeland security structure that will improve protection against today's threats and be flexible enough to help meet the unknown threats of the future. The mission of the new Department would be to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, to reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and to minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur. The Department of Homeland Security would mobilize and focus the resources of the Federal Government, State and local governments, the private sector, and the American people to accomplish its mission. The Department of Homeland Security would make Americans safer because for the first time we would have one department dedicated to securing the homeland. One department would secure our borders, transportation sector, ports, and critical infrastructure. One department would analyze homeland security intelligence from multiple sources, synthesize it with a comprehensive assessment of America's vulnerabilities, and take action to secure our highest risk facilities and systems. One department would coordinate communications with State and local governments, private industry, and the American people about threats and preparedness. One department would coordinate our efforts to secure the American people against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction. One department would help train and equip our first responders. One department would manage Federal emergency response activities. Our goal is not to expand Government, but to create an agile organization that takes advantage of modern technology and management techniques to meet a new and constantly evolving threat. We can improve our homeland security by minimizing the duplication of efforts, improving coordination, and combining functions that are currently fragmented and inefficient. The new Department would allow us to have more security officers in the field working to stop terrorists and fewer resources in Washington managing duplicative activities that drain critical homeland security resources. The Department of Homeland Security would have a clear and efficient organizational structure with four main divisions: Border and Transportation Security; Emergency Preparedness and Response; Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures; and Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY Terrorism is a global threat and we must improve our border security to help keep out those who mean to do us harm. We must closely monitor who is coming into and out of our country to help prevent foreign terrorists from entering our country and bringing in their instruments of terror. At the same time, we must expedite the legal flow of people and goods on which our economy depends. Securing our borders and controlling entry to the United States has always been the responsibility of the Federal Government. Yet, this responsibility and the security of our transportation systems is now dispersed among several major Government organizations. Under my proposed legislation, the Department of Homeland Security would unify authority over major Federal security operations related to our borders, territorial waters, and transportation systems. The Department would assume responsibility for the United States Coast Guard, the United States Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (including the Border Patrol), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. The Secretary of Homeland Security would have the authority to administer and enforce all immigration and nationality laws, including the visa issuance functions of consular officers. As a result, the Department would have sole responsibility for managing entry into the United States and protecting our transportation infrastructure. It would ensure that all aspects of border control, including the issuing of visas, are informed by a central information-sharing clearinghouse and compatible databases. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE Although our top priority is preventing future attacks, we must also prepare to minimize the damage and recover from attacks that may occur. My legislative proposal requires the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the preparedness of our Nation's emergency response professionals, provide the Federal Government's response, and aid America's recovery from terrorist attacks and natural disasters. To fulfill these missions, the Department of Homeland Security would incorporate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as one of its key components. The Department would administer the domestic disaster preparedness grant programs for firefighters, police, and emergency personnel currently managed by FEMA, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services. In responding to an incident, the Department would manage such critical response assets as the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (from the Department of Energy) and the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (from the Department of Health and Human Services). Finally, the Department of Homeland Security would integrate the Federal interagency emergency response plans into a single, comprehensive, Government-wide plan, and would work to ensure that all response personnel have the equipment and capability to communicate with each other as necessary. CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL, AND NUCLEAR COUNTERMEASURES Our enemies today seek to acquire and use the most deadly weapons known to mankind--chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. The new Department of Homeland Security would lead the Federal Government's efforts in preparing for and responding to the full range of terrorist threat involving weapons of mass destruction. The Department would set national policy and establish guidelines for State and local governments. The Department would direct exercises for Federal, State, and local chemicals, biological, radiological, and nuclear attack response teams and plans. The Department would consolidate and synchronize the disparate efforts of multiple Federal agencies now scattered across several departments. This would create a single office whose primary mission is the critical task of securing the United States from catastrophic terrorism. The Department would improve America's ability to develop diagnostics, vaccines, antibodies, antidotes, and other countermeasures [Page: S5693] GPO's PDF INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION For the first time the Government would have under one roof the capability to identify and assess threats to the homeland, map those threats against our vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings, and take action to help secure the homeland. The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection division of the new Department of Homeland Security would complement the reforms on intelligence-gathering and information-sharing already underway at the FBI and the CIA. The Department would analyze information and intelligence fro the FBI, CIA, and many other Federal agencies to better understand the terrorist threat to the American homeland. The Department would comprehensively assess the vulnerability of America's key assets and critical infrastructure, including food and water systems, agriculture, health systems and emergency services, information and telecommunications, banking and finance, energy, transportation, the chemical and defense industries, postal and shipping entities, and national monuments and icons. The Department would integrate its own and others' threat analyses with its comprehensive vulnerability assessment to identify protective priorities and support protective steps to be taken by the Department, other Federal departments and agencies, State and local agencies, and the private sector. Working closely with State and local officials, other Federal agencies, and the private sector, the Department would help ensure that proper steps are taken to protect high-risk potential targets. OTHER COMPONENTS In addition to these four core divisions, the submitted legislation would also transfer responsibility for the Secret Service to the Department of Homeland Security. The Secret Service, which would report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, would retain its primary mission to protect the President and other Government leaders. The Secret Service would, however, contribute its specialized protective expertise to the fulfillment of the Department's core mission. Finally, under my legislation, the Department of Homeland Security would consolidate and streamline relations with the Federal Government for America's State and local governments. The new Department would contain an intergovernmental affairs office to coordinate Federal homeland security programs with State and local officials. It would give State and local officials one primary contact instead of many when it comes to matters related to training, equipment, planning, and other critical needs such as emergency response. The consolidation of the Government's homeland security efforts as outlined in my proposed legislation can achieve great efficiencies that further enhance our security. Yet, to achieve these efficiencies, the new Secretary of Homeland Security would require considerable flexibility in procurement, integration of information technology systems, and personnel issues. My proposed legislation provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with just such flexibility and managerial authorities. I call upon the congress to implement these measures in order to ensure that we are maximizing our ability to secure our homeland. CONTINUED INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AT THE WHITE HOUSE Even with the creation of the new Department, there will remain a strong need for a White House Office of Homeland Security. Protecting America from Terrorism will remain a multi-departmental issue and will continue to require interagency coordination. Presidents will continue to require the confidential advice of a Homeland Security Advisor, and I intend for the White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council to maintain a strong role in coordinating our government-wide efforts to secure the homeland. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY History teaches us that new challenges require new organizational structures. History also teaches us that critical security challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the unified effort of the U.S. Government. President Truman said, looking at the lessons of the Second World War: ``It is now time to discard obsolete organizational forms, and to provide for the future the soundest, the most effective, and the most economical kind of structure for our armed forces.'' When skeptics told President Truman that this proposed reorganization was too ambitious to be enacted, he simply replied that it had to be. In the years to follow, the Congress acted upon President Truman's recommendation, eventually laying a sound organizational foundation that enabled the United states to win the Cold War. All Americans today enjoy the inheritance of this landmark organizational reform: a unified Department of Defense that has become the most powerful force for freedom the world has ever seen. Today America faces a threat that is wholly different from the threat we faced during the Cold War. Our terrorist enemies hide in shadows and attack civilians with whatever means of destruction they can access. But as in the Cold War, meeting this threat requires clear lines of responsibility and the unified efforts of government at all levels--Federal, State, local, and tribal--the private sector, and all Americans. America needs a homeland security establishment that can help prevent catastrophic attacks and mobilize national resources for an enduring conflict while protecting our Nation's values and liberties. Years from today, our world will still be fighting the threat of terrorism. It is my hope that future generations will be able to look back on the Homeland Security Act of 2002--as we now remember the National Security Act of 1947--as the solid organizational foundation for America's triumph in a long and difficult struggle against a formidable enemy. History has given our Nation new challenges--and important new assignments. Only the United States Congress can create a new department of Government. We face an urgent need, and I am pleased that congress has responded to my call to act before the end of the current congressional session with the same bipartisan spirit that allowed us to act expeditiously on legislation after September 11. These are times that demand bipartisan action and bipartisan solutions to meet the new and changing threats we face as a Nation. I urge the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission--securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people. Together we can meet this ambitious deadline and help ensure that the American homeland is secure against the terrorist threat. George W. Bush. The White House, June 18, 2002.
5B) Establishing the Select Committee on Homeland Security SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.--The select committee shall be composed of nine Members appointed by the Speaker, of whom four shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Minority Leader. The Speaker shall designate one member as chairman. SEC. 3. JURISDICTION.--The select committee may develop recommendations and report to the House on such matters that relate to the establishment of a department of homeland security as may be referred to it by the Speaker and on recommendations submitted to it under section 6. [Page: H3694] SEC. 4. PROCEDURE.--(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2), rule XI shall apply to the select committee to the extent not inconsistent with this resolution. (1) Clause 1(b) and clause 2(m)(1)(B) of rule XI shall not apply to the select committee. (2) The select committee is not required to adopt written rules to implement the provisions of clause 4 of rule XI. (b) Clause 10(b) of rule X shall not apply to the select committee. SEC. 5. FUNDING.--To enable the select committee to carry out the purposes of this resolution, the select committee may utilize the services of staff of the House. SEC. 6. REPORTING.--(a) Each standing or permanent select committee to which the Speaker refers to a bill introduced by the Majority Leader or his designee (by request) that proposes to establish a department of homeland security may submit its recommendations on the bill only to the select committee. Such recommendations may be submitted not later than a time designated by the Speaker. (b) The select committee shall consider the recommendations submitted to it on a bill described in subsection (a) and shall report to the House its recommendations on such bill. SEC. 7. DISSOLUTION.--(a) The select committee shall cease to exist after final disposition of a bill described in section 6(a), including final disposition of any veto message on such bill. (b) Upon the dissolution of the select committee, this resolution shall not be construed to alter the jurisdiction of any standing committee. SEC. 8. DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.--Upon dissolution of the select committee, the records of the select committee shall become the records of any committee designated by the Speaker.
[Time: 13:45] The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the resolution allows us to move decisively in a bipartisan manner to establish an empowered Department of Homeland Security. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for helping us proceed in a bipartisan manner in dealing with this issue. Mr. Speaker, the President's proposed legislation to create this new Cabinet-level agency represents a call to arms for each of us. It is the battle cry of a Nation determined to preserve its hard-won and fundamental belief that its people have an inherent right to freedom. Today, we take the first important step in answering that call by readying our government to confront a faceless enemy, an enemy attempting to penetrate our borders, threaten our towns and cities and, overall, to rob families and communities of the sense of security that they enjoyed before the attacks of September 11. This is an unprecedented category of war on the home front, and it requires a new approach to securing our Nation. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about protecting American lives, not protecting the turf of those here in the Congress. I take very seriously our institutional responsibility to protect the integrity of the congressional oversight process and the ability of committees to exercise their will on matters within their jurisdiction. This resolution facilitates our ability to fulfill those responsibilities without compromising our ultimate and most critical objective of keeping Americans safe from terrorism. Mr. Speaker, as we know, terrorism is an ever-present enemy. This resolution ensures that we are moving forward with a sense of deliberative urgency, permitting the House to condense the legislative process in a way that will foster a thoughtful and carefully crafted legislative product. In so doing, it establishes a process for considering the President's initiative similar to one that was used a quarter of a century ago by Speaker Tom O'Neill in addressing the energy crisis. The resolution provides a clearinghouse for ideas, an ad hoc body with the expertise to resolve jurisdictional disputes, and the authority to compile a final package. Instead of potentially lengthy struggles on overlapping jurisdictional issues, the select committee will operate as a type of conference committee for all relevant committees of jurisdiction. Every committee is ensured to have a voice in the process. Mr. Speaker, with very few exceptions, regular order will be applied to the select committee, meaning it will have to comply with all rules of the House. The select committee is limited in its scope, authorized only to consider legislation creating a Homeland Security Department, and will dissolve once that duty has been completed. The membership will be a small group comprised of elected leaders from both sides of the aisle. In the President's transmittal message to Congress accompanying the homeland security initiative, he referenced President Truman's previous reorganization of our military forces under the new Department of Defense as an analogy to today's homeland security initiative. What is also somewhat similar is the philosophy laid out earlier by the first Hoover Commission established in 1947 to study the organization of the executive branch and to come up with recommendations for its reorganization. The commission noted in its report on the general management of the executive branch that ``we must reorganize the executive branch to give simplicity and structure, the unity of purpose, and the clear line of executive authority originally intended.'' Mr. Speaker, one of the commission's underlying principles was that policy-making and standards-setting should be centralized by the President, central management agencies and department Secretaries, rather than controlled at the individual agency level where bureau and subdivision fiefdoms had evolved to create a mass of policy and functional confusion. While there was no direct or pending security threat at the time, it is appropriate to compare the philosophy of the Hoover Commission to the motivations of the homeland security initiative. The President notes a number of similar themes in his message: ``Our Nation needs a unified homeland security structure;'' ``transforming the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to secure our homeland;'' the Department ``would have a clear and efficient organizational structure .....'' And finally, ``history also teaches us that critical security challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the unified effort of the U.S. Government.'' Mr. Speaker, it demonstrates that America is the great Nation that it is because we have been able to look inward at the appropriate times and unify to transform to and adapt our government to changed circumstances. We have an opportunity to implement a framework that will produce effective and functional changes to the organization of our Federal Government's national security infrastructure. That is why it is absolutely essential that we work together, both here in the House and with the other body, to proceed as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Speaker, even more important, we must do it the right way, in order to guarantee that our end product is the best solution for addressing our Nation's security needs. Right now, agencies charged with protecting our borders, enforcing our laws and keeping Americans safe are grouped with those responsible for overseeing the Nation's finances and maintaining the Federal highway system. For instance, the Customs Service plays an important role in protecting America's borders, in the air, on land and at sea, and it has its own intelligence component. Yet, it is housed under the Treasury Department where the primary mission is to manage the government's money and promote stable economies both here and abroad. Another well-known example is the overlapping roles of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department when it comes to regulating permanent and temporary immigration to the United States. While the INS has overall responsibility for immigration matters, the State Department is in charge of issuing visas to foreign nationals coming to the United States. The homeland security initiative moves both the INS and the State Department's control [Page: H3695] Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Coast Guard is the principal Federal law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in both U.S. waters and on the high seas. It is also prepared to function as a specialized service within the U.S. Navy, and it has command responsibilities for the U.S. maritime defense zones. Yet it reports to the Secretary of Transportation, whose primary mission is to oversee the formulation of national transportation policy. Without a doubt, securing our homeland is going to require more than the creation of a new agency. Yet there is no question that we must establish an entity that is singly devoted to that purpose, with no distractions and no conflicting objectives. Rather than the multitude of agencies and bureaus that currently hold homeland security authority, the President's plan charges one agency with responsibility for securing our borders, accessing and analyzing intelligence information, working with local and State governments to manage Federal emergency response activities, and developing chemical, biological and radiological and nuclear countermeasures. Mr. Speaker, this presidential initiative represents bipartisanship at its best. As we address the security needs of our homeland, passage of this resolution is a bold and important step toward that end. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of September 11, the people of this Nation have pulled together to meet the first great challenge of the 21st century. Across the globe in Afghanistan, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces prove their courage and skill on the battlefield once again, and here in Washington, Democrats and Republicans put aside partisanship to support the war on terrorism. Still, Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done, especially in the area of homeland security. For months, Democrats and a few Republicans have argued that homeland security must become a Cabinet-level priority. I myself am a cosponsor of a House bill to do just that. So there was bipartisan support for the President's decision a few weeks ago to reverse his prior opposition to a new Department of Homeland Security. By itself, reorganizing the Federal Government will not ensure Americans' safety, but it is an important first step, and the short 35-page bill submitted by the administration yesterday provides a useful starting point, even as it raises a lot of important questions. How will it improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Government's intelligence operations? How will it change the relationship between individual Americans and the Federal agencies, FEMA and the Coast Guard, for instance, that now provide them with crucial services? Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must work through important questions about the nature of the agency itself. We must ensure that Americans' fundamental values, rights and liberties are not sacrificed on the altar of this new governmental structure. That includes the employment rights of the public servants who will work in this department and devote their lives to protecting their fellow citizens. We must honestly address the question of how much it will cost taxpayers to set up and operate this new Federal department. America's national security is not cheap and neither is its homeland security. Just yesterday, for instance, the Republican staff director of the Senate Budget Committee pointed out that additional costs seem likely. Mr. Speaker, the Congress must answer these and other questions to ensure that creating a new Department of Homeland Security accomplishes more than just moving Federal employees around Washington but actually makes Americans safer in this new war against terrorism. That is why it is so important that we follow regular order and draw upon the tremendous experience and expertise in the standing committees of jurisdiction. Many of our Members have literally decades of experience with these matters. Simply put, they know what works and what does not work in the real world. Mr. Speaker, Democratic Leader Gephardt was right to set September 11 of this year as the deadline to create the new Department of Homeland Security. That deadline is less than 3 months from today, but is a full year from the infamous day when terrorists made clear America's new homeland security needs. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, we can meet that goal, but it will require the type of bipartisanship we saw immediately after September 11. Fortunately, the Speaker seems to understand that, and so today the House is taking an initial step down the long road toward the real and substantive cooperation necessary to create an effective Department of Homeland Security. Of course, sticking to the path of bipartisanship will require determination at all stages in the process, in the initial work of the standing committees, as the select committee itself reconciles their approaches, and as the Committee on Rules sends that product to the House floor. Indeed, the end of the process will be as important as the beginning. So I urge the Speaker to commit to bringing the final bill to the House floor under an open rule. That way we can ensure that the will of the entire House is reflected in what we pass. Mr. Speaker, we all understand how absolutely critical it is that partisan politics play no part in our deliberations. This is no time for any political party's agenda. It is time to prove that we are worthy of this monumental task to protect our Nation and its citizens, and to reassure them that their government is part of the solution, not part of the problem. Democrats are eager to get to work reorganizing on this critical task. So I urge the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Time: 14:00] Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Irving, Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, for the purpose of a colloquy. Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and this resolution simply authorizes the Speaker to appoint a Select Committee on Homeland Security consisting of five House Republican Members and four House Democrat Members. The purpose of the select committee, which will have hearing authority and the same markup and reporting authority as standing committees, is to review the various recommendations from the standing committees of jurisdiction and report to the House one comprehensive bill that will create the Department of Homeland Security. This resolution carries an authorization for the select committee to utilize the services and resources of the staff of the House of Representatives and shall cease to exist after final disposition of the bill, including final disposition of any veto message on such a bill. The precedent for such a select committee is clear, and thanks to the bipartisan support I have received from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democrat minority leader, I am confident that we can meet the President's deadline for enactment of this session. With respect to timing, tomorrow I will introduce the bill sent up by the President and that will be referred to the select committee. Standing committees with a legitimate jurisdictional claim will receive an additional referral, with the understanding that they will provide recommendations to the select committee no later than July 12, 2002. Finally, it is the Speaker's goal to schedule this legislation for floor consideration in the House the week of July 21, 2001. At that time, it is the Speaker's intention that he and the Democratic Leader propose to the Committee on Rules a resolution governing the consideration of the select committee's product and jointly recommending that it be adopted. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? [Page: H3696] Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from California. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to join the majority leader in support of this effort. The fight against terrorism is our most urgent national security priority, and the creation of a Department of Homeland Security is a big step in the war against terrorism. However, it will take a great deal of our effort beyond just the formation of this department to protect our Nation. Let me thank the gentleman and the Republican leadership for the bipartisan manner in which this process has developed so far. We believe that bipartisanship should continue throughout this process, during the committee markups, within the select committee that we are creating, and during the floor consideration of our final work product. Many of our Members have developed proposals along these lines. It is our intention to do everything we can to make this department an effective tool in the war against terrorism. It is also imperative that the 170,000 workers who will be affected by this transition continue to receive all of the rights they now enjoy as employees of the Federal Government. Agencies that do a highly-effective job for the American people, such as the Coast Guard and FEMA, must be empowered so that they can continue to do their crucial work and that work beyond homeland security. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a few clarifying questions of the majority leader. First, the rule governing consideration of this legislation will be jointly recommended by the Speaker and the Democratic leader and then brought to the Committee on Rules. The rule will preserve minority rights protected by the House and will be a fair process; is this correct? Mr. ARMEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman; and let me say, yes, and I will restate that it is the Speaker's intention that he and Democrat Leader Gephardt propose to the Committee on Rules a resolution governing the consideration of the select committee's product and jointly recommend that it be adopted. Ms. PELOSI. I thank the majority leader, and if he will continue to yield for a second question: Nothing in this process will restrict the traditional rights of the minority or the rights of the committee in being named as conferees for the final product; is that correct? Mr. ARMEY. Again reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for her question, and I will advise the gentlewoman that under House rules the Speaker will retain all of his prerogatives under this resolution with respect to the naming of conferees. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and once again express my appreciation for the bipartisan cooperation we have had here today. Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the gentlewoman for the spirit of cooperation we have already enjoyed working together on this very important matter before the American people, and I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I may be in a small minority in this House, but I just heard the majority leader say that this was to be done on the recommendations of all the standing committees, with reference to this consolidation, effective by July 12. We are going to adjourn next Friday, presumably, on June 28. We are going to come back on July 9 or 10 from our July 4 break. As I compute it, therefore, that leaves about 9 legislative days to consider the consolidation of agencies which have under their aegis almost $39 billion in expenses and have over 160,000 Federal employees. I have great reservations about what I perceive to be a rush to judgment on this issue. Do I believe we need to organize well to confront those who would undermine our country? I do. Do I believe that reinventing and reassessing the operations of the government on a periodic basis are necessary? I do. Do I believe, however, that in the face of threats, that we ought to do something that we might not otherwise have done? The answer to that is an emphatic no. Now, I may well support this effort, but I think it is a serious effort. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is seated here. He participated in a major effort, not to redeploy one of our largest departments, the Internal Revenue Service, but to reorganize it internally and to make it run better. He and I had some disagreements on that, but ultimately we all supported that effort and he did great work. But he will tell my colleagues that that one department, substantially less than 160,000 people, with no cross-jurisdictions because it was one department, was a complicated effort that needed time to effect. I would hope that everybody in this body would take this responsibility very seriously and give it the time necessary to effect an end that in a year from now or 10 years from now we will be able to look back on and say we did our work well, we did it thoughtfully, we did it carefully, and we did it well. Mr. Speaker, let me also observe that I have great concerns about the general waiver that is accorded to the Secretary of the Department in this legislation with reference to protections of Federal employees incorporated in law, in other words, not rule or regulation, but passed by this Congress, signed by a President of the United States, to ensure that our Federal employees have the kinds of protections and benefits that we believe were necessary not only to recruit and retain those Federal employees but to treat them fairly within our system. The legislation, as I understand it, that has been proposed by the President gives to the Secretary the power to waive those. I do not think that we ought to do that, and I hope that we do not do it. I will be focused on that as we move along in consideration of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this time to express some caution as we approach this weighty and difficult task. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just say very briefly, in response to the gentleman's statement, that I believe in my opening statement I made it very clear that while we want to do this in an expeditious manner, we want to make sure that it is done right. We have certain constraints with which we have to deal if we are going to successfully meet the September 11 goal that was first set forth by the minority leader. And in light of that, the July 12 deadline, then our goal of trying to begin reconciling differences as we head towards the August break are dates that have been put forth. But I do believe that first and foremost, as I said, we must do this correctly. So in that light, I do agree with my colleague. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments because I think we agree on that issue. The important issue will be that we do this right, and to that extent I agree with my friend. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who has long been a hard fighter on behalf of our homeland security and other national security questions. Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 449. Yes, it will permit us to do the job right because we are committed to doing this job well, but it will also permit us to set the task of doing this job expeditiously, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) noted. Why should it be done expeditiously? Because we are at war. Let us not forget what this is all about. Three thousand of our citizens were slaughtered by a hostile foreign enemy. We are at war. Our military is in action in Afghanistan, in the Philippines, and perhaps in the near future in Iraq. Our intelligence agencies have been mobilized. That is what one expects in war. But as in past wars, especially in this new type of war, what the defense of the homeland is about is about winning that war. It is part of the strategy of victory. And to accomplish the security of our homeland and the safety of [Page: H3697] I am personally pleased to see, for example, that the INS will reorient their job toward protecting our borders and protecting the security of the United States of America in dealing with the illegal alien problem. Our homeland is in jeopardy, and a restructuring is absolutely necessary; and we have begun today with this effort to provide the restructuring that will be necessary to legal procedures. George Bush is providing the aggressive leadership on the executive end. We are providing this restructuring on the legislative side, and we are working under the aggressive leadership of our President in this wartime situation. And what is necessary for victory is a unity, not just between the executive and legislative branch, but also between the political parties; and that is what this effort is about today. It is a bipartisan effort. It is a team effort. We are proposing a select committee to expedite the creation of a Homeland Security Department. So let the terrorists of the world know we will pursue them overseas and we will protect our homeland and we will win this war against this evil that threatens our people, our homeland, and the world. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Rules for yielding time. Protecting the American people is our first obligation, and I know that we as Democrats are committed to working with all of our colleagues here in the House to protect our families, our cities, and our way of life from the enemies of freedom. In this work, maybe the most important work of our generation, there are no Democrats, no Republicans, only patriots. Following September 11, I assumed the chairmanship of the Democratic task force on homeland security, which introduced two comprehensive bills that addressed the threat of bioterrorism and future terrorist attacks on our Nation. We successfully united the entire Democratic caucus behind our legislation, and we are proud to see that major provisions of that legislation has in essence been enacted into law. Now as we pursue the select committee and its proposed work along with the committees of jurisdiction, we Democrats have, I believe, certain principles that will seek to guide us. We strongly embrace and support the reform and reorganization of departments and agencies with responsibilities for homeland defense, but we seek a continuing and thorough review of the events and factors that led to the tragic and unfortunate deaths of September 11.
[Time: 14:15] Such reform and reorganization, coupled with a comprehensive threat assessment and strategy to address threats to the American homeland, is the best way to improve the safety and security of the American people. We are glad that the President has come to agree with Democrats that the head of Federal homeland security efforts must have the requisite statutory and budgetary authority to effectively and efficiently protect America from terrorism. But we also believe as we protect and defend our country, we must protect and defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our civil liberties which collectively is the rock upon which we have built our life as a society. We also believe when the hometown is secure, the homeland is secure. So as we consolidate the Federal Government's homeland security functions, we need to ensure that the hometown is secure. The democratic principles of getting more money out of Washington and into our communities for police, fire, emergency management and public health will be a guiding principle as we try to succeed in this reorganization. Finally, the select committee is a continuation of our efforts to address the challenges ahead. Yes, we need to do it expeditiously on behalf of the American people, but we need to do it well. 170,000 employees, $39 billion in the budget, these are very significant items, which is why we seek to have the White House submit an amended budgetary process in order to make sure that we do this in an open and fiscally responsible manner. Those are some of our challenges. They are legitimate public policy issues. These are trying times; but as a united Congress, and with the support of the American people, we can rise to that occasion, we can make our homeland secure, and we can do it in a way in which the American people will be proud. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman.) Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us today. I was delighted to hear the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) talk about some of the principles that the gentleman feels strongly about, that he identified as principles on his side of the aisle. They are principles that I think both sides of the aisle support: Focusing on first responders, focusing on the rights of American citizens, focusing on doing this in an expedited manner, and doing it right. For me, this reminds me a lot of where we were right after September 11 when there was a certain urgency, and in the House and Senate we came together across party lines and did the right thing for the American people. I see that again with regard to this proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security, and I am very supportive of the Speaker's resolution today to create a select committee that helps us get to that process, chaired by the majority leader. I believe the need for this department is very clear. There are over 100 government agencies now responsible for homeland security. In a sense, everyone is in charge; so no one is in charge. One of our tasks is to align authority with responsibility. By doing that, we can ensure some accountability so that someone is in charge and someone is accountable to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect the homeland. It is a complicated and important task. I think again united in a bipartisan way, there is no reason we cannot get it done. As I see the reaction in the House and Senate, and yesterday when the President brought his proposal forward and Tom Ridge presented it, I see that kind of unified response that will help us get this done. I am pleased the Speaker has set up a process that will allow all the authorizing committees to have input into the process. After all, that is where the expertise resides, and it will be those committees that will provide that expertise and put together recommendations as to how to reorganize these departments and agencies. We need to be sure that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security is not oversold. This will not make us immune from terrorism. What it will do is it will maximize our ability to protect our citizens. After all, that is the fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government, to protect our country and citizens. Congress is not generally known for getting things done quickly. There is a joke that it takes us 30 days to make instant coffee around here. But as we have demonstrated after the tragic events of September 11, when we work in a bipartisan fashion to get things done, we can. We are called on today to do that again. This resolution will help us do it. Mr. Speaker, let us roll up our sleeves and get to work to reorganize the Federal Government to best protect our country and our citizens. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 449, a resolution which calls for the establishment of a temporary Select Committee on Homeland Security. The committee will review the recommendations of standing House committees and create a comprehensive bill for House floor consideration. [Page: H3698] This is a goal, Mr. Speaker, that I believe is attainable, but difficult to do. There are an estimated 33 subcommittees that can legitimately claim jurisdiction over the President's proposal to establish a Cabinet-level department. Under H. Res. 449, the select committee wil be composed of only nine members. My concern is that a nine-member select committee is too small to incorporate the expertise that will be required to consolidate the recommendations of the standing committees. These nine members will be required to have expertise in areas as far ranging and diverse as government reform, intelligence, transportation, agriculture, and chemical and biological warfare, just to name a few. This is an awesome task for nine mere mortals. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the President's initiative to create a new department which consolidates national security missions is long overdue. The concept is not a new one. Actually a plethora of legislation, including a proposal which I introduced, H.R. 3078, has been brought forward. My bill would have established the National Office for Combating Terrorism. It includes an initiative to develop policies and goals for the prevention of and response to terrorism and for the consolidation of local, State and Federal programs. I am pleased to see that the administration is incorporating some of our ideas into a comprehensive plan to streamline the workings of the executive branch, and let us have on notice that it took the administration quite some time to come to this view. I share the concerns of the President and the rest of the Nation. We need to consolidate our efforts to ensure that we are prepared for terrorist threats or attacks. However, we must balance this priority with caution and common sense. We must not lull our Nation into a false sense of security by implying that we have fixed a problem that indeed we have not. The threat of another terrorist attack is foremost in our minds, and in our rush to protect ourselves, the President has requested that we complete this legislation as quickly as possible. Including weekends and holidays, September 11, 2002, is 82 days away. Even if we remained in session for our scheduled August recess, I believe that this time frame is hard to achieve. It will take nine members more than a few weeks to design a Department of Homeland Security capable of reducing America's vulnerability to terrorism and preventing future attacks against the United States. Mr. Speaker, I have a word of caution for my esteemed colleagues: If we do not take the time to do it right, we will have to make the time to do it over. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this resolution today. I am one of those who has resisted and been opposed to the legislation that has been filed in this House to this point in time, attempting to create and legislate the Office of Homeland Security. The reason I have resisted is as a member of the intelligence community, and one who has worked closely with Governor Ridge and his staff, I felt like the Governor, who has done a superb job as the Director of Homeland Security, needed to have the flexibility given to him by the executive order coming out of the White House to walk through the minefields and find out where the potholes are in homeland security. And once he has done that, let us come back and craft legislation. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) stated, we can then know we are doing it right. Well, the time has now come to do that. I applaud our President for making a bold decision to create a new Cabinet-level position and to restructure government, to meet this long-term issue of homeland security, and in order to ensure that we win this war on terrorism, it is now necessary that this office be created. This resolution is the first step towards doing it right. I applaud the leadership for their bold initiative to structure this committee the way it is. I think in order to get the job done, that is the way the committee should be structured. Every committee is going to have the ability to exercise their jurisdiction over their particular turf. Again, that is the way it should be done to do it right. This is the right way to do it. I support this legislation, and I urge its adoption today. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) particularly for the gentleman's wisdom in the immediate hours after September 11, to help organize for the Democratic caucus the Homeland Security Task Force. Many Members gathered within 24 hours outside of the Capitol to be able to discuss the immediacy of responding to the crisis and the tragedy of September 11. I would also like to add my appreciation for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) who served as the chair of that task force, as I served as the vice chair on one of the law enforcement subcommittees. This was an effort to recognize the importance of congressional oversight and involvement in addressing these questions. So it is without a doubt that I support the Department of Homeland Security that has been offered by the President in his legislative initiative presented to this Congress just yesterday. As I begin to review it, I believe it is a very effective first look at how that department will be created. But, Mr. Speaker, I am a believer in the tenets of the Founding Fathers and the basis of the People's House. The design of this House of Representatives is that to be reflective of the people of the United States of America. They want us to be responsible for the decisions made to govern this Nation. Our Constitution clearly designates three branches of government: Judiciary, executive and legislative. I believe the House of Representatives has an imperative duty in accordance with the words of Madison and the rest of our Founding Fathers to do our job. That means that those who represent the people of the United States should be engaged in the oversight and the design of this department. It is very clear that there are a number of committees who have jurisdiction, and I would offer to say in light of the backdrop of the tragedy, not one of us is claiming turf. There is no argument of turf. There is a question of jurisdiction and oversight. My concern about this particular legislative direction is a select committee of nine individuals who will not have the encompassing experience to address the totality of the issue. I believe it is important for the committees of jurisdiction to be able to do their job, and let me give an example. The Committee on the Judiciary shortly after September 11 was called to the task to pass the Patriot Act. And although it may have changed on the floor of the House, we did it expeditiously and with consensus. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that legislative initiative, it is now in place.
[Time: 14:30] We were then called to do the restructuring of the INS, now named the Barbara Jordan Immigration and Naturalization Reform Act. That was done expeditiously and voted on the floor of this House by a vote of 405-9. It disturbs me that we have legislation now that precludes the input, if you will, in a more effective manner from the members of the committees of jurisdiction. Not that there is not some value to the culling of the work to be done by the House in a select committee. I worked for a select committee, the Select Committee on Assassinations that investigated the assassinations of President Kennedy and as well Martin Luther King. Select committees can be effective. Mickey Leland, my predecessor, encouraged the Select Committee on Hunger. But this is too important an issue to narrowly focus the decision-making around a body of just nine. I would ask my colleagues to consider the expertise needed in this particular legislative initiative. I would [Page: H3699] Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very important proposal before us today, and it is in fact a bipartisan proposal; and I think it speaks well of this institution that we can work on a bipartisan basis on something this important. I also am pleased that the leadership on both sides has now agreed that once the select committee has acted that the matter then will be brought to the Rules Committee and that the Rules Committee will then handle this in the normal way, adopting a rule for consideration on the floor. I would hope that when we do that, that we would adopt an open rule so that the key issues can be joined on the floor. This is a very important decision that we will be making. There are many people in the House who have some very good ideas. I hope they will be given the opportunity to offer those on the floor during consideration of this important piece of legislation. I would point out to the House that in the late 1970s when the Department of Education was created, that was considered on this floor under an open rule procedure. Everyone had the opportunity to offer their ideas, votes were held and we ultimately adopted the legislation creating the new department. Certainly that is an appropriate model for the decisions that we will be making later this year. I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, on September 11 this Nation and the world faced one of the most extraordinary challenges in our Nation's history. It was a tragedy that caused tremendous loss of life and suffering all over the world. People from 80 nations were in the World Trade Center when we saw the attack that took place. In the days and weeks and months that have followed September 11, it has been very gratifying to see a silver lining in that dark cloud of September 11. That silver lining has been the sense of solidarity among the American people, and that has been represented very well here in the United States Congress, the greatest deliberative body known to man. We saw President Bush act swiftly following September 11 by asking our former colleague, Governor Tom Ridge, to lead the effort to deal with homeland security. We have now taken that next step to begin today to put into place an effort which will establish a Department of Homeland Security. As the President has said, it is not designed to expand the reaches of the Federal Government. Instead it is designed to take these multifarious agencies which fall under the rubric of a wide range of entities and bring them together, consolidate them, so that in fact there will be a level of accountability, accountability so that in fact our homeland security will be more effectively addressed. In 1854, Henry David Thoreau said, ``For a thousand hackings at the branches of evil, it is worth nothing to one strike at the root.'' Mr. Speaker, we have seen our great President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, our national security adviser, the Secretary of State and others focus on that root of evil, the al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations around the world. What we are doing here with the Department of Homeland Security is we are focusing on these branches that still need to be addressed because we are working diligently to get at the root, but at the same time we still face a threat here in the United States. I believe that the vote which we are going to take momentarily will be the first step towards dealing with this very important issue of establishing a Federal Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and the leadership for working quickly to address the legislative requirements needed to begin the process to take up legislation regarding the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security. I praise the White House for its swift delivery of the proposed legislation and now it is the House of Representative's turn to move forward on this monumental proposal by drafting and overseeing the legislation that will make this all a reality. I am pleased that the leadership has made the needed provisions to take up the President's proposal in a way that will lessen the prospect of jurisdictional gridlock and perhaps the untimely implementation of the new Department of Homeland Security. H. Res. 449 will allow for a temporary House Select Committee on Homeland Security to receive and review individual recommendations of current House standing committees to create a new Department of Homeland Security, and for consolidating these proposals into a comprehensive bill for House consideration. This is a great first step, and I look forward to working with the leadership and the White House to move the legislation through Congress and to implement the President's historic proposal. However, we must unite to ultimately form a permanent standing committee in Congress with an adjoining appropriations subcommittee to oversee our domestic security. This is a permanent Department and we need a permanent committee to oversee it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. END 5C) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Top]
Copyright © 2002 Monterey Institute of International Studies. All rights reserved.
Center for Nonproliferation Studies
460 Pierce Street, Monterey, CA 93940, USA
Telephone: +1 (831) 647-4154; Fax: +1 (831) 647-3519
E-mail: cns@miis.edu;
Web: http://cns.miis.edu