Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Excerpted Language from H.R. 2800 Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations

On Thursday, October 30, 2003, the Senate passed H.R. 2800, as follows:

   H.R. 2800

    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2800) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

   That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:

********************

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States is authorized to make such expenditures within the limits of funds and borrowing authority available to such corporation, and in accordance with law, and to make such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations, as provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control Act, as may be necessary in carrying out the program for the current fiscal year for such corporation: Provided, That none of the funds available during the current fiscal year may be used to make expenditures, contracts, or commitments for the export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology to any country, other than a nuclear-weapon state as defined in Article IX of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons eligible to receive economic or military assistance under this Act, that has detonated a nuclear explosive after the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 1(c) of Public Law 103-428, as amended, sections 1(a) and (b) of Public Law 103-428 shall remain in effect through October 1, 2004.

********************

   ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES

    (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $445,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005, which shall be available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for assistance and for related programs for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading that are made available for assistance for Bulgaria, $3,000,000 should be made available to enhance safety at nuclear power plants: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, and under the headings ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' and ``Economic Support Fund'', not less than $50,000,000 shall be made available for programs for the prevention, treatment, and control of, and research on, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

********************

ASSISTANCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

    (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of chapters 11 and 12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the Independent States of the former Soviet Union and for related programs, $596,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the provisions of such chapters shall apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph: Provided further, That of the funds made available for the Southern Caucasus region, notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds may be used for confidence-building measures and other activities in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of the regional conflicts, especially those in the vicinity of Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabagh: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, $20,000,000 shall be made available solely for assistance for the Russian Far East: Provided further, That $5,000,000 shall be made available to promote freedom of the media and an independent media in Russia: Provided further, That not less than $3,000,000 shall be made available for programs and activities authorized under section 307 of the FREEDOM Support Act (Public Law 102-511): Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, $500,000 shall be made available to support democracy building programs in Russia through the Sakharov Archives: Provided further, That, notwithstanding

[Page: S13811]

any other provision of law, funds appropriated under this heading in this Act or prior Acts making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs, that are made available pursuant to the provisions of section 807 of Public Law 102-511 shall be subject to a 6 percent ceiling on administrative expenses.

    (b) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that are made available for assistance for Ukraine, not less than $20,000,000 shall be made available for nuclear reactor safety initiatives, of which $14,000,000 should be for simulator-related projects; and not less than $2,000,000 shall be made available for coal mine safety programs.

    (c) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, $75,000,000 should be made available for assistance for Georgia.

    (d) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $75,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for Armenia.

    (e)(1) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that are allocated for assistance for the Government of the Russian Federation, 60 percent shall be withheld from obligation until the President determines and certifies in writing to the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of the Russian Federation:

    (A) has terminated implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to develop a nuclear reactor, related nuclear research facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability; and

    (B) is providing full access to international non-government organizations providing humanitarian relief to refugees and internally displaced persons in Chechnya.

    (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

    (A) assistance to combat infectious diseases, child survival activities, or assistance for victims of trafficking in persons; and

    (B) activities authorized under title V (Nonproliferation and Disarmament Programs and Activities) of the FREEDOM Support Act.

    (f) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply to--

    (1) activities to support democracy or assistance under title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public Law 104-201 or non-proliferation assistance;

    (2) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421);

    (3) any activity carried out by a member of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his or her official capacity;

    (4) any insurance, reinsurance, guarantee or other assistance provided by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.);

    (5) any financing provided under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945; or

    (6) humanitarian assistance.

********************

NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS

    For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs and activities, $385,200,000, to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance, chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 504 of the FREEDOM Support Act, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for demining activities, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, the destruction of small arms, and related activities, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including activities implemented through nongovernmental and international organizations, and section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and for a United States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided, That of this amount not to exceed $35,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be made available for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such funds may also be used for such countries other than the Independent States of the former Soviet Union and international organizations when it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for the International Atomic Energy Agency only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports to the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to participate in the activities of that Agency: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, $19,300,000 shall be made available for a United States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided further, That notwithstanding the previous proviso, funds earmarked in the previous proviso that are not made available during fiscal year 2004 for a contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission and that are not necessary to make the United States contribution to the Commission in the amount assessed for fiscal year 2004 shall be made available for a voluntary contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency and shall remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided further, That of the funds made available for demining and related activities, not to exceed $690,000, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, may be used for administrative expenses related to the operation and management of the demining program: Provided further, That the Secretary of State is authorized to provide not to exceed $250,000 for public-private partnerships for mine action by grant, cooperative agreement, or contract.

********************

FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM

   (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act, $4,384,000,000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $2,160,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel, and not less than $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only for Egypt: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed by Israel and the United States, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $568,000,000 shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services, including research and development: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, $206,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for Jordan: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, $27,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for Poland: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, $2,500,000 shall be made available for assistance for Armenia: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, $15,000,000 shall be transferred to and merged with funds appropriated under the heading ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'', and made available, in addition to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, as follows: $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be made available to carry out the provisions of section 504 of the FREEDOM Support

[Page: S13816]

Act for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation and disarmament; $2,000,000 shall be made available to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction program; and $3,000,000 shall be made available as an additional contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, not less than $17,000,000 shall be transferred to and merged with funds appropriated under the heading ``Andean Counterdrug Initiative'' and made available for aircraft and related assistance for the Colombian National Police: Provided further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph shall be nonrepayable notwithstanding any requirement in section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That funds made available under this paragraph shall be obligated upon apportionment in accordance with paragraph (5)(C) of title 31, United States Code, section 1501(a).

    None of the funds made available under this heading shall be available to finance the procurement of defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services that are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the United States Government specifying the conditions under which such procurements may be financed with such funds: Provided, That all country and funding level increases in allocations shall be submitted through the regular notification procedures of section 615 of this Act: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for assistance for Sudan, Guatemala and Liberia: Provided further, That funds made available under this heading may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for demining, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related activities, and may include activities implemented through nongovernmental and international organizations: Provided further, That the authority contained in the previous proviso or any other provision of law relating to the use of funds for programs under this heading, including provisions contained in previously enacted appropriations Acts, shall not apply to activities relating to the clearance of unexploded ordnance resulting from United States Armed Forces testing or training exercises: Provided further, That the previous proviso shall not apply to San Jose Island, Republic of Panama: Provided further, That only those countries for which assistance was justified for the ``Foreign Military Sales Financing Program'' in the fiscal year 1989 congressional presentation for security assistance programs may utilize funds made available under this heading for procurement of defense articles, defense services or design and construction services that are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for defense articles and services: Provided further, That not more than $40,500,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated for necessary expenses, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only for use outside of the United States, for the general costs of administering military assistance and sales: Provided further, That not more than $361,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to section 21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be obligated for expenses incurred by the Department of Defense during fiscal year 2004 pursuant to section 43(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, except that this limitation may be exceeded only through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That foreign military financing program funds estimated to be outlayed for Egypt during fiscal year 2004 shall be transferred to an interest bearing account for Egypt in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York within 30 days of enactment of this Act.

********************

 PROHIBITION ON FINANCING NUCLEAR GOODS

    SEC. 606. None of the funds appropriated or made available (other than funds for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'') pursuant to this Act, for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used, except for purposes of nuclear safety, to finance the export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology.

********************

INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

    SEC. 617. (a) None of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall be made available for assistance for a government of an Independent State of the former Soviet Union--

    (1) unless that government is making progress in implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market principles, private ownership, respect for commercial contracts, and equitable treatment of foreign private investment; and

    (2) if that government applies or transfers United States assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or ventures.

   Assistance may be furnished without regard to this subsection if the President determines that to do so is in the national interest.

    (b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall be made available for assistance for a government of an Independent State of the former Soviet Union if that government directs any action in violation of the territorial integrity or national sovereignty of any other Independent State of the former Soviet Union, such as those violations included in the Helsinki Final Act: Provided, That such funds may be made available without regard to the restriction in this subsection if the President determines that to do so is in the national security interest of the United States.

    (c) None of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall be made available for any state to enhance its military capability: Provided, That this restriction does not apply to demilitarization, demining or nonproliferation programs.

    (d) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' for the Russian Federation, Armenia, Georgia, and Ukraine shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

    (e) Funds made available in this Act for assistance for the Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

    (f) Funds appropriated in this or prior appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for an Enterprise Fund in the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union may be deposited by such Fund in interest-bearing accounts prior to the disbursement of such funds by the Fund for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects and activities.

    (g) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, or making grants, with funds appropriated in this Act or prior appropriations Acts under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' and under comparable headings in prior appropriations Acts, for projects or activities that have as one of their primary purposes the fostering of private sector development, the Coordinator for United States Assistance to the New Independent States and the implementing agency shall encourage the participation of and give significant weight to contractors and grantees who propose investing a significant amount of their own resources (including volunteer services and in-kind contributions) in such projects and activities.

1B) Low-Yield Nukes - Excerpted Floor Debate on H.R. 1588 Conference Report

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, with a defense budget of $400 billion and an enormous range of issues, it is not easy to bring a conference to closure, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), as well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for what they have achieved.

   I rise in support of H.R. 1588, the conference report thereon, but I have some real concerns. First of all, I have already spoken to the failure of the underlying bill to accrue properly the budget authority that will be necessary to implement the compromise on concurrent receipt or the provisions for lease purchase of 100 tankers. I am concerned about the radical reform of civil service laws in the Department of Defense and the dispensation this bill gives to the Department of Defense from environmental laws that apply to everybody else. Also, I am concerned about the new and cumbersome strictures on cooperative threat reduction.

   I am particularly disappointed in the provisions of this report that deal with low-level nuclear weapons. I believe the conferees should have stuck with the bipartisan compromise reached by the Committee on Armed Services and set forth in the defense bill that we passed last May. That compromise was sound enough that in July of this year when I offered a motion to instruct, those provisions were accepted and upheld by the House without dissent.

   The administration began this year by stepping up its push for repeal on a ban of low-level nuclear weapons research and development, a ban which has been in the law for 10 years. There was little opposition here to broadening research into low-yield nuclear weapons, but there was bipartisan concern about going so far as engineering development. And so both the House and Senate authorization bills proposed changes to allow research into

[Page: H10996]

low-yield nuclear weapons, but restricted any move into engineering development.

   The Senate, on the other hand, repealed the so-called Spratt-Furse amendment entirely, but then backfilled the cavity with caveats barring testing or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. They also added language requiring specific congressional authorization to move into development of any advanced nuclear concept project. These are the provisions included in the conference report.

   By contrast, the House version amended existing law rather than repealing it. We explicitly authorized research, but we maintained a bar on development beyond detailed feasibility studies, the so-called 6.2a level of research and development.

   Our compromise may have similar in consequences to the Senate approach, but I think it was superior in form because it makes clear that it is the policy of the United States not to develop low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. The House compromise, thus, gives stronger assurance that Congress will be an equal partner if that policy is reversed, if that decision is taken, and if there is a move to go beyond research.

   When we adopted the Spratt-Furse amendment in the early 1990s, it came in the wake of an issue taken by the first President Bush whereby we withdrew a number of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the Soviets responded in kind. This was a step back and a step forward for nuclear security throughout the world. This initiative helped us later on to persuade Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to forswear nuclear weapons.

   If today the United States should move toward renewed development of nuclear weapons, especially weapons designed to be more usable due to their low-yield warheads, it sends the wrong signal.

   Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because it does many things I support, particularly for the quality of life for our troops, and also because I trust that the effect of the language in the report will be enough to forestall development of mini-nukes. I recommend support for the bill.

********************

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of the military and I'm well aware of the unconventional war we face against terrorists. However, I continue to oppose the nuclear weapons related provisions in this year's defense authorization bill.

   No one is arguing about the need to find new technologies with which our nation can combat deeply buried targets, particularly those held by terrorists. At issue is whether Congress needs to resort to repealing the Spratt-Furse prohibition on nuclear weapons development and encouraging the production of new weapons.

   There is a disconnect in the federal government between weapons development and the realistic application of nuclear weapons. Advocates of new nuclear weapons see them as just another tool in the War on Terror, without realizing nuclear weapons work best as a deterrent, not as first-use weapons.

   Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and new nuclear weapons, argue that the current authorization language is strictly limited to weapons research and development in Department of Energy labs. This claim ignores the obvious end result of weapons development--weapons design does not occur in a vacuum. In order for our soldiers to use nuclear weapons in combat, these weapons must first be physically tested, most likely at the Nevada Test Site. The federal government's poor record on weapons testing and containment of fallout is lengthy and disappointing, at best.

   Like many Utahns, I come from a family of downwinders. My father, as well as other loved ones, developed terminal cancer after he was exposed to radiation from Cold War nuclear weapons tests conducted by the federal government. I do not believe that we should even consider a resumption of nuclear weapons testing when rational alternatives have not been fully explored.

   I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen consequences of weapons testing. Advances in containment technology are certainly possible, however, the current circumstances do not lend themselves to a resumption of nuclear weapons testing and I will do everything in my power to avoid that end result.

1C) H.R. 2754 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Conference Report

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

   National Nuclear Security Administration

   Weapons Activities

    For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion; one fixed wing aircraft for replacement only; and the purchase of not to exceed six passenger motor vehicles, of which four shall be for replacement only, including not to exceed two buses; $6,272,511,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That $87,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated for Project 01-D-108, Microsystems and engineering sciences applications (MESA), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico: Provided further, That $3,564,000 is authorized to be appropriated for Project 04-D-103, Project engineering and design (PED), various locations: Provided further, That a plant or construction project for which amounts are made available under this heading in this fiscal year with a current estimated cost of less than $10,000,000 is considered for purposes of section 3622 of Public Law 107-314 as a plant project for which the approved total estimated cost does not exceed the minor construction threshold and for purposes of section 3623 of Public Law 107-314 as a construction project with a current estimated cost of less than the minor construction threshold.

   Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

    For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy defense, defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,327,612,000, to remain available until expended.

   Naval Reactors

    For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, facilities, and facility expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed one bus; $766,400,000, to remain available until expended.

   Office of the Administrator

    For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed $12,000), $339,980,000, to remain available until expended.

********************

SEC. 313. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this title under the heading ``ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES'' may be obligated or expended for additional and exploratory studies under the Advanced Concepts Initiative until 30 days after the date on which the Administrator for Nuclear Security submits to Congress a detailed report on the planned activities for additional and exploratory studies under the initiative for fiscal year 2004. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex..

********************

SAFETY AT DOE FACILITIES

   The conferees concur with the House language requiring an annual report on the backlog of safety deficiencies at National Nuclear Security Administration and defense cleanup sites and the estimated cost and schedule for corrective actions.

********************

Transfer from Other Defense Activities.--The conferees believe that defense-related programs should fund a proportional share of total Departmental Administration costs. By the conferees' calculation, the Department's defense-related activities account for 70.3 percent of the Department's total budget request for fiscal year 2004. Subtracting out the costs for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which has largely established its own corporate functions analogous to Departmental Administration functions, the remaining defense-related costs account for 32.7 percent of the Department's total budget. For the gross Departmental Administration request of $351,306,000 in fiscal year 2004, the minimum defense contribution should have been $114,877,000. Using some other system of mathematics, the Department requested only $25,000,000 as the defense share of Departmental Administration. The conferees consider this an inadequate share of Departmental Administration costs, and provide instead $86,679,000, the same contribution from Other Defense Activities as provided in fiscal year 2003. The conferees direct the Department to submit a budget request for fiscal year 2005 that reflects a proportional contribution from Other Defense Activities for these Departmental Administration costs.

********************

National Nuclear Security Administration

   The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy, manages the Nation's nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, and naval reactors activities.

   Availability of funds.--The conference agreement makes funds appropriated to the NNSA available until expended as proposed by the Senate.

   Stockpile Plan.--The conferees direct the Secretary of Energy in conjunction with the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Appropriations and Armed Services Committees of Congress providing a revised Nuclear Weapons Stockpile plan that supports the President's revised Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum. The revised Nuclear Weapons Stockpile plan should detail the Department of Defense and Department of Energy's program plan and detailed schedule to achieve the President's proposed inventory adjustments to the Total Strategic Stockpile, reducing the Operationally Deployed weapons to 1,700-2,200 by 2012, as well as the inventory adjustments to the other categories of the nuclear stockpile (i.e., Strategic Active and Inactive Stockpile) by weapon systems and warhead type. The conference agreement restricts a portion of the funds provided for Advanced Concepts research on nuclear weapons pending congressional review of the Nuclear Stockpile report. This report is due to the Appropriations and Armed Services Committees concurrent with the submission of the fiscal year 2005 budget request.

   Weapons Activities

   The conference agreement provides $6,272,511,000 for Weapons Activities instead of $6,117,609,000 as proposed by the House and $6,473,814,000 as proposed by the Senate.

   Reprogramming.--The conference agreement provides limited reprogramming authority within the Weapons Activities account without submission of a reprogramming to be approved in advance by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The reprogramming thresholds will be as follows: directed stockpile work, science campaigns, engineering campaigns, inertial confinement fusion, advanced simulation and computing, pit manufacturing and certification, readiness campaigns, and operating expenses for readiness in technical base and facilities. This should provide the needed flexibility to manage these programs.

   In addition, funding of not more than $5,000,000 may be transferred between each of these categories and each construction project subject to the following limitations: only one transfer may be made to or from any program or project; the transfer must be necessary to address a risk to health, safety or the environment or to assure the most efficient use of weapons activities funds at a site; and funds may not be used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied funds or for a new program or project that has not been authorized by Congress.

   Congressional notification within 15 days of the use of this reprogramming authority is required. Transfers during the fiscal year which would result in increases or decreases in excess of $5,000,000 or which would be subject to the limitations outlined in the previous paragraph require prior notification and approval from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Failure to notify the Committees within the 15-day period will result in denial of the reprogramming.

   W80 life extension project.--The conferees have had a special interest in the W80 warhead stockpile life extension project (W80 LEP) and have consistently asked for unambiguous answers from the NNSA and the Air Force justifying the significant budget increases and the aggressive schedule for the W80 LEP. In fiscal year 2000, the Nuclear Weapons Council agreed to a W80 LEP schedule assuming a W80 LEP First Production Unit (FPU) in fiscal year 2006. Based on information provided by the Department of Energy submitted subsequent to the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the conferees understand that both the NNSA and the Department of Defense have agreed to a revised W80 LEP baseline delaying the FPU requirement until 4th quarter fiscal year 2007. Because the fiscal year 2006 FPU baseline milestone resulted in a very aggressive W80 LEP program, the conferees reduced the significant budget request for the W80 LEP in fiscal year 2004.

   Directed stockpile work.--The conference agreement includes $1,340,286,000 for directed stockpile work instead of $1,343,786,000 as proposed by the House and $1,367,786,000 as proposed by the Senate.

   The conference agreement provides $412,650,000 for stockpile research and development, a reduction of $20,500,000 from the budget request. The budget adjustments in stockpile R&D include a reduction of $13,000,000 from the budget request consistent with the W80 rebaselining reductions and a $7,500,000 reduction in the robust nuclear earth penetrator study budget request.

   Advanced Concepts.--The conferees provide $6,000,000 for Advanced Concepts, as proposed by the Senate, of which $4,000,000 is available for obligation only after the official delivery of a revised Nuclear Weapons Stockpile plan to Congress and a 90-day review period by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services. The revised Nuclear Weapons Stockpile plan should detail the Department of Defense and Department of Energy's program plan and detailed schedule to achieve the President's proposed inventory adjustments to the Total Strategic Stockpile, including the Strategic Active Stockpile and Inactive Stockpile, by weapon systems and warhead type.

   Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.--The conferees provide $7,500,000 for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, instead of $5,000,000 as proposed by the House and $15,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conferees remind the Administration that none of the funds provided may be made used for activities at the engineering development phases, phase 3 or 6.3, or beyond, in support of advanced nuclear weapons concepts, including the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

   The conference agreement provides $409,746,000 for stockpile maintenance, an increase of $4,000,000 from the budget request. Within the funds available for stockpile maintenance the conference agreement provides a $10,000,000 increase for activities at the Y-12 plant in Tennessee to complete closeout W87 LEP activities in fiscal year 2004. The conference agreement includes a $6,000,000 reduction in W80 stockpile maintenance activities consistent with the W80 rebaselining. The conference agreement provides $201,885,000 for stockpile evaluation, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request consistent with the W80 rebaselining reductions. In the dismantlement/disposal program the conferees have provided $37,722,000, the same as the budget request. In the production support program, the conferees have provided $271,113,000, a reduction of $7,000,000 from the budget request. In field engineering, training and manuals program, the conferees have provided $7,170,000, the same as the budget request.

   Campaigns.--Funding for individual campaigns is shown on the accompanying table. The conferees agree with the House language requesting detailed project baseline data for each campaign showing the total, annual, and five-year costs, schedule, scope, and deliverables for individual project activities as part of the annual budget request.

   From within funds provided for the various campaigns, $4,300,000 is provided for the University Research Program in Robotics.

   For science campaigns, the conference agreement provides $250,548,000, a reduction of $19,000,000 from the budget request. The conference agreement provides $57,849,000 for primary certification, a reduction of $8,000,000 from the budget request. In the dynamic materials properties program, the conferees have provided $82,251,000 the same as the budget request. Using $5,000,000 within the funds provided for dynamic materials properties, the NNSA is directed to make full use of existing and developing capabilities for materials properties studies, including the subcritical experiments at the U1a facility, Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility and the Atlas facility at the Nevada Test Site. In the advanced radiography program, the conferees have provided $55,985,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. In the secondary certification and nuclear systems margins program, the conferees have provided $54,463,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request.

   For engineering campaigns, the conference agreement provides $344,387,000, an increase of $13,200,000 over the budget request. Enhanced surety is funded at $32,974,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 from the request, consistent with the W80 rebaselining reductions. In the weapons system engineering certification program, the conferees have provided $27,238,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request. In the nuclear survivability program, the conferees have provided $22,977,000, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request. In the enhanced surveillance program, the conferees have provided $91,781,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget request. In the advanced design and production technologies program, the conferees have provided $77,917,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 from the budget request.

   Engineering campaign construction projects.--The conference agreement provides $87,000,000, an increase of $25,200,000 over the budget request, for Project 01-D-108, Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA) at Sandia, in New Mexico.

   Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High Yield.--The conferees include $517,269,000 for the inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield program, an increase of $50,500,000 over the budget request.

   National Ignition Facility.--Within the funds provided, $150,000,000 is for National Ignition Facility (NIF) construction, Project 96-D-111, and $367,269,000 is for the ICF ignition and high yield program. Within the funds provided for the NIF program, the conferees direct the Department to fund a public-private research and development activity focused on damage resistant gratings at not less than $1,000,000.

   The conferees note that NIF construction funds and NIF program funds have been provided consistent with the Administration's request, but are concerned that these budget figures are not consistent with the revised NIF baseline due to the Department's decision to fund a variety of NIF-related projects and programs within the overall NIF program. While the conferees are supportive of these activities and believe them necessary to achieve the goal of ignition, they strongly recommend that the Department submit future budgets that fund these activities as one or more separate line items.

[Page: H11099]

   Inertial Fusion Technology.--The conferees also include $25,000,000 to continue development of high average power lasers and supporting science and technology, the budget request of $10,467,000 for the Naval Research Laboratory, and $63,132,000 for the University of Rochester, an increase of $20,000,000 over the budget request. The additional funding is provided to the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics for the OMEGA Extended Performance (EP) Facility in support of the Nation's stockpile stewardship program. The conferees expect additional funding requirements to complete Omega EP construction will be included by the Department in future budget requests. Additionally, the conferees provide funding of $4,000,000 to initiate assessments and initial development and testing of Z-Pinch inertial fusion energy.

   Petawatt Lasers.--The conferees also include an additional $4,500,000 for university grants and other support. Within this amount, $2,500,000 is provided for the continued development of an ultra short-pulse petawatt laser at the University of Texas; and $2,000,000 is provided to continue short-pulse laser development and research at the University of Nevada-Reno.

   The conferees agree with the Senate position that high intensity laser physics enables major new areas of science and engineering endeavor in the United States and that advances in this field will enable important progress in critical aspects of basic science, fusion energy, and national security. A robust, coordinated program in high intensity lasers will affordably maintain U.S. leadership in this critically important area. Accordingly, the conferees direct the Department to pursue a joint high intensity laser program with the National Science Foundation. The conferees further direct the NNSA and the Department's Office of Science to develop, in collaboration with the NSF, a report that identifies the benefits and disadvantages of multi-agency coordinated research in high intensity laser science and delineates how a joint program in this area will be structured. This report shall be delivered to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than April 15, 2004.

   For advanced simulation and computing, the conference agreement provides $725,626,000, as proposed by the Senate. From within available funds for advanced simulation and computing, $6,000,000 is provided for the development of a data-intensive computing center to be operated by the Ohio Supercomputing Center at its Springfield, Ohio site; $3,000,000 is provided to demonstrate three-dimensional chip scale packaging integrated with spray cooling. The conferees direct the University Partnerships program be funded at the budget request.

   For the pit manufacturing and certification campaign, the conference agreement provides $298,528,000 a reduction of $21,700,000 from the budget request. The conference agreement provides $126,773,000 for W88 pit manufacturing and $108,592,000 for W88 pit certification, the same as the budget request. Providing the requested level of funding will ensure that the NNSA maintains its commitment to produce a certified W88 pit by 2007. The conference agreement provides $10,000,000 for Pit Manufacturing Capability instead of $4,700,000 as proposed by the House and $19,700,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement provides $10,810,000 for the Modern Pit Facility, a reduction of $12,000,000 from the request. The conferees agree with the House Report that until the Congress reviews the revised future Stockpile plan it is premature to pursue further decisions regarding the Modern Pit Facility.

   For readiness campaigns, the conference agreement provides $247,097,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. Funding for the Stockpile readiness campaign includes $55,158,000, the same as the budget request. High explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly/disassembly readiness is funded at $23,649,000, instead of $19,649,000 as proposed by the House and $27,649,000 as proposed by the Senate. The $6,000,000 reduction to the budget request for this program slows the significant program growth from the previous year. The conference agreement provides $33,397,000 for Non-nuclear readiness, a reduction of $4,000,000 as proposed by the House, consistent with the W80 rebaselining reductions. Funding for the tritium readiness campaign includes $134,893,000, the same as the budget request.

   Readiness in technical base and facilities.--For readiness in technical base and facilities, the conference agreement provides $1,027,773,000 for operations of facilities, an increase of $55,000,000 over the budget request, and includes several funding adjustments.

   Within funds provided for operations of facilities, the conferees direct that, at a minimum, an additional $5,000,000 be provided for the Pantex Plant in Texas and an additional $5,000,000 be provided for the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; an additional $5,000,000 for the Kansas City Plant to address pension liability issues; and an additional $10,000,000 for Los Alamos National Laboratory. The conference agreement provides an additional $5,000,000 to support operation of facilities at the Nevada Test Site, (NTS) including the Device Assembly Facility, the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility, operations associated with the Atlas relocation project, U1a operations, general plant projects and other NTS support facilities. An additional $25,000,000 is provided for continued facility upgrades, refurbishments, operations and maintenance costs associated with and for the National Center for Combating Terrorism (NCCT). Within the funds available for the NCCT, not less than $5,000,000 is provided jointly to the Institute for Security Studies at UNLV and the Consortium of Terrorism Studies and Fire Science at the University of Nevada, Reno. The conference agreement includes an additional $5,000,000 for modifications of the Z-beamlet laser to the Z machine operations at Sandia. Within available funds, the conference agreement includes $3,000,000 for technology transfer activities as proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement provides $500,000 within available funds for the NNSA to utilize the capabilities of its national laboratories for a joint effort with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on sensor technologies and applications as proposed by the Senate.

   For program readiness, the conference agreement provides $131,093,000 the same as the budget request.

   Test Readiness.--Within funds provided for program readiness activities the conference agreement provides $24,891,000 for test readiness in Nevada, the same as the budget request. The conferees recognize that test readiness activities in Nevada were allowed to atrophy during the last decade under the current nuclear test moratorium as documented by the DOE Inspector General and the NNSA's internal assessments. However, the conferees expect the NNSA to focus on restoring a rigorous test readiness program that is capable of meeting the current 24-month requirement before requesting significant additional funds to pursue a more aggressive goal of an 18-month readiness posture. The conferees expect the House and Senate Appropriations Committees be kept informed on the progress of restoring the current test readiness program. The conferees remind the Administration that Congressional authorization must be obtained before proceeding with specific activities that support the resumption of testing.

   For special projects, the conference agreement provides $51,675,000, an increase of $8,700,000 over the budget request. Within funds provided for special projects, the conference agreement includes $6,900,000 for the New Mexico Education Enrichment Foundation; $1,000,000 for the preservation of Manhattan Project historical sites; $500,000 for the Atomic Testing History Institute; $1,000,000 for the UNLV Research Foundation; $2,000,000 for stockpile stewardship research at the Nevada terarwatt facility at the University of Nevada-Reno; $3,000,000 is provided for Total Asset Management Suite (TAMS) technology to be applied to a defense lab or site; $3,000,000 is provided for a defense and security research center; and the budget request for the Los Alamos County Schools.

   The conference agreement includes $76,189,000 for materials recycle and recovery, the same as the budget request.

   The conference agreement includes the budget request of $16,006,000 for containers, $11,365,000 for storage, and $89,694,000 for nuclear weapons incident response.

   Construction projects.--For construction projects in RTBF, the conference agreement includes $260,440,000, a $12,936,000 reduction from the budget request. The conferees included the following adjustments to reflect the latest program planning assumption. The conference agreement provides $10,000,000 for Project 04-D-125, Chemistry and Metallurgy Facility Replacement (CMR-R) at Los Alamos in New Mexico, a reduction of $10,500,000 from the budget request; $11,300,000 for Project 03-D-121, Gas Transfer Capacity Expansion, at Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, a reduction of $4,000,000 from the budget request; $3,564,000 for Project 04-D-103, Project Engineering and Design (PED), various locations, an increase of $1,564,000 from the budget request.

   Facilities and infrastructure recapitalization.--The conference agreement includes $240,123,000 for the facilities and infrastructure (F&I) recapitalization program, a reduction of $25,000,000 from the budget request due to funding constraints. The conferees agree with the House direction to procure decontamination, decommissioning and demolition services through an open competitive process to the greatest extent practicable. At least $45,000,000 is to be used to dispose of excess facilities.

   Secure Transportation Asset.--The conference agreement provides $162,400,000 for secure transportation asset, as proposed by the Senate. The fiscal year 2003 supplemental included an additional $20,000,000 for the secure transportation asset and the conferees direct the use of the carryover balances for fiscal year 2004. The secure transportation asset program provides for the safe, secure movement of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, and weapon components between military locations and nuclear complex facilities within the United States.

   Safeguards and security.--The conference agreement includes $585,750,000, the same as the budget request, for safeguards and security activities at laboratories and facilities managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration. The conferees are aware that there are unique security requirements at the Y-12 plant in Tennessee and that additional resources are needed to address the current deficiencies. The conferees direct the NNSA to address those security needs within available funds or propose a reprogramming action to provide the necessary resources.

   Funding adjustments.--The conference agreement includes an adjustment of $28,985,000 for a security charge for reimbursable work, as proposed in the budget, and the

[Page: H11100]

use of $74,753,000 in prior year balances. In addition, the conferees direct the Department to use $23,000,000 of prior year funds to meet a portion of the Department's liability stemming from the termination of the contract with the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation for power to supply the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

   Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

   The conference agreement provides $1,327,612,000 for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation instead of $1,280,195,000 as proposed by the House and $1,340,195,000 as proposed by the Senate.

   Availability of funds.--The conference agreement makes the funds available until expended as proposed by the Senate.

   Liability Protection for U.S. interests in Russia.--The conferees are greatly concerned with the continued impasse between the United States and Russia on negotiations over liability protections for U.S. companies and personnel conducting nonproliferation work in Russia. The conferees place great importance on the continued successful implementation of the Department's nuclear nonproliferation activities and are concerned that in allowing the government-to-government implementing agreements to lapse for the Nuclear Cities Initiative and Plutonium Disposition activities, the Administration is creating unnecessary impediments to the effective implementation of nuclear nonproliferation programs. Additional delays in program implementation not only carry the risk of disrupting important nuclear nonproliferation activities but also exacerbate the problem of ever-increasing prior year balances carried by the Nuclear Nonproliferation program each year. The conferees urge a speedy resolution to the liability negotiations.

   Nonproliferation and verification research and development.--The conference agreement provides $233,373,000 for nonproliferation and verification research and development, an increase of $29,500,000 from the request. The conference agreement includes $20,000,000, the same as the budget request, for ground-based systems for treaty monitoring.

   The conference agreement does not adopt the House language requiring all nonproliferation and verification research and development funds be competed using the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) Broad Area Announcement process.

   From within available funds for research and development activities, $7,000,000 is provided to support ongoing activities at the Remote Sensing Test and Evaluation Center (RSL) at the Nevada Test Site to recover eroding emergency response infrastructure, replace aging equipment, and upgrade current technology. From within the funds provided to RSL, the recommendation includes $2,000,000 for the University of Nevada-Reno for the development of chemical, biological, and nuclear detection sensors.

   The conference agreement provides $3,000,000 for the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology PASSCAL Instrument Center. The conferees intend fiscal year 2004 to be the last year of funding for the PASSCAL Instrument Center provided for within this account. Within available funds, the NNSA is directed to provide $15,000,000 in support of the nuclear and radiological national security program. The conference agreement provides $2,500,000 for the University of South Florida Center for Biological Defense; $1,000,000 for the George Mason University Center for Biodefense; and $1,000,000 for SUNY-Binghamton Advanced Sensor Design and Threat Detection.

   The conferees continue to support more opportunity for open competition in appropriate areas of the nonproliferation and verification research and development program. The conferees expect the Department to continue to implement recommendations provided by the external review group in support of open competition and direct the Department to continue a free and open competitive process for at least 25 percent of its research and development activities during fiscal year 2004 for ground-based systems treaty monitoring. The competitive process should be open to all Federal and non-Federal entities. From within funds provided for ground-based systems treaty monitoring, the conferees include $2,500,000 in support of the Caucasus Seismic Information Network. These funds are provided outside the 25 percent of ground-based systems treaty monitoring funds to be awarded by the Department through a free and open competitive process.

   Nonproliferation and international security.--The conference agreement provides $110,734,000 for nonproliferation and international security, an increase of $9,000,000 over the budget request. Within the additional funds, the conferees provide the budget request of $3,000,000 for accelerated Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) and $1,000,000 for the HEU Research Reactor Fuel Purchase initiative as proposed under the Accelerated Materials Disposition proposal. The conferees provide $5,000,000 for initiatives focused on removing nuclear weapons-usable materials from vulnerable sites around the world as proposed by Senate.

   Nonproliferation programs with Russia.--The conferees continue to be concerned that too much of the money for Russian programs is being spent in the United States at the Department of Energy's own facilities rather than going to the facilities in Russia. The Department is directed to submit a plan to the Committees on Appropriations that shows how the ratio of the funding within each program that is spent in Russia versus the funding that remains in the United States for the Department's contractors will be increased significantly in each subsequent fiscal year.

   International materials protection, control and cooperation (MPC&A).--The conference agreement includes $260,000,000 for the MPC&A program, an increase of $34,000,000 over the budget request. Within funds provided for MPC&A, the conferees provide $28,000,000 for accelerating the Second Line of Defense MegaPorts Initiative and other critical border activities and $5,000,000 for other high priority MPC&A activities, to include countries outside the Former Soviet Union (FSU) such as Pakistan, India, and China.

   Accelerated Materials Disposition.--The conferees provide no funding for the Accelerated Materials Disposition (AMD) initiative. The conferees continue to be highly supportive of the successful U.S./Russian HEU Purchase Agreement to blend down 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium over twenty years. The conferees are supportive of the House language on the AMD proposal and direct the Department to develop a rigorous risk-based priority setting process for allocating budget resources to the activity with the highest nonproliferation benefit. The conferees provide the funding request for accelerated Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) and the HEU Research Reactor Fuel Purchase under Nonproliferation and International Security account and the accelerated Material Consolidation and Conversion (MCC) program in the International materials protection, control and cooperation (MPC&A) account.

   Russian Transition Initiatives.--The conference agreement provides $40,000,000, the same as the budget request, for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) program and the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI). The conferees are troubled by the continuing liability provision impasse that caused the lapsing of the NCI implementing agreement. The conferees urge the Department to work aggressively with the State Department and their Russian counterparts to conclude the liability provision negotiations expeditiously prior to significant delays to nonproliferation work in Russia.

   HEU transparency implementation.--The conference agreement provides $18,000,000, the same as the budget request.

   International nuclear safety.--The conference agreement provides $4,000,000, a reduction of $10,083,000 from the budget request, for the international nuclear safety program. The conferees note the successful conclusion of the Soviet-designed reactor safety program in fiscal year 2003 and expect the Department to close out all remaining International Nuclear Safety activities in fiscal year 2004 with the funds provided.

   Elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production.--The conference agreement includes the budget request of $50,000,000 for the elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program.

   Fissile materials disposition.--The conference agreement provides $656,505,000 for fissile materials disposition, the same as the budget request. The conferees direct the Department to continue the thorium-based fuel cycle program currently being conducted by the Russian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute in conjunction with their U.S. industrial partners. Within available funds the conference agreement provides $4,000,000 to be used in Russia for testing and evaluation of those test results to confirm this thorium-based fuel's plutonium disposition qualities in Russian VVER-1000 reactors and other non-proliferation and environmental benefits. The testing will include irradiation experiments at the IR-8 reactor at Kurchatov Institute. The objective of this testing and evaluation is to assess the timeframe, cost, and technical feasibility of this thorium-based fuel cycle for plutonium disposition in Russia, with a goal of lead test assemblies in 2006 in a Russian VVER-1000 nuclear power plant.

   Funding adjustments.--The conference agreement includes the use of $45,000,000 of prior year balances.

   Naval Reactors

   The conference agreement provides $766,400,000 for Naval Reactors.

   Funding adjustments.--The conference agreement includes the use of $2,000,000 of prior year balances. In addition, the conferees direct the Department to use $2,000,000 of prior year balances to meet a portion of the Department's liability stemming from the termination of the contract with the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation for power to supply the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

   Office of the Administrator

   The conference agreement provides $339,980,000 for the Office of the Administrator instead of $341,980,000 as proposed by the House and $337,980,000 as proposed by the Senate. These funds are available until expended as proposed by the Senate. Statutory language providing $12,000 for official reception and representation expenses has also been included.

   The conferees direct the Administrator of NNSA to provide at least $2,500,000 for the NNSA Office of Project Management and Engineering Support to continue its project oversight work and to provide training and mentoring programs to improve the skills of NNSA program and project managers.

   Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The conference agreement provides $58,000,000 for the

[Page: H11101]

Federal employees in the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation. None of these funds may be taxed by the NNSA for any purpose without prior notification and approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

********************

Sec. 308. The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by the House and Senate allowing the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to authorize certain nuclear weapons production plants, including the Nevada Test Site, to use not more than 2 percent of available funds for research, development and demonstration activities. This provision has been carried in previous Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts.

********************

Provisions not adopted by the conference.--The conference agreement deletes language proposed by the Senate that: changes the arrangement for funding from the power marketing administrations for Corps of Engineers hydropower operation and maintenance activities; the limitation on funds available for engineering development of the robust nuclear earth penetrator; transfer responsibility for Subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) from the Department of Energy to the Department of Labor; and that requires a report on administrative expenditures by DOE for EEOICPA activities.

********************

Charts of Funding Recommendations for NNSA Activities (re Weapons, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and Naval Reactors):

H11110           H11111           H11112           H11113           H11114

1D) Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation - Excerpts from H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Conference Report

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Comptroller General review of Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation Program (sec. 324)

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 323) that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to expand a cooperative environmental technology program to countries in the Western Pacific regions. The Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, would provide cooperative assistance on activities that contribute to the demonstration of environmental technology in the Arctic and Pacific regions, with certain limitations and exceptions. The primary focus of the program would be technology projects and activities related to radiological contamination.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment that would require the Comptroller General to conduct a review of the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation (AMEC) Program, the existing and proposed technology demonstration role of the program in U.S. nonproliferation efforts, and the relationship to the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. Based on this review, the Comptroller General would submit a report to Congress that assesses the Western Pacific conditions that may require an expansion of AMEC technology development and demonstration, the foreign funding contributions for AMEC activities, the use of AMEC by CTR and G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction Initiative, the importance of AMEC to the disarmament and nonproliferation functions of CTR, and the program's future year funding and program plans.

   The conferees note that no funds were included in the budget request for fiscal year 2004 or the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for the AMEC program. In the event the Secretary of Defense intends to continue the AMEC program and seek authorization to expand the program to the Western Pacific regions, the conferees expect the development of a comprehensive funding and program plan, and the identification of funding and projects in the FYDP. Otherwise, the Secretary should terminate the program. The conferees are aware that there is growing international interest in the activities of the AMEC program. The conferees encourage and support broad-based international programs that involve contributions by all participants.  

TITLE X – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Annual report concerning dismantlement of strategic nuclear warheads (sec. 1033)

   The House bill included a provision (sec. 1056) that would require the President to submit an annual report to Congress on warheads dismantled in the preceding year within the boundaries of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (known as the Moscow Treaty), and dismantlements pursuant to the Treaty planned for the current calendar year.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the Director of Central Intelligence to provide an annual report, while the Moscow Treaty is in force, on dismantlement of warheads by the Russian Federation. The report would be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and to the Committees on Armed Services and International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

   The conferees note that Congress receives information on U.S. warhead dismantlement in the Weapon System Classified Annex to the annual budget justification material provided by the Department of Energy. The conferees direct that this material be annotated to indicate which of the dismantlements described in the annex are a result of Moscow Treaty compliance activities. The conferees further direct that, to the extent possible, this information be included in the unclassified annual Department of Energy budget justification material.

********************

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Commission on Nuclear Strategy of the United States

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1053) that would establish a Commission on Nuclear Strategy of the United States to assess and make recommendations about current U.S. strategy, as described by the Nuclear Posture Review and other planning documents, as well as possible alternative strategies that could be pursued over the next 20 years. The Commission would have broad purview to consider matters of policy, force structure, stockpile stewardship, and estimates of threats and force requirements, and would have the authority to hold hearings and take testimony.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.  

 TITLE XII – MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Clarification and extension of authority to provide assistance for international nonproliferation activities

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1204) that would authorize the Department of Defense to continue to support activities of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and limit the amount of funding for such activities pursuant to section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5859a) to $15.0 million.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes.

TITLE XIII – COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH THE STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec. 1301)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1301) that would define the programs and funds that are Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs and funds, define the funds as those authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and specify that CTR funds shall remain available for obligation for three fiscal years.

   The Senate amendment contained an identical provision (sec. 1301).

   The conferees agree to include the provision.

********************

   Funding allocations (sec. 1302)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1302) that would authorize $450.8 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. The provision would also authorize specific amounts for each CTR program element, require notification to Congress 30 days before the Secretary of Defense obligates and expends fiscal year 2004 funds for purposes other than those specifically authorized, and provide limited authority to obligate amounts for a CTR program element in excess of the amount specifically authorized for that purpose. Regarding specific program elements, the House provision would authorize $86.4 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia, $171.5 million for chemical weapons destruction in Russia, and $11.1 million for defense and military contacts.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 1302) that, consistent with the budget request for the specific program elements, would authorize $57.6 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia, $200.3 million for chemical weapons destruction in Russia, and $11.0 million for defense and military contacts.

   The conferees agree to a provision that would authorize $450.8 million for the CTR Program and, with respect to the specific program elements, $57.6 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia, $200.3 million for chemical weapons destruction in Russia, and $11.1 million for defense and military contacts.

   ********************

Limitation on use of funds until certain permits obtained (sec. 1303)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1303) that would require the Secretary of Defense to determine for new or incomplete Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) projects what permits will be needed and obtain copies of those permits before obligating more than 35 per cent of a CTR project's total cost.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the Secretary to determine for new or incomplete CTR construction projects what permits will be needed and, for new construction projects, to obtain copies of those permits required to begin construction, before obligating more than 40 percent of a CTR construction project's total cost. The amendment provides authority for the Secretary to waive this limitation on funds if it is in the national interest.

********************

 Annual certifications on use of facilities being constructed for Cooperative Threat Reduction projects or activities (sec. 1307)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1303) that would require the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees with an annual certification that would indicate whether each facility constructed for a Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) project or activity will be used for its intended purpose by the host country, and whether the host country remains committed to using the facility for its intended purpose.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to certify also that actions have been taken to ensure security at each facility, including secure transportation of any materials, substances or weapons to, from, or within the facility.

********************

Authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction funds outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 1308)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1304) that would authorize the President to obligate and expend Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds for a fiscal year, and any CTR funds that remain available for obligation from any previous fiscal year, for proliferation threat reduction projects or activities in countries outside the states of the former Soviet Union. The amount that may be obligated in a fiscal year for this purpose would not exceed $50.0 million.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would require the President to make certain determinations and to notify Congress in writing within 10 days after obligating funds under this authority of those determinations as follows: (1) that the project or activity will assist the United States in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat; or permit the United States to take advantage of opportunities to achieve long-standing nonproliferation goals; (2) that the Department of Defense is the entity of government most capable of carrying out the project or activity; and (3) that the project or activity will be completed in a short period of time. The written notification is to include a justification for the determinations and a description of the scope and duration of the project or activity.

   The conferees expect that the President would assign such projects or activities to the agency whose mission is most appropriate to the project or activity. The conferees further expect that this authority will be used only for projects or activities that are expected to be completed within a short period of time.

********************

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

   Authority and funds for nonproliferation and disarmament

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1305) that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer $78.0 million in prior year Cooperative Threat Reduction funds from the Department of Defense to the Department of State for disarmament and nonproliferation purposes outside the territory of the former Soviet Union.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.  

TITLE XXXI - DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Legislative Provisions Adopted

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3101) that would authorize $8.8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), including funds for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and the Office of the Administrator.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 3101).

   The conferees agree to include a provision that would authorize $8.9 billion for NNSA.

   The budget request included $405.7 million in stockpile maintenance for directed stockpile work. The conferees agree to authorize $415.7 million for directed stockpile work, an increase of $10.0 million, to support activities at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to replace aging manufacturing process equipment and support systems at Y-12.

   The budget request included $65.8 million for the primary certification campaign. The conferees agree to $64.8 million, a decrease of $1.0 million.

   The budget request included $66.0 million in operations and maintenance for the advanced radiography campaign. The conferees agree to authorize $61.0 million for the advanced radiography campaign, a decrease of $5.0 million. The conferees urge NNSA to focus on delivering the radiographic tools essential to its nearer term production requirements.

   The budget request included $38.0 million for the enhanced surety campaign. The conferees agree to authorize $37.0 million for the enhanced surety campaign, a decrease of $1.0 million.

   The budget request included $94.8 million for the enhanced surveillance campaign. The conferees agree to authorize $92.8 million for the enhanced surveillance campaign, a decrease of $2.0 million.

   The budget request included $316.8 million in operations and maintenance for the inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and high yield campaign. The conferees agree to authorize $311.8 million for the ICF and high yield campaign, a decrease of $5.0 million. While the conferees believe diagnostics and target fabrication capabilities have been under emphasized in the past, the conferees question whether such a large budget increase could be executed effectively.

   The budget request included $713.3 million in operations and maintenance for the advanced simulation and computing campaign. The conferees agree to authorize $688.3 million for the advanced simulation and computing campaign, a decrease of $25.0 million.

   The budget request included $29.6 million for the high explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly and disassembly readiness campaign. The conferees agree to authorize $27.6 million for the high explosives manufacturing and weapons assembly and disassembly readiness campaign, a decrease of $2.0 million.

   The budget request included $37.4 million for the non-nuclear readiness campaign. The conferees agree to authorize $34.4 million for the non-nuclear readiness campaign, a decrease of $3.0 million.

   The budget request included $1.3 billion for Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). The conferees agree to authorize $1.4 billion, an increase of $106.3 million for the operations of facilities program to include a $7 million increase for facilities maintenance and legacy material stewardship at Y-12, and a $20.0 million increase for plant maintenance, plant projects and capital equipment at Pantex.

   The budget request included $50.0 million for RTBF to begin construction of a national security sciences building (project 04-D-104) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The conferees agree to authorize $38.0 million for project 03-D-102, a decrease of $12.0 million. The national security sciences building at LANL, listed as 03-D-102, received an advanced appropriation in fiscal year 2003 of $12.0 million. The conferees note that construction projects should be authorized prior to obligation of funds.

   The budget request included $585.8 million for safeguards and security. The conferees agree to authorize $582.3 million for safeguards and security, a decrease of $3.5 million in physical and cyber security research and development. The conferees note that the proposed activities would be largely duplicative of research the Department of Energy requested in other defense activities. Of the amounts authorized for safeguards and security, the conferees agree to authorize the Department to expend appropriated funds available, not to exceed $8.0 million, for the planning, engineering, and design of a proposed Security Improvements project at the Y-12 National Security Complex.

   The budget request included $226.0 million for international nuclear materials protection and cooperation. The conferees agree to authorize $231.0 million, an increase of $5.0 million for the second line of defense program which helps to prevent nuclear materials from being smuggled across Russian and other international borders. The budget request included $30.0 million for accelerated materials disposition. The conferees agree to authorize $25.0 million for accelerated materials disposition, a decrease of $5.0 million. The conferees note their concern with the cost-effectiveness of this program.

********************

Defense environmental management (sec. 3102)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3102) that would authorize $6.8 billion for the Department of Energy for defense environmental management (EM) activities for fiscal year 2004, including funds for defense site acceleration completion and defense environmental services.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 3102) that would authorize $6.8 billion for defense environmental activities.

   The conferees agree to authorize $6.8 billion for defense environmental management, the amounts of the budget request, including $5.8 billion for defense site acceleration completion and $995.2 million for defense environmental services.

   The conferees support the continuing efforts of the Department of Energy to accelerate cleanup at all of the environmental management (EM) sites, which will result in reducing risk to the environment, workers, and the community, shortening cleanup schedules, and saving tens of billions of dollars across the EM complex. The conferees also support a policy that would take funds made available due to the cleanup completion of Fernald, Mound, Rocky Flats and other sites, and roll them into the remaining EM sites to help accelerate their completion even sooner, if possible.

   ********************

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3103) that would authorize $497.3 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) for other defense activities for fiscal year 2004.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 3103) that would authorize $465.1 million for DOE other defense activities.

   The conferees agreed to authorize $489.1 million, a reduction of $5.3 million below the budget request.

   The budget request included $4.3 million for program direction for energy security and assurance. The conferees agree to authorize no funds for these activities. These funds are requested for program direction costs for an operational component of this office that was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2003. The conferees note that funding for this component should be included in the DHS budget.

   The budget request included $15.0 million for worker and community transition (WCT), including $2.7 million for program direction. The conferees agree to include $14.0 million for WCT, a reduction of $1.0 million to be taken out of the program direction activities. The conferees note that the request for programmatic funds drops 46 percent from fiscal year 2003, while program direction remains level. The conferees have included a proportional decrease to program direction.

   ********************

Defense nuclear waste disposal (sec. 3104)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3104) that would authorize $430.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal for fiscal year 2004.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 3104) that would authorize $360.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal.

   The conferees agree to authorize $392.5 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a decrease of $37.5 million to the budget request. The conferrees note that the authorized amount for defense nuclear waste disposal reflects a $79.5 million increase to the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level.

   Energy supply (sec. 3105)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3105) that would authorize $110.5 million for defense energy supply programs for fiscal year 2004

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 3105) that would authorize $110.5 million.

   The conferees agree to authorize $110.5 million for defense energy supply programs for fiscal year 2004, the amount of the budget request.

   ********************

Termination of requirement for annual updates of long-term plan for nuclear weapons stockpile life extension program (sec. 3111)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3112) that would terminate certain annual reporting requirements related to stockpile life extension programs, effective December 31, 2004.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with a technical amendment.

   The conferees note that this material should be included in the annual report submitted by the National Nuclear Security Administration on the overall stockpile stewardship program, as well as other required reports. The annual report just received by Congress was extremely late. The conferees expect subsequent reports to be submitted on time.

   ********************

Department of Energy project review groups not subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act by reason of inclusion of employees of Department of Energy management and operating contractors (sec. 3112)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3114) that would allow an officer or employee of a management and operating (M&O) contractor of the Department of Energy, when serving on an advisory committee or review group for the Department on matters related to the Department's M&O contracts, to be treated as an officer or employee of the Department for the purposes of determining whether the group is an advisory committee

[Page: H10968]

within the meaning of section 3 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 United States Code App.).

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes.

   ********************

Readiness posture for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear weapons tests (sec. 3113)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3132) that would require the Secretary of Energy to achieve, and thereafter maintain, a posture of 18 months for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear tests. The Secretary of Energy would achieve this readiness posture by October 1, 2006. However, if, through the review conducted to comply with section 3142(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the Secretary determined that a different readiness posture was feasible and advisable, then the provision would require the Secretary to achieve, and thereafter maintain, that optimal test readiness posture.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would eliminate the requirement for the Secretary to identify an optimal test readiness posture in lieu of 18 months. Consistent with subsection 3142(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), the Secretary determined that 18 months is the optimal test readiness posture. Furthermore, the amendment clarified that the readiness posture should be ``not more'' than 18 months for resumption by the United States of underground nuclear tests.

   ********************

Technical base and facilities maintenance and recapitalization activities (sec. 3114)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3133) that would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to add discipline, criteria, and new requirements and limitations to the Operations of Facilities Program within the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) Program.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would require the Administrator to submit a report to the congressional defense committees setting forth guidelines on how NNSA's current and future maintenance needs shall be met, including the types of criteria to be used. The goal of the guidelines included in the report should be to avoid NNSA maintenance backlogs. The Administrator of NNSA would be required to complete the selection of the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) projects by December 31, 2004. The Operations of Facilities Program would remain a subprogram within the RTBF Program. Within the RTBF Program, the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs would be required to appoint an individual manager to ensure the Operations of Facilities Program receives the focus and priority it requires. Finally, the amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to submit a detailed budget justification for the Operations of Facilities Program broken down into individual budget elements.

   The conferees note that FIRP was originally envisioned and introduced to Congress as a ten-year program with a narrow and specific goal of eliminating the enormous maintenance backlog, which had accumulated over many years. Accordingly, FIRP would terminate on September 30, 2011, at the end of the program's tenth year.

   The conferees are concerned that the NNSA has not placed enough priority on future maintenance and repair needs across the nuclear weapons complex. While FIRP seems to be making significant progress in addressing maintenance backlogs, the NNSA needs to make much more progress in addressing current and future maintenance and repair needs within the RTBF program.

   ********************

Continuation of processing, treatment, and disposition of legacy nuclear materials (sec. 3115)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3134) that would amend section 3137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) that prohibited the Department of Energy (DOE) from decommissioning the F Canyon facility at the Savannah River Site until the Secretary of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) jointly submits a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The report would set forth an assessment of whether or not all materials present in the F Canyon are safely stabilized and future needs for fissile materials disposition can be met through H Canyon. The Senate provision would amend section 3137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 by deleting the requirement that F Canyon be maintained in a high state of readiness and eliminating the DNFSB certification requirement. In addition, the provision would require the DOE to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the DNFSB before commencing the decommissioning of F Canyon. The provision would retain the requirement that H Canyon be maintained in a high state of readiness to ensure the availability of H Canyon for any future canyon processing needs.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with a technical amendment.

********************

Repeal of prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons (sec. 3116)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3111) that would amend section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160). The provision would maintain the prohibition on development of new nuclear weapons with yields less than five kilotons, but would allow research on such weapons, including concept definition studies, feasibility studies, and detailed engineering design.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 3131) that: (1) would repeal section 3136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 and thereby end the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons; (2) would state that nothing in the provision should be construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon; (3) would require the Secretary of Energy to obtain specific congressional authorization before commencing the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon; and (4) would require the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to jointly submit to Congress, no later than March 1, 2004, a report assessing whether or not the repeal of section 3136 of the National Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 would effect the ability of the United States to achieve its nonproliferation objectives and whether or not any changes in programs and activities would be required to achieve those objectives.

   The House recedes.

********************

Requirement for specific authorization of Congress for commencement of engineering development phase or subsequent phase of robust nuclear earth penetrator (sec. 3117)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3135) that would require the Secretary of Energy to obtain specific authorization from Congress to commence development engineering (phase 6.3) of the nuclear weapons development process, or any subsequent phase, of a robust nuclear earth penetrator weapon.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

********************

Semi-annual financial reports on Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs (sec. 3121)

   The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 3142) that would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report every six months on the financial status of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs. Each semi-annual report would describe the amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year in which the report would be submitted, and include the aggregate amount appropriated for that fiscal year, the amounts obligated, committed, and disbursed as of the end of the reporting period, and the amounts that remain available for obligation. The first report would be required in fiscal year 2004.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with a clarifying amendment that would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report every six months on the financial status of the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs by program. Each semi-annual report would set forth the amount of funds available for the fiscal year in which the report would be submitted, the carry over or uncommitted balances, the unobligated and unexpended balances as of the beginning of the reporting period, the aggregate of any new funds available during the reporting period, and the uncommitted or unobligated and unexpended balances as of the end of the reporting period. The reports are due to the committees 30 calendar days after the end of each fiscal half of the fiscal year. The first report would be due April 30, 2004, and would cover the first six months of fiscal year 2004.

   Because the conferees are concerned with the high level of unexpended and unobligated balances in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs, the conferees believe it is necessary that the program improve its budget management to expend funds in a timely and efficient manner without sacrificing oversight. The conferees believe that semi-annual financial reporting will assist the committees with tracking program expenditures to ensure that the national security benefit proposed by the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs can be realized.

********************

Report on reduction of excessive unobligated or unexpended balances for defense nuclear nonproliferation activities (sec. 3122)

   The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 3143) that would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives with an aggressive plan to reduce the amount of funds obligated but not expended for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program if, at the end of fiscal year 2004, the program's obligated but not expended balances exceed 20 percent of the amount appropriated for the program in fiscal year 2004. This plan would be due not later than November 30, 2004. The purpose of the plan would be to provide the committees with the Department of Energy's strategic approach to addressing the low expenditures of defense nuclear nonproliferation appropriated funds from current and previous fiscal years.

[Page: H10969]

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with technical amendments.

   The conferees believe the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program should strive to attain the department-wide average of 15 percent obligated but not expended level per fiscal year. Currently, the funds available for the program include almost 50 percent uncosted and unexpended balances. The conferees believe the program must address these expenditure rates immediately by taking a more focused and aggressive approach to expending these funds without sacrificing accountability, management, and oversight. The conferees urge the program to consider innovative methods in developing and implementing such an approach, such as utilizing more robust information technology systems to better track project expenditure rates and contracting activities.

********************

Study and report relating to weapons-grade uranium and plutonium of the independent states of the former Soviet Union (sec. 3123)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1308) that would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act. The study would examine the costs and benefits of purchasing all former Soviet Union weapons-grade uranium and plutonium in fiscal year 2005 and safeguarding it from smuggling or theft until it could be rendered unusable for nuclear weapons.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress not later than one year after the date of enactment that would examine the feasibility, costs, and benefits of purchasing former Soviet Union weapons-grade uranium and plutonium excess to defense needs, and the feasibility and costs of safeguarding this material from theft until it can be rendered unusable for nuclear weapons. The conferees encourage the Secretary to include in the study an analysis of the feasibility of purchasing this material in one year, as well as other options in quantity and timing as the Secretary considers appropriate, and to consider several possible locations for safeguarding this material using risk of theft, cost, and practicality as metrics.

********************

Authority to Use International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program funds outside the former Soviet Union (sec. 3124)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3141) that would authorize the Secretary of Energy to conduct nuclear nonproliferation threat reduction activities and projects outside the states of the former Soviet Union for the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would require the President to make certain determinations and to notify the Congress in writing within 10 days after obligating funds under this authority of those determinations as follows: (1) that the project or activity will assist the United States in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat; or permit the United States to take advantage of opportunities to achieve long-standing nonproliferation goals; (2) that the Department of Energy is the entity of government most capable of carrying out the project or activity; and (3) that the project or activity will be completed in a short period of time. The written notification is to include a justification for the determinations and a description of the scope and duration of the project or activity.

   The conferees expect that the President would assign such projects or activities to the agency whose mission is most appropriate to the project or activity. The conferees further expect that this authority will be used only for projects or activities that are expected to be completed within a short period of time.

********************

Requirement for on-site managers (sec. 3125)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3117) that would require the Secretary of Energy to appoint a federal employee as an on-site manager before obligation of funds for any defense nuclear nonproliferation program that involves dismantlement, destruction, or storage facilities, or construction of a facility, and that is executed in a state of the former Soviet Union, if the total contribution by the Department of Energy is expected to exceed $25.0 million.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the Secretary to appoint an employee of the Federal Government as an on-site manager to oversee any defense nuclear nonproliferation program that involves dismantlement, destruction, or storage facilities, or construction of a facility, and that is executed in a state of the former Soviet Union, if the total contribution by the Department is expected to exceed $50.0 million. The amendment would allow one individual to serve as the site manager for more than one project so long as the total cost of the projects does not exceed $150.0 million for that fiscal year.

********************

Performance of personnel security investigations of certain Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Employees in Sensitive Programs (sec. 3131)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3151) that would amend section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-703) to provide the Secretary of Energy the authority to refer security investigations to either the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Current law requires the FBI to investigate all initial personnel security investigations and all reinvestigations for DOE federal and contractor employees assigned to a Department of Energy Special Access Program (SAP) or a Personnel Security and Assurance Program.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would amend section 145(e)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to repeal the requirement that the Secretary or the Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), as successors to the Atomic Energy Commission, must refer security investigations concerning DOE federal and contractor employees assigned to a Personnel Security and Assurance Program to the FBI. Under this provision, the Secretary or Commissioner would have the authority to refer such personnel security investigations to either the FBI or OPM, as successor to the Civil Service Commission. Nothing in this provision would change the requirement that the Secretary or Commissioner must refer security investigations to the FBI for DOE federal and contractor employees assigned to a DOE Special Access Program, or the authority to refer security investigations to the FBI for personnel that the Secretary or the Commissioner certifies, due to their specific position, to be of a high degree of importance or sensitivity.

  ********************

Policy of Department of Energy regarding future defense environmental management matters (sec. 3132)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3152) that would require the Secretary of Energy to establish a policy to clarify the shared or overlapping responsibilities between the Environmental Management (EM) program and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This provision would require the Secretary to include a report declaring DOE's policy on these matters to be submitted with the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2005.

   The provision would also require the Secretary of Energy to prepare a plan to implement the new policy to be presented with the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2006.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would require the Secretary of Energy to put in place, not later than October 1, 2005, a policy for carrying out future defense environmental management matters that have not already been included or considered in the Defense Site Acceleration Completion plan. The Secretary of Energy shall include in the budget submission for fiscal year 2005 a report on the policy the Secretary plans to have in effect as of October 1, 2005. The Secretary of Energy must have the policy in effect no later than October 1, 2005, and reflect the policy in the budget submission for fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter.

   The conferees support EM's initiative to accelerate cleanup across the entire NNSA and former nuclear weapons facilities complex. However, as the Secretary seeks to define and designate the complete scope of cleanup and waste management within the accelerated cleanup initiative, the conferees want to ensure that it is clear which program will be responsible for future defense EM matters. The Secretary of Energy can clarify this matter by establishing a clear policy that would help both EM and NNSA plan for future cleanup activities and the associated costs.

********************

Inclusion in 2005 stockpile stewardship plan of certain information relating to stockpile stewardship criteria (sec. 3133)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3153) that would require the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, by March 1, 2005, on clear and specific criteria for judging whether the science-based tools being used by the Department of Energy for determining the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile are performing in a manner that will provide an adequate degree of certainty regarding the safety and reliability of the stockpile. This would be an update of the report required in section 3158 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would include this report as part of the Fiscal Year 2005 Stockpile Stewardship Plan. The conferees note that this annual report has been consistently late and urge the Department to submit this important report on time.

     ********************

Progress reports on energy employees occupational illness compensation program (sec. 3134)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3154) that would require the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to submit a report to Congress on the ability of NIOSH to obtain, in a

[Page: H10970]

timely, accurate, and complete manner, information necessary to carry out radiation dose reconstructions under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The report should be submitted within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

   The conferees direct NIOSH to send the report to the congressional defense committees, the Committees on Government Affairs and Health Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate, and the Committees on Government Reform and Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives.

********************

Report on integration activities of Department of Defense and Department of Energy with respect to robust nuclear earth penetrator (sec. 3135)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 3155) that would require the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense to develop, submit to Congress three months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and implement, a plan to coordinate the robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP) feasibility study at the Department of Energy (DOE) with the ongoing conventional hard and deeply buried weapons development programs at the Department of Defense.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would modify the reporting requirement of section 1032 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to include analysis of the integration and interoperability of the robust nuclear earth penetrator with regard to research and development, procurement, and other activities by the Departments of Defense and Energy during fiscal year 2003. This information would be included in the report due April 1, 2004.

********************

Transfer and consolidation of recurring and general provisions on Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 3141)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3121) that would assemble under the Atomic Energy Defense Act (title XXXVI) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), with technical and conforming amendments, recurring and general provisions of law on Department of Energy national security programs that remain in force. Although there are technical and conforming changes resulting in the recodification there are no substantive changes in law effecting the DOE national security programs. The provisions of the Atomic Energy Defense Act, as amended by this provision, would be redesignated to a new chapter of title 50, United States Code.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 3161).

   The Senate recedes with technical amendments.

     ********************

Items of Special Interest

Thorium-based fuel cycle research

   The conferees believe the Secretary of Energy should review whether there is a role for thorium fuel cycle research in Department of Energy programs, to include nonproliferation programs under the National Nuclear Security Administration and advanced fuel cycle research and related work under the Office of Nuclear Energy. If the Secretary determines this technology should be pursued, this should be reflected in the Fiscal year 2005 budget request.

     ********************

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Extension to all DOE facilities of authority to prohibit dissemination of certain unclassified information

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3113) that would amend section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-703) to expand the range of situations under which the Department of Energy could treat information as sensitive unclassified nuclear information, and consequently limit its dissemination.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

     ********************

Availability of funds

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3115) that would amend section 3628 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) by establishing a three-year limitation on the availability of funds for obligation within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), for operation and maintenance and for plant projects.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

   The conferees are concerned that the NNSA has not complied with section 3252 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law 106-65), which provides that at a minimum, the NNSA Administrator should establish procedures that ``. . . provide for the planning, programming, and budgeting of activities of the Administration using funds that are available for obligation for a limited number of years.'' Contrary to the requirements of section 3252, the last four NNSA budget submissions have not included a limit on the number of years the funds were available for obligation. While the conferees have agreed not to include a provision that would place a specific limitation on the authority of funds in this Act, the conferees expect the Administrator to meet the requirements of section 3252 of the NNSA Act in the fiscal year 2005 budget and subsequent submissions.

********************

Limitation on obligation of funds for nuclear test readiness program

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3116) that would prohibit the obligation of more than 40 percent of funds available to the Secretary of Energy in fiscal year 2004 for the nuclear test readiness program until the Secretary submits the report on test readiness posture options required by subsection 3142(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314).

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

   The report on test readiness posture options was sent to the congressional defense committees on May 20, 2003, and received shortly thereafter. While this made the funding limitation in the House bill no longer necessary, the conferees note that the report was sent several months late even though the information in that report was very relevant to the fiscal year 2004 budget request for enhanced test readiness. The conferees encourage the Department of Energy to use due diligence in meeting report schedules and deadlines in the future.

TITLE XXXII – DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Authorization (sec. 3201)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3201) that would authorize $19.6 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2004.

   The Senate amendment contained an identical provision (sec. 3201).

   The conference agreement includes this provision.  

TITLE XXXII – NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Authorized Uses for National Defense Stockpile Funds (sec. 3301)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3301) that would authorize $69.7 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2004. The provision would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after a notification to the Congress.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes.

********************

Revisions to required receipt objectives for previously authorized disposals from National Defense Stockpile (sec. 3302)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3302) that would amend section 3402 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) to increase the required receipt objectives for previously authorized disposals from the National Defense Stockpile.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would increase the required receipt objectives for previously authorized disposals from the National Defense Stockpile.

TITLE XXXVI – NUCLEAR SECURITY INITIATIVE

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Short title (sec. 3601)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3601) that would name this title the ``Nuclear Security Initiative Act of 2003.''

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes.

********************

Management assessment of Department of Defense and Department of Energy threat reduction and nonproliferation programs (sec. 3611)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3621) that would require the National Academy of Sciences to carry out an analysis of the effect on threat reduction and nonproliferation programs of applicable congressional oversight measures.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the General Accounting Office to carry out an assessment of the management of the Department of Defense and Department of Energy threat reduction and nonproliferation programs.

********************   

Comprehensive inventory of Russian tactical nuclear weapons (sec. 3621)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3631) that would urge the United States to work with the Russian Federation to develop comprehensive inventories of Russian highly enriched uranium, weapons-grade plutonium, and assembled warheads, with special attention to be focused on tactical warheads and warheads that are no longer operationally deployed. The provision would require the President to submit to the Congress an annual report describing progress that has been made toward creating an inventory and exchanging the information.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would urge the United States to work with the Russian Federation to develop a comprehensive inventory of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. The provision would require the President to submit to the Congress a report describing the progress that has been made toward creating such an inventory.

   ********************

Establishment of interparliamentary threat reduction working group (sec. 3622)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3632) that would establish a Duma-Congress nuclear threat reduction working group. The purpose of the working group would be to explore means to enhance cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation with respect to nuclear proliferation and security, and other issues related to reducing nuclear weapons dangers.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would broaden the working group to include participants from the Russian Federation Council as well as the Russian Duma, and would broaden the focus of the working group to include all types of weapons of mass destruction.

   The conferees recommend that this working group coordinate its activities with the Library of Congress Open World Program. The conferees further recommend that the number of Russian participants in the working group be roughly equal to the number of U.S. participants.

   ********************

Promotion of discussions on nuclear and radiological security and safety between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (sec. 3631)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3641) that would express the sense of the Congress that the United States should seek to initiate discussions between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for the purpose of exploring issues of nuclear and radiological security and safety, including the creation of new sources of revenue (including debt reduction) for states to provide nuclear security. The provision would require the President to submit to the Congress a report on the efforts made by the United States to initiate such discussions and on the results of such discussions.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the President to submit a report to the Congress on the results of the discussions only if efforts to have such discussions have been made.

   ********************

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Annual report on the use of funds appropriated for threat reduction and nonproliferation in states of the former Soviet Union

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3622) that would require the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to submit an annual report on the use of funds appropriated for threat reduction and nonproliferation programs in the Russian Federation and the other independent states of the former Soviet Union.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

   ********************

Establishment of International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation Program in Department of State

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3611) that would authorize the Secretary of

[Page: H10973]

State to establish an international nuclear materials protection and cooperation program with respect to countries other than the Russian Federation and the other independent states of the former Soviet Union.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

  ********************

Nonproliferation fellowships

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3636) that would authorize the Administrator for Nuclear Security to carry out a program under which the Administrator awards, to scientists employed at the Kurchatov Institute of the Russian Federation and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, international exchange fellowships, to be known as Teller-Kurchatov Fellowships, in the nuclear nonproliferation sciences. The purpose of the program would be to provide opportunities for advancement in the field of nuclear nonproliferation to scientists who, as demonstrated by their academic or professional achievements, show particular promise of making significant contributions in that field.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

   The conferees recommend that the Secretary of Energy assess the feasibility and advisability of initiating a reciprocal nonproliferation fellowship program that would provide the opportunity for an employee of a U.S. national laboratory, and an employee of a Russian nuclear institute or nuclear laboratory, to study and work at a comparable institute or laboratory in the other country focusing on nuclear nonproliferation sciences.

   ********************

Plan for and coordination of chemical and biological weapons nonproliferation programs with states of the former Soviet Union

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3623) that would require the President to develop with the President of the Russian Federation a comprehensive plan to: account for, secure and destroy all chemical and biological weapons and the materials designed for use in such weapons that are located in Russia and the independent states of the former Soviet Union; and prevent the outflow from those states of the technology and scientific expertise that could be used for developing such weapons or their means of delivery.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

   ********************

Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3635) that would urge the Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement with the Minister of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation to carry out a cooperative venture, to be known as the Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace, to develop and promote peaceful, safe, and environmentally sensitive uses of nuclear energy.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

CHARTS OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

DoE National Security Programs – Title XXXI (Atomic Energy Defense Activities)

H10946  H10947  H10948  H10949  H10950  H10951  H10952  H10953  H10954

H10955  H10956  H10957  H10958  H10959  H10960  H10961  H10962  H10963

H10964  H10965  H10966

2A) Missile Defense - Excerpted Floor Debate on H.R. 1588 Conference Report

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is very important that for the first time in well over 40 years we do something about concurrent receipt.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.

   This is a solid bill that broadly serves our national security interests and addresses the needs of our armed forces as we continue the fight against terrorism. I will get to some of its strengths in a minute. But first I want to thank you Chairman HUNTER and Ranking Member SKELTON for the leadership you have provided in putting this bill together. And I particularly want to recognize the ranking member of the Strategic Forces subcommittee, Mr. REYES, for his efforts on this bill. Together we have tackled some very tough issues.

   The first long range missiles and nuclear weapons were developed almost 60 years ago. Yet today, we have no means to defend the territory of the United States against even a single long range missile, and have only recently begun to deploy defenses against theater range missile threats. In December of last year, the President announced his intention to enhance the capabilities of our Pacific missile defense test bed to field a modest, initial defensive operational capability to defend the territory of the United States by the end of fiscal year 2004. The President requested $9.1 billion to support that--and other--missile defense efforts.

   I am pleased to report that this bill fully funds the request, providing the resources required to meet this great and historic challenge. The conferees have also agreed to shift

[Page: H10997]

funds from longer term, less mature efforts in order to accelerate nearer term fielding of systems like Patriot that are designed to protect our troops deployed worldwide who face increasing threats from theater range ballistic missile threat.

   Some of the most difficult issues we addressed in this bill involve nuclear weapons. Since the end of the cold war, we no longer face a monolithic threat. The new national security environment in which we find ourselves requires that we adopt a more flexible and adaptive approach to planning for our strategic deterrent. It further requires that we examine the weapons in our aging stockpile to determine if they continue to meet the Nation's needs for a credible and robust deterrent. Provisions of this bill would allow our scientists and engineers the freedom to explore the full range of options for defeating existing and emerging threats. At the same time, the bill includes ``checks'' that reserve for Congress the authority to approve the development of certain classes of new nuclear weapons.

   The bill would also authorize the budget request of $6.4 billion for the weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The United States has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing for over a decade, and NNSA programs continue to maintain the safety, reliability and performance of the nuclear stockpile in the absence of testing.

   However, recognizing that circumstances may require a return to testing at some point in the future, and that the current test readiness posture of almost 3 years does not provide a real option for any President, the conferees have included a provision that would require the Secretary of Energy to achieve and maintain a readiness posture of not more that 18 months.

   The conference agreement provides strong support for the military space and intelligence activities that have proven so effective in Afghanistan, and more recently Iraq. Notably, the bill would promote development of the U.S. commercial space-based imagery industrial base, enhance space-based communications to support the warfighter, and robustly fund development of unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

   Mr. Speaker, the men and women of our armed forces are doing their part everyday in places far from home. Let us do our part, and pass this bill.

2B) Missile Defense - Excerpts from H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Conference Report

TITLE II – RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Ballistic missile defense products

   The budget request included $343.6 million in PE 63889C for ballistic missile defense (BMD) products.

   The House bill would authorize $312.5 million, a reduction of $31.1 million.

   The Senate amendment would authorize the budget request.

   The conferees agree to authorize $343.6 million, the budget request, for BMD products.

   The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to prioritize funding in this line to maximize the effectiveness of the initial defensive operations capability and to ensure that sufficient modeling and simulation is conducted to verify the effectiveness of BMD system battle management and command and control.

********************

   Ballistic missile defense system core

   The budget request included $484.0 million in PE 63890C for ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) core activities.

   The House bill would authorize $439.0 million in PE 63890C, a reduction of $45.0 million.

   The Senate amendment would authorize $481.0 million in PE 63890C, an increase of $2.0 million for the Advanced Research Center and a decrease of $5.0 million for lethality testing.

   The conferees agree to authorize $446.0 million in PE 63890C, an increase of $2.0 million for the Advanced Research Center, an increase of $5.0 million for wide bandwidth technology, and a program reduction of $45.0 million.

   The conferees are aware that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) believes that a program reduction to BMDS core activities could significantly disrupt MDA's efforts to field an initial capability by the end of fiscal year 2004 and will slow the effort to define and develop the interfaces needed to assure an integrated missile defense system with enhanced capabilities. The conferees support the President's decision to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities and understand the utility of integrating disparate BMDS elements into a single integrated BMD system. The conferees encourage MDA to more clearly define discrete products generated by BMDS core activities and the purpose of these products, along with associated costs and schedules, to allow for better congressional oversight in these matters.

********************

Enhanced flexibility for ballistic missile defense systems (sec. 221)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 221) that would amend subsection (a) of section 223 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the President flexibility in designating program elements for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The provision would make conforming changes, including those related to reporting requirements, and other technical issues.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 222) that would repeal subsection (a) of section 223 of title 10, United States Code.

   The Senate recedes. The conferees are aware of the Administration's interest in submitting an MDA budget request in fiscal year 2005 that reflects a single program element. The conferees believe that submission of future budget justification material should be consistent with past practice, and that a budget request reflecting a single program element would be inappropriate.

********************

Fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities (sec. 222)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 221) that would allow the Department of Defense to use research, development, test and evaluation funding to develop and field an initial set of ballistic missile defense capabilities.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

********************

Oversight of procurement of ballistic missile defense system elements (sec. 223)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 223) that would require: (1) the Secretary of Defense to submit, for ballistic missile defense (BMD) system elements for which the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is engaged in planning for production and initial fielding, the production rate capabilities being planned, the potential date of availability of the element, the expected costs of initial production and fielding, and the estimated date that the element could be transferred to a military department; (2) the Missile Defense Agency to establish and submit to Congress measurable performance criteria for each block of the BMD system and its elements that describe the intended effectiveness of that block against foreign adversary capabilities; (3) the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), in consultation with the Director of MDA, to establish and provide to Congress appropriate plans and schedules for operational testing, including an estimate of when the element would demonstrate its ability to meet its performance criteria through such testing; (4) the DOT&E to provide to Congress an assessment of progress being made in verifying element performance through operational testing; and (5) the Secretary of Defense to provide an estimate of funding necessary for procurement of BMD system elements in the future-years defense program (FYDP).

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would require: (1) the Secretary of Defense to submit production rate capabilities being planned, the potential date of availability of the element, and the estimated date that the element could be transferred to a military department for BMD system elements for which MDA is engaged in planning for production and initial fielding; (2) the Secretary to provide an estimate of funding necessary for procurement of BMD system elements in the FYDP; (3) that performance criteria for development phases of the BMD system and its elements describe the intended effectiveness of each phase against foreign adversary capabilities; and (4) DOT&E to make available for review by March 1, 2004, the developmental and operational test plans established to assess the effectiveness of the BMD system and its elements with respect to performance criteria.

   The conferees believe that the System Capability Specifications and Foreign Adversary Capabilities documents submitted by MDA with the fiscal year 2004 budget request were valuable documents that provide the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives improved insight into the intent and progress of missile defense programs. The conferees believe that the System Capability Specification Document should reference those threats described in the Foreign Adversary Capabilities Document to which the performance criteria are intended to apply. The conferees expect that descriptions of intended effectiveness will appropriately address potential countermeasures.

   ********************

Renewal of authority to assist local communities affected by ballistic missile defense system test bed (sec. 224)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 224) that would renew for three years the authority of the Missile Defense Agency to use research, development, test, and evaluation funds for assistance to communities significantly impacted by the expanded ballistic missile defense test bed. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a description of the community assistance projects to be supported in a given fiscal year along with an estimate of the total cost of each project.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would renew this authority for one year, and require the Secretary of Defense to submit within 60 days of enactment of this Act a description of the community assistance projects to be supported along with an estimate of the total cost of each project.

********************

Prohibition on use of funds for nuclear armed interceptors in missile defense systems (sec. 225)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 226) that would prohibit the use of funds authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2004 for research, development, test, and evaluation, procurement, or deployment of nuclear armed interceptors in a missile defense system.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with a technical amendment.

********************

Follow-on research, development, test, and evaluation related to system improvements for missile defense programs transferred to military departments (sec. 226)

   The conferees recommend a provision that would amend section 224 of Title 10, U.S. Code. Section 224 requires that funding for ballistic missile defense (BMD) research and development be included in Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget accounts and that responsibility for follow-on research and development on BMD elements transferred to the services remain with the Director of MDA. The amendment to section 224 would require that research and development funding requested for the purpose of integrating a BMD element into the overall integrated BMD architecture be included in the MDA budget accounts and that responsibility for follow-on research and development on BMD elements transferred to the services be clearly delineated.

   The conferees agree that significant capability enhancements can be achieved through the integration of ballistic missile system elements into a seamless web of interceptor, battle management, communications, and sensor systems, and that MDA must have the budgetary resources and management authority to ensure that such integration is achieved. The conferees recommend that the MDA director continue to play an active role in the management of ballistic missile defense programs transferred to the services.

   ********************

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Coproduction of Arrow ballistic missile defense system

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 237) that would make available $115.0 million for coproduction of the Arrow ballistic missile defense system from funds authorized for appropriation for ballistic missile defense in section 201 of this Act.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes.

********************

Requirement for specific authorization of Congress for design, development, or deployment of hit-to-kill ballistic missile interceptors

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 225) that would: (1) require specific congressional authorization for the use of funds toward design, development, or deployment of hit-to-kill interceptors or other weapons for placement in space; and (2) make $14.0 million of funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2004 for Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptors available for research and concept definition for a space based test bed.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes.

   The conferees understand that the Missile Defense Agency has no plans to use any fiscal year 2004 funding for space-based interceptor research, development, design or deployment.

TITLE XXXVI – NUCLEAR SECURITY INITIATIVE

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Sense of Congress on cooperation by United States and NATO with Russia on ballistic missile defenses (sec. 3623)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3633) that would establish as national policy that: 1) the United States should take the lead, in conjunction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in arranging appropriate cooperative relationships with the Russian Federation with respect to development and deployment of theater-level ballistic missile defenses; 2) such cooperation should promote a new bilateral strategic framework consisting of transparency and confidence between and improve security of the two countries. The provision would also require the President to submit a report to Congress, no later than a year after the enactment of this Act, on the feasibility of increasing cooperation with the Russian Federation on theater-level missile defenses.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would express the sense of Congress that the President, in conjunction with NATO, should encourage appropriate cooperative relationships with the Russian Federation in the development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, on the feasibility of increasing ballistic missile defense cooperation with the Russian Federation.

   The conferees believe that missile defense cooperation with the Russian Federation could improve the U.S. relationship with Russia by enhancing transparency and confidence between the two nations. The conferees also believe that such cooperation would accurately reflect a new bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia based on openness, common interests, and mutual trust, rather than the Cold War construct of mutual assured destruction.

   ********************

Sense of Congress on enhanced collaboration to achieve more reliable Russian early warning systems (sec. 3624)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 3634) that would make certain findings and establish as national policy that the President should: (1)encourage joint United States-Russian programs to improve Russian ballistic missile early-warning systems, including the Russian-American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) program and (2) encourage other joint programs to assure that the Russian Federation has reliable information regarding ballistic missile launches. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that, pending a new agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation, sufficient funds are appropriated for the RAMOS program for its satisfactory continuation during fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would express the sense of Congress that the United States should, consistent with U.S. national security interests: (1) encourage joint efforts by the United States and the Russian Federation to improve Russian ballistic missile early warning systems; (2) encourage other U.S.-Russian programs to ensure that the Russian Federation has reliable information concerning ballistic missile launches; and (3) ensure that funds appropriated for RAMOS Program are used to provide for the satisfactory continuation of RAMOS.

2C) Defense Policy - Complete Floor Debate on H.R. 1588 Conference Report

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 -- (House of Representatives - November 07, 2003)

[Page: H10982]

---

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 437 and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

   H. Res. 437

   Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the

[Page: H10983]

conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 the purpose of debate only.

   This morning, the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference report rule for H.R. 1588, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration.

   In addition, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type of rule we grant for every conference report we consider in the House. And I want to especially give my thanks to the chairman and ranking member of this committee, because they have done a phenomenal job with this bill. It is a bill that sets an example for the rest of the committees in the House as far as working together and doing what is right for the country and what is right for our servicemen.

   This legislation firmly shows our commitment to restoring the strength of our Nation's military. The conferees authorize $400.5 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy, which matches the President's request.

   The legislation authorizes the funding necessary to defend the Nation and our interests around the globe. It contains important provisions, such as concurrent receipt pay for the Nation's veterans, commonsense environmental reforms allowing our troops to properly train, and important new benefits for military personnel and their families.

   The Iraqi conflict and our continuing war on terrorism have brought a renewed and proper focus on national defense. We owe much to our men and women in uniform; and their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a testament to their bravery, training and equipment, and their commitment to defend our freedoms. It is the means by which we meet our commitment to provide them a decent quality of life with an across-the-board 4.15 percent increase for military personnel, so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of America's all-volunteer armed services and the families that support them.

   The pay raise will cut the pay gap between military and civilian jobs from 6.4 to 5.5 percent. This will be the fifth consecutive year that pay raises have exceeded that of the private sector.

   For our active soldiers, the conferees increased the rates of special pay for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger worldwide from $150 a month to $225 per month for the period beginning October 1 of 2003, through December 31 of 2004.

   We also want to acknowledge where these active soldiers get the source of their strength. It is from their families here at home. And we are increasing the family separation allowance for servicemembers with dependents from $100 a month to $250 a month for the period October 1 this year through December 31 of 2004.

   I also want to take a moment to personally thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for tirelessly fighting for the solid ``Buy American Provisions'' that are included in this conference report. That is extremely important to my State of North Carolina.

   The ongoing war on terrorism dictates the need to have reliable domestic sources of weapons and equipment. Unfortunately, fewer American companies are designing and manufacturing the components and materials used in our military systems, as the U.S. industrial base is becoming more dependent on foreign sources. And this is a disturbing factor to me, as I know it is to the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter). We have got to be able to produce these equipment needs here in the United States so we are not at the mercy of some other country if they decide for some reason to cut us off.

   However, I am very disappointed, and I know the chairman is too, that the conference report did not include a key provision that was passed by the House that would ensure that all the components of the Department of Defense uniforms come from American companies. The language specifically worked to more adequately cover domestic textiles and leather industries.

   I would also like to congratulate my good friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for authoring the 1-year citizenship provision for our valiant servicemen and women. It reduces the length of service requirement for naturalization to 1 year. And I would also like to note that the ranking member on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), worked hard on this issue as well.

   On a positive note, I am extremely pleased and proud that H.R. 1588 establishes a payment program to simultaneously compensate disabled military retirees who were injured in combat for their full retirement pay from DOD and disability compensation from the Veterans Administration beginning January 1, 2004. Over the next 10 years, this bill will provide concurrent receipt to more veterans than have ever been covered by current law. Our veterans have given deeply and heroically, and it is only fair we recognize their service.

   So let us pass this rule and pass the underlying defense authorization conference report. At the end of the day, we will be making our homeland safer, and we will be supporting our sons and daughters serving in our military. We are also preparing for war, thereby ensuring victory. At this crucial time in our history, this bill is most important.

   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, for all of my 25 years in this Congress, I have worked to strengthen America's military and to increase our national security. Like other defense proponents on both sides of the aisle, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work together to support America's men and women in uniform.

   For instance, nearly 18 months ago, I introduced the Citizenship for America's Troops Act, a bill to help U.S. troops who are legal immigrants by easing the costly and burdensome obstacles that they face in the current citizenship process. Working with Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate, a good compromise was finally reached, one that is in this defense authorization conference report. It is not perfect, but it does provide much-needed relief to the more than 37,000 patriotic legal immigrants on active duty in the U.S. military, brave men and women who have been fighting and dying for a country in which they could not even vote.

   This kind of cooperation and bipartisanship approach, Mr. Speaker, is fundamental to our efforts to keep America's military strong, especially at a time when so many Americans are losing faith in President Bush's ability to win the peace in Iraq.

   While this conference report offers much to be proud of, Mr. Speaker, like the military pay raise and health care benefits for the National Guard and Reserves that Democrats have fought for, it also demonstrates how bipartisanship is becoming increasingly rare under this all-Republican government.

   During the conference committee negotiations on this bill, Republican leaders shut out Democrats, including the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), on some key areas of the conference. And the gentleman from Missouri will speak about those in more length. This is part of a clear and dangerous pattern by Republican leaders. We have seen it on the energy bill, the

[Page: H10984]

Medicare bill, and the FAA bill; but it is extraordinarily disappointing to see America's national defense policy treated in such a partisan manner.

   Moreover, the conference report itself contains several provisions where Republican idealogy clearly trumped solid national defense policy. In the interest of time, I am going to just mention three examples.

   First, why will President Bush and the Republicans not listen to the veterans and Democrats who are fighting to repeal the disabled veterans tax? Right now it penalizes nearly 560,000 disabled veterans, denying them $3 billion in military retirement benefits each year. As the American Legion has said, Mr. Speaker, the right thing to do is repeal the tax for all service-disabled military retirees. Democrats have proposed a plan to do that; but Republicans, led by President Bush, continue to block it. In fact, in this bill, Republicans refuse to help almost 70 percent of those disabled veterans, Mr. Speaker.

   So when Republican Members are at home for Veterans' Day celebrations next week, I hope they will be honest with the people about the provisions in this bill which provide only partial relief to only a fraction of America's disabled veterans. I hope they will explain that they did not think they could afford to restore military retirement benefits to 390,000 disabled veterans because they spent so much of the U.S. Treasury on tax breaks for the wealthiest few.

   Second, does anyone really believe that national security requires that we gut landmark environmental protections? Of course not. But rolling back America's environmental protections is a Republican priority. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

   And, third, is it really necessary to weaken the workplace protections of 746,000 patriotic Americans employed at the Pentagon, the same people who responded so courageously to the September 11 attack on that building? And is it really necessary to eliminate the rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon? Of course not. But gutting important worker rights is another key Republican priority, and they are shamefully using this national defense bill to do it.

   Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are some areas of this conference report where bipartisanship and sound defense policy have prevailed. These include the substantial quality-of-life improvements that Democrats have fought for. Those include a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers to enhance retention. And they also include an increase in imminent-danger pay and the family separation allowance for U.S. troops serving in harm's way.

   The conference report also builds on our efforts to support the National Guard and Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of defending America at home and abroad. For instance, it ensures that when the Ready Reserves serve in areas where those on active duty get hazardous duty pay, they will too. And if members of the Ready Reserve cannot get health insurance through their employer, it gives them access to the same TRICARE system that serves the military.

   Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report includes my own legislation to make life easier for the Guard and Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and their families, by allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They and their families are making great sacrifices for this Nation and they deserve our support.

   Finally, the bill continues to make important investments in the wide range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout the world. It includes full funding of $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the next generation multirole fighter of the future for the Air Force and the Navy and the Marines. It fully funds the F/A-22 Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air Force, by providing $3.5 billion for 22 planes, and it includes the full $1.2 billion needed for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.

   Mr. Speaker, all these important prodefense provisions have strong bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure the U.S. military has the resources it needs. That is the type of bipartisanship and cooperation that our national security policy requires. It builds strong public support for a U.S. foreign policy here at home and ensures our troops have the resources they need to do the dangerous job we ask of them.

   Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders seem to have forgotten these lessons. And the President too often ignored them in the run-up to the war in Iraq, which is a big reason it will be so hard to restore President Bush's credibility and the public's confidence in his ability to win the peace in Iraq. The American people deserve better than that, and so do our troops in the field. I urge my Republican friends to remember that, especially as U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers continue to shoulder almost the entire burden for rebuilding Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

   (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying conference report which we are going to consider this morning.

   I want to begin by thanking my friend, the former mayor of Charlotte, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for the fine work she has done not only in managing this rule but her important support of provisions in this measure dealing with concurrent receipt, making sure that those veterans who have been wounded and suffered will also receive their retirement pay. This I know was a very high priority for her. She also was very involved, Mr. Speaker, in addressing the Buy American Provision, which my very dear friend and classmate, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee, has pursued. And I believe that we have come to a reasonable compromise on it.

   I am not in total agreement with the gentleman on this provision, at least the way he had originally had it, because I believe we need to focus on ensuring we get the best quality product at the lowest possible price for our taxpayers. But at the same time, obviously, we do want, as a first choice, to focus on, in the area of machine tools and other areas, American workers and American job opportunities here.

   I want to say that there is another provision that my friend, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings), worked on, and I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) worked on as well, which is very important, and that is to ensure that we provide citizenship to those who have risked their lives and fought on behalf of the interests of the United States of America. I am pleased that the conference has in fact chosen to follow the direction of this House in ensuring that we have brought about the Hastings language on this. We know that President Bush strongly supports this as well, and I would like to congratulate him on this.

[Time: 09:30]

   Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important. As we opened the Committee on Rules meeting at 7 o'clock this morning, I said that if you look at most of the things that we do here in Washington, D.C., most all of them can be handled by State and local governments. We are obviously involved in health care and education and a wide range of areas, but clearly those are things that can be handled at the local level. There is really one preeminent issue that cannot be handled by a city, a county or a State government, and that happens to be the overall security of the United States of America and our interests overseas. And that is why I feel as a Member of this body very fortunate to have both the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) working hard to ensure that we have the very, very best defense for our Nation.

[Page: H10985]

   Now, I want to say that as I listened to my friend from Dallas go through his prepared statement on this he did end by talking about the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike stand together in support of a strong defense, but I have to disabuse my colleagues of the notion that was made that somehow Republicans are interested in gutting worker rights, murdering our environment. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker.

   I will state that when it has come to the environmental issues, and I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) will get into this as he has in our meeting upstairs this morning and he has repeatedly here in the well, he has talked about the responsibility to ensure that our men and women in uniform are not playing second fiddle to some obscure environmental priorities that one has. This measure, in fact, pursues a very balanced approach to environmental issues.

   Similarly, this notion that we somehow want to plunder workers rights, that we want to gut the rights of workers, again, nothing could be further from the truth. This measure pursues a very balanced approach which focuses on worker rights. And so I want to say that I believe this measure is going to pass with strong bipartisan support.

   As the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) pointed out, the issue of concurrent receipts is important for us to address, especially as Members prepare to go back to their States and districts and talk about the important sacrifice that has been made and, of course, as we think today, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) was the first one to report this to us in the Committee on Rules this morning, we heard the tragic news overnight of a Black Hawk helicopter that was downed and the loss of six lives.

   We continue to live in a very dangerous world. And the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), I think made a point very clearly in our hearing this morning and that is that we need to take action now. We want to make sure that the conflict exists there and not here, and that is why this legislation is so important, so that we can in fact deal with those who want to do us in.

   The training that continues to take place in the madrasas, which is virulently opposed to the United States and our Western values, the other kind of terrorist activity that we are seeing, we have to be prepared to deal with that.

   Lives are being lost on a regular basis because of this battle against international terrorism, but with passage of this legislation we will be able to diminish the threat of loss of life and ensure that our men and women in uniform are equipped and compensated to deal with this very, very serious issue.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this rule and the conference report.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for presenting it this morning.

   This was a difficult bill, and shortly we will talk about some bumps along the way. But, Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We must do our very best, and I think we have done a good job as it relates to the troops of the United States of America. They are superb. They are doing a good job. We must pay respect to them legislatively as well as to their families legislatively, and I think we have done that by the various items. The family separation allowance, the combat pay, the pay raise and all of these personnel items that we touched upon is our way of saying thanks for a good job well done.

   So I support this rule. In the process I want to express my deep appreciation to everyone in uniform and to those families who support those in uniform. And, sadly, we have lost some and I hope that this is some consolation that we continue to support the American men and women who are wearing the uniform of the United States of America.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

   Let me congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my good partner on the Committee on Armed Services, and all the Members, Republican and Democrat, who helped to put this bill together. I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the chairman on the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who gave us a lot of time and attention, and all the members of the Committee on Rules.

   Let me just say a word or two about what this bill does because this bill makes what I consider to be some sweeping reforms and it is a great bill. It covers a number of major areas, and along with what I call the ``people issues''; that is, the pay raise that has been mentioned, the additional monies for housing that brings down the amount that a service member has to pay out of their pocket, all of the things that go to quality of life for personnel. It also covers some major areas that have needed reform.

   One aspect of that is what I call freedom to train, and today if you go to a place like Camp Pendleton, I have used that as an example, it has some 17 miles of shoreline. Only a very small area can actually be utilized for Marines who basically practice Iwo Jima. They practice assaulting a defended beach area. They can only do that practice in a very, very limited area of about one kilometer because of environmental considerations. And if you go to bases around the country, rifle ranges, air space for our Air Force and our other services to undertake integrated training with multiple aircraft, all of that is being hindered and obstructed because of a collision with our environmental laws.

   Now, we have an answer to that, and the answer is a management plan called an inramp, and that is where the military gets together with State Fish and Wildlife and Federal Fish and Wildlife and they make an agreement. They make an agreement and they say, okay, the habitat for the gnatcatcher will be over here, we will set aside this 400 acres, and the Marines will have this area for rifle training or the Army will have this area for tank training or the Air Force will have this area for aircraft training.

   Once you make that agreement and you put it in place, it is not open for groups to come in and sue under the Endangered Species Act to close down that rifle range, to close down that tank range, to close down that air space that is so vital so that our people can survive in theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan.

   So this is offered under the proposition that the real endangered species here is a 19-year-old Marine rifleman who needs the very best training that he can get here at home before he projects American power overseas, and in this bill we put together this balance between conservation and military requirements.

   Also, with respect to allowing our submariners to utilize the best of their sonar devices that will keep them alive when they are in the littorals, in shallow water areas around the world, where they will be faced with very quiet diesel submarines which are now being proliferated in certain adversaries' navies. We say that, whereas before the standard was that if a mammal, maybe a sea lion, was potentially disturbed that military training could not take place in his neighborhood. Now we say he has to actually be significantly disturbed. He has to actually be disturbed or that disturbance has to be significant enough to alter the way he migrates or feeds or the way he goes about his daily life.

   So we are trying to give as much value to the sailors' survival as we have given to the sea lions' survival. I think that is a good balance. In this case we put the sailor ahead of the sea lion. I think the American people want that.

   With respect to personnel, right now we are facing a war that is a new war. It is a war in which we see terrorists with high technology. We have to be flexible. We have to move quickly, and that involves people who not just wear the uniform of the United States, it also involves people who wear the civil service uniform.

[Page: H10986]

   So we are empowering Mr. Rumsfeld with the ability to reshape his civil service so that instead of taking 4 or 5 or 6 months to go through the bureaucracy to qualify a civil servant to work at a job so you get to the point where you just direct a sergeant to go do it and he salutes and goes and does it, we will now be able to quickly move civil servants into that job. We will be able to hire them quickly, and when people show an extraordinary ability to work and an enthusiasm and dedication that rises above the community, that they will be rewarded for that. And we have tested these ideas in pilot projects around the country, and the members who have participated in the pilot projects have voted that they like it.

   So we are undertaking important reforms in this bill. We are giving the military the tools they need to fight this new type of war. I would urge everyone to support the rule and support the bill.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

   Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

   Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am a conferee on the Defense Authorization Act. Virtually all of the funding for intelligence is contained in this bill.

   This bill is far from perfect. Like a number of conferees, I am enormously concerned about developing bunker buster nuclear weapons, weakening nonproliferation programs, and an assault on collective bargaining, all of which is unfortunately part of this legislation.

   Nonetheless, I signed the conference report and I intend to vote for final passage. The lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, Marines and civilians are on the line in Iraq and in the global war on terrorism. Accurate and actionable intelligence is vital if we are to prevail, and I intend to do everything I can to provide our forces with the best intelligence possible.

   The funds in this bill meet important intelligence needs vital to our Nation's security and, in contrast to the recent $87 billion supplemental, these funds come through the regular budget process.

   Still, the following needs to be said: The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. Sketchy and often circumstantial evidence produced estimates that likely were substantially wrong. At a minimum, I believe the Intelligence Community overstated the strength of the underlying data supporting the conclusions.

   The Intelligence Community has yet to acknowledge any flaws in prewar intelligence. With American lives on the line now, the shortcomings in prewar intelligence must be addressed now. A ``lessons learned'' study cannot await the conclusion of David Kay's ongoing WMD search. Regardless of what he finds, there were problems with collection, analysis and the way policy makers used the information.

   I strongly support this bill's requirement of an Iraq ``lessons learned'' report by the Department of Defense due March 31 of next year. As a conferee on the intelligence authorization bill, I plan to push for an interim ``lessons learned'' report from the Intelligence Community on the same date as the military's report is due, and I hope that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) will join me in this request.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

   Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me time.

   Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who has just gone through very difficult negotiations at a very difficult time. Some Members may not know that he lost his home to the California wildfires that swept through southern California. So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

   This is good news. This defense conference report is good news for our young men and women who serve in the Armed Services and are required to carry out the will of this Nation overseas. We want to give them the tools necessary so they can do their job and come home safely to their families, and this bill provides many of the tools necessary for that to happen. It is also good news for our veterans in addressing the issue of concurrent receipts.

   It is also very good news for the KC-767 program. This is a critical part of our defense program and it completes the circuit for the start of a new program in fulfilling a great need by replacing our KC-135's, the tanker fleet that we currently have.

[Time: 09:45]

   For those who are not familiar with the KC-135, this is basically a gas station in the sky. It refuels other aircraft, and it is a very necessary link in projecting power for this country. Afghanistan and Iraq once again confirmed the necessity that in today's war on terrorism, we must have tankers to fulfill the role of carrying out and projecting power. The problem has been that they are an aging fleet. The average age of the KC-135s is 43 years. Can the Members imagine, Mr. Speaker, coming back and forth to work in a 1960 automobile? This is basically what we have asked our young men and women to do. The average age of 43 years is the equivalent of driving a 1960 Dodge Dart. And just like an older automobile would suffer from rust and need repair, these aircraft are suffering from corrosion and have high maintenance costs. So the KC-135 must be replaced, and this is good news because this defense authorization conference report does that.

   But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the House on notice that we will have to correct some of the problems that have been created by this agreement in the current legislation. The conference report changes the original plan for the KC-767. It changes the delivery rate and purchasing method that was supposed to save approximately $4 billion, an estimated $4 billion, but the short-term plan was shortsighted. It does create a long-term problem. I will submit for the RECORD the letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz outlining the plan to change the delivery schedule for the first 100 aircraft. It essentially changes it from a 20-per-year delivery rate to a 12-per-year delivery rate.

   When we assume the total program of 400 aircraft, instead of ending this program in fiscal year 2025, it will now end in fiscal year 2039. That moves the mid-point of this entire program 7 years to the right. If we assume an average cost of $150 million per aircraft and a 5 percent inflation rate, that is for increased labor cost, increased material cost, increased cost of money, it raises the cost of the entire program by 40.7 percent. So instead of 60 billion over 21 years for the KC-767 program, the Federal Government will have to spend approximately $84.4 billion over 35 years.

   What needs to be done? We are going to address the delivery schedule. It must be accelerated so that we can reach an optimum production rate and a lower cost per aircraft. We also need to provide adequate budget authority to serve the taxpayers with significant reduction in the cost of this program by accelerating the production rate. But over all, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report, and it is going to be something that is going to help our young men and women as well as veterans. I support the rule, and I support the defense conference report.

   DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

   Washington, DC, November 5, 2003.
Hon. JOHN WARNER,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

   DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again for your consideration of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on the best way to get this program started. Your most recent amendment would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20 of the 100 tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to implement that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it acceptable.

   Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The

[Page: 

H10987]

combination of these added funds achieves an immediate start to the program and allows us to purchase the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.

   I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past and look forward to working with you in the future. If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen and ranking minority members of each of the defense committees.

   Sincerely,
PAUL WOLFOWITZ.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

   Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I am glad to see us put some quality-of-life provisions in it; and I commend the chairman, whom I have worked with for 20-odd years, for once again bringing a bill to closure.

   I do have to call attention to the fact that this rule waives all points of order, which is typical; but in this case, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I feel obliged to make my colleagues aware what it is we are waiving because it is not a good way to do business; it is not a good way to keep a budget.

   This conference report contains two provisions that entail significant spending over and above the amounts allowed in the budget resolution. One allows concurrent receipt of military retirement benefits for retirees who also get VA disability benefits. The other commits the government to lease and purchase up to 20 or maybe even 100 new tanker aircraft.

   No funds were added to this conference report to pay for either of these programs, and that is my problem. Between the two of them, they will entail new unfunded future commitments of approximately $40 billion, $22 billion for concurrent receipt, $18 billion for 100 new tanker aircraft.

   As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I support the compromise on concurrent receipt, and I understand the need for new tankers; but I am concerned, and have to be, about the way we are doing this. The rule before us would waive the point of order that would otherwise lie against the conference report for some clear and substantial departures from the budget resolution that is supposed to be prevailing in this House.

   We just finished the fiscal year 2003, Mr. Speaker, with the largest deficit in our peacetime history, $374 billion. The deficit for next year, fiscal year 2004, is likely to break that by $100 billion, even without the additional cost of these programs which are not included in any of CBO's or OMB's projections.

   All I am saying is if concurrent receipt is a worthy benefit, and I think it is, then let us pay for it or at least let us recognize fully in the budget the cost of it. If we need these tankers, and I accept the arguments that we do, then let us pay for them. Let us make the argument and pay for them and set the priority in the budget. This bill does not do that, and this rule would allow Congress to flout the budget resolution without facing up to these costs. If Congress feels that it is necessary to abandon the budget resolution that supposedly prevails in the House and further increases the deficit, then we ought to be accountable for that decision. But this rule would make sure that no Member of this body will have the opportunity to demand such accountability.

   Let me tell the Members specifically the two problems in the conference report with respect to these items that give me trouble. The conference report phases in a compromised version of concurrent receipt. In 2004 this would increase direct spending by $800 million. By 2013 this would increase annual cost to as much as $3.5 billion. This provision would cost an estimated $22 billion in additional direct spending over the next 10 years, none of which is provided for in the mandatory spending provisions of the budget resolution. That is why I call it a substantial departure.

   There is another anomaly in the way concurrent receipt is treated. Since the mid-1980s, we have recognized military retirement costs through an accrual system that sets aside funds to cover the cost of retirement benefits we owe in the future for today's military service. The concurrent receipt provisions in this bill eliminate a reduction or offset in military retirement and thus increase military retirement benefits. Under current procedures, we should increase our accrual payments to account for the fact that we have just increased future spending on retirement benefits. This bill does not do that. It departs from a convention we adopted 20 years ago for reporting military retirement programs.

   The conference agreement also includes language that was not in either bill to lease 20 tankers and then buy 80 more. In effect, what it allows is incremental funding, something we have not done for big procurement programs for a long, long time. It entails at least a liability of $4 billion, maybe as much as $18 billion, and yet none of this money is in the Air Force budget. None of this authority has been recognized. What we have here is an effort to obscure the fact that we are increasing the defense budget but not adding BA commensurate to the amount of the increase.

   There are committees right now and next week railing against corporate misaccounting in this country and should be. But we should keep our own books in proper order in order to make such criticisms. This is not a way to budget. I support the bill and hope it does not constitute a precedent for the future.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

   Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

   I rise in strong support of the rule and of the conference report with a deep sense of gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), as well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member, for their extraordinary and bipartisan leadership on behalf of that fundamental function of our Nation and this Congress to provide for the common defense and in meeting the urgent needs of soldiers in the field of today, our intelligence community, but also meeting the needs of those who have served in uniform. I believe this conference report goes a long way toward discharging that duty.

   Mr. Speaker, in the survival of freedom we literally as American citizens owe our veterans everything. But in a world of limited resources, we can only in this Congress do the right thing. I rise specifically today on virtually the eve of Veterans' Day to point out how this Congress, thanks to the bipartisan leadership of the defense authorizing committee, is doing the right thing by veterans in the area of concurrent receipts.

   Since arriving in Congress, I have heard from one veteran after another, men and women who had worn the uniform of the United States of America, about the injustice of losing disability benefits for which they were eligible as veterans at the time they reached the age of retirement. Thanks to this legislation, in most cases disability benefits incurred in uniform or earned in uniform will not be forfeited simply because a veteran reaches the age of retirement. The Good Book tells us if we owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect. By meeting the urgent needs of the defense of the Nation today, we pay a debt to those who risk and expend their lives in the advancement of our freedom. But by addressing the injustice of current veterans benefits, Congress today goes a long way toward paying the debt we owe to those we can never repay.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

   Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership.

   I rise to point out that this conference report does not adequately address the needs of our disabled military retirees. Later today we will be considering a motion to recommit. And I strongly urge Members to support that motion and urge that we fix a tremendous injustice in this conference report.

   The conference report provides no relief whatsoever to two-thirds of disabled veterans who are now paying the Disabled Veterans Tax. Further, it provides only limited relief from the unfair tax burden to those it does cover. Under this report, veterans with disabilities rated at 50 percent or more would have to wait 10 years before receiving their full military retirement pay. The vast majority of eligible veterans are left out. In fact, 400,000 veterans with disabilities rated under 50

[Page: 

H10988]

percent would not receive any relief at all. In other words, some veterans who lost their limbs while serving their country are not considered worthy of relief after they get back to the States.

   This is not ``full concurrent receipt'' as has been claimed. This is clearly not a victory for veterans. It is an attempt to divide and conquer veterans so as to deprive most retirees of their earned retirement benefits. A vote for the motion to recommit is a vote for full concurrent receipt and an end to the tax on our disabled veterans.

   I urge all Members to vote for this motion and support what 374 Members have already said by cosponsoring legislation for full, not partial, concurrent receipt.

   Mr. Speaker, I believe the veterans of our country are wise enough to make judgments about where they want to go, and I salute them for raising the issues that we have been dealing with the last few years.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

   Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to say right up front that I will vote for this defense authorization. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and a whole range of people have done an outstanding job to ensure the safety not only of the United States and our security but of those young men and women who are out there basically buttressing the pillars of civilization.

   The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) mentioned a little while ago that a 19-year-old rifleman ought to get the best training in the world. I agree with him 100 percent. I was a 19-year-old Marine Corps rifleman who worked with the Navy over a period of years, went into assaulted-fortified positions from Navy ships. So I personally recognize the absolute need, the uncompromising need, to ensure the best available training, the best equipment, the best of support that this country can offer to U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marine Corps, and airmen.

   I would like to work with the Committee on Armed Services and the chairman and the ranking member. Over the next several months, the Committee on Resources will be reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The language in the defense authorization bill dealing with the marine mammals was something that we worked out. The language that is in the defense bill now, I think, goes beyond what is necessary. There are some issues dealing with small numbers versus negligeable numbers. There are some issues dealing with confined geographic areas. There are issues dealing with permits. There are issues with civilian scientific research.

   I think the model we can use for the marine mammals and the Marine training is laid out before us in this thing called INRMPs, Integrated National Resources Management Plans, that there is consultation, there is collaboration with the Committee on Resources and the other agencies throughout the Federal Government. That model that deals with INRMPs, that assures those guys on the ground, that young 19-year-old rifleman, is going to get the best training, no compromise on that. And I would like to work with the Committee on Armed Services to deal with those issues over the next several months.

[Time: 10:00]

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

   Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

   I rise to express my opposition to the conference report on the Department of Defense authorization bill. I want to pick up with where the last speaker finished. He said he thought in this bill they went a little further than was necessary in the area of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. I want to say what I believe to be the case, that the problem with this bill is that it has been hijacked by the Republican leadership and the White House, who insisted on provisions that weakened environmental laws relating to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

   I am also the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, and I want to address the civil service provisions in this bill. I am not opposed to reasonable reform that makes the Federal Government function more efficiently and still protects the basic rights of Federal employees, but this bill is not reasonable.

   Senator Collins developed a bipartisan compromise that safeguarded the collective bargaining rights of 700,000 DOD employees, yet gave DOD much of the flexibility it requested, but this bill abandons that compromise. This bill makes a mockery of labor relations at the Defense Department. At the same time that the bill claims to protect collective bargaining, it allows DOD to waive these requirements for the next 6 years. During these 6 years, the Department can run rough-shod over its unions. The Department can decide what issues will be bargained, how labor and management impasses will be resolved and whether it will discriminate against union members.

   This bill also makes it harder for DOD employees to gain redress for unfair treatment. Currently employees have the ability to file appeals with the independent Merit Systems Protection Board, but under this bill employees first would have to go through an internal DOD appeals process. An administration that says it is against bureaucracy and red tape wants to create so much bureaucracy for employee appeals that employees will simply give up trying to protect their rights.

   The bill removes requirements for DOD employees to receive overtime pay or pay for working on holidays or weekends. This is ironic, since both the House and the Senate recently voted to protect overtime pay for private sector employees.

   As the war efforts in Iraq have demonstrated, DOD employees do not work only Monday through Friday, 9 to 5. Frankly, it is shameful that Congress is going to give those employees who safeguard our national security less overtime protection than it gives private employees.

   Finally, I have concerns about some of the provisions dealing with government-wide procurement policy. In particular, the bill extends to all civilian agencies something known as ``other transaction authority'' for research and development projects related to defense against terrorism. This would essentially waive all Federal procurement laws for these contracts. The bill also includes excessive waivers of procurement rules for contracts related to other anti-terrorism products and services.

   It is wrong to take important must-pass legislation like the DOD authorization and load it up with right-wing policies that damage the environment and strip employees of basic rights, but that is what this bill is doing, and I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose it.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

   Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership and appreciate her yielding me time.

   Let me say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for 18 years in this Congress supported legislation that would give concurrent receipt to our veterans; 18 years. People in this Chamber need to know that, because there are people here who have been present during that time, and during that time the people who are now saying that Republicans will not support our veterans need to remind themselves that not a one of them joined sponsorship for his bill while that was there.

   Since I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I have been working to strengthen the Berry Amendment to help ensure that the Department of Defense use American manufacturers and products in its procurement programs. This past spring, and this good rule supports these efforts, I became very concerned when there was a blanket waiver issued for commercial aircraft.

   Among other products, this largely jeopardizes our domestic titanium industry. The number of companies that currently comprise this industrial base has shrunk to three domestic producers of titanium. Maintaining this base is not only vital for our economy, but also our national security. We simply cannot be relying on the Russians and the Chinese, who are developing their own economies, to supply significant amounts of titanium for our Nation's defense.

[Page: H10989]

   The gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) has been tenacious in working to make sure that our industrial defense base is strengthened, not protected, strengthened, so that our national security is foremost.

   I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) for his comments on this issue.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and we are going to describe during the general debate the great industrial base provisions, like the machine tool provision that we came out of this conference with, some excellent stuff.

   But with respect to titanium, we know that we have three major makers of titanium left in this country. Otherwise, you have to rely on foreign sources. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) personally for putting together the working group between industry and the Air Force and Members who are interested, and putting together what we call the basket approach to titanium.

   The basket approach says basically this: If you are going to take a domestic system, like the planes that are candidates for this tanker operation, and you convert them into a military system, right now the Berry Amendment says you have to use American-made titanium on American military systems.

   We have agreed that since some of these civilian aircraft will have some foreign-made titanium, we got with the industry leaders and they agreed that they would take and require the same amount of American titanium, with in fact a 10 percent increase, and spread that across the rest of their lines to make up for the foreign titanium that was in those civilian aircraft. I have talked with industry leaders. They feel a strong commitment to that policy.

   I want to thank the gentleman for putting that in place. I think it is going to accrue to the benefit of not only our tanker program, but also the health of the titanium industry.

   Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very much, and thanks again to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). This is a great rule. It is for our troops, it is for our Nation, The spirit and intent of what we discussed is there.

   Vote for this rule.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

   (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and this rule. I have concerns about this bill, too. I represent the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Keyport, Bangor. Many of these work rules are very much deplored by the workers there, and I regret that they have been attached to this legislation, but we will continue to work to try and deal with them as we proceed in this session of Congress.

   I want to rise in very strong support of the provision my friend the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) talked about earlier, the question of tankers. I became interested in this issue several years ago with a visit to Tinker Air Force Base where we saw the condition of our KC-135-Es. I believe that this is a crucial national priority, to get a new tanker replacement program started.

   The Air Force has chosen the 767. We have had a lot of controversy about whether we should buy or lease. We have come up with a combination here. The Secretary of Defense's office, led by Mr. Wolfowitz, sent a letter on Thursday, which has brought us together. I want to commend the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his dedicated leadership on this issue. Without his tremendous effort and tenacity, we would not have gotten this far.

   I intend to have a colloquy later with the chairman of the committee when we get to the authorization bill on this matter, but I just want to say that I want to compliment everyone who has worked on this. For 2 years, we had to get an effort under way to get this replacement effort going.

   Not to understate it, every single plane that flew into Afghanistan and into Iraq had to be refueled multiple times. Our whole effort to improve our bomber capability with the B-2 and smart weapons and all of the aircraft coming off of our carriers, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, all of them had to be refueled multiple times. So you do not get anything done without tankers.

   We have planes now, 544 of them, that were built between 1957 and 1963. These are very old aircraft. We have serious corrosion problems, and I am glad that this conference committee was able to come together and put together a package and that the administration has said they will make it work.

   I believe this is one of the most important things we can do. If you think about it, tankers and the EA-6-Bs, which are also old and in terrible condition, are two weapons systems that have become absolutely fundamental to our U.S. ability to project power around the world. I am glad we can get this tanker thing moving forward and that it is in this bill.

   I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership on this issue.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

   (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep disappointment at the failure to deal with challenges for one-half of our patriotic team in the war against terrorism. We have done some good things in here for our folks in the Armed Services, but for our civilian employees, who are a crucial part of our defense team, we are removing protections for overtime pay and other matters, and that is just abominable.

   When I went out to greet with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) the Carl Vinson when she came back from the Afghanistan war, I talked to the folks about their incredibly successful safety record of thousands of sorties without a loss, and they told me it is in large part because of the incredibly adept maintenance done on that ship by our civilian employees. This bill is a jab and a mark of disrespect for those civilian employees, who are every bit as patriotic as our folks in the Armed Services today, and there is no reason for this to have happened.

   Now, this is just the first step in this effort. We are going to continue to work on this, that this effort of flexibility does not mean disrespect for our civilian employees. We are going to stay on it like a dog with a bone.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and the underlying bill which will follow immediately thereafter.

   I want to just point out to my colleagues that the concurrent receipt victory that is in this bill is significant, it is profound, it is historic, and will make a major difference in the lives of our men and women who have served ably and honorably in our military, have served for 20 years or more, and also have been disabled. It will provide that anyone who is service-connected disabled 50 percent or more or combat-related of any rating will get the full concurrent receipt after a phase-in of 10 years.

   Let me point out to my colleagues that this adds about $22 billion in benefits over 10 years to veterans compensation. This is not an insignificant amount of money.

   After the phase-in period, let me remind my colleagues as well that this bill adds about a $3.5 billion every year to service connected disabled vets. So the next 10 years we are talking about another $35 billion more that will go to our disabled veterans. That is in excess of $57 billion to our disabled veterans as a result of this legislation.

   I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee, for his work, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Missouri

[Page: H10990]

(Mr. Blunt), and so many others who worked on this to make sure that we get concurrent receipt resolved.

[Time: 10:15]

   Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I would only point out to the previous speaker and to speakers on the other side that if the Republicans in the House were willing to forego a little bit of the tax cuts for the wealthy, we could fully fund concurrent receipts, rather than just partially funding concurrent receipts.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of this conference report.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I want to again thank the chairman and ranking member of this committee for the good work they have done in bringing this bill forward. It is a good bill at the right time in history to help our men and women and to be sure that we are doing all we can in this war on terrorism.

   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.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 437, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1588), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

   The Clerk read the title of the bill.

   (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of November 6, 2003, Book II.)

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the conference report is considered as having been read.

   The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank all of my colleagues who participated in putting this bill together from the earliest hearing that we had early in the year on the threat that America faces, on the status of our Armed Forces, and on what we need to do to give the President and our troops the tools to get the job done. My partner, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), is every bit a 50-50 partner in this operation, Mr. Speaker. When we really get down to what it takes to protect our freedom, there are no Republicans or Democrats, and we have a very bipartisan committee, and I am proud of that. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as not just a friend, but a real full partner in helping to shape America's defenses, along with all of the members on the Democrat side on the Committee on Armed Services and, of course, our great, great folks on the Republican side, along with the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who have done such a great job.

   Now, Mr. Speaker, we face a new era. This is an era of what I would call terrorists with high technology; and probably Jim Woolsey said it best when he said we have killed the big dragon, that is, we have disassembled the Soviet Union, but there are lots of poisonous snakes out there, and we are seeing those poisonous snakes and the effect of their bites every day around the world, not just in the theatres in Afghanistan and Iraq, but elsewhere. And I think probably the American people since 9-11 still have an acute understanding of the venom and the poison that is manifest in that capability of our adversaries in this new era of terrorists with high technology.

   Our job is to meet that threat, and our job is further, in meeting that threat, to shape the U.S. military and our defense apparatus to meet the threat, to defeat it, and to equip it; to give it the tools that it needs to do its job most effectively, and this bill does that, Mr. Speaker.

   I wanted to talk about a number of issues with respect to this bill. This is a sweeping bill; and it does a number of reforms, a number of changes, a number of things that I think are important to change our military as we move into this new era.

   Let me talk about, first just talk about the last subject that came up during the rule, and that is the tankers. Because, yes, the tanker agreement is in this bill. Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about that.

   First, anyone who does a security analysis or a briefing on potential threats around this world and present threats understands that tankers are extremely important. I just might add that I undertook a series of classified and unclassified briefings, as have most members of the Committee on Armed Services over the last many years, and paramount to our ability to project power is American air power.

   Whether we are talking about B-2 bombers that can fly literally from Whiteman Air Base to strike a target in Kosovo with precision munitions, or talking about tactical aircraft flying off a carrier and hitting targets in Afghanistan or Iraq, we need tankers. Tankers, that big gas station in the sky that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) talked about, are necessary to project American air power. If we have American air power and, specifically, if we have stealth, and we couple that stealth with precision munitions, that is, instead of carpet-bombing a bridge, we send in that one precision munition, it hits one strut on that bridge and brings the whole bridge down, if we have that combination and we have the legs to get it there over the target in whatever remote part of the world we are operating in, we can project American power, we can protect our military forces, and we can drive them in a blitzkrieg attack against the enemy target, whether it is enemy forces surrounding Baghdad or some other area of the world; and Americans now understand that.

   So we have to have tankers. If we do scenarios around the world, every single scenario requires lots of American tankers and, I might say, Mr. Speaker, more than we have now, newer than we have now, more capable than we have now. That is the reason we are putting the tanker deal together, and that is the reason that this is being carried in this bill.

   Now, let me tell my colleagues, with respect to personnel, we have had some arm wrestling over this. But I think that the guy with whom we are trusting millions of young American lives, the Secretary of Defense, can be trusted with reshaping our personnel system in civil service in the Department of Defense to be more effective, and I think be more rewarding for those workers. I think they like the idea that we are going to be able to hire people right out of that job fair instead of telling them, in 3 months, maybe the Federal Government can hire you, while IBM and the private concerns are picking them up immediately. I like the idea that they are going to be able to be qualified for a job within a few days instead of after 3 or 4 months of bureaucracy, and that will allow them to take jobs that military people are doing now. When we have tested these things in places like China Lake, a majority of the workers, the workers have voted that they like this new system, this new flexible personnel system. This is an important new part of shaping the military.

   So I think that is good.

   Freedom to train, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about that. We have to give our young people the freedom to train, and once we make that agreement that the bird hatchery is going to be over here and the rifle range is going to be over here, we cannot let groups then go sue to close down the rifle range on the basis that they want to get that one too. We have to allow a balance to be maintained. One Marine said it best. He said to our members of the Committee on Armed Services, he said, for years we have done work-arounds. He said, we cannot work around it anymore, there is no land left to work around. So we need to have this. This is very, very important legislation, freedom-to-train legislation, Mr. Speaker.

   Let me talk about the industrial base. We have got in this bill a great foundation for bringing back and maintaining the industrial base of this

[Page: H10991]

country, and the centerpiece of this is what I think is the centerpiece of American production, the machine tool industry of this country, which used to be second to none. We have a provision in this bill, it is not a mandatory provision, so it is not going to make anybody have to go in and take out billions of dollars of machine tools, but it says that if you are an American contractor bidding on a DOD job, if you use an American machine tool instead of a foreign machine tool, you are going to get points in the competition. And I think that is going to incentivize some of our companies, big and small, to say instead of looking at another foreign-made machine tool, let us call up that American company and see what they have. Maybe we can use that machine tool. And that is going to, I believe, Mr. Speaker, start to bring back this base of machine tools upon which a lot of our defense manufacturing capability was founded. We do a lot of other great things in our industrial-based provisions, Mr. Speaker; but that is the centerpiece, and I think it is a very important foundation.

   Now, we also reauthorize for 10 years the maritime security program. This is a program that brings in the strong right arm of America's maritime unions and makes sure that they are the ones that are moving men and

   materiel across the ocean into theaters of action instead of having to rely on rental operations where we are taking unions and working people from other countries and having to rely on foreign personnel to move the wherewithal for military victories around the world. That is what is going to bring our maritime unions, our ship-builders, and our maritime operators back into preeminence; and we have worked hard on that, Mr. Speaker, and that is a great aspect of this bill.

   Concurrent receipt is very important, Mr. Speaker. We started out last year by saying people who are actually hit in combat, people who have won the Purple Heart, are going to get now two checks. They get the full check for everything that they have been disabled, for all of their disability, and they get the full check for their retirement for everything that they have done to serve the U.S. military. We now also say, and incidentally, I see the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) here, our chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, who very much has been a leader in putting this thing together. We also now are going to give full concurrent receipt, that is that full disability check, to all of those people who are wounded in the combat area or who are disabled or hurt in the combat area, who are hurt or disabled while training for combat. Maybe that guy who is jumping out at the 82nd Airborne, with the 82nd Airborne at Fort Bragg hurt his back, he is going to get it; and also people who are hit by instrumentalities of combat, like people who are hit by agent orange, Mr. Speaker. Then we go to the entire population of veterans who were not hurt in combat, were not hit by enemy bullets, were not hurt while training for combat but, nonetheless, have disabilities. And all of those people who are over 50 percent, Mr. Speaker, are going to receive both checks.

   Now, that is going to bring in about 250,000 people, new people into the system. It is a big, big victory for veterans. It is a wonderful thing.

   Mr. Speaker, let me just say, too, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), obviously, the guy that I call the father of concurrent receipt, it has been a big part of his career. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), lots of great people; I might say that Senator Warner also, working on Purple Heart Plus last year, had a good hand in starting to put this thing together, lots and lots of people. Lots of our veterans and veteran supporters in this House have been involved in putting this program together. This is a great program.

   Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill. It is a far-reaching bill. It gives the President and the troops the tools to get the job done. Let us pass this bill.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. I will explain the reasons why, but I first want to compliment my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). This was the gentleman's inaugural voyage as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the seas were far from smooth. Many of the issues we faced were particularly difficult. I applaud the gentleman's leadership in recognizing that the totality of the bill is more important, especially when our country is at war in Iraq.

   I do want to raise several issues of caution about process, however. First, the conference process has not been totally inclusive. Many issues, three in particular, civil service reform, concurrent receipt, and Air Force tanker leasing have been decided without substantive Democratic consultation. Second, there were few conference meetings that involved all the conferees or even all the House conferees. Finally, it is highly undesirable to consider a conference report on a large and highly complex defense bill in just a few hours after the conference report has been filed. It is not possible for Members to make best judgments about voting on this bill when there has not been adequate time after it has been filed.

   The fact that we are considering this bill today, however, reflects the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services members that we must provide for the men and women of our military when they are sacrificing in so many ways to defend our country and our issues. They are depending on us. We will not let them down. And we are at war.

   I want to highlight just a few issues that cause me to support this bill. The bill includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for the troops. The bill provides an increase in imminent-danger pay. It provides for family separation allowance, which will directly benefit our servicemen and -women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and other dangerous spots away from their homes. The conference report further authorizes TRICARE coverage in the military health care system for our National Guardsmen and for our Reservists who played such a vital role against terrorism.

[Time: 10:30]

   Finally, very, very important, this bill includes increasing the Army's size 2,400 additional soldiers. That is so terribly important because the troops are so strained at this time, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) knows that so well as chairman of the subcommittee.

   We need the pay raise. We need the special pay to compensate and help retain those who have those special skills. Our bases need the military construction and family housing authorizations. We need to authorize the money for military operations, for flying hours and steaming days and tank miles, to allow our troops to be the best trained and prepared in the world.

   I want to mention concurrent receipt. Overwhelming majorities of both Houses clearly support providing this benefit to all disabled retirees. Nevertheless, the conference agreement, which would provide this benefit to those at least 50 percent disabled, is a significant step in the right direction. There will, however, be a motion to recommit regarding this issue, and I hope people will support it.

   I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we were able to reach agreements on many difficult issues, but I know many of my colleagues will not be happy with some of the substantive outcomes. The conference agreements concerning low yield nuclear weapons, civil service reform, and changing environmental laws are particularly problematic, and I point those out.

   Now, perhaps more than any time in the last decade, however, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the House take action to provide for our men and women in uniform. This vote will not only be seen in Kabul or Baghdad but also Diego Garcia, Fort Irwin, Norfolk, Fort Leonard Wood, Whiteman Air Force Base. We need to send a message to the American public, and to our adversaries and allies, that we as a Congress are prepared to give our men and women in uniform the support, the strong support and protection that they deserve.

   So I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[Page: H10992]

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Unconventional Warfare, Terrorism and Capabilities and oversees these very important special operations forces who are doing such a great job for our country.

   (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking and commending the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for the great bipartisan job that has occurred in bringing this bill to the floor.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1588 and do so with a great deal of pride after a lengthy but productive conference. The conferees have hammered out an excellent bill that will go a long way in enhancing our national security and providing our troops and their families with the assets they need.

   I have the honor of chairing, as the chairman said, the new Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on the Committee on Armed Services. As many in this body know, I have worked for many years to stand up such a subcommittee, and with good reason, for there is much that is left to be done.

   The subcommittee's ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I have worked hard together to explore a multitude of ways to provide the Department of Defense with the capabilities to defeat and defend against terrorists at home as well as abroad, and many of these ideas are contained in the conference report before you.

   For example, the conference report includes many provisions that will prepare our Armed Forces and, in particular, the Special Operations Command, to combat terrorism worldwide as well as several items that will enhance homeland defense. In addition, the conference report establishes several programs addressing issues that arose in the recent war with Iraq and items that will speed the transformation of the military services.

   It is critically important that all Members vote for this measure. There is much to applaud in many areas. I am proud to be a conferee and proud of the work that the chairman, and my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), as I said before, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) did in this regard. They have set a standard for us, and this is a bill which must be passed, hopefully with a very good vote.

   Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to myself.

   Mr. Speaker, last night, yesterday in Iraq 7 brave young Americans died. This is the committee that makes the decisions to arm those people, to pay those people, take care of their families, and to take care of their injuries when they get home. And, so, as earlier this year I voted to send those young people to Iraq, I share in the responsibility and for those things that go wrong I share in the blame.

   Having said that, although I have grave reservations about parts of this bill, I will be supporting it because they deserve to be paid, they deserve a pay increase, they deserve the better weapons, the better ships that are in this bill. But there are a couple of things that trouble me greatly.

   Number one is the Bush administration's insistence on another round of base closures. Anyone in this body knows, who has taken the time to look at it, knows the United States Army is too small, that the entire United States Army is spoken for. If they are not deployed, they are getting ready to be deployed. So how on earth can we close one base out of four as the Bush administration wants to do?

   The fleet is too small, 295 ships. Again, how can we close one Navy port out of four if the fleet is too small?

   If the Bush administration truly thinks the base closures is a good idea, then they ought to have the courage to announce which bases they want to close prior to the Presidential election and not after in 2005. I think it just stands to reason. You do not hear Congressmen saying let us close bases. I cannot find one Service Secretary who is saying let us close bases. I cannot find one Admiral or General who will name one base that should be closed.

   So if the Bush administration wants to close bases, let them do it prior to the Presidential election.

   Second thing is, Mr. President, for the sake of those people fighting, let us pay for this war. This supplemental, and I am going to vote for it, is going to spend $400 billion for our Nation's defense.

   A couple weeks ago we had a supplemental for $87 billion, earlier in the year another supplemental for $79 billion. That adds up to about $565 billion. Every penny of that is borrowed. It is borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. It is borrowed from the Medicare Trust Fund. It is borrowed from the military retirees trust fund. It is borrowed from the civil servicemen's retirement trust fund. It is borrowed from the communist Chinese, and it is borrowed from average Americans.

   See, those of us who were lucky enough not to have to fight this war ought to at least be willing to pay for it and not stick the brave young men and women who will be coming home from this deployment with the bill. Every other generation of Americans tried to pay their own bills during wartime. This generation of Americans passes the buck to somebody else, and it is wrong.

   So for the sake of the great young men and women who are serving our country in the Army and the Navy, the Air Force, Marines, those great Guardsmen and Reservists who are being pulled away from their families to serve as we speak, and a young person from Mississippi who was a Guardsman died just yesterday, I am going to vote for this bill. But I would ask my colleagues to let us do this in the future in a more sensible way.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has a high responsibility of overseeing the total force of the military, our Reserves, our Active, our Guard, with respect to all the personnel issues, pay, personnel issues, family benefits, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force.

   (Mr. McHUGH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for his gracious comments and for his courageous leadership, certainly on this bill, but also day in and day out.

   I think it is obvious there are a couple lessons we can learn from this bill. One is an old lesson, and that is happily this is one of, if not the most, bipartisan committees to operate in Congress, and that is so critical in times such as these. We have heard the gracious comments and enlightened comments of the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), someone who I respect so much. I want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for his partnership in our portion on this mark, and all of the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. But I give a special tip of the hat to our chairman who, in a very difficult time was experiencing personal loss, the loss of his private home during the California fires, still kept a focus on this vital piece of legislation.

   The second lesson is that important as all the military is, the troops are key. And you have heard my colleagues comment about the positive things in this bill, active industry, the increases for the Army in difficult times, similar end strength increases for the Guard and Reserve, for those good citizen soldiers the military pay raise average 4.1 percent, the imminent danger and family separation allowances at these difficult times. But I want to focus on concurrent receipt.

   The third lesson of this bill is we always want to do better, but I would note to my colleagues who have concerns that this is a program that has been in place since the Civil War era. And until all of this work together over the last several years, there had never been a change in it.

   With this bill today we will have started at 35,000 troops, veterans who are receiving full concurrent receipt, and we will have expanded that to over a quarter of a million. And that is progress, $22 billion. So we will continue to fight to do better, but this is amazing progress for more than 160

[Page: H10993]

years when nothing had been done, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 1588, a wartime bill that directly addresses committee concerns about the inadequacy of military manpower and the damaging effects of excessive operations and personnel tempos.

   H.R. 1588 also reflects the House Armed Services Committee's belief in the need to be proactive in military personnel policy and pay matters so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of the men and women of America's magnificent all-voluntary armed services, and the families that support them.

   Finally, H.R. 1588 contains legislative and funding initiatives to enhance the ability of the active, National Guard and reserves to operate as an integrated total force.

   Among the more important provisions of H.R. 1588 are:

   Active end strength increases of 2,400 for the Army, with an additional $68 million to support the increases;

   Growth in selected reserve and fulltime National Guard and reserve strengths;

   Military pay raises that average 4.1 percent;

   Continuation of increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowances.

   A significant expansion of concurrent receipt that will when implemented wean that benefit more than 250,000 military retirees.

   Commissaries and exchange provisions to better define and protect those important benefits.

   DOD health care improvements, to include expanded health care coverage of the National Guard and reserves, and

   Expanded and expedited naturalization procedures for active and reserve component personnel.

   None of these great outcomes is achieved in a vacuum. The conference report before you is a bi-partisan measure, reflecting the active input and involvement of committee members, as well as the leadership and judgment of Chairman DUNCAN HUNTER and Representative IKE SKELTON, the committee's ranking Democrat.

   H.R. 1588 is a very good bill that addresses a range of needs of our wartime military. I urge my colleagues to support it.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder.)

   Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Total Force I rise in support of this conference report. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his leadership and also to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skeleton), for their many years and efforts that has resulted once again in a conference agreement coming to the floor.

   This bill continues several years of improvements to quality of life programs for our military personnel, retirees, and their families. We provided a targeted pay raise of up to 3.7 percent and additional targeted pay increases for mid-career and senior enlisted personnel.

   We fixed a problem for our reservists who were called up after September 11 and were forced to pay their lodging expenses when they went home on leave. We extended the increase in imminent danger pay to $225 and family separation allowance to $250 until the end of next year. Our service members are still in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and face months of separation from their loved ones. These increases are necessary and deserved.

   We increased access to TRICARE benefits for reservists and their families. We expanded commissary access to selected reservists and Reserve retirees under 60.

   We allow individuals who volunteer to defend our Nation but are not U.S. citizens to become naturalized after 1 year of service. We also allow their families to become naturalized if a service member is killed in action.

   I am disappointed that the committee was not able to include full concurrent receipt. Approximately 60 percent of Arkansas disabled veterans who are currently penalized by current law will not be helped by this compromise. We should do better.

   While I am supporting of this bill, the process that brought us here is not good. The bipartisanship for which our committee has been known is slowly vanishing. The responsibility to provide for our Nation's defense and security is an area in which partisanship should be minimized, particularly at a time of war.

   Sadly, it is becoming clear that this partisanship is becoming the norm in the way we conduct business. Both Democrats and Republicans have a duty and obligation to protect our citizens and the freedom Americans enjoy.

   We need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our rights and freedoms are preserved for future generations.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks.)

   (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. Chairman, the conference report on H.R. 1588, the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization Act, contains a provision, section 135, which authorizes the Air Force to enter into a contract for 100 tanker aircraft under the terms and conditions of section 8159 of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Section 135 of the conference report does authorize a tanker acquisition program as did the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.

   Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my further understanding that section 135 was written after extensive negotiation with the Department of Defense and the administration and that that section represents a common understanding between the conferees and the administration on the terms under which this tanker program will be executed.

[Time: 10:45]

   Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is again correct. Section 131 codifies an agreement reached with the administration. The conferees relied upon a letter sent on November 5, 2003, to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services in the other body by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, in coming to agreement on the tanker acquisition program authorized by section 135.

   Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

   Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is further my understanding that section 135 of the conference report will authorize the Air Force to enter into a single contract to acquire 100 767 tanker aircraft through a combination of lease and purchase.

   Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is correct. Section 135 authorizes the Air Force to enter into one contract for 100 aircraft, 20 by lease and 80 by purchase, or more than one contract for the same combination of aircraft.

   Mr. TIAHRT. Finally, it is my understanding that section 135 of the conference report authorizes the Air Force to enter into a multi-year contract for the purchase of 767 tanker aircraft, and that payment under this contract may be made at the time of aircraft delivery, a process sometimes referred to as incremental funding.

   Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is correct. The conferees in their joint report language agree that this section would ``authorize the Secretary to enter into a multi-year procurement program, using incremental funding.'' This language indicates that the multi-year procurement program authorized by section 135 would allow the Air Force to make payments as agreed to in the contract and that the Air Force would not be required to have the full budget authority required to purchase an aircraft in order to place an order for that aircraft under the contract.

   Mr. DICKS. We thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue.

   Mr. Speaker, the letter sent to the Committee on Armed Services by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz is as follows:

   DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

   Washington, DC, Nov. 5, 2003.
The Hon. JOHN WARNER,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

   DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again for your consideration of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on the best way to get this program started. Your most recent amendment would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20 of the 100 tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to implement that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it acceptable.

   Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The combination of these added funds achieves an immediate start to the program and allows us to purchase the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.

   I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past and look forward to working with you in the future. If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen and ranking minority members of each of the defense committees.

   Sincerely,
PAUL WOLFOWITZ.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

   Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, one of the most time-honored traditions of America's servicemen and women is to keep their promise to leave no troops behind on the battlefield. This revered tradition is based on the principle that it would be wrong to leave those behind who have served in sacrifice for their country. Our Nation should honor this tradition, this principle of respect when it comes to the treatment of veterans. No veterans should be left behind when it comes to providing them the benefits they have earned.

   Unfortunately, the Republican compromise on the disabled veterans tax known as concurrent receipt leaves over 397,000 veterans behind, 397,000 veterans, most of whom have served our Nation in uniform 20 to 30 years. They would not benefit whatsoever from this so-called compromise that represents a lot of broken promises and a lot of patriotic veterans left behind.

   Many of the military retirees who might be benefitted from this compromise will never see its benefits because it is phased in over 10 years. How many World War II veterans will even be alive 10 years from now?

   When Republicans passed a $230,000 tax break just earlier this year for wealthy Americans making over $1 million a year in dividend income, those massive tax benefits were made effective this year. Why then are veterans forced to wait 10 years to see a limited reduction in the disabled veterans tax? Where is the fairness in that?

   One hundred sixty Republicans in this House have co-sponsored the Bilirakis bill to fully repeal the disabled veterans tax. Unfortunately, only two of those 160 Republicans have signed the discharge petition to require a vote on that bill.

   Well, today there is a second chance to do what is right for veterans. By voting yes on the motion to recommit we can repeal the disabled veterans tax. If just a few of the 160 will join with Democrats, we can repeal the disabled veterans tax and we can do it fully and we can do it today. We can keep the promise we made to veterans when we co-sponsored the Bilirakis bill.

   Keeping promises and leaving no troops behind, those are quintessential American values. On the eve of Veterans Day, let us apply those American values to the treatment of our veterans. Our promise to veterans should be more important than Republican Party loyalty. Vote yes on the motion to recommit. Vote yes to keep our promises to America's veterans.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces.

   Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces, I am pleased to highlight the issues within the jurisdiction of our subcommittee.

   This conference report increases the requested authorization for programs within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Projection Forces by $1.3 billion to $30 billion dollars. Authorization is included for the administration's request of one Virginia class submarine, 3 DDG-51 destroyers, one LPD-17 amphibious assault ship, and two cargo and ammunition ships.

   Additional authorizations of $75 million for advance procurement of LPD-17 and $248 million for SSN refueling overhaul are also included. Our conference report addresses 100 aircraft KC-767 Air Force proposed lease program by restricting the lease portion of the program to 20 aircraft, requiring the Air Force budget to procure the remaining 80 aircraft. This approach will save the taxpayer at least $2 billion over the originally-proposed program.

   We have also taken several initiatives to begin to address shortfalls in important requirements of the Department of Defense. An additional $20 million to sustain a force structure of 83 B-1's, 23 aircraft above the level planned; and an additional $208 million for Tomahawk missiles, an additional $40 million for the Affordable Weapon, an additional $100 million bomber R&D initiative for the next generation, follow-on stealth, deep strike bomber.

   In addition, the recommended mark includes several important legislative proposals. First, a multi-year procurement authorization for several programs. Second, a limitation on C-5A aircraft requirement. Third, an electromagnetic gun initiative. Fourth, a requirement that the Secretary of Defense complete two independent studies on potential future fleet architectures for the Navy.

   In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for all his support in completing in conference report. I would also like to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their leadership, commitment and steadfastness in completing this process.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

   Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services for yielding me time and for his great services to our country throughout his whole life which continues here in Congress. As a veteran himself, his service on the Committee on Armed Services is very informed and we thank him and recognize his leadership.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the commitment of our Nation's veterans. We will have a motion to recommit, as has been indicated, and it is to support our veterans.

   No group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for our Nation than our troops and our veterans. From the bitter cold winter at Valley Forge to the boiling hot Iraqi terrain, our soldiers have courageously answered when called, gone where ordered, and defended our Nation with honor.

   As a Nation we have a sacred pact with those who have served us in uniform. They have taken care of us and, in turn, we will always take care of them. That is our solemn pledge.

   Today, just before Veterans Day, we stand on the floor of the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Department of Defense authorization conference report. And on this day we have young men and women, the sons and daughters of America on the ground, engaged in war in Iraq. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. But this bill in many respects does not honor their service.

   Democrats are fighting to live up to our promise to our veterans by ending the unfair practice of the disabled veterans tax. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) will be offering the motion to recommit to this effect. He is leading our fight for a complete and total repeal of the disabled veterans tax for all of our veterans. We have made this long-standing issue too hot to handle for the Republicans and they have offered a proposal in today's conference report in response. Their proposal is a step, but it is not nearly good enough.

[Page: H10995]

   The Republicans have put forth a proposal that leaves far too many veterans behind. Under their Republican proposal, two-thirds of our veterans, two-third of our veterans still will not receive one penny of compensation for their disabilities.

   The Republican deal will address the tax for some veterans but not for others. For the select few it does address, the tax may not fully end for them for 10 years. Many of these are veterans of World War II. Ten years is a long time to wait in any event, but especially if you are a World War II vet. That is not good enough.

   America's veterans deserve better. On the battlefield of war our soldiers pledge to leave no one behind. As a Nation, it must be our pledge that after our soldiers come home we will leave no veteran behind. Our veterans served for all of us. We must be there for all of them.

   In June, Democrats launched a discharge petition to give Members a chance to vote to end completely the disabled veterans tax for all military retirees. Two hundred and three Members, 201 Democrats, only 2 Republicans, signed the discharge petition, despite the fact that 160 Republicans have co-sponsored the legislation. So we know that our Republican colleagues believe that this is the right course of action. Democrats are giving you a way to honor our own commitment. The right thing to do was obvious then when this discharge petition was signed to completely end the disabled veterans tax.

   The right thing to do today, just before Veterans Day, is also obvious. Vote to recommit this bill with instructions to strip out the failed Republican language on disabled veterans tax and add the Democratic language to completely and totally end the disabled veterans tax. Indeed, this language is the language of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a distinguished member of the Republican Caucus.

   The current language again leaves two-thirds of our vets behind. The Democratic motion to recommit leaves no veteran behind. We have a moral obligation to those who have paid the high price for our freedom, those who have worn our Nation's uniform. Our words must be as bold as their deeds, and we must honor what they have done for our country.

   So let us give a great gift to our veterans on this Veterans Day. I urge my colleagues to honor our veterans service and vote yes when the opportunity comes for the motion to recommit.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 1/2 minutes.

   Let me just respond just a second to the gentlewoman who just spoke.

   The Democrats controlled this House for 40 years, and I went to Sonny Montgomery, who was chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I asked him years ago, why do we not do something about this concurrent receipt thing? And he said, we are not doing anything about that concurrent receipt and we are never doing anything about that concurrent receipt.

   They had a Democrat President. They had a Democrat Senate. They had a Democrat House. They could have done something about it, but they did not, and now we get this phony posturing after a deal has been worked out to really try to deal with the problem. I think that is a cheap shot, Mr. Chairman. But that is not why I rise today.

   I rise to support H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. We are a Nation engaged in an ongoing global war on terrorism. American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are deployed all over the world in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The bill supports all of our service members who are fighting terrorism and defending our homeland.

   H.R. 1588 strikes a careful balance between ensuring that our military is able to train in a realistic manner while remaining good stewards of the environment. The bill amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act so that it can be read and implemented in a common sense fashion. The Navy, for example, will now be able use new sonar technology vital to the protection of U.S. ships, submarines and global interests, without harming marine mammals.

   The bill also changes the Endangered Species Act to ensure that military training lands are used for their primary purpose, to train America's troops in realistic environments. These changes will protect the environment and also enhance the readiness of our military personnel.

   H.R. 1588 also recognizes that the military services will face significant challenges as personnel and equipment return home from war. The level of effort necessary to resurge this equipment at our maintenance depots will be extraordinary. This conference report recognizes these consequences and includes additional funding for key readiness accounts.

   The bill includes $9.7 billion for military construction and family housing projects around the world. This is an increase in the President's budget of more than $420 million, with additional funds targeted at projects to improve the facilities in which America's service members live, work, train and operate. Such projects are extraordinarily important to the quality of life for our military personnel and their families, as well as U.S. military readiness.

   The National Security Personnel System established in this bill will provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to hire, fire and promote a more agile workforce; the authority to tie pay to performance; increased ability to classify positions and to administer pay and allowances; and a better basis on which to establish a labor relations system.

[Time: 11:00]

   The new personnel system will also ensure that employee representatives are included in the planning, development, and implementing of new human resources management systems. There also will be a separate process to ensure that employee representatives participate in the development and implementation of a new management relations system.

   There are some things that did not get in this that we were beat back on in the Senate. I think the BRAC provisions were one that I wish were changed. I think the firefighting provisions were very important to be changed; but, in balance, H.R. 1588 will make real improvements in U.S. military readiness and ensure the continued strength of U.S. Armed Forces for years to come, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

   (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, with a defense budget of $400 billion and an enormous range of issues, it is not easy to bring a conference to closure, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), as well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for what they have achieved.

   I rise in support of H.R. 1588, the conference report thereon, but I have some real concerns. First of all, I have already spoken to the failure of the underlying bill to accrue properly the budget authority that will be necessary to implement the compromise on concurrent receipt or the provisions for lease purchase of 100 tankers. I am concerned about the radical reform of civil service laws in the Department of Defense and the dispensation this bill gives to the Department of Defense from environmental laws that apply to everybody else. Also, I am concerned about the new and cumbersome strictures on cooperative threat reduction.

   I am particularly disappointed in the provisions of this report that deal with low-level nuclear weapons. I believe the conferees should have stuck with the bipartisan compromise reached by the Committee on Armed Services and set forth in the defense bill that we passed last May. That compromise was sound enough that in July of this year when I offered a motion to instruct, those provisions were accepted and upheld by the House without dissent.

   The administration began this year by stepping up its push for repeal on a ban of low-level nuclear weapons research and development, a ban which has been in the law for 10 years. There was little opposition here to broadening research into low-yield nuclear weapons, but there was bipartisan concern about going so far as engineering development. And so both the House and Senate authorization bills proposed changes to allow research into

[Page: H10996]

low-yield nuclear weapons, but restricted any move into engineering development.

   The Senate, on the other hand, repealed the so-called Spratt-Furse amendment entirely, but then backfilled the cavity with caveats barring testing or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. They also added language requiring specific congressional authorization to move into development of any advanced nuclear concept project. These are the provisions included in the conference report.

   By contrast, the House version amended existing law rather than repealing it. We explicitly authorized research, but we maintained a bar on development beyond detailed feasibility studies, the so-called 6.2a level of research and development.

   Our compromise may have similar in consequences to the Senate approach, but I think it was superior in form because it makes clear that it is the policy of the United States not to develop low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. The House compromise, thus, gives stronger assurance that Congress will be an equal partner if that policy is reversed, if that decision is taken, and if there is a move to go beyond research.

   When we adopted the Spratt-Furse amendment in the early 1990s, it came in the wake of an issue taken by the first President Bush whereby we withdrew a number of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the Soviets responded in kind. This was a step back and a step forward for nuclear security throughout the world. This initiative helped us later on to persuade Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to forswear nuclear weapons.

   If today the United States should move toward renewed development of nuclear weapons, especially weapons designed to be more usable due to their low-yield warheads, it sends the wrong signal.

   Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because it does many things I support, particularly for the quality of life for our troops, and also because I trust that the effect of the language in the report will be enough to forestall development of mini-nukes. I recommend support for the bill.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who is chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

   (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a number of component parts, concurrent receipt. It has a $500 million human capital performance fund that will reward civil servants for outstanding performance, something we have never had before. It has a services acquisition reform act element that will reform the way we buy and purchase services which can save literally billions of dollars for America's taxpayers, and it has a national security personnel system that we have created that will allow the Department of Defense to shed the shackles of its 50-year-old civil service structure, because when it comes to our civil service, the tradition of preserving traditions has become a tradition. It is time for that to change.

   Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come up with some statements on this that I think are off the mark. They have noted that this bill makes a mockery of labor-management relations. This conference report includes chapter 71, the labor-management relations in the list of nonwaivable chapters in title V of the U.S. Code. The agreement sets up an extensive collaborative process that requires the Department to work side by side with the unions and employee groups in setting up the human resources management system for the Department of Defense. The agreement sets up an extensive collaborative process that requires the Department to work side by side with the unions in setting up the process in which management and labor work together in the future.

   The second and third requirements are new to Federal law. No other agencies are required to coordinate with their employees, a good precedent.

   Another gentleman said that the bill eliminates overtime pay for civilian employees. That is absolutely false. Overtime pay is not eliminated. The agreement, in addition to having $500 million in a human capital performance fund for civil servants who perform in an outstanding fashion, the agreement provides the Department the authority to improve the current provisions in law relating to overtime pay for some of the Department's most valuable employees. It asks for this language not to scrap overtime pay; instead, they are asking for authority not to be bound by the voluminous restrictions and requirements in title V that dictate how, when, and where DOD is authorized to administer overtime pay. This will allow the Department of Defense to move into the modern age.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

   Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for their hard work on this bill. I must, however, express my deep reservations with regards to what I see as the inadequacy of the concurrent receipt provision. This Congress is expanding concurrent receipt to only 30 percent of disabled retirees. Where is our commitment to all of our veterans? Congress must not forget those veteran retirees who will still be denied their hard-earned retirement pay. All veteran retirees give at least 20 years of service to this country. They have stood ready to serve in times of war and times of peace. This country owes them more than a tax on the disability compensation.

   I fear the partial phase-in of concurrent receipt will create two classes of veterans: those who will continue to suffer under the disabled veterans tax and those who will be deemed disabled enough to receive their compensation. Their sacrifice and service was equal. Congress should treat them with the same equity with which they served. Whether being drafted into service or volunteering, every disabled veteran was prepared to give their last full measure. Each was prepared to demonstrate the ultimate commitment; yet Congress cannot even muster for them half a loaf.

   Mr. Speaker, as we head home to observe Veterans' Day, this is no way to honor our veterans. To divide veterans into the haves and have-nots is not befitting the sacrifices they made. They gave our country 100 percent, whether in times of war or peace; and they deserve 100 percent of what they earned.

   In closing, I will be supporting H.R. 1588, but also will be supporting the Marshall motion to recommit to expand concurrent receipt to all of our disabled veterans.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

   (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is very important that for the first time in well over 40 years we do something about concurrent receipt.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.

   This is a solid bill that broadly serves our national security interests and addresses the needs of our armed forces as we continue the fight against terrorism. I will get to some of its strengths in a minute. But first I want to thank you Chairman HUNTER and Ranking Member SKELTON for the leadership you have provided in putting this bill together. And I particularly want to recognize the ranking member of the Strategic Forces subcommittee, Mr. REYES, for his efforts on this bill. Together we have tackled some very tough issues.

   The first long range missiles and nuclear weapons were developed almost 60 years ago. Yet today, we have no means to defend the territory of the United States against even a single long range missile, and have only recently begun to deploy defenses against theater range missile threats. In December of last year, the President announced his intention to enhance the capabilities of our Pacific missile defense test bed to field a modest, initial defensive operational capability to defend the territory of the United States by the end of fiscal year 2004. The President requested $9.1 billion to support that--and other--missile defense efforts.

   I am pleased to report that this bill fully funds the request, providing the resources required to meet this great and historic challenge. The conferees have also agreed to shift

[Page: H10997]

funds from longer term, less mature efforts in order to accelerate nearer term fielding of systems like Patriot that are designed to protect our troops deployed worldwide who face increasing threats from theater range ballistic missile threat.

   Some of the most difficult issues we addressed in this bill involve nuclear weapons. Since the end of the cold war, we no longer face a monolithic threat. The new national security environment in which we find ourselves requires that we adopt a more flexible and adaptive approach to planning for our strategic deterrent. It further requires that we examine the weapons in our aging stockpile to determine if they continue to meet the Nation's needs for a credible and robust deterrent. Provisions of this bill would allow our scientists and engineers the freedom to explore the full range of options for defeating existing and emerging threats. At the same time, the bill includes ``checks'' that reserve for Congress the authority to approve the development of certain classes of new nuclear weapons.

   The bill would also authorize the budget request of $6.4 billion for the weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The United States has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing for over a decade, and NNSA programs continue to maintain the safety, reliability and performance of the nuclear stockpile in the absence of testing.

   However, recognizing that circumstances may require a return to testing at some point in the future, and that the current test readiness posture of almost 3 years does not provide a real option for any President, the conferees have included a provision that would require the Secretary of Energy to achieve and maintain a readiness posture of not more that 18 months.

   The conference agreement provides strong support for the military space and intelligence activities that have proven so effective in Afghanistan, and more recently Iraq. Notably, the bill would promote development of the U.S. commercial space-based imagery industrial base, enhance space-based communications to support the warfighter, and robustly fund development of unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

   Mr. Speaker, the men and women of our armed forces are doing their part everyday in places far from home. Let us do our part, and pass this bill.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

   Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This critically important legislation provides our brave men and women in uniform the tools they need to accomplish their missions, but it also contains many provisions to improve their quality of life.

   This bill increases the combat capabilities of our Armed Forces with appropriate levels of spending for readiness, procurement, research and development. It funds programs such as the M1 Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicles that are used in current conflicts, and transforms our military to meet the threats of tomorrow with futuristic systems like the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor. The bill provides funding to make our homeland safe by combating terrorism at home and abroad and continuing to develop a ballistic missile defense system.

   Most important in this legislation, however, are the provisions aimed to benefit our current and past servicemembers. H.R. 1588 provides a 4.1 percent pay raise, and it increases imminent-danger pay. It also funds important military family housing, education and military facilities. H.R. 1588 directs improvements to the TRICARE system and survivor benefit, and it contains many other provisions for members of the National Guard and the Reserves.

   I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his tremendous dedication to these quality-of-life issues.

   This bill also recognizes the inherent unfairness that disabled military retirees have their retirement benefits offset by the amount of their disability benefits by providing concurrent receipt for more veterans than have ever been covered before.

   Finally, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for not only their leadership of our committee but also for their work in shepherding this bill through the legislative process. They recognize that we owe all of our freedom and safety to our brave men and women in uniform and that Congress can help them in a major way with the passage of this bill. They also know how important this bill is to my district and Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, the home of the infantry where 37,000 active duty troops go to work every day.

   In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1588.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

   Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, and I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time.

   I am happy to see we are finally making some progress on eliminating the unfair disabled veterans tax, but it is not enough. We must keep working to ensure that no disabled veteran has to give up their hardearned military retirement pay just because they earn disability compensation.

   Under the Republican plan, veterans who are more than 50 percent disabled will begin to receive a benefit that will be phased in over the next 10 years; but this still leaves two-thirds of disabled veterans behind. In Oregon, 5,500 disabled veterans are currently penalized by this sick tax. Under this compromise, 2,000 veterans will receive some sort of relief at some point over the next 10 years, but the remaining 3,500 retired disabled veterans in Oregon who are currently penalized by this sick tax will receive no benefit under this Republican compromise.

   While I am pleased we were able to take this first step, we cannot stop until all of our Nation's military retirees who are disabled as a result of service to this country are able to receive the compensation they have earned and deserve. This is a promise we must keep.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us is one I will support. It will provide adequate pay, housing and training for the men and women serving our country on active duty and in the Guard and Reserves. It funds important modernization priorities that will ensure that the weapons systems with which we equip our troops are the most advanced and capable in the world for years to come.

[Time: 11:15]

   However, the report is not perfect. I am disappointed by the way in which the conference report treats civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Simply stated, the report will strip more than a third of our Federal civilian employees, over 700,000 hardworking men and women, of their most basic worker protections and rights.

   I am sorry the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) left the floor. He indicates 71 and some of the other articles that protect Federal employees will not be waived. That is technically true, but the bill allows them to be suspended for the next 10 years. So although they technically cannot be waived, they will not be in effect at the decision of the Secretary.

   Let me be clear. I am not opposed to thoughtful reform of our civil service system. However, the report goes too far. It will undo decades of some of the most important worker protections enacted by Congress and supported for decades by Republican and Democratic Presidents alike.

   Notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, I will support this important agreement. I expect it to pass by a wide margin with broad support from both House Democrats and Republicans who stand squarely behind our troops and in favor of protecting our national security.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

   Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic motion to recommit is among the most cynical and political motions I have seen in my 23 years in Congress. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is a cheap shot, cynically designed and crafted to politicize disabled veterans and to mock the historic benefits increase contained in

[Page: H10998]

this bill, $22 billion in the first 10 years and at least $57 billion over the next 20 years for disabled veterans. For example, a 100 percent service-connected disabled veterans over the next 10 years may see an increase of approximately $167,000. That is brand new money. They do not have it now. Under this bill these deserving men and women will get it. The same goes for those whose wounds are combat related or rated 50% or above by the VA.

   For the last 100 years, as we know, the unfairness of concurrent receipt has been with us. For most of those years, the Democrats had a hammer lock on the House and Senate and did nothing. In the early 90's the Democrats had it all. Bill Clinton was in the White House for 8 long years. Yet nothing was done on the Bilirakis bill. Nothing was done to reform concurrent receipt. Even this year, it wasn't in the Democratic budget. We tried to make this a bipartisan effort--today's motion is pure politics.

   I am sickened by this kind of posturing. I know the game you are playing. This is all about the next election. Our bill is a victory for veterans. This will make a significant addition to the benefits received by our disabled veterans. I hope Members will vote for it.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

   Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for former Members of Congress because I am a freshman this year, but had I been a Member of Congress in the past, I definitely would be fighting strongly for the repeal of concurrent receipt.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit to provide full concurrent receipt for disabled military veterans. For years, the lack of concurrent receipt, or as some have called it the disabled veterans tax, has taken benefits from the pockets of deserving military retirees. It is an embarrassment that Congress has gone this long without taking care of that disabled veterans tax. I am glad that some veterans will get relief under this bill. But all veterans deserve relief. This is a matter of keeping sacred promises.

   The so-called compromise today is leaving a lot of veterans behind, including 2,038 veterans in Maine who would get benefits if we enacted full concurrent receipt for all.

   I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit to provide a full benefit to all veterans. If that fails, I definitely will support the final bill to give relief to at least some of our deserving veterans, including 1,219 in Maine who will now get concurrent receipt under this bill. That is a good step forward.

   But I will not give up and I will keep working until all veterans get full concurrent receipt and we eliminate the unfair disabled veterans tax on these veterans.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 rise today in full support on the eve of Veterans' Day of a full compensation and total concurrent receipts for all of our veterans. I want the unwarranted tax against veterans to be eliminated. I do not like the fact that 390,000 of our veterans will be left behind in this bill and will be supporting the motion to recommit but will add my support to this legislation because I hope that we can take a baby step in order to make a giant step toward providing for all our veterans.

   I would ask my colleagues to go back to the drawing boards on helping our civil service employees at DOD, because overtime is a precious commodity for those trying to provide for their families. Then I think it is appropriate that we hear from Secretary Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz on an exit strategy that will help our young soldiers on the front lines in Iraq because we do believe they are fighting for our freedom but it is crucial that we understand the loss of life has exceeded all speculation. And then, of course, I do appreciate the compromise that has allowed us to buy more equipment for the Air Force and the Boeing compromise of lease and option to purchase. This approach will be an effective way to balance need and costs.

   And then on the eve of this very fine Veterans Day, let me pay tribute to all of our veterans, our combat wounded, and particularly those young men and women on the front lines in Iraq, those families who have lost their loved ones in Iraq and, yes, those who languish in our hospitals who are wounded. It is time now that we stand for them and provide the full support that they need. Let us leave no veteran or soldier behind.

• [Begin Insert]

   Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1588 the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004. I am supporting this legislation because our fighting men and women deserve to be properly funded. However, I have grave concerns in regards to how this legislation has been handled by the majority party in the House Armed Services Committee. I stand with Ranking Member IKE SKELTON in expressing my dismay that Democratic members were not consulted on very important provisions of this significant legislation. This Authorization bill while momentous cannot truly be considered the work of this entire body if it was not inclusive of Democratic members. Even so, I add my appreciation to Chairman DUNCAN and Ranking Member SKELTON for their sincere commitment to our Armed Forces.

   CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

   My concern is most evident in the lack of power civil service reform addressed in this bill. The bill claims to protect collective bargaining rights but removes all of the protections provided under the current law. Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code sets forth requirements for federal agencies to engage in good faith bargaining with unions and protects against discrimination based on union membership. This bill claims to make Chapter 71 nonwaivable but essentially allows the Department of Defense to waive Chapter 71 requirements for the 6-year period following enactment. During these 6 years, the Department of Defense can unilaterally establish a new labor relations sytem after only minimal consultation with unions and minimal notification to Congress. This new system will supersede all existing agreements negotiated between the Department of Defense and its unions.

   During the 6-year period, the Secretary of Defense will have the authority to decide what issues will be bargained, whether labor-management impasses will be resolved by an outside third party, and what protections union members will have against discrimination. This authority will allow the Department of Defense to run roughshod over its unions for the 6 years, making a mockery out of the collective bargaining process. Mr. Speaker the lack of proper protection for our hard working civil service employees is unacceptable. My concern for civil service reform in this bill does not end with collective bargaining rights. In addition, this Authorization removes many vital due process and appeal rights for Department of Defense employees. Perhaps most striking is the fact that this bill removes the requirement that Department of Defense employees must receive additional pay for working overtime, working on holidays or weekends, or working in jobs involving unusual physical hardship or hazard. Both the

   House and Senate voted recently to protect overtime pay for private sector employees. Mr. Speaker it is disheartening that we are removing many basic rights from our civil service employees that we would normally guarantee for most Americans.

   CONCURRENT RECEIPTS

   Mr. Speaker I rise in full support with my Democratic colleagues in asking for the immediate elimination of the disabled veterans tax. I will support the motion to recommit. This Authorization bill leaves two-thirds of our military retirees to continue having their compensation compromised by this tax. Disabled military retirees should not be prohibited from receiving the full amount of their retirement pay while still receiving the full amount of their full disability compensation--these benefits are their entitlement; after all, we are forever indebted to them for their service. Our disabled veterans should be amongst our most cherished and recognized individuals in society, they deserve better than to be penalized for their sacrifice in battle. This body must move as a whole to adopt the proposal on concurrent receipts and eliminate this tax that is an undue burden on our disabled veterans who have already sacrificed enough for their nation.

   EXIT STRATEGY FOR IRAQ

   Mr. Speaker while this Authorization bill provides necessary funding for our brave fighting men and women this body must insist on receiving a report on the exit strategy from Iraq. It is pertinent that this Congress be informed how long our soldiers will have to face mortal danger. How can we reasonably assume the cost of funding our Armed Services when we have little information as to when our current conflict will end? Secretary Rumsfeld has an obligation to this body and indeed to our brave

[Page: H10999]

troops to report on the administration's exit strategy from Iraq.

   CHINOOK HELICOPTER

   Mr. Speaker, I feel that this Authorization bill while supporting the needs of our Armed Forces may not address the need for greater protection for the Chinook helicopter that is widely used by our Armed Forces. The tragic loss of life that occurred by the downing of Chinook helicopters in Iraq illustrates the need for the implementation of defense technology to provide greater protection for the Chinook helicopters. Indeed, the Chinook is a vital instrument used by our Armed Forces to transport troops and supplies to our fighting forces on the ground. However, it is also one of our most vulnerable pieces of our military arsenal. The infrared technology aboard the Chinook makes it more susceptible to ground-to-air missile attack. I am disappointed that this Authorization bill may not address the need for modifications to the Chinook helicopter that can counteract its vulnerability. We must not allow our Armed Forces to lose more brave men and women because we did not address this glaring need, let's move to insure the safety of all fighting equipment.

   While I have grave concerns about this momentous legislation I am voting in support of this Authorization. I do so because we must support our Armed Forces, as well it is long overdue that our civil service and defense employees receive pay increases.

   I am also heartened by the purchase compromise reached with Boeing in this legislation. Boeing and their supporting suppliers who are based in Texas are innovative, when called upon, they are capable of responding to national security and civil market needs. It is also important in the future that contracts with the Department of Defense rely on both the lease and purchase of this vital equipment.

   Mr. Speaker I hope in the future that such significant legislation as this will involve the debate and full consideration of this entire body.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

   Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I profoundly appreciate the hard work that has gone into this legislation but, my friends, we know that it is 1,200 pages long, it spends $400 billion of the taxpayers' money and no one in this body save the conference members have had more than 3 hours to read this.

   It is a fine thing to stand up and say we support our troops, and we all do. But the fact is we should not be voting on this today because we have not read it. We should vote next week on this, after we have had time to think about this seriously. If we truly care about our veterans, let us care enough to read the legislation, and if we truly care about our troops, let us care enough to read this legislation.

   I will vote ``present'' because I do not have enough information to vote yea or nay, and I regret that profoundly.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

   Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, who is a classmate, for yielding me this time. I want to compliment him and Chairman Hunter on this bill. We have worked for 2 years on the tanker provisions in this legislation. I am convinced that modernizing our tankers is absolutely crucial to national security. The gentleman from Missouri and I have worked for many years to implement and upgrade the B-2 bombers which fly out of Whiteman, Missouri. We have found that in all of these deployments that tankers are absolutely crucial.

   I must tell the House that the condition of our tankers today is not good. The KC-135-Es have significant corrosion. They were all built between 1957 and 1963 in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. I have been on them. I have talked to the pilots who fly them. I have talked to General Handy, General Jumper and they are convinced that replacing these tankers is one of the most important things we can do to preserve our military capability. When you think about it, every time we deploy, we have to have tankers. We have to have EA-6-Bs, those jammers. Both of them are very, very old and both of them need to be replaced and we need get on with it.

   One of the things that I am concerned about that we still have not addressed since the Bush administration took office is the fact that we are short in procurement still 30 to $40 billion. The big argument in the tanker issue is lease versus buy. The only reason we had to do a lease is the Air Force did not have the money to buy these airplanes. That is why we have got to get the procurement account up, General Myers says somewhere between 100 and $110 billion. We are at $72 billion. We have got work yet to be done here.

   I am also very concerned about the provisions in this bill that deal with worker rights. We are going to continue to work on that. I hope that down the road we can exempt shipyards from those new restrictions.

   PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state it.

   Mr. SKELTON. Who has the right to close?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has the right to close.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker. This is deadly serious business that we are about. We are providing for the troops, those who wear the uniform of the United States of America as provided by the Constitution of the United States. This is of the highest calling of our Congress. No, all the provisions in this bill do not meet with my approval wholeheartedly or with others'. But on the other hand there is so much in this bill that takes care of the troops, their families, their needs, their capability of waging war, and we are at war, Mr. Speaker.

   With that in mind, I hope that every person in this Chamber, despite the misgivings of some provisions, will support this bill with the understanding that in so doing, a vote for this bill is a vote of confidence and appreciation for those who are wearing the uniform and those families at home in whose prayers those young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise, number one, to congratulate the Committee on Armed Services, led by Chairman Hunter, Chairman Hefley and Ranking Member SKELTON. It is a good bill. I rise in support of the bill and against the motion to recommit.

   Primarily, though, I want to compliment my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for the work that he has done over the years on the issue of concurrent receipt. Veterans all over America will appreciate the determination and the tenacity that he has brought to this issue of concurrent receipt. Today is a recognition of total dedication and hard work and not willing to give up, while it has been very frustrating on occasion. The gentleman from Florida has done an outstanding job. I just want to rise today to say that. It is a heartfelt thanks to the gentleman from Florida and on behalf of all the veterans all over our great country for him having been able to make this happen today.

   Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

   Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for their leadership in pulling together a good bill. Not all of the provisions of this bill are satisfactory to everyone in this Chamber and ultimately I think this bill will pass, but I want to give us an opportunity to improve the bill by increasing the tax cut that this bill contemplates for disabled American veterans.

   I have heard a reference to this being cynical. I have heard a reference to the history of the House in which there were other opportunities to end the disabled veterans tax, but I am a new guy here and I think today we have an opportunity to do what is right. If it was right 20 years ago or 50 years ago or 10 years ago, it is right now.

   I am going to offer a motion to recommit. I want everybody to understand what that motion to recommit does.

[Time: 11:30]

   It leaves the entire bill intact. It changes nothing in the bill with the exception of one thing: it instructs that the House conferees go as far as they can toward the Senate position with regard to the disabled veterans tax, also known as concurrent receipt. If we do that, we effectively eliminate the disabled veterans tax. We are not doing that in this bill.

   We do give a tax cut to disabled veterans in this bill. It is the compromise, frankly, that has been forced as a result of all of the attention brought to this issue during this session by many veterans groups, by many on the Democratic side, by the discharge petition that I filed earlier, and because so many people have supported the Bilirakis bill in the past. Right now we have got about 370 cosponsors of the Bilirakis bill. House Resolution 303 is designed to end the disabled veterans tax. There are many on the other side of the aisle who have signed on as cosponsors of H. Res. 303 to end the disabled veterans tax. We have got an opportunity to do that right now with this motion to recommit. It is a rifle shot. It does only one thing, and that is do right by our veterans.

   Some have said that we cannot afford more than this. I like tax cuts. While I was the mayor of Macon, I led the fight to lower our property taxes for the first time in 20 years. I think I am one of the few Democrats, fewer than 10, I suspect, that voted for the compromise administration tax cut that we passed earlier this year. I will vote for other tax cuts as well.

   We have got to prioritize our tax cuts. We will have an opportunity right now to give tax cuts to disabled veterans that they well deserve and that we can afford if we are willing to put that tax cut toward the top of the priority list. Others here have voted for tax cuts beside this one. Now is an opportunity to vote for this. That is why I am doing this motion to recommit.

   Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is not a Johnny-come-lately on concurrent receipt. He has led this fight longer than I have been a Member of the United States Congress.

   (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as to the issue of concurrent receipt, which the other side keeps referring to as a tax on disabled veterans, as the Members know, and I appreciate all the kind remarks that I have received from both sides of the aisle, but I have worked on this for 18 years, and during the first half of those 18 years, the other party was in charge, and we have to ask ourselves what was done during all that period of time. I say to the Members nothing, nothing. I am searching my mind to try to find out how many hearings we were able to have on this issue during that period of time. We may have had one. I am not even sure we had even that. Never in any of their budgets had they even put a single penny into their budgets for full concurrent receipt, even the most recent ones. The discharge petition would bring H.R. 303 on the floor. There is going to be a motion to recommit, which basically says we have got to have the entire amount.

   Why did you all not crank those dollars into your budget? You have not chosen to do so.

   The gentleman has talked about his discharge petition. My discharge petition back in the early 1990s, 1993 I believe it was, failed. Where were all the signers from that side of the aisle back in 1993, or whatever that year was, when we had that discharge petition? Politics, I might say, politics, politics.

   Starting January 1 of next year, the proposal will phase in full concurrent receipt for all retirees who have disability ratings 50 percent or more. It expands the combat-related special compensation program to cover all 100 percent combat-related disability categories, as opposed to those that are 60 percent now. It also extends these benefits to the Reserve and National Guard, who have not been getting it up to now.

   Despite this breakthrough, Mr. Speaker, full concurrent receipt remains a priority goal for all of us. Only let us show it. Rather than just discharge petitions, let us put the dollars into the budget, if we will, on both sides of the aisle if we are really serious.

   I ask everybody to vote for this bill and to oppose the motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons stated.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Department of Defense authorization conference report. But before I address the issues raised by this bill, I want to thank the staff for their hard work on this bill. I especially appreciate the efforts of Bill Natter of the Committee staff and Bill McCann from my personal staff. I also want to extend a special thank you to Faye Virostek, who has worked in my office as a Brookings Fellows for almost a year. Faye is tremendously talented and dedicated. She has contributed greatly to my work on the Armed Services Committee and to my office, and I wish her the best as she prepares to return to her permanent executive branch job.

   I did not sign the conference report because I object to the exclusion of the minority members of the Conference Committee from deliberations over several important issues. In some cases, we were able to work constructively to reach reasonable compromise, but in others the majority was unwilling to work with us in an attempt to produce a consensus position. I do not believe that our Nation's interests or this institution are well-served by this process.

   For example, the conference report mirrors the House report language to rewrite the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, two critical environmental laws.

   In addition, the resolution on concurrent receipt of disability and retirement benefits fails to resolve the unfairness and hardship faced by many veterans. I believe the debate needs to be continued on this very important issue, and I was disappointed that the majority chose to adopt a half-measure rather than solving the problem in its entirety.

   I also am dismayed that efforts to clarify the Berry amendment failed. This is not a failure of the conference process, but it is a serious blow to the textile industry in Massachusetts and across the country.

   Having said that, I believe the conference report is on the whole a solid proposal. At a time when members of our Nation's military are being asked to make tremendous personal sacrifices, this bill represents a step in the right direction.

   I recognize the importance of providing a truly bipartisan authorization package in order to maintain the world's most capable military. To this end, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, where I serve as ranking member, authorized increased spending on DARPA, chemical and biological defense, and special operations. I applaud Subcommittee Chairman SAXTON for his leadership and work on these issues, and I also want to thank Ranking Member SKELTON for all of his efforts.

   While this bill generally represents a sound approach to most of the issues before the Committee, I am disappointed that its flaws were not corrected. In the coming months, I hope that we will be able to move forward and address the shortcomings in this conference report.

   Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to offer my support to this conference report. The conference report includes a much needed pay raise and much needed support for our military families. In typical fashion, however, my Republican colleagues have taken a good bill and bogged it down with extraneous and extreme measures. The conference report does not include the stronger House language on Buy America and allows research on low-yield nuclear weapons--a practice prohibited by Republicans and Democrats over the last 20 years because it violates the non-proliferation treaty and makes it easier for questionable regimes to obtain nuclear weapons. The conference report also exempts the military from complying with two of our most important environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

   When this authorization process began, Secretary Rumsfeld came to Congress and told us that in order to maintain readiness, they needed exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Resources Conservation Recovery Act, Superfund, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Fortunately, the Congress saw fit to exclude most of what the DOD asked for with regard to environmental exemptions.

   The conference report directs the Secretary of Interior to substitute the Department of Defense's land management plan, known as an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, for critical habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act, if the plan provides a ``benefit'' for threatened species. Further, the conference report does not require that the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan benefit the species.

   This is a much lower standard than the current law, not to mention the DOD has enough trouble coming up with a management plan for

[Page: H11001]

things it is supposed to know about, let alone fish and wildlife. If the military is able to escape the critical habitat designation, private property owners will have to bear the burden of providing for the recovery of threatened and endangered species. This is simply not right.

   Just this week, the Committee on Resources passed a bipartisan reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. That legislation was the culmination of over 4 years worth of hearings and the testimony of dozens of witnesses. Contrary to what happened in the committee of jurisdiction, where they were able to successfully compromise to address the definition of harassment, the language in the conference report would overturn a recent court decision and construct a wall against any further litigation against the Navy.

   Over the last 5 years our troops have toppled a dictator in Iraq, stopped a genocide in Kosovo, and defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our troops prepared for those missions without exemptions from our cornerstone environmental laws--laws that administration officials and the General Accounting Office do not believe are hampering our military readiness.

   Indeed, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark recently stated, ``Additional exemptions aren't needed. I spent a lot of time in the Army and, in all my years of service, complying with the environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops under my command.'' Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves why we are passing language that neither the Resources Committee nor a four-star general deem necessary.

   In short, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this conference report. I must draw a line in the sand. My Republican colleagues have got to stop looking for ways to put bad and extraneous language in good bills in an attempt to force the hands of those who disagree with them.

   Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill before us. I wish to thank Chairman HUNTER and Ranking Member SKELTON for their leadership in completing action on this legislation, which provides our military--and the men and women who serve in it--the resources they need to keep America strong in the 21st century. The military pay increase and the enhanced benefits for active and reserve personnel recognize the valiant efforts of the men and women who have ably served our Nation, and the development and procurement of state-of-the-art weapons systems will provide them with the tools they need to continue their mission of excellence.

   I am particularly pleased with provisions in the legislation that demonstrate Congress's commitment to the role of submarines as an essential part of a strong naval fleet. Passage of the conference report today will represent the final step in a historic agreement to permit multi-year procurement for the Virginia-class submarine. This agreement will encourage more rapid and cost-effective production of this important system--saving the U.S. taxpayer an estimated $115 million per submarine--while giving the United States Navy new capabilities to respond to future threats. Multi-year procurement will also provide greater stability in southeastern New England's defense industry, and I know that the people of Rhode Island are proud to have a role in this important aspect of military transformation. I wish to convey my deepest gratitude to Chairman HUNTER and Ranking Member SKELTON of the Armed Services Committee, as well as Chairman JERRY LEWIS and Ranking Member JACK MURTHA of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, for their work to help this effort reach fruition.

   This legislation takes another step toward providing concurrent receipt to our Nation's disabled military retirees, though the language falls short of our obligations. As a cosponsor of H.R. 303, I believe we must fulfill our promises to our Nation's veterans by allowing them total access to both their retirement pay and disability benefits. Next Tuesday, our Nation honors those Americans that have protected our Nation, and we must honor their service by providing them with the benefits they have earned.

   Unfortunately, today's agreement contains language that may undermine important civil service safeguards for civilians within the Department of Defense, as well as existing environmental protections. I urge Chairman HUNTER and Ranking Member SKELTON to schedule hearings on these topics in the coming months so that our committee may exercise appropriate oversight authority and ensure that the implementation of these new policies does not undermine decades of efforts by Congress to protect our environment and federal workforce.

   Overall, this legislation represents an important investment in the defense of our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

   Mr. ACEVEDO-VILÁ. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Authorization Conferees should be commended for rejecting efforts to undermine the agreement signed by President Bush that provides important protections for how Naval Station Roosevelt Roads is to be closed. It was particularly critical because this is a very sad week in Puerto Rico, as Puerto Rico has lost three of our young men and one woman who were serving on active duty in Iraq. It would have been a cruel irony for the Defense authorizers to remove fundamental BRAC protections for Puerto Rico at the same time Puerto Ricans were paying the ultimate sacrifice by serving our country.

   Last spring the U.S. Navy announced downsizing plans for Roosevelt Roads. The Navy followed its announcement with the planned departure from the Vieques training range--a result that was the fruit of innumerable debate and struggle. In subsequent testimony to Congress, the Navy professed high operational costs and personnel requirements stemming from the continued operation of Roosevelt Roads and implied the base should close.

   Of course, downsizing and the implications of closure have taken their toll and it has been a sordid year for Roosevelt Roads, those who work or worked there and Ceiba, Puerto Rico--the community the base has called home for the past 60 years. The Navy's own pronouncements estimated the base brought $300 million annually to the local economy. The region around base, with 14 percent unemployment, can ill afford a drawn out redevelopment process.

   During negotiations with defense appropriators and the U.S. Navy, we reached a compromise that was enacted under which Roosevelt Roads would close in a 6-month timeframe in accordance with the BRAC (base realignment and closure) process. This compromise would afford the Navy a quick departure and cost savings, while keeping with the important protections and procedures required by BRAC. It would also provide Puerto Rico with the much-needed economic development opportunities provided through redeveloping the base. This proposal was agreed to and signed into law on September 30.

   In the midst of the defense authorization conference, out of scope proposals surfaced to thwart such progress. The proposals ranged from requiring a report to Congress and

   subsequent 360-day waiting period for any and all Roosevelt Roads property disposals to mothballing, or leaving the base on inactive status, allowing the land to waste away without a clear plan for redevelopment and creating additional uncertainty among the community. While I appreciate that all out of scope items in conference have been dropped, I fear that punitive efforts may surface yet again as base closure and redevelopment continues.

   The recent proposals are stalling tactics void of merit and driven by angry politics stemming from deep resentment held by those who strongly opposed closing the Vieques training range. Let the past become the past. Let's move forward with the best interest of the U.S. military and the American citizens in Puerto Rico in mind.

   If enacted such tactics would have continued to cost the Navy money and drain personnel resources, while hindering meaningful economic opportunity for Puerto Rico. Under such a scenario, American citizens in Puerto Rico would remain without jobs while base redevelopment plans sat in limbo.

   Puerto Ricans care deeply about their common citizenship and continue to serve valiantly in our military. What should soldiers think of such punitive, political squabbling about a base closure at home, while they fight overseas? As it was President Bush who authorized the Navy's departure from Vieques, he too has stated on many occasions that we all should avoid politicizing military affairs when our troops are abroad.

   I have included for the RECORD a letter cosigned by fellow Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Such support is much appreciated. Further, I want to thank Ranking Member IKE SKELTON and his Senate counterpart CARL LEVIN for their strong commitment and leadership on this issue.

   I find it troubling that the bipartisan deal that took place on Defense Appropriations might someday be undermined by such resentful politics, especially given the difficult challenges we now face, and the sacrifices we ask of our troops. I will continue to fight against these punitive efforts while at the same time I will pursue dialogue with those colleagues who may still consider punishing action against my constituents.

   It certainly would be in the best interest of the Navy, the people of the local community, and the future of Roosevelt Roads to set these new proposals aside, and continue working to redevelop the base and rejuvenate the local economy. We Members of Congress have more pressing matters to consume our time.

   Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, given our current military situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is incumbent upon us to send an unequivocal message of support for our troops

[Page: H11002]

who are currently in the field. It is equally important that we provide veterans--those who have made sacrifices in order to protect the safety of our country, the benefits they have rightfully earned.

   Not since the Korean War have we as a country relied on the members of our reserve forces and National Guard as we do now. We are depending on them to preserve the peace in Iraq and protect our safety at home. We have uprooted them from their families, taken them away from their jobs and put them in the line of fire. Yet, it is not uncommon that after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, members of the Reserve forces return home without the basic benefits they so rightfully deserve. While this legislation is far from perfect, it takes an important step by ensuring that activated members of the Reserve forces and National Guard and their families receive health benefits.

   Importantly, this legislation extends the increase in ``combat pay'' and a Family Separation Allowance for all of our troops who are currently serving in the military. Given the sacrifice that our troops make in the name of protecting our country, it is only right to guarantee that they and their families have adequate financial resources in their time of need.

   Additionally, this legislation addresses the unfair Disabled Veterans Tax. It allows certain disabled military retirees to receive both their retirement and disability benefits. However, it only allows concurrent receipt of these benefits for one-third of the approximately 700,000 disabled veterans. I believe this is sorely inadequate and is the reason why I voted to recommit this bill so conferees could have the chance to repeal the entire Disabled Veterans Tax and let all disabled veterans rightfully receive both their military benefits as well as their retirement benefits.

   While I do not believe this bill is perfect and I am particularly concerned with certain provisions regarding civil service reform and the environment, I do believe that given our current military obligations, it is essential that we support our troops. By extending benefits for our troops and veterans, we are guaranteeing that those who have dedicated their lives to serving our country are not left behind during this critical time.

   Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report of H.R. 1588, the Defense Authorization Act. This bill contains anti-environmental provisions that roll back fundamental protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).

   H.R. 1588 exempts the military from protecting endangered species. Provisions in this Conference Report compromise the survival of some 300 threatened and endangered species living on military lands by prohibiting the designation of critical habitat as mandated under the ESA. Instead, military lands will be managed under Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans, prepared by the Secretary of Defense. Currently, such plans have no definitions, no standards, and no limits.

   Such sweeping changes in the management of species living on military lands are completely unnecessary. Sea otters and toads do not and will not prevent our military from being the best trained and prepared in the world. But if for some reason the toads rise up, the military already has, but never has used, a national security exemption as part of ESA. The military has shown so little previous concern with this issue that it was only in March of this year that the Department of Defense began developing guidance on how to assess and process exemptions requests inappropriate situations.

   Marine mammal protection is under its greatest fire today. Although unnecessary from the start, a full exemption from the MMPA was granted for military readiness activities in the version of this bill that passed the House on May 22, 2003. The Senate version of the bill contained no MMPA exemption for any reason. How then did it come to pass that the Conference Report we debate today broadens the exemption to include scientific research activities by the Federal Government? The Conference Report, agreed to by Republican conferees behind closed doors, opens gaping loopholes in the management of marine mammals and creates unequal standards for ocean users. This is both unfair to the marine mammals struggling to survive and to the shipping, fishing, and tourism industries, which will now be held to different standards under MMPA than scientific researchers and the Navy.

   The ``encroachment'' of civilian communities on military managed lands is a serious problem as the separation between where people live and where the military trains decreases. As such, there has never been a more necessary time for the military to look out for the public's best interest. The public wants and needs a healthy and well-managed environment and for the military to be held to complying with our nation's fundamental environmental protection laws. The military should be listening to its neighbors and respecting their requests, and Congress should have listened to its constituents and prevented the weakening of the ESA and MMPA.

   Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1588, to authorize military spending for fiscal year 2004. This bill authorizes the funding necessary to defend our country and promote our interests throughout the world. The bill makes significant enhancements to our combat capabilities, continues our efforts to transform the military to meet the terrorist threats of the 21st century, and provides a number of new benefits to American soldiers throughout the world.

   Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect the national security of our nation. When our soldiers are sent in to war, it is the Congress's responsibility to make sure that all resources necessary are provided to carry out their missions.

   I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. Much of the funds in this bill will go directly to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

   Under this bill our men and women in uniform will receive a 4.15 percent average increase in base pay. At the same time the bill reduces the average amount of housing expenses paid by service members from the current 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent, and eliminates out-of-pocket expenses completely by fiscal year 2005. The bill also extends special pay and bonuses for active duty personnel through the end of 2004. Family separation allowance for service members with dependents is increased, from $100 to $259 per month. The special pay rate for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger is increased from $150 to $225 per month. The legislation also extends TRICARE health coverage to National Guard members and reservists and their families if such servicemembers have been called to active duty. The bill also authorizes nearly $10 billion for military construction, family housing, medical facilities, and child development centers.

   This legislation also continues the transformation of our military to meet new challenges of the global war on terror. The bill funds research and procurement of countermeasures to protect troops and the homeland from chemical, biological, and nuclear attack. It increases weapons and equipment procurement for Special Operations Forces. It funds programs to dismantle, secure, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and facilities in Russia and the former Soviet republics.

   There are several significant shortcomings in this legislation, however, that I would like to discuss.

   This conference report contains an inadequate proposal to address the Disabled Veterans Tax imposed on our military retirees. Under current law, military retirees are taxed one dollar of their retirement pay for every dollar they receive in veterans disability compensation. Denying service-disabled men and women the benefits they have earned breaks our promise to those who placed their lives on the line for America's freedom. Any veteran with a service-connected disability, regardless of the length of his or her military service, can retire from a federal civilian job and receive both retired pay and disability compensation without penalty.

   America's troops are united as they serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and here

   at home. Our veterans were united as they fought for our country. They remain united today in their love for our nation. But the Disabled Veterans Tax compromise before the House today seeks to divide them. It leaves behind more than 390,000 disabled military retirees--more than two-thirds of those who would receive full compensation under HR 303. Those retirees with a Purple Heart or combat-related disability would be eligible this January. Others who have 50 percent or greater disability would have to wait for ten years to receive their full benefits. Those with less than 50% disability still will not receive one penny of compensation for their disabilities.

   Because this compromise is phased in over a ten-year period, many of our older veterans, particularly those from World War II and the Korean War, may not live long enough to receive the full benefits to which they are entitled. In my district in Maryland, there are 1,519 veterans who are now subject to the Disabled Veterans Tax. This bill leaves 1,000 of them behind.

   More than 85 percent of the members of this House have cosponsored HR 303, yet the compromise before us falls far short. Many of my colleagues also signed the discharge petition that would compel the House to consider this bill. For these reasons, I urged my colleagues to support the motion to recommit. It would have stripped from the bill the inadequate compromise language that only helps two-thirds of America's veterans, and replace it with full, immediate concurrent receipt. Our disabled military retirees deserve no less.

   I am also disappointed that conferees chose to include in this bill a far-reaching plan to revamp the DOD civilian employee system.

[Page: H11003]

Under this agreement, more than 700,000 civilian workers in the Defense Department will lose fundamental protections that have been in place since President Kennedy's administration. These protections were put in place to safeguard against the patronage, political favoritism, and nepotism that were rampant before the advent of the civil service system.

   These DoD employees will lose many of their current due process rights. The conference report retains the right of employees to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board but only as an appellate body. As a result, DoD civilian employees would have far fewer rights to appeal personnel actions than other civilian employees have. They would lose guarantees on overtime pay, hazard pay, weekend pay, and holiday pay. Finally this provision empowers Secretary Rumsfeld and all future Secretaries of Defense to create an entirely new personnel system for DOD civilians. I am also very concerned that enactment of these provisions will set a dangerous precedent that will lead to erosion of protections in other federal department and agencies. In these times of uncertainty and turmoil, we are asking more of our civil servants than ever before in our history. To remove these important safeguards now is the wrong thing to do.

   In sum, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have failed to provide the full concurrent receipt to our veterans that they deserve, and that we have eroded some of the civil service protections for Defense Department employees. However, I will support this legislation because it provides additional resources for our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world as they prosecute the global war on terrorism. Our military must be given every available tool for its arsenal as it combats emerging threats to our soldiers and our homeland.

   Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1588, the FY 2004 Department of Defense Authorization bill.

   However, I believe that this bill is far from perfect. It does not fully support veterans' disability issues, collective bargaining for civilian personnel, and protection for the environment. It is unfortunate that these issues suffered due to the political process. I did support the motion to recommit in hopes that these critical issues could be further discussed, but that motion failed.

   If we were not in a time of war I would not support this bill. Yet, our brave men and women deserve all the protections and assistance we can provide, and I will do all I can to support them.

   While I am voting against the report, I do support the outcome of the Conference Committee regarding overseas voting provisions for the military. I am pleased that language referring to ballots submitted by members of the military stationed overseas was not included in the report. The issue of ensuring the integrity of overseas military members' ballots has been addressed in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and I believe we must await the full implementation of HAVA before considering any changes. Therefore, I did not believe that some of the suggested changes were necessary.

   Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment in this conference report. I regret that I must oppose it.

   I support our troops and our veterans, and applaud the conference report's improvement in pay for our troops, but there are far too many things wrong with this bill. For example, under H.R. 1588, environmental standards are weakened and worker rights are severely limited. Yet again, the Republicans have placed a higher priority on partisanship and special interests than doing what is right for our country and our service men and women.

   But, of all the many problems with this conference report, the most disappointing is the section on concurrent receipt that fails to end this horrendous policy for many of our disabled veterans. For months, the Republicans have refused even to allow a vote on H.R. 303 which would end the disabled veterans tax for all of our veterans. But now in a half-hearted attempt to appear responsive to the overwhelming demands of Democrats and veterans groups to repeal this tax, the Republicans have thrown our veterans a bone--a partial repeal of the concurrent receipt policy.

   It is estimated that, under the Republican plan, two-thirds of disabled veterans will not receive one penny of compensation for their disabilities. This is unacceptable. Our veterans deserve all of the benefits that they have earned. Our veterans have sacrificed in order to ensure our freedom and safety. Congress must now do its part. Congress can and must completely end the disabled veterans tax--immediately.

   Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman DUNCAN HUNTER and Ranking Democrat IKE SKELTON for their leadership on this important bill.

   Our young men and women in uniform are performing magnificently right now in Iraq in a difficult and developing mission. They are also performing magnificently in Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world where the global war on terror takes us. It falls to the Congress to make sure our troops have what they need to prosecute this war on all fronts. Certainly all of Congress agrees that our soldiers in the field deserve to get all they need, no matter what.

   The central feature of today's bill is a huge step forward on the issue of concurrent receipt. Finally, we are acknowledging the inherent unfairness of having long-time service members chose between retiree pay and disability. We didn't get nearly what we wanted, nor what these military retirees deserve . . . but we made significant progress on advancing the cause of expanding the phase-in of concurrent receipt.

   This bill provides much needed support for our military including: a pay raise of 4.15 percent for uniformed services, further reducing out-of-pocket expenses for servicemembers, increasing allowances for family separation and danger pay, and modestly increasing the force structure of the Army and active Reserves and National Guard.

   DOD did not get all the power it wanted when it comes to contracting out civilian jobs, but I am very uncertain about what lies ahead for civilian workers. We made some progress in the negotiations, but the strong language in the House bill put quite a pall over the future of a viable civilian service. We have a very tough road ahead. And, I maintain the Secretary is just wrong on this one--a strong civilian workforce performs the core functions of the military better, and cheaper, in-house.

   Today's package, and our passage of it speaks, we hope, to the needs of our military and offers them the concrete understanding that this Congress considers our military men and women our ultimate responsibility.

   As we move forward, I will be working to do more to ensure our military retirees eventually get a full concurrent receipt.

   I will keep a very close eye on the plans and activities of the Department of Defense as they proceed with their plans for civil service workers. I want to ensure that our civil service workers remain the viable, strong workforce our national security demands.

   Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1588 the Defense Authorization Conference Report. While this conference report has some deficiencies it also has a number of positive points that I support.

   Inititally when this Defense Authorization was drafted compromises were reached that would allow the DoD to have flexibility and at the same time providing labor protections. Unfortunately, the conference report language has been redrafted and allows DoD to wipe away these protections. It is unfortunate that civilian defense employees are not receiving the same protections. I would hope that we can work to ensure workers rights at the Pentagon. These men and women serve our country and are also fighting to protect our freedoms.

   While this conference report has begun to address the issue of concurrent receipts for veterans it does not fully solve the problem. We need to make sure all veterans receive this benefit. It takes a step in the right direction, but it does not fully solve the problem.

   This conference report also calls on the Secretary of Defense to submit to the House Intelligence Committee a report on the preparation for and conduct of our military operations under Operation Iraqi Freedom.

   I am thankful that the F-22A Raptor received additional funding. The Raptor is the new front line jet fighter for our Air Force. This aircraft will give us complete air superiority. I am proud to say that we build this radar system in my district.

   The Authorization also contains additional funding for the Shadow 200 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. This vehicle which is again built in my district played a vital role in Iraq in providing our troops with an aerial view of the battlefield to give our troops a tactical advantage. Because of the success of this vehicle the National Guard is now interested in the unit and has requested funding for it.

   I am happy to say an amendment I inserted into the Defense Authorization has been accepted and will be a part of this authorization. My Amendment calls for employee surveys of leadership and management performance. This survey will help to promote efficiency and allow for the recognition of achievement and increase best practices in an agency. It is important that we allow employees to take ownership of where they work and to make them part of the team.

   Again, I rise in support of this conference report.

   Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.

   I would first like to recognize our Committee leadership, Chairman HUNTER and Ranking Member SKELTON, for the bill they have crafted to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. Our Committee has a long tradition of working across party lines to ensure the readiness and well-being of our Armed Forces, and I am pleased to have participated in yet another cooperative effort with my

[Page: H11004]

Armed Services colleagues. Unfortunately, this bipartisan spirit did not extend to the more controversial aspects of the Defense Authorization Act, especially the reworking of the civil service system and yet another compromise on the Disabled Veterans Tax. On the balance, however, this bill establishes good policy for our troops when they need it the most.

   H.R. 1588 offers the pay and benefit measures that our Armed Forces deserve. We put together another healthy across-the-board pay raise--4.15 percent--as well as targeted raises of up to 6.25 percent for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers. We have also extended special pay provisions for the men and women deployed around the world. Hostile fire and imminent danger pay will be raised from $150 per month to $225 per month through December 1, 2004, while family separation allowance (FSAA) will increase from $100 to $250 per month.

   In an effort to address the issue of military readiness, H.R. 1588 also includes TRICARE health benefits for deploying Reservists. We have been undermining our own system by relying on Reservists to be ready to go when called but failing to provide them the required medical coverage to ensure deployment-level readiness. Through this new authorization, the Department of Defense can provide immediate medical and dental screening and care for selected Reservists who are assigned to a unit alerted or notified of mobilization. Non-mobilized Reservists

   currently without health insurance will also be able to enroll in TRICARE on a cost-share basis. With the burden on our Reserves at an all-time high, providing basic coverage is the least we can do for those called to serve.

   One of the worst aspects of this legislation is the wholesale dismantling of our Department of Defense civilian workforce. Under the conference report before us, some 700,000 federal employees will be stripped of their rights and protections in the current civil service system and placed at the mercy of political appointees in DoD. The Defense Authorization Act, as written, provides no guidelines for a new civilian personnel system; rather, it gives almost unchecked power to Secretary Rumsfeld to create a system of his own design. We have heard testimony about pay for performance and pay banding, but none of this is codified in the legislation. It opens the door to political patronage and cronyism--the very abuses which the civil service system was enacted to prevent in the first place. Our committee held exactly one hearing on the civil service portions of this bill, and that hearing was held only after Committee Democrats raised an outcry. The hearing was hastily organized with one day's notice and hardly allowed for the in-depth examination due such a sweeping proposal. Let me be clear--this process has been a farce and nothing less than a slap in the face to our DoD civilian workforce. We praise these men and women in one breath, and in the next, dismiss them as expendable. In passing this provision, Congress will abdicate its constitutional responsibility and cede our authority in this matter to the Executive Branch. I am deeply disappointed that the Administration felt it necessary to interfere in this conference and prevent us from adopting the much more moderate and sensible legislation crafted in the Senate under the leadership of Senator COLLINS.

   Likewise, I am dissatisfied with the partial rollback of the Disabled Veterans Tax. For years I have cosponsored and supported legislative efforts to allow disabled veterans to receive their full retirement annuity in conjunction with VA disability pay, and year after year, we are only able to come up with half-hearted measures. The so-called solution before us will take ten years to rectify the unfair penalty. Our veterans cannot wait until 2014 to finally see the compensation they rightfully earned, in numerous cases many years ago. It is shameful that our Republican colleagues are unwilling to budget the funding for those who have already made so many sacrifices in behalf of our Nation but yet are all too willing to send more young men and women down the same path in harm's way. I truly hope that we can reexamine this phased-in approach next year and accommodate all disabled veterans equally and immediately.

   As the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, I am happy to report that we have done well by the major Army and Air Force acquisition programs under our jurisdiction. The bill carefully balances current hardware needs with development and procurement of future systems. Modernization of our Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Abrams tanks will ensure the capability of our heavy armor divisions and our industrial base. I am particularly pleased that we have funded the Stryker Medium Armored Vehicles at the Administration's request for both procurement and research and development. Stryker represents the bridge between current Army legacy systems and the networked Future Combat System; through Stryker, our soldiers will hone the skills necessary for the transformation to the fast and lethal warfare of the 21st century.

   I would like to thank the Committee staff for their tireless work over the past several months in putting together the best bill possible. I would especially like to thank the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee professional staff, J.J. Gertler, Bill Natter, and Doug Roach, for their dedication, professionalism, and invaluable expertise throughout the year's work.

   We have a bill that we can largely be proud of. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

   Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit the Defense Reauthorization Conference Report. We must say no to the veteran disability tax and support concurrent receipt.

   As a veteran, and as a Member of Congress, it is my duty to fight for the veterans who fought for our freedom. We must make sure that our veterans receive the benefits and healthcare that they have more than earned.

   To take money away from our veterans while giving tax cuts to the wealthy is disgraceful.

   I don't understand how House Republicans can vote to cut $14 billion from veterans' benefits, and then send 130,000 troops to Iraq.

   While America's wealthiest receive huge tax cuts our soldiers die overseas. And for those that do come home, they want to cut their benefits. Our soldiers deserve better.

   Right now, 520,000 veterans' benefits claims are still pending in the VA. Some of these claims involve soldiers that served as long ago as the Korean War.

   I have even introduced a bill to try to solve this problem, H.R. 1264 that will help reduce this backlog of claims. This is the type of help our veterans need.

   It is shameful that our disabled veterans cannot receive disability pay without receiving a cut in their pension. Veterans should not be forced to give up one dollar of their pension for every dollar that they receive in disability pay. A veteran must not be punished for being disabled.

   I cosponsored H.R. 303, the concurrent receipt bill. And I signed the petition that would have brought this bill to the House floor despite Republican opposition.

   Our veterans are simply waiting for what they are owed--their disability pay and their full pensions.

   Our veterans are dying at a rate of 1,000 a day. The Republican plan will not aid the veterans that need help now.

   Under the Republican plan only one-third of the disabled veterans will get the help that they need. This is unacceptable and our veterans deserve better.

   Our veterans need our help. Let's not keep them waiting any longer.

   I urge my colleagues to support concurrent receipt and send this report back to conference.

   Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I spoke against this bill when it was on the House Floor and, unbelievably, it's gotten worse in Conference. I am frustrated that on the week before Veterans Day, the conference report keeps moving further away from what the military, veterans, and Americans need. The most fundamental function of our national government is the defense of our nation. Today, this function is more important, and we are spending more on national defense than ever before. The conference report that we are debating this morning carries a $401.3 billion price tag, which means that the United States will be spending over a billion dollars a day, and more on our military than do the next 25 nations combined. This bill certainly spends enough to do the job, however it is full of provisions that not only waste tax dollars, but even threaten Americans' health and safety.

   I am pleased that the Defense Authorization bill starts to reduce the tax on disabled Veterans, which is long overdue. However, I am disappointed that the bill would only partially end the tax--leaving out two-thirds of military retirees affected by the tax and forcing those covered to wait 10 years for full benefits.

   I am also extremely disappointed that the conferees chose to eliminate the 1993 ban on low-yield nuclear weapons. The House bill allowed research but maintained the ban on development activities that could lead to the production of a destabilizing and unnecessary new low-yield nuclear weapon. However, conferees accepted the Senate language that also allowed research but eliminated the ban. Fortunately, Congressional approval is required before these dangerous weapons can be produced, and I hope that this never occurs. Producing a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons increases the likelihood they will be used in conflict, breaking a taboo that has been in place since World War II. Developing new types of nuclear weapons sends the wrong message to other nations. America must lead by example if the threat of nuclear weapons is going to be eliminated.

   This bill is missed opportunity to focus on real priorities. The anti-environmental provisions in this bill are especially frustrating. Instead of addressing real threats to readiness,

[Page: H11005]

the administration and the Republicans in Congress are taking on an easier

   target, dolphins. Using defense as cover, they are proposing changes to environmental laws that have nothing to do with defense readiness.

   As the largest owner of infrastructure in the world and also the biggest polluter, the Department of Defense should be setting the best example, not getting permission from Congress to cut corners on the protection of the environment and the health of our communities.

   The Conference Report includes modified House language that would prohibit designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act if the Secretary of the Interior determines that the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan prepared by the Secretary of Defense will provide ``a benefit'' for endangered and threatened species on military lands. However, there is no definition of ``benefit.''

   We have seen that critical habitat designation is not the problem on military lands. This conference report misses the real threat to military readiness: encroachment of development around bases. This is the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms and forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways, and this is the real threat to our ability to train and maintain the world's mightiest fighting force.

   Across the country, from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, to Camp Pendleton, California, development is threatening the armed forces' ability to fly planes, maneuver and conduct other readiness activities. This has led the State of California to pass their Senate bill 1468 which recognizes the long-term operations of military installations must involve a partnership between the State, local agencies and the Federal Government. It provides the military, environmental organizations and local planning agencies the tools to work together to fight common enemies of military readiness like suburban sprawl. But this proposal is completely absent from the legislation coming before us.

   The Conference Report also retains controversial House language that would reduce protections for marine mammals. New language, added in conference, would also apply the weakened standards to any research activities by the Federal Government (or contractors), creating a double standard as current law would continue to apply to citizens and the private sector.

   In addition, key conservation terms of the Marine Mammal Protection Act are altered in order to overturn a recent Federal court of appeals decision regarding the impacts of Navy sonar technology. The bill allows the Department to exempt itself from what's left of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for anything necessary for national defense. It excludes any meaningful involvement of the wildlife agencies, the States, Congress and the public in review of these exemptions. This contradicts language passed unanimously this week by the Resources Committee--the House committee with exclusive jurisdiction over the MMPA--which does not contain any special standards or exemptions for DOD. This has raised the ire of both Democratic and Republican Resources Committee Members participating in the Conference.

   Not only are these provisions harmful, they are also unnecessary. Under current law the Department can already waive environmental laws when it's necessary for national security. There has never been a case where a waiver has not been granted for military necessity.

   The defense authorization bill is also wrong on a very fundamental level. It is missing an opportunity to use the Department of Defense to set the highest standards. Given adequate resources and the right orders, our Department of Defense can achieve any mission. We are missing that opportunity. As the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, we ought to be able to figure out how to better address this problem without compromising the environmental survival of what we are fighting to protect.

   It is arrogant and hypocritical to let the Federal Government off the hook for environmental regulations. We will impose them on small business or local governments but not on us ourselves.

   I oppose this conference report because we are spending too much on the wrong things and not enough on strategies that will make our Department of Defense more sustainable over time. The spending is too heavy on weapons research and too light on relieving the stress on our fighting forces. We can and must do a better job shaping our Nation's defense policy.

   Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1588, the Department of Defense Authorization bill, which includes concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees and veterans. Currently, disabled retiree and veterans' benefits are offset by the amount of disability pay that they are eligible to receive. The legislation corrects that unfairness.

   Members of Congress representing hundreds of thousands of retirees and veterans came together to achieve a significant, victory for disabled retirees and veterans. We fully support our soldiers--past and present.

   The bill is fair, responsible, and appropriately recognizes the service of our nation's disabled retirees and veterans. It establishes a concurrent receipt for more disabled military retirees and veterans than ever before, and provides them with the retirement income they have earned and deserve.

   Under current law, a disabled military retiree or veteran could be entitled to $1,000 a month in military retirement and $300 a month in disability. But the amount of the disability payment is subtracted from the retirement pay, leaving the soldier with a check for $700 in retirement and $300 in VA disability. A retiree or veteran is no better off if they suffered a disability than if they didn't. The legislation eliminates this inequity.

   Active duty combat retirees and veterans who are 60 percent disabled and above now have full concurrent receipt. The key part of the agreement expands full concurrent receipt to all combat retirees and veterans with a Veterans Administration disability between 10 percent and 100 percent.

   The agreement not only provides a full concurrent receipt benefit for active duty retirees and veterans, but also for reservists and national guardsmen who currently do not qualify for concurrent receipt under either Purple Heart or combat-related disability pay. The reservists and national guardsmen will receive full concurrent receipt if their disability is between 10 percent and 100 percent.

   The legislation establishes benefits for those remaining retirees and veterans at 50 percent disability and above. They presently do not receive any benefits. That means every disabled military retiree and veteran with a disability greater than 50 percent will be entitled to concurrent receipt.

   It also creates a 13-member bi-partisan commission appointed by Congressional leaders and the White House. Under the commission, for the first time since 1946, there will be a top-to-bottom review of the disability system. The commission's goal is to review the disability system to ensure that the appropriate benefits are provided to our retirees and veterans.

   From World War II to Vietnam, from the Persian Gulf War to the War on Terror, we provided our active military with the tools they need to do their jobs, and our retirees and veterans with the proper benefits for their years of service. The concurrent receipt agreement follows that tradition and honors those who have served our country.

   Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of the military and I'm well aware of the unconventional war we face against terrorists. However, I continue to oppose the nuclear weapons related provisions in this year's defense authorization bill.

   No one is arguing about the need to find new technologies with which our nation can combat deeply buried targets, particularly those held by terrorists. At issue is whether Congress needs to resort to repealing the Spratt-Furse prohibition on nuclear weapons development and encouraging the production of new weapons.

   There is a disconnect in the federal government between weapons development and the realistic application of nuclear weapons. Advocates of new nuclear weapons see them as just another tool in the War on Terror, without realizing nuclear weapons work best as a deterrent, not as first-use weapons.

   Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and new nuclear weapons, argue that the current authorization language is strictly limited to weapons research and development in Department of Energy labs. This claim ignores the obvious end result of weapons development--weapons design does not occur in a vacuum. In order for our soldiers to use nuclear weapons in combat, these weapons must first be physically tested, most likely at the Nevada Test Site. The federal government's poor record on weapons testing and containment of fallout is lengthy and disappointing, at best.

   Like many Utahns, I come from a family of downwinders. My father, as well as other loved ones, developed terminal cancer after he was exposed to radiation from Cold War nuclear weapons tests conducted by the federal government. I do not believe that we should even consider a resumption of nuclear weapons testing when rational alternatives have not been fully explored.

   I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen consequences of weapons testing. Advances in containment technology are certainly possible, however, the current circumstances do not lend themselves to a resumption of nuclear weapons testing and I will do everything in my power to avoid that end result.

   Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in opposition to the very limited provision to address the unfair disabled veterans tax in the Defense Authorization Act.

   Currently, veterans who retire with 20 years of honorable service and who also have a

[Page: H11006]

service-connected disability are not permitted to collect both military retired pay and VA disability compensation. In essence, they are paying for their own retirement. We must stop penalizing our disabled veterans in this cold and unfeeling manner.

   Our nation's veterans and many, many Members of this House have been fighting for so long for the elimination of this tax for all retirees. We are now so close to victory. We cannot settle for the partial concurrent receipt measure that is included in this bill.

   This proposal is simply unacceptable. It gives less than half a loaf and spreads it over ten years. It is naive at best and callous at worst.

   The proposal leaves approximately 400,000 military retirees without relief. In my state of California, fully 38,000 are left out of this Republican proposal.

   Many of the deserving veterans will die before the ten years are up and before they receive their full concurrent receipt.

   This bill will set up yet another complicated administrative system for our veterans to wade through.

   And worst of all, this bill as presented today unfairly pits veterans against other veterans.

   We must restore earned and deserved benefits to all eligible military retirees. If this Defense Authorization Conference Report continues to leave out two-third of deserving veterans, I cannot vote for its passage.

   Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act. It was a pleasure to serve as an outside conferee to H.R. 1588 for education provisions that will benefit our nation's military, schools and students across the world.

   In addition to Impact Aid, H.R. 1588 provides additional assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Services and Department of Defense civilian employees. $30 million is authorized to be used as general revenue by LEAs that are impacted by the presence of military installations.

   Every Member recognizes the importance of funding for special education. H.R. 1588 recognizes that the Department of Defense also has a role in helping school districts provide these necessary services. The conference report makes available $5 million from the Department of Defense's budget to help school districts provide special education services to children with severe disabilities who have a parent who is on active duty in the uniformed services or who is a foreign military officer.

   Now more than ever our military families rely on Department of Defense schools overseas. H.R. 1588 expands the eligibility for space-available, tuition-free attendance at Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS) overseas to the dependents of mobilized reservists who are called to active duty and whose overseas tour is voluntarily or involuntarily extended beyond one year. Current admissions policy permits the dependents of reservists called to active duty from an overseas location to enroll in DODDS on a space-available, tuition-free basis, but denies such admission to reservists mobilized from the continental United States. As the number of reservists deployed overseas continues to increase, it is imperative that we recognize the needs of these men and women as well as the educational needs of their children.

   Finally, today's Conference Report recognizes the future needs of our military. H.R. 1588 enables the Secretary of Defense to develop a more comprehensive and attractive array of educational programs in science, mathematics and engineering. Educational programs in technical fields will help to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technical entrepreneurs, all of whom may contribute to the future technological superiority of our military forces.

   Congress and the American people support our brave military for their commitment and their sacrifice. The recent war in Iraq shows the importance of preparation and equipment for our military as they work to defend freedom and liberty across the globe. In addition to these vital education provisions, the Conference Report to be passed today will provide the necessary resources and training for our troops at home and abroad.

   Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this Conference Report.

   While I have continuing problems with the process of how this bill was negotiated, excluding the participation of most Democratic-appointed conferees, and how no time has been allowed for Members of this body to review the final version of the bill on which we are voting this morning, it is not for reasons of process that I oppose this bill.

   I oppose this bill because it does not do right by our disabled veterans; it does not do right by the hard-working, faithful, and patriotic civilian workforce of the U.S. Department of Defense; and it does not do right by our commitment--including the declarations of our current president--to halt the global proliferation of nuclear weapons.

   However, first I would like to summarize several of the items in this bill that I strongly support and for which I have fought for many years.

   I support the extension of TRICARE for non-deployed National Guard and Reservists and their families. Under current law and Pentagon policy, reservists become eligible for TRICARE, the Defense Department's health care system, once they are on active duty. This conference report will ensure that TRICARE is provided to those Guard and Reservists who lack coverage or who are not eligible for coverage offered by an employer. Guard and Reservists will be required to pay 28 percent of TRICARE premium and can stay in the program for one month before and six months after mobilization. This program is authorized for one year, until September 30, 2004, but I will continue to fight to ensure these changes become permanent.

   I also support the provision in this conference report to allow lawful permanent resident military members to achieve naturalized citizenship after serving honorably for one year in the regular components of the military and our Ready Reserves. It also allows non-citizen spouses, unmarried children, and parents of citizens and non-citizens serving in the U.S. military who are killed as a result of such service, to file or preserve their application for lawful permanent residence. This provision does not provide any benefits if family members are out of status or are illegal aliens.

   I support the increases in Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance. The higher rates authorized in this bill will be $225 per month for hazardous duty pay and $250 for family separation allowance. These higher rates will be provided to all eligible military members, not just those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

   I strongly support the 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel and the targeted increases for mid-grade and senior non-commissioned officers and mid-grade officers.

   I also strongly support the increased authorizations for the equipment, supplies, logistical support so badly needed by our deployed military personnel and those in training, as well as the increases in research, development, testing and evaluation of new equipment and materials that will be required for an effective and modern fighting force. Our uniformed men and women deserve the very best equipment to carry out their duties and missions, and I believe this bill helps provide them with these materials.

   Unfortunately, I cannot support a bill that will still leave two out of every three disabled veterans subject to the so-called Disabled Veterans Tax. This conference report includes a plan to provide concurrent receipt of military retirement and Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits to military retirees with disability ratings of 50 percent or high that would be phased in over the next ten years. According to a report released by Veterans Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lane Evans, a veteran himself of the Vietnam War, the plan authorized in this bill will help only 160,000 of the approximately 560,000 disabled military retirees that are subject to the tax. To be eligible for relief, retirees must have 20 years of service and disability ratings of 50 percent or above. As is already provided for in current law, veterans who meet the criteria for a combat-related disability, popularly known as ``Purple Hearts Plus,'' will receive full disability and retirement benefits, if they have twenty years or more of service.

   I believe that the Conference Report should have included the provisions of H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003, which I and the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives attempted to bring to the House floor for action earlier this year. It would cover all of our disabled veterans, not just one out of three. Three days from now we will remember our veterans and celebrate Veterans Day. I cannot do this in good conscience if I support legislation in which two-thirds of retired veterans who have service-related disabilities will be left behind and will be required to continue to pay tax on their disability.

   Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report that scraps existing civil service laws and protections for the more than 746,000 civilian employees whose daily work and sacrifices ensures the effective running of the U.S. Department of Defense. This Conference Report removes all collective bargaining protections contained in current law; it removes all basic due process protections for employees; it strips Defense Department employees of basic appeal rights; and it removes the requirement that Defense Department employees receive additional pay for working overtime, working on holidays or weekends, or working in jobs involving unusual physical hardship or hazards. Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong.

   Finally, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Conference Report on H.R. 1588 because it lifts the ban on research and development of a new generation of so-called low-yield nuclear weapons that was first enacted in 1989 during

[Page: H11007]

the Administration of President George H.W. Bush. This new program will allow the United States to pursue a new generation of nuclear weapons of a type most likely to be used in battle, which I fear may lead to a new nuclear arms race on a global scale.

   I also have other grave concerns regarding this bill, such as the weakening of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which I do not have time to go into this morning.

   I regret that I must vote in opposition to this very important bill, but I simply cannot short-change our disabled veterans, the Defense Department workers, and the very security of our nation and the world from nuclear attack.

   Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for the conference report on H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This Member would like to offer particular thanks to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. HUNTER), and the Ranking Minority Member on the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. SKELTON) for their work on this important bill. Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. HEFLEY), and the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. ORTIZ), for their critical work on authorizing $3 million for the frontage levee segment protecting the Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska. Indeed, this Member is very appreciative for the inclusion of this provision in the conference report.

   Mr. Speaker, the Nebraska National Guard Camp Frontage Levee Segment is a central element of the Clear Creek portion of the Western Sarpy Levee project. Completion of the Guard camp segment must coincide with the other elements of the Western Sarpy project to assure coordinate progress on completing this governmentally complicated flood protection project. Indeed, without building this section of the levee along the Platte River simultaneously with the construction of the entire levee system it will not work; there would be a gap in the levee that would only accentuate the flooding risks and flood volume that would affect the Nebraska National Guard Camp unless this project moves forward with the rest of the levee construction project.

   Previously, the Clear Creek Project was authorized at $15.6 million in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) to provide protection to the City of Lincoln's water supply, I-80, and U.S. 6, BNSF RR (Amtrak Line), telecommunication lines and other public facilities. In the FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress included $500,000 for construction start-up costs.

   The Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska, provides training for Nebraska and other states' Army guard units to maintain mission readiness. The Ashland Guard Camp levee is an essential element of the Clear Creek structure on the western side of the Platte River since it also is that part of Clear Creek nearest to the Lincoln wellfield. Planning and design funds for the Guard's segment have been previously provided by the Congress to the Department of Defense through the Military Construction appropriations bill. Planning has resulted in development of a more cost-effective frontage levee to replace a previous ring-levee approach.

   In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member again expresses his appreciation and urges his colleagues to vote in support of the conference report for H.R. 1588.

• [End Insert]

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has expired.

   Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.

   There was no objection.

   MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. MARSHALL

   Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference report?

   Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, because the conference report does far too little to end the disabled veterans tax, I oppose the conference report in its present form.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   Mr. MARSHALL moves to recommit the conference report on the bill H.R. 1588 to the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to include, in any further conference substitute recommended by the committee of conference, provisions that, within the scope of conference, maximize the number of persons who will be eligible for full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability compensation.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.

   Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

   There was no objection.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

   Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit to conference will be followed by 5-minute votes on the adoption of the conference report; the motion to instruct on H.R. 6 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner); and the motion to instruct on H.R. 1 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188, nays 217, not voting 30, as follows:

[Roll No. 616]

YEAS--188

   Abercrombie

   Alexander

   Allen

   Andrews

   Baca

   Baird

   Baldwin

   Ballance

   Becerra

   Bell

   Berkley

   Berry

   Bishop (GA)

   Bishop (NY)

   Blumenauer

   Boswell

   Boucher

   Boyd

   Brady (PA)

   Brown, Corrine

   Capps

   Capuano

   Cardin

   Cardoza

   Carson (IN)

   Carson (OK)

   Case

   Clay

   Clyburn

   Conyers

   Cooper

   Costello

   Cramer

   Crowley

   Cummings

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (FL)

   Davis (IL)

   Davis (TN)

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   Deutsch

   Dicks

   Dingell

   Doggett

   Dooley (CA)

   Doyle

   Edwards

   Emanuel

   Engel

   Eshoo

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Farr

   Filner

   Ford

   Frank (MA)

   Frost

   Gonzalez

   Gordon

   Green (TX)

   Grijalva

   Gutierrez

   Hall

   Harman

   Hill

   Hinojosa

   Hoeffel

   Holden

   Holt

   Honda

   Hooley (OR)

   Hoyer

   Inslee

   Israel

   Jackson (IL)

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Jefferson

   John

   Johnson, E. B.

   Jones (NC)

   Kanjorski

   Kaptur

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kildee

   Kind

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   Lee

   Levin

   Lewis (GA)

   Lofgren

   Lowey

   Lucas (KY)

   Lynch

   Maloney

   Markey

   Marshall

   Matheson

   Matsui

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCollum

   McDermott

   McGovern

   McIntyre

   McNulty

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Menendez

   Michaud

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller (NC)

   Miller, George

   Mollohan

   Moore

   Moran (VA)

   Murtha

   Nadler

   Neal (MA)

   Nethercutt

   Oberstar

   Obey

   Olver

   Owens

   Pallone

   Pascrell

   Pastor

   Payne

   Pelosi

   Peterson (MN)

   Pomeroy

   Price (NC)

   Rahall

   Rodriguez

   Ross

   Rothman

   Roybal-Allard

   Ruppersberger

   Rush

   Ryan (OH)

   Sanchez, Linda T.

   Sanchez, Loretta

   Sanders

   Sandlin

   Schakowsky

   Schiff

   Scott (GA)

   Scott (VA)

   Serrano

   Sherman

   Skelton

   Slaughter

   Smith (WA)

   Snyder

   Solis

   Spratt

   Stark

   Stenholm

   Strickland

   Stupak

   Tancredo

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Taylor (MS)

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

   Tierney

   Turner (TX)

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Van Hollen

   Velazquez

   Visclosky

   Waters

   Watson

   Watt

   Waxman

   Weiner

   Wexler

   Whitfield

   Woolsey

   Wynn

NAYS--217

   Aderholt

   Akin

   Bachus

   Baker

   Ballenger

   Barrett (SC)

   Bartlett (MD)

   Barton (TX)

   Bass

   Beauprez

   Bereuter

   Biggert

   Bilirakis

   Bishop (UT)

   Blackburn

   Blunt

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bonilla

   Bonner

   Bono

   Boozman

   Bradley (NH)

   Brady (TX)

   Brown (SC)

   Brown-Waite, Ginny

   Burgess

   Burns

   Calvert

   Camp

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Capito

   Carter

   Castle

   Chabot

   Chocola

   Coble

   Cole

   Collins

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Cubin

   Culberson

   Cunningham

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Davis, Tom

   Deal (GA)

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Diaz-Balart, L.

   Diaz-Balart, M.

   Doolittle

   Dreier

   Duncan

   Dunn

   Ehlers

   Emerson

   English

   Everett

   Feeney

   Ferguson

   Flake

   Foley

   Forbes

   Fossella

   Franks (AZ)

   Frelinghuysen

   Gallegly

   Garrett (NJ)

   Gerlach

   Gibbons

   Gilchrest

   Gillmor

   Gingrey

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Goss

   Granger

   Graves

   Green (WI)

   Greenwood

   Harris

   Hart

   Hastert

   Hastings (WA)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Hensarling

   Herger

   Hobson

   Hoekstra

   Hostettler

   Houghton

   Hulshof

   Hunter

   Hyde

   Isakson

   Issa

   Istook

   Janklow

   Jenkins

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, Sam

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   King (IA)

   King (NY)

   Kingston

   Kirk

   Kleczka

   Kline

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   LaHood

   Latham

   LaTourette

   Leach

   Lewis (CA)

   Lewis (KY)

[Page: H11008]

   Linder

   LoBiondo

   Lucas (OK)

   Manzullo

   McCotter

   McCrery

   McHugh

   McKeon

   Mica

   Miller (FL)

   Miller (MI)

   Miller, Gary

   Moran (KS)

   Murphy

   Musgrave

   Myrick

   Neugebauer

   Ney

   Northup

   Norwood

   Nunes

   Nussle

   Osborne

   Ose

   Otter

   Oxley

   Pearce

   Pence

   Peterson (PA)

   Petri

   Pickering

   Pitts

   Platts

   Pombo

   Porter

   Portman

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Radanovich

   Ramstad

   Regula

   Rehberg

   Renzi

   Reynolds

   Rogers (AL)

   Rogers (KY)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Royce

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Sabo

   Saxton

   Schrock

   Sensenbrenner

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherwood

   Shimkus

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Simpson

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Souder

   Stearns

   Sullivan

   Sweeney

   Tauzin

   Taylor (NC)

   Terry

   Thomas

   Thornberry

   Tiahrt

   Tiberi

   Toomey

   Turner (OH)

   Upton

   Vitter

   Walden (OR)

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Weldon (FL)

   Weldon (PA)

   Weller

   Wicker

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Wolf

   Young (AK)

   Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--30

   Ackerman

   Berman

   Brown (OH)

   Burr

   Burton (IN)

   Buyer

   Cox

   Davis (AL)

   Fattah

   Fletcher

   Gephardt

   Gutknecht

   Hastings (FL)

   Hinchey

   Johnson (CT)

   Jones (OH)

   Kilpatrick

   Kucinich

   Lipinski

   Majette

   McInnis

   Meehan

   Napolitano

   Ortiz

   Paul

   Quinn

   Rangel

   Reyes

   Towns

   Wu

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

[Time: 11:57]

   Mr. VITTER and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

   Mr. WHITFIELD and Mr. TANCREDO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

   So the motion to recommit was rejected.

   The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.

   The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

   Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

   The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 362, nays 40, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 31, as follows:

[Roll No. 617]

YEAS--362

   Abercrombie

   Aderholt

   Akin

   Alexander

   Allen

   Andrews

   Baca

   Bachus

   Baker

   Ballance

   Ballenger

   Barrett (SC)

   Bartlett (MD)

   Barton (TX)

   Bass

   Beauprez

   Bell

   Bereuter

   Berkley

   Berry

   Biggert

   Bilirakis

   Bishop (GA)

   Bishop (NY)

   Bishop (UT)

   Blackburn

   Blunt

   Boehlert

   Boehner

   Bonilla

   Bonner

   Bono

   Boozman

   Boswell

   Boucher

   Boyd

   Bradley (NH)

   Brady (PA)

   Brady (TX)

   Brown (SC)

   Brown, Corrine

   Brown-Waite, Ginny

   Burgess

   Burns

   Calvert

   Camp

   Cannon

   Cantor

   Capito

   Capps

   Cardin

   Cardoza

   Carson (OK)

   Carter

   Case

   Castle

   Chabot

   Chocola

   Clyburn

   Coble

   Cole

   Collins

   Cooper

   Costello

   Cramer

   Crane

   Crenshaw

   Crowley

   Cubin

   Culberson

   Cummings

   Cunningham

   Davis (CA)

   Davis (FL)

   Davis (IL)

   Davis (TN)

   Davis, Jo Ann

   Davis, Tom

   Deal (GA)

   DeFazio

   DeGette

   Delahunt

   DeLauro

   DeLay

   DeMint

   Deutsch

   Diaz-Balart, L.

   Diaz-Balart, M.

   Dicks

   Doggett

   Dooley (CA)

   Doolittle

   Doyle

   Dreier

   Duncan

   Dunn

   Edwards

   Ehlers

   Emanuel

   Engel

   English

   Etheridge

   Evans

   Everett

   Feeney

   Ferguson

   Flake

   Foley

   Forbes

   Ford

   Fossella

   Franks (AZ)

   Frelinghuysen

   Frost

   Gallegly

   Garrett (NJ)

   Gerlach

   Gibbons

   Gilchrest

   Gillmor

   Gingrey

   Gonzalez

   Goode

   Goodlatte

   Gordon

   Goss

   Granger

   Graves

   Green (TX)

   Green (WI)

   Greenwood

   Gutierrez

   Hall

   Harman

   Harris

   Hart

   Hastert

   Hastings (WA)

   Hayes

   Hayworth

   Hefley

   Hensarling

   Herger

   Hill

   Hinojosa

   Hobson

   Hoeffel

   Hoekstra

   Holden

   Hooley (OR)

   Hostettler

   Houghton

   Hoyer

   Hulshof

   Hunter

   Hyde

   Inslee

   Isakson

   Israel

   Issa

   Istook

   Jackson-Lee (TX)

   Janklow

   Jefferson

   Jenkins

   John

   Johnson (IL)

   Johnson, E. B.

   Johnson, Sam

   Jones (NC)

   Kanjorski

   Kaptur

   Keller

   Kelly

   Kennedy (MN)

   Kennedy (RI)

   Kildee

   Kind

   King (IA)

   King (NY)

   Kingston

   Kirk

   Kleczka

   Kline

   Knollenberg

   Kolbe

   LaHood

   Lampson

   Langevin

   Lantos

   Larsen (WA)

   Larson (CT)

   Latham

   LaTourette

   Leach

   Levin

   Lewis (CA)

   Lewis (KY)

   Linder

   LoBiondo

   Lowey

   Lucas (KY)

   Lucas (OK)

   Maloney

   Manzullo

   Marshall

   Matheson

   Matsui

   McCarthy (MO)

   McCarthy (NY)

   McCollum

   McCotter

   McCrery

   McHugh

   McIntyre

   McKeon

   McNulty

   Meek (FL)

   Meeks (NY)

   Menendez

   Mica

   Michaud

   Millender-McDonald

   Miller (FL)

   Miller (MI)

   Miller (NC)

   Miller, Gary

   Mollohan

   Moore

   Moran (KS)

   Moran (VA)

   Murphy

   Murtha

   Musgrave

   Myrick

   Nadler

   Neal (MA)

   Nethercutt

   Neugebauer

   Ney

   Northup

   Norwood

   Nunes

   Nussle

   Osborne

   Ose

   Otter

   Oxley

   Pallone

   Pascrell

   Pastor

   Pearce

   Pelosi

   Pence

   Peterson (MN)

   Peterson (PA)

   Petri

   Pickering

   Pitts

   Platts

   Pombo

   Pomeroy

   Porter

   Portman

   Price (NC)

   Pryce (OH)

   Putnam

   Radanovich

   Rahall

   Ramstad

   Regula

   Rehberg

   Renzi

   Reynolds

   Rodriguez

   Rogers (AL)

   Rogers (KY)

   Rogers (MI)

   Rohrabacher

   Ros-Lehtinen

   Ross

   Rothman

   Roybal-Allard

   Royce

   Ruppersberger

   Rush

   Ryan (OH)

   Ryan (WI)

   Ryun (KS)

   Sanchez, Linda T.

   Sanchez, Loretta

   Sandlin

   Saxton

   Schiff

   Schrock

   Scott (GA)

   Scott (VA)

   Sensenbrenner

   Sessions

   Shadegg

   Shaw

   Shays

   Sherman

   Sherwood

   Shimkus

   Shuster

   Simmons

   Simpson

   Skelton

   Smith (MI)

   Smith (NJ)

   Smith (TX)

   Smith (WA)

   Snyder

   Solis

   Souder

   Spratt

   Stearns

   Stenholm

   Strickland

   Stupak

   Sullivan

   Sweeney

   Tancredo

   Tanner

   Tauscher

   Tauzin

   Taylor (MS)

   Taylor (NC)

   Terry

   Thomas

   Thompson (CA)

   Thompson (MS)

   Thornberry

   Tiahrt

   Tiberi

   Toomey

   Turner (OH)

   Turner (TX)

   Udall (CO)

   Udall (NM)

   Upton

   Van Hollen

   Visclosky

   Vitter

   Walden (OR)

   Walsh

   Wamp

   Watt

   Weiner

   Weldon (FL)

   Weldon (PA)

   Weller

   Wexler

   Whitfield

   Wicker

   Wilson (NM)

   Wilson (SC)

   Wolf

   Wynn

   Young (AK)

   Young (FL)

NAYS--40

   Baldwin

   Blumenauer

   Capuano

   Carson (IN)

   Clay

   Conyers

   Dingell

   Eshoo

   Farr

   Filner

   Frank (MA)

   Grijalva

   Holt

   Honda

   Jackson (IL)

   Lee

   Lewis (GA)

   Lofgren

   Lynch

   Markey

   McDermott

   McGovern

   Miller, George

   Oberstar

   Obey

   Olver

   Owens

   Payne

   Sabo

   Sanders

   Schakowsky

   Serrano

   Slaughter

   Stark

   Tierney

   Velazquez

   Waters

   Watson

   Waxman

   Woolsey

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

   Baird

   Becerra

NOT VOTING--31

   Ackerman

   Berman

   Brown (OH)

   Burr

   Burton (IN)

   Buyer

   Cox

   Davis (AL)

   Emerson

   Fattah

   Fletcher

   Gephardt

   Gutknecht

   Hastings (FL)

   Hinchey

   Johnson (CT)

   Jones (OH)

   Kilpatrick

   Kucinich

   Lipinski

   Majette

   McInnis

   Meehan

   Napolitano

   Ortiz

   Paul

   Quinn

   Rangel

   Reyes

   Towns

   Wu

   ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

[Time: 12:04]

   So the conference report was agreed to.

   The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

   A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

END

3A) CBW and WMD Terrorism - Excerpts from H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Conference Report

TITLE I -- PROCUREMENT

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Authorization of appropriations (secs. 301-303)

   The House bill contained provisions (secs. 301-303) that would authorize fiscal year 2004 funding levels for all operation and maintenance accounts, working capital funds, and other Department of Defense programs, including the Defense Inspector General, the Chemical Demilitarization Program, and the Defense Health Program.

   The Senate amendment contained similar provisions (secs. 105-107, secs. 203-204, and secs. 301-302).

   The conference agreement would authorize funding levels for all operation and maintenance accounts, working capital funds, and other Department of Defense programs.  

TITLE II – RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Chemical and biological defense program applied research

   The budget request included $106.5 million in PE 62384BP for chemical and biological defense program applied research.

   The House bill would authorize $136.5 million in PE 62384BP for chemical and biological defense program applied research, including $25.0 million for a chemical-biological defense applied research initiative and $5.0 million for mustard gas antidote.

   The Senate amendment would authorize $127.5 million in PE 62384BP for chemical and biological defense program applied research, including $2.0 million for acoustic wave sensor technology, $3.5 million for water quality sensors, $3.0 million for mustard gas antidote, $6.5 million for bioinformatics, $2.0 million for sensor technologies, $3.0 million for food security technologies, and $1.0 million for nerve agent decontamination technologies.

   The conferees agree to authorize $142.0 million in PE 62384BP for chemical and biological defense program applied research, including $17.5 million for a chemical-biological defense applied research initiative, $2.0 million for acoustic wave sensor technology, $3.5 million for water quality sensors, $5.0 million for mustard gas antidote, $6.5 million for bioinformatics, and $1.0 million for nerve agent decontamination technologies.

   The conferees note that projects and technologies to be considered for funding under the chemical-biological defense program applied research initiative should be selected on the basis of technical and potential operational merit. The conferees recommend that the projects and technologies to be considered for funding under the chemical-biological defense program applied research initiative should include, but are not limited to, the following: air contaminant monitoring system; automated liquid phase detection of toxic chemicals; rapid decontamination system for nerve agents; rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures (RABBC); and multivalent Ebola-Marburg filovirus technologies.  

TITLE III – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

   The House bill contained a provision (Sec. 303(b)) that would provide a total of $1.6 billion for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD, D), including an increase of $50.0 million for the chemical stockpile emergency preparedness project for additional enhancements to the ability of State and local governments to respond to a chemical accident or incident at chemical stockpile storage sites in Arkansas, Oregon, and Alabama.

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 106) that would provide $1.6 billion for CAMD, D.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would authorize for appropriation $1.6 billion for CAMD, D, as follows: $1.2 billion for Operations and Maintenance; $251.9 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation; and $79.2 million for Procurement.

   The conferees strongly support the decision of the Department of Defense to request funding for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program in a Defense-wide account. Section 1521(f) of title 50, United States Code, requires that funds for this program shall not be included in the budget for any military department. Funding the destruction program in a Defense-wide account ensures that the program is subject to the appropriate level of management and oversight and ensures that the program is not subject to the internal budget priorities of one particular services.  

TITLE X – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Sense of Congress on deployment of airborne chemical agent monitoring systems at chemical stockpile disposal sites in the United States (sec. 1056)

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1042) that would express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of the Army should develop and deploy a program to upgrade the airborne chemical agent monitoring systems at all chemical stockpile disposal sites across the United States in order to achieve the broadest possible protection of the general public, personnel involved in the chemical demilitarization program, and the environment.

   The House bill contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes with an amendment that would express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with relevant Department of Defense research and development agencies, should invigorate and coordinate efforts to develop and deploy chemical agent monitors with improved sensitivity, specificity, and response time.

   The conferees note that the National Research Council (NRC) has completed six reports since 1994 that include assessments of the capabilities of airborne chemical agent monitoring systems installed at the chemical agent and munitions stockpile and destruction sites. In these reports, the NRC has consistently cited several problems with the airborne chemical agent sensors. While the NRC has determined that monitoring levels used at the demilitarization facilities are very conservative and are highly protective of workers and public health and safety, the conservative monitoring levels used are a contributing factor in a high incidence of false positive alarms. The NRC has urged the Project Manager for Chemical Demilitarization to improve both the reliability and response time of its airborne agent monitoring systems and recommended that the Army develop a real-time system for airborne-agent monitoring. The NRC has also noted the lack of robust techniques for rapidly measuring agent and agent breakdown products present in liquid waste streams and associated solid materials. The NRC acknowledges the progress made by the Army over the last decade in developing better agent monitoring technology, but concludes that the results to date have been disappointing.

   The conferees note that the Army's Chemical Material Agency (CMA) conducts an active program for evaluating new equipment and methods for improving both near-real time monitoring and historical long-term monitoring and continues to improve technologies and equipment to increase specificity, lower detection limits and response times, and minimize false alarms. The conferees believe that these efforts should be coordinated with, and take advantage of, the increased level of interest in and increased resources available for developing chemical agent detectors for homeland defense. The committee strongly supports these actions of the CMA that promote the maximum protection of the general public, personnel involved in the chemical demilitarization program, and the environment.

********************

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

Extension of Counterproliferation Program Review Committee

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1054) that would amend section 1605(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), as amended.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The House recedes.

   The conferees have reviewed the annual CPRC Report on Activities and Program for Countering Proliferation and NBC Terrorism, dated May 2003, and noted its findings and recommendations. The conferees recognize that development and deployment of advanced technologies are key counterproliferation elements and encourage the interagency community to make development and execution of an integrated strategy a high priority. The conferees endorse the recommendations to integrate the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence into the CPRC process, and for the CPRC to establish communications and coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense) and Northern Command. The conferees express their support for the newly established National Security Council-initiated Counterproliferation Technology Coordination Committee as a means of improving interagency coordination. The conferees also endorse the need for a comprehensive counterproliferation acquisition strategy. Progress made in these areas should be noted in future annual reports submitted to the Congress. 

TITLE XIII - COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH THE STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Limitation on use of funds for biological research in the former Soviet Union (sec. 1304)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1304) that would prohibit obligating funds for cooperative biodefense research or bioattack early warning and preparedness under a Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program at a site in the former Soviet Union until the Secretary of Defense: has determined that no prohibited biological weapons research is being conducted at that site; has assessed the vulnerability of the site to external or internal attempts to exploit or obtain dangerous pathogens illicitly; and has begun to implement appropriate security measures to reduce any vulnerabilities and prevent diversion of dangerous pathogens from legitimate research purposes.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would prohibit the obligation of funds for collaborative biodefense research or bioattack early warning and preparedness projects under a CTR program at a facility in the former Soviet Union until the Secretary determines that no prohibited biological weapons research is being conducted at that facility, and that appropriate security measures have begun to be, or will be, put in place at the facility to prevent theft of dangerous pathogens. The amendment permits up to 25 percent of funds authorized for such projects to be obligated and expended for the purposes of making those determinations.

********************

Temporary authority to waive limitation on funding for chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia (sec. 1306)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1307) that would extend for a period of one year the President's authority to waive existing certification requirements before obligating funds for the construction of the Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia. The provision would provide that $71.5 million of fiscal year 2004 funds be available for obligation on and after October 1, 2003, but that authorized amounts above $71.5 million could be obligated only at an amount no greater than two times the amount obligated by Russia and any other state for the planning, design, construction or operation of a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia.

   The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 1305) that would extend for a period of one year the President's authority to waive existing certification requirements before obligating funds for the construction of the Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would extend for a period of one year the President's authority to waive existing certification requirements before obligating funds for the construction of the Shchuch'ye Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia.  

TITLE XIV -- SERVICES ACQUISITION REFORM

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Authority to enter into certain transactions for defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack (sec. 1441)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1451) that would amend title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (Public Law 81-152) to provide the Director of the Office of Management and Budget authority to grant to the head of selected executive agencies the authority to enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) and to carry out prototype projects in accordance with the requirements and conditions for such projects, as provided under section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160).

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would conform the authority provided to civilian agencies with the existing authority under section 845 and would clarify that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget must authorize the use of this authority by civilian agencies on a case-by-case basis.

********************

Special emergency procurement authority (sec. 1443)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1456) that would amend the federal emergency procurement authorities in section 852 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by repealing the sunset for authorities applicable for defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack and to adjust thresholds amounts.

   The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 801) that would extend by two years temporary emergency procurement authority under section 852 to assist the Department of Defense (DOD) in facilitating the defense against terrorist biological or chemical attack.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would modify the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Public Law 93-400) by providing special emergency procurement authority to the DOD and civilian agencies. The provision would authorize the use of the new authority: (1) to support a contingency operation; or (2) to facilitate the defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack on the United States. The simplified acquisition threshold, the micropurchase threshold, and the threshold for use of simplified acquisition procedures would be increased for all procurements covered by this provision. In addition, the head of an executive agency would be authorized to deem items or services purchased to facilitate the defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack on the United States as commercial items (subject to certain limitations). Finally, the provision would extend certain authorities provided in the Clinger-Cohen Act (division D of Public Law 104-106).  

TITLE XVI -- DEFENSE BIOMEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES

Legislative Provisions Adopted

Research and development of defense biomedical countermeasures (sec. 1601)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1031) that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish and carry out a program to accelerate the research and development of biomedical countermeasures, including therapeutics and vaccines, for protecting members of the Armed Forces from attack by chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agents.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The conferees agree to an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to accelerate research and development of biological countermeasures to CBRN threats. The amended provision would encourage interagency cooperation and provide incentives for the program through the use of increased thresholds for expedited acquisition authority and streamlined authority for hiring professional and technical employees, both of which are established elsewhere in the bill.

********************

Procurement of defense biomedical countermeasures (sec. 1602)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1032) that would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and of Homeland Security, to assess emerging threats of the use of CBRN agents, identify those agents for which biomedical countermeasures are needed to protect the health of members of the Armed Forces, and procure qualified biomedical countermeasures for the DOD stockpile.

   The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

   The conferees agree to an amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into an interagency agreement with the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services to provide for acquisition by the Secretary of Defense for use by the Armed Forces of biomedical countermeasures procured for the Strategic National Stockpile by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer those funds to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that are necessary to carry out such agreements and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expend any such transferred funds to procure such counter-measures for use by the Armed Forces, or to replenish the stockpile.

********************

Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies (sec. 1603)

   The House bill contained a provision (sec. 1033) that would define the conditions under which the Secretary of Defense could declare a state of emergency that would authorize use on members of the Armed Forces of a drug or device intended for use in an actual or potential emergency.

   The Senate recedes with an amendment that would permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to authorize emergency use by the general public of certain drugs, devices, or biological products based on a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with specified biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents. The amendment would authorize the President to waive the right of service members to refuse administration of a product if the President determines, in writing, that affording service members the right to refuse the product is not feasible, is contrary to the best interests of the members affected, or is not in the interests of national security. If the President makes this determination, the amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to make a determination that it is not feasible based on time limitations to advise military personnel in advance of the significant known benefits and risks of use of the product.

4A) Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan - Excerpted Floor Debate on Conference Report

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3289, which the clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3289) making emergency supplemental appropriations for defense and for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate

[Page: S13752]

agree to the same, signed by all conferees on the part of both Houses.

   (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the RECORD of October 30, 2003.)

   Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, 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.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate this conference report to provide supplemental funding for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

   The Congress, specifically the Senate, asked the President not to request any funds for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill. The President honored our request, and that bill has already been signed into law. The funding for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the conference report now before us.

   Our men and women in uniform face life-threatening obstacles every day and are counting on us to provide them with the resources they need to get the job done. This supplemental will provide the equipment, fuel, ammunition and pay our forces need and deserve as they continue their tasks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the other locations where they continue to stand in harm's way fighting the global war on terrorism. They are the reason we need to approve this emergency funding.

   One thing is very clear: As the President has said time and again: We will not walk away from Iraq. We will not withdraw our forces from Iraq; we will not leave the Iraqi people in chaos; and we will not create a vacuum for terrorist groups to fill.

   Our Nation has always had one goal--we finish what we start, and we will not fail to do so now. This appropriations bill will enable us to fulfill our responsibilities to our men and women in uniform and to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

   This conference report before us provides $64.7 billion for military operations. Included in this amount is $17.8 billion for the salaries and benefits of active, Guard and Reserve military personnel activated for duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas around the world. Together they continue to fight our war against terrorists and terrorism; $39.2 billion for operations and maintenance in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle, of which $1 billion is to support coalition partners; $5.5 billion for procurement, including an additional $62.1 million for improved armor for humvees; $333.8 million for military research, development, and evaluation; and $658 million for the defense health program.

   In addition, this conference report provides benefits to our reservists who are ordered to active duty by authorizing coverage of their medical and dental screening. The conferees also expanded pre-mobilization and post-mobilization eligibility for Tricare and made Tricare available to reservists who are unemployed or who are not offered health care benefits by their civilian employer.

   Our forces are stationed in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. They face formidable enemies and serious threats. They face these obstacles because they have made a commitment to our freedom; they have decided that, if necessary, they will give what Lincoln called ``the last full measure of devotion'' to defend freedom. This Congress must meet their level of commitment by funding their mission.

   In addition to meeting our obligations, we also support additional funds to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a simple and straight-forward premise--security brings stability and stability fosters democracy. An Iraq and Afghanistan well on the way to economic well-being and self-governance offers the fastest way to get our military men and women home. To that end, this conference report provides $21.2 billion to carry out the activities of our Government in connection with the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The majority of these funds, $18.4 billion, is for Iraq for security, rehabilitation and reconstruction, including $100 million for democracy building activities in Iraq to support the development of a constitution and national elections.

   Other items funded include: $983 million for operating expenses for the coalition provisional authority; $16.6 million for safe and secure facilities for the United States Agency for International Development in Iraq and Afghanistan; at least $38 million for operating expenses of the United States Agency for International Development for costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan; $872 million to continue political and economic development programs in Afghanistan; $170 million for Department of State narcotics control, law enforcement, nonproliferation, anti-terrorism and demining programs in Afghanistan; $287 million to continue programs and activities to build the new Afghan army; $50 million for peacekeeping expenses in Iraq relating to additional foreign armed forces; $35 million for anti-terrorism training and equipment needs in Afghanistan. The conferees also agreed to provide $200 million for assistance to Liberia, $200 million for assistance to Jordan, and $20 million for assistance to Sudan.

   This conference agreement does not stop at funding our obligations; it also provides specific mechanisms to account for how our appropriated money is spent. This bill creates a new position: The Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority. The IG will work with Ambassador Bremer, and together they will keep track of the funding allocated for Iraq's reconstruction. The IG will issue quarterly reports on the CPA's activities. This position ensures that we will always have a clear record of who is responsible for the funds appropriated to CPA and how they are spent. This position gives us a new tracking and record-keeping system, a comprehensive review process, and transparency in the allocation of funds. Most importantly, it ensures that funds will be used efficiently to build a new and free Iraq. We have an obligation to our total force and an obligation to the Iraqi and Afghanistan people to finish what we started.

   This legislation meets those obligations, and I urge the Senate to promptly approve it.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor this morning with a real sadness in my heart. Yesterday, we learned of the loss of a Chinook helicopter in Iraq. During the course of the day, I was contacted in Chicago, and then again in Springfield, with rumors that it involved the Illinois National Guard. The rumor was confirmed this morning. The pilot of the helicopter that was shot down in Iraq was a member of the Illinois Air Guard and we believe he was assigned out of the Peoria Guard unit. He is one of many who have been lost in this conflict from the beginning.

   What we learn every morning as we learn the news of another soldier, or 2, or 3, or in this case yesterday, 16, is the real cost of war. I have tried to call the families of those in my home State of Illinois who have lost a soldier. I have not been able to get through to all of them, and it is understandable that in their sorrow and grief, many of them are not taking phone calls. Those I have reached are families who are proud of the men and women in uniform who volunteered to serve our Nation and then gave their lives. They thank the military, too, for the kind treatment their family received upon the notification of the loss and all of the help and consolation during the funeral ceremonies.

   But we have to face reality. These are the real costs of war. We come to the floor of the Senate today to debate an appropriations bill that, in all honesty, is just money. The real cost of war is human lives. Sixteen were lost in the helicopter crash over the weekend, and another soldier was killed in another incident. Now we have lost more American servicemen in Iraq since the President declared that the major military operations were completed than we did during the invasion.

   It doesn't tell the whole story, though, to just count those who lost their lives, as tragic as that may be. Many listed as wounded are sometimes forgotten and they never should be.

[Page: S13753]

Some of the wounds these soldiers have been exposed to are serious, grievous.

   Two weeks ago, I went to Walter Reed Hospital to visit with some of the returning soldiers, to meet one soldier from Ohio who lost the sight in one of his eyes, to meet with another soldier from my State of Illinois, the community of Pleasant Hill, a small farm town, who took a mortar round and survived. They didn't think they could take him from the scene, but he managed to live long enough. He made it to Germany, where they didn't think he would survive, but he did; and he was at Walter Reed with his mother and father dreaming of the day when he could get back to Pike County, IL, to a small farm town, his home.

   These are the wounded of war who lose limbs, who face grievous, serious injuries that will haunt them for a lifetime. These are the real costs of war and a reminder, too, that we stand today in Iraq, 6 months after the end of the so-called military success that the President announced, still struggling to bring stability to that country. But understand, I don't think we can cut and leave. Those of us who warned in the beginning that once we made this decision, we had to remember it is easier to get into a war than to get out of a war--we have learned that in the last 6 months.

   Our superb military forces went into Iraq and, in a matter of 3 weeks, took down Saddam Hussein, this dictator, and his cruelty ended. We were so proud of the men and women in uniform who did that so quickly.

   But then came the second phase. That, unfortunately, has not gone nearly as well. The United States made a serious miscalculation when it entered this war in Iraq, invaded that nation, without the support of its traditional allies. With the exception of Great Britain, the so-called coalition of the willing was a very thin coalition. There were many countries offering some help, a few soldiers; but really when it came down to it, this President decided to embark on a war, with the approval of Congress, that took us into a wartime situation unlike anyone has seen.

   The President did not follow his father's model of bringing the United Nations behind his effort or true global coalition, but decided he would take the small coalition into the war in Iraq.

   We didn't need a massive global coalition to win the military battle. We knew we had the best military in the world. We still do. But after the military battle, it is clear now we need allies more than ever. America needs countries to stand beside us with their soldiers, with their resources, with their commitment to finding stability in Iraq, and every day, when we see these bloody headlines of American soldiers being killed, we are reminded that had this been a global coalition, a broader coalition, had we moved in concert with our traditional allies, what we are facing today could have been so much different.

   The burden of Iraq weighs heavy on the shoulders of America, and each day as we wake up to hear the news of more deaths of American soldiers, more wounded service men and women overseas, we understand that burden, but we can never understand it like the families who have suffered the losses. Our heart goes out to them. They are in our thoughts and prayers every single moment of every day, as they should be.

   We come to the floor today to talk about the other costs of war, the appropriations necessary to keep this war going. It is a massive emergency supplemental appropriations bill. The total is $87,442,198,000. This, of course, represents one of the largest emergency supplemental bills we have considered. It represents a commitment of at least $1 billion a week to sustain our troops in Iraq, and then a commitment beyond it to an effort to build Iraq. It would be easy to say reconstruct Iraq if we had destroyed it during the element of invasion, but that didn't occur. Most of what we are doing is building a country that had been decimated by a dictator. We are providing things that for 10 or 20 years Saddam Hussein never provided to his people, in the hope that we can prove to them they can move toward democracy; that they can move toward a free-market system; that they can have stability, perhaps be a beacon of hope for the Middle East.

   If that is the ultimate outcome, then there is some success to this story, but today, in one of the darkest hours with some of the saddest news, it is difficult to look at this and understand how even money is going to solve our problems.

   I voted against this preemptive and precipitous war, but today I face a moral dilemma. I cannot and will not support President Bush's unilateralist, aggressive foreign policy of preemption. It is wrong. It was wrong when we voted on it in October of last year. It is wrong in November of this year. It is based on the false premise that we can somehow identify our enemies even if they haven't threatened the United States, even if they have not created a situation of eminent danger. It relies, of course, on information and information based on intelligence, and what do we have to say today about our intelligence-gathering agencies leading up to our invasion of Iraq?

   We said we needed to go to Iraq to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons and using them against their neighbors and against us. It turns out now that was an empty threat. There is no evidence of nuclear weapons nor program in Iraq.

   We said there was an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, which, again, could

   threaten the region, the people of Iraq, and the United States, and yet Dr. Kay, after more than 6 months and millions of dollars and hundreds of inspectors, has come up emptyhanded, cannot find a shred of evidence of these weapons of mass destruction.

   In the President's State of the Union Address they said, oh, we have proof they were moving fissile material from Africa to Iraq to build nuclear weapons, and even the President has had to say that was not accurate.

   We said as well, if you remember 9/11, you can understand why we needed to invade Iraq--because al-Qaida of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein of Iraq were linked. Even the President had to come forward and concede a few weeks ago that statement is not true, either. It is true we changed a regime. We have eliminated Saddam Hussein. But the premise of that war has been challenged and has been found faulty.

   So today we consider this supplemental appropriations bill to provide the money that our men and women need to sustain the military effort in Iraq and to come home safely. All of these funds are emergency spending. What that means, of course, is that we are not cutting other Government spending nor raising taxes to find the $87 billion. We are adding this money to America's mortgage. This is our second mortgage on America, $87 billion--the greatest deficit in the history of the United States, and it continues to grow as this administration continues to call for more tax cuts for wealthy people. This, unfortunately, is part of our legacy.

   One of the most difficult parts of this bill is the fact that this conference committee stripped out the provision the Senate added on a bipartisan rollcall vote. Republicans and Democrats came together and said at least $10 billion of the $20 billion to reconstruct Iraq should come from the Iraqi people, from their oil reserves. Is that an incredible request, that this country with the second largest oil reserve in the world would help to pay for its own infrastructure? The Bush administration said it was unacceptable. No loan provision will be put in this bill. If anyone has to borrow money to build Iraq, it will be America's families, not the people of Iraq. That is a sad outcome.

   Frankly, it means that much of what we were told by this administration before the war just was not true. Paul Wolfowitz, on March 27, 2003, testifying before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said as follows:

   And on rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years. ..... We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.

   Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz said those words to this Congress 6 months ago. This man, who was urging America to invade Iraq and telling us they could pay for their own reconstruction, and where are we today? The Bush administration has rejected the idea that Iraq would pay for this. No, American taxpayers have to pay for it. It has to come out of the Social Security trust fund. It has to come out of investments

[Page: S13754]

in education and health care in America. The Bush administration insists on it.

   Listen to what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on the same day:

   I don't believe the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense ..... and the funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it.

   Six months ago, those were the words of the Secretary of Defense to the American people through Congress, and I quote again. He said:

   I don't believe the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction. .....

   How clear can we be? Yet today, face it, America, taxpayers, and families, we are accepting an $87 billion responsibility. Instead of asking Iraq to borrow against its bountiful oil reserves, we are asking our children and grandchildren to continue to borrow to build Iraq.

   I also want to tell you there is one thing that was done in that conference committee which I think was shameful--shameful: the decision of this conference committee to strip out a provision in the bill which I added on the floor of the Senate. Let me explain it.

   Across America, men and women serving in the Guard and Reserve have been activated. Usually their activation was only for a few months but now, because of the fact we are stretched thin around the world, these guardsmen and reservists, much like the helicopter pilot who was killed over the weekend from my State of Illinois, have been activated and asked to serve for longer and longer periods of time, causing extraordinary hardship to their family.

   Some dismiss it and say they knew what they were getting into. When they signed up for the Guard and Reserve, they knew they were going to be activated. This is true. I won't argue with that.

   Frankly, I ask my friends and colleagues in the Senate to at least show some compassion for those and their families who have been activated and, because of that activation, suffer an extraordinary economic hardship.

   Across America, dozens of States and local units of government--my own home State of Illinois, the city of Chicago--have decided if their employees are activated in the Guard and Reserve, they will make up the difference in pay so that while they are off serving their country and risking their lives they can at least have peace of mind that their paycheck will be protected. That State government, that city government will make up the difference in pay. Thank God for their charity and compassion. Thank God they care enough for these men and women to make that commitment, as they have repeatedly. It is not just units of government. Private corporations have done the same thing. We applaud them. We call them patriot corporations because they stand behind the men and women in uniform.

   I came to the Senate floor and I said to my colleagues, if we applaud those who stand behind the men and women in uniform to make certain they do not lose their pay while they are activated, can we do no less for Federal employees, the employees of the U.S. Government? By a resounding vote of 96 to 3, this bipartisan vote on the Senate floor, we said, yes, we will stand behind the Federal employees who activate.

   How many are involved? Of the 1.2 million Guard and Reserve in America today, 10 percent are Federal employees, 120,000. Currently 23,000 are activated. Some do not see a cut in pay, but many see dramatic cuts in pay. What I asked for was the same type of justice and caring from the Federal Government we asked from State and local governments.

   We passed that amendment, and I felt good that we made this commitment. Frankly, I sang the praises of the Senate and those who were involved. We went to the conference committee, and on a party-line vote, with every Republican Senator voting no, they removed this provision from the bill. Many of the Senators who just a few days before on this floor had voted for the provision to protect the pay of activated Federal employees turned around, within a few days, and voted no. That does not set a very good example, does it? If we will not provide the same kind of compensation for Federal employees as State and local governments do, how can we in good conscience turn to businesses and say, stand behind your guardsmen, stand behind your reservists; they are serving our country; they deserve your help, when we turn our backs on them in this bill?

   It was the first thing we did when we sat down in conference. It was the first vote we took. It was a sad day. Unfortunately, I will have to offer this amendment again in the hopes that the next time around, if it passes on the Senate floor, the Senate conferees will stand up for it. They did not do that this time.

   I also want to say we are paying a great amount of money out of our Federal Treasury to search for weapons of mass destruction. I cannot disclose the sum because it is classified. Trust me, it is very large. The Iraq Survey Group is in this so far futile search for weapons of mass destruction. I asked in this bill that they at least give us a quarterly report on what progress was being made. That was stripped out of the bill--no report necessary.

   The amendment would require the special adviser to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency for the strategy in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, to provide both classified and unclassified written status to Congress on a quarterly basis. That accountability was removed in this bill.

   Another provision that was stripped out of this bill

   relates to profiteering by corporations out to make a buck on a war. During World War II, Harry Truman called war profiteering treason. President Franklin Roosevelt said: I do not want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster.

   But when the Appropriations Committee considered this bill, they deleted an amendment by Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, and myself to criminalize war profiteering, price gouging and fraud. The same law that was passed during World War II was stripped out in conference. I do not understand it. I do not understand how anyone could be opposed to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the U.S. Government and the American taxpayers in time of war. It is unseemly that this has been stripped out in light of questionable no-bid and secretly bid contracts that have been let for Iraq construction.

   Since the late 1980s, the move to privatize just about everything the Government does has led to the granting of billion-dollar contracts to a handful of huge companies. We have heard the names: Halliburton, Bechtel. They go on and on. With no surprise, many of them are politically well connected. This amendment was eliminated. It would not have hurt this conference, it would not have hurt this country to include that provision in the law as fair warning to those who would profiteer during a war that we will come down on them like a ton of bricks. But, no, it was removed.

   There are many elements in this bill which trouble me. There are some which deserve praise. Access to TRICARE was enhanced for members of the Guard and Reserve; $100 million was added to secure and destroy conventional munitions in Iraq, the ordnance that is being used to bring down our helicopters and killing our soldiers every single day; $500 million for recent disasters, including the California wildfires and Hurricane Isabel; $100 million to help Liberia recover from its brutal civil war; $60 million for Afghan women and girls; and a modification of language Senator Murray, Senator Landrieu, and I offered on the Senate floor to ensure the assistance provided for Iraq and Afghanistan advances the social, economic, political rights, and opportunities for women and girls.

   I want to especially salute Senator Murray and Senator Landrieu. They had to fight to restore this money in the conference committee. Before the conference committee came together, a staffer stripped it out and they restored it. It took a lot of hard work on their part, but I think most of us realize women and girls in Afghanistan have been brutalized by the Taliban and by the previous government. Frankly, we need to stand behind them. I am glad this money was restored.

   I voted reluctantly for the Iraq supplemental when the Senate passed it the first time for the same reason I

[Page: S13755]

mentioned earlier. As much as I believe this war was begun in a wrong fashion, with a policy that can no longer be defended, I have to say that as long as 120,000 of our best and brightest soldiers are over there risking their lives every single day, we have to stand by them.

   I believe the sensible loan provisions which Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, who is now in the Chamber, supported, as well as his effort to say that the Iraqis will pay for the cost of the war with their own oil were just sensible. They are what American families would say, but unfortunately it is not what the Bush administration would say, and those have been removed.

   This deletion of the reservist pay provision is one which I hope we can visit again. I hope next time instead of 96 to 3, we will have a 100-to-0 vote in the Senate. Maybe that is what it takes to convince conferees to stay with a provision once we have adopted it in the Senate.

   The American people will ultimately be the judge of our work today. Sadly, they are the ones who are not only paying the bills and writing the checks. They understand the costs of war sometimes better than elected officials. The families with soldiers overseas and those who have seen those soldiers injured or killed understand the costs of war far more than anyone on any Appropriations Committee ever could.

   I yield the floor.

********************

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of comment today

[Page: S13778]

about what the President said and what he has not said. It should be remembered that the President celebrated the military victory, as he should have, when he declared the end of the war. It was the end of the war against Iraq's military.

   Since that time, we have been at war against terrorists--organized terrorists, international terrorists--in Iraq. The greatest cunning and deceit and trickery the world has seen are being shown in Iraq. Very clearly, it is not a military force that is opposing us today. We are trying to protect our soldiers and the Iraqi people from terrorists.

   That is why this bill is so important. It combines money for our military to continue their activities with money for the Coalition Provisional Authority to move forward and help Iraq to build their own military, to build a new form of government, and to train policemen, to train people to keep the peace.

   I must say, it is strange to me when I hear people talk about this administration lying. I have been sort of restrained concerning the past administration and lies. But I do believe it is entirely inappropriate to call the Commander in Chief a liar in terms of what has happened in Iraq.

   I am one of the eight Members, as I have told the Senate before, who gets the same briefings that are available to the President of the United States. I guess he might have a few more than we get, but we get the general intelligence briefings. I firmly believed there were weapons of mass destruction there in Iraq. I still believe they had the ability to conduct chemical warfare. After all, they did it twice. They did it once in Iran, and they did it once to the Kurds in their own country.

   We continue to hear how terrible it is, what is going on as far as this administration is concerned in terms of the conduct of our forces and our people in Iraq after the war was over. The military collapsed. We have been fighting terrorists constantly now.

   When I woke up, as I did this morning, and read the paper about the terrible incident of shooting down a helicopter, that was not a military action; that was a terrorist action. We have to adjust ourselves to the fact that this is going on all over the world. It went on in New York. It went on here in Washington. It went on in Indonesia. It went on in the Philippines. It has certainly happened in Israel for years now. But it is coming home now. We are being exposed to it. Our forces are exposed to it. Our people, our civilians are exposed to it. The U.N. forces in Iraq have been exposed to it. Hundreds and hundreds of Iraqis have been killed since the end of the war by their own terrorists.

   It is time for us to sit back and think about what we are doing today. Today, thankfully, this bill will pass. It will pass by unanimous consent--not one vote against it. Yet we have had 6 hours attacking the President because he asked for the money. Where are the voices coming from? What am I hearing? People are willing to let the bill pass without a vote and yet they want to criticize the President for asking for this money?

   The Senate ought to reflect and think what we are doing. We still have forces there, and we are going to have forces

   there. I haven't heard one Senator say we should leave--not one. There are those here who voted against going to war. There are people here who voted for it. But I don't know anyone here in this Chamber who voted against the war on terrorism. That is what we are conducting now.

   I am sad to say it looks as if it is going to go on for some time. Out by the elevators, I was just asked by the press, do I expect another supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, this is a supplemental for 2004. We are here because the Members of the Senate on that side of the aisle asked me to ask the President to submit a separate bill for funds for Iraq and Afghanistan. He could have submitted that money request in the regular 2004 bill. But he accommodated the request that I carried to the White House, and he sent us a separate supplemental for Iraq and for Afghanistan and the war on terrorism.

   We have been on it for a long time, much longer than I ever thought it would take to get this passed. Very clearly, we do not expect another supplemental. We probably expect a request for fiscal year 2005 that will start on October 1 of next year. But clearly, we ought to get things into perspective.

   Let me quote the President:

   Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. .....

   Which President was that? It was President Clinton, 5 years ago. He stated these words as he informed the American people that he was ordering a strike of military and security targets in Iraq. He ordered them in Iraq 5 years ago--in 1998. Their mission was to take out nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons sites, and he so stated. The former President sent forces into Iraq to attack nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons sites. That decision was based on a continuing lack of cooperation by Saddam Hussein with the international community.

   In the last 6 months, President Bush is enforcing measures that were begun in the Clinton administration. Yet to hear people talk here about the lies and deception of this administration--what were those forces sent into Iraq for in 1998? It was based on the same kind of reports that President Bush received before he ordered this action.

   As many in the Senate know, some more powerfully than others, wars and their aftermath are not easy. They are disturbing. Watching our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines die or be wounded touches a sadness deep inside each of us. It touches even more those of us who have been in war. There is nothing like going to bed at night and seeing an empty bed beside you.

   As of today, a total of 376 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Events such as yesterday, where 16 young soldiers were killed when their Chinook helicopter was hit by a missile, greatly trouble all of us. But each of these soldiers was doing his or her duty. We extend our deepest sympathy to each of their families and friends and offer our thoughts and prayers through this difficult time for them.

   Some of us have lived through this time again and again: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, you name it. My generation has seen a lot of wars. It is not an easy thing to hear any report of Americans being killed. But those people were doing their duty.

   When a person puts on the uniform of the United States and raises his hand, it is even more somber than the one we give here because they know they are laying their life on the line.

   These are all volunteers. Not one draftee is there. Every person there volunteered to serve in uniform.

   We--this Congress, this President, and this country--went to war against Iraq to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people a chance at a better, freer life and the region an opportunity for a more peaceful coexistence.

   That is what President Clinton started in 1998. He made the strike against those areas because he firmly believed there were nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction there. Now, these events don't happen overnight. I certainly was not expecting a war that would be just sort of bedsheet clean, where you go to war and come back with fresh bedsheets the next night. That is not the case. These things do not occur overnight. The rebuilding of that nation and the recovery of the Iraqi people will take time. We have to provide the Iraqi people time to heal and the resources and tools to create a new nation and a secure and stable environment.

   After World War II, we occupied Germany for 4 years before we even had the Marshall plan. Before the Senate today is the plan for recovery of Iraq in the same year, without an army of occupation per se. We are trying to help them rebuild their country and take it over and provide their own transition to a new form of government. I do believe the way we are doing this--by strengthening a civil society, repairing schools and hospitals, treating waterways, restoring electricity, and eventually assisting them with rebuilding their oil industry--will allow them to become self-sufficient.

   I remember so well when Ambassador Bremer told me the problem was that one day there is a pipeline blown up and they cannot ship the oil. So they go about repairing the pipeline. The next day they blow up an electric power station so the pumps won't work. This is terrorism. We must realize we are not facing a military enemy; we are facing terrorists.

[Page: S13779]

   Some of my colleagues don't believe in portions of this supplemental. Maybe some don't believe in it at all. But not one of them will vote against it--not one of them. That is their right. Some of them voted against giving the President the authority to go to war to topple the evil tyrant who we all realized was there. Regardless, our men and women are there now--military, civilian, and the U.N.--and those people must have our support. They need the funds in this bill for body armor, for what they call uparmored Humvees, and for explosive detection equipment, for all sorts of detection equipment.

   The bill provides the funds to make the lives of our troops--both here and in Iraq--safer and easier. We are providing better mess halls, quarters, TRICARE for members of the Guard and Reserve, and it maintains increases in pay for family separation allowance and imminent danger pay for our troops and their families, which was voted earlier this year and would have expired had we not taken action.

   I said this earlier today and I will repeat it. It is a simple and a straightforward premise, as far as I am concerned. Security brings stability and stability fosters democracy. An Iraq that is well on its way to economic well-being and self-governance is the fastest way to get our military men and women home.

   We as a nation have always had one goal--I said this also earlier today--and that is to finish what we start. We will not fail to do so now. This supplemental will accomplish that task. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. In effect, we have all done that by agreeing to the unanimous consent request that there be no form of vote.

   The Senator from Virginia is here----

********************

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, tomorrow I hope to attend the funeral service for a brave Army captain, a VMI graduate. I happened to go to the neighboring school of Washington and Lee. His family called me and talked with me and I talked with them. They asked if at all possible could I attend. I said I would do that irrespective of what is going on in the Senate. The mother said to me: We feel deeply the loss of our son, but, Senator, I want you to come and say to me that you and others will stay the course so that his life is not given in vain. I have made that commitment to his family, as I will to many other families.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks a letter to the editor published in the Saturday Washington Post by Dr. David Kay who is responsible for the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   (See exhibit 1.)

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this letter to the editor is very worthy of our colleagues who, like me, are concerned about how thus far we are still trying to find the weapons, if they exist, but he covers very well one aspect of this, and it is deserving of the estimate. I commend Dr. Kay for his work and his continuing effort. Part of this bill has the funds necessary for him to continue this effort to resolve this very puzzling mystery about the weapons of mass destruction.

   I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished colleague and commend him once again.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003]

   The Hunt for Iraq's Weapons

   The Oct. 26 front-page article ``Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat'' is wildly off the mark. Your reporter, Barton

[Page: S13781]

Gellman, bases much of his analysis on what he says was told to him by an Australian brigadier, Stephen D. Meekin. Gellman describes Meekin as someone ``who commands the Joint Captured Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to [David] Kay.''

   Meekin does not report, nor has he ever reported, to me in any individual capacity or as commander of the exploitation center. The work of the center did not form a part of my first interim report, which was delivered last month, nor do I direct what Meekin's organization does. The center's mission has never involved weapons of mass destruction, nor does it have any WMD expertise.

   Gellman's description of information provided by Mahdi Obeidi, chief of Iraq's pre-1991 centrifuge program, relies on an unnamed ``U.S. official'' who, by the reporter's own admission, read only one reporting cable. How Gellman's source was able to describe reporting that covered four months is a mystery to me. Furthermore, the source mischaracterized our views on the reliability of Obeidi's information.

   With regard to Obeidi's move to the United States, Gellman writes, ``By summer's end, under unknown circumstances, Obeidi received permission to bring his family to an East Coast suburb in the United States.'' The reader is left with the impression that this move involved something manipulative or sinister. The ``unknown circumstances'' are called Public Law 110. This mechanism was created during the Cold War to give the director of central intelligence the authority to resettle those who help provide valuable intelligence information. Nothing unusual or mysterious here.

   When the article moves to describe the actual work of the nuclear team, Gellman states that ``frustrated members of the nuclear search team by late spring began calling themselves the `book of the month club.' '' But he fails to note that this was before the establishment of the Iraq Survey Group. In fact, the team's frustration with the pace of the work is what led President Bush to shift the responsibility for the WMD search to the director of central intelligence and to send me to Baghdad.

   One would believe from what Gellman writes that I have sent home the two leaders of my nuclear team, William Domke and Jeffrey Bedell, and abandoned all attempts to determine the state of Iraq's nuclear activities. Wrong again. Domke's assignment had been twice extended well beyond what the Department of Energy had agree to. He and Bedell were replaced with a much larger contingent of experts from DOE's National Labs.

   Finally, with regard to the aluminum tubes, the tubes were certainly being imported and were being used for rockets. The question that continues to occupy us is whether similar tubes, with higher specifications, had other uses, specifically in nuclear centrifuges. Why anyone would think that we should want to confiscate the thousands of aluminum tubes of the lower specification is unclear. Our investigation is focused on whether a nuclear centrifuge program was either underway or in the planning stages, what design and components were being contemplated or used in such a program if it existed and the reason for the constant raising of the specifications of the tubes the Iraqis were importing clandestinely.

   We have much work left to do before any conclusions can be reached on the state of possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program efforts. Your story gives the false impression that conclusions can already be drawn.
DAVID KAY.

********************

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I previously read a portion of President Clinton's remarks on December 16, 1998. I want to read a few more of them just to close this debate. The President said at that time on December 16, 1998:

   This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has a free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and some day--make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past.

[Page: S13783]

   I am skipping a few paragraphs. He said:

   ..... That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team--including the vice president, the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

   Staff, the Secretary of State and the national security adviser--I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

   He said:

   So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

   And I go on. He said:

   Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

   The people who criticize the current conclusion--and listening to the conclusion that President Clinton made--did not complain then. We used airstrikes against Iraq. In fact, one of the conditions President Clinton mentioned was continued, almost daily attacks against our aircraft that were flying what we call continuous air patrol, the CAP, over Iraq. They did that for 11 years. Daily, there were threats against them.

   I think we have acted reasonably under the circumstances, particularly in view of the conclusion that was made by the President of the United States in 1998 that Saddam was such a threat against the United States and the international community he should be subjected to attack and, if he persisted, to actually use force as soon as possible. That is what the President said.

   I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of President Clinton's remarks explaining the Iraq strike be printed in the RECORD after my remarks.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   (See exhibit 1.)

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I said before and I say again, the war is over. The President was right when he said the war is over. The military force is not there. We are fighting terrorism, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are also fighting it around the world, even at home. How many of us have had to stand in longer lines this morning because there is a greater threat right here at home?

   This bill is being passed because we are fighting a war against terrorists and terrorism everywhere. It is absolutely necessary that this money get to the people who are right now at the greatest risk of harm, those who are trying to help Iraq recover, form a new government and be able to defend themselves and be able to go on to a new life, really to be a new credible force in the Middle East, of people who form their own government and people who plan their own future.

   I am pleased to associate myself with all those who supported what the President has done. I believe it was right and I think history will show it was right.

   I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the vote.

   Exhibit 1

   Transcript: President Clinton Explains Iraq Strike

   Clinton: Good evening.

   Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

   Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

   Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

   I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

   Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

   The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

   The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish citizens in Northern Iraq.

   The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

   The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

   Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

   Eight Arab nations--Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman--warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

   When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

   I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

   I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

   Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

   The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

   In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

   Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

   Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

   It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

   Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

   Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

   So Iraq has abused its final chance.

   As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, ``Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

   ``In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program.''

   In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

   Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

   This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

[Page: S13784]

   And so we had to act and act now.

   Let me explain why.

   First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

   Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday--make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past.

   Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

   That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team--including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser--I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

   They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

   At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

   If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

   Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

   That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

   Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

   So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

   First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

   The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

   Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion--resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

   We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

   The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

   The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government--a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

   The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

   Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

   We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

   Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

   And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

   Because we're acting today, if is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

   Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

   But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

   In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

   Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. REID. Mr. Byrd has not yielded back his time as yet, has he?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has not formally done so.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I briefly say this. I voted----

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

   Mr. REID. Yes.

   Mr. BYRD. I do not intend to use my time. I have already made my speech. If I have some time, I yield whatever time he needs to the Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me the time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I voted for the first gulf war. In fact, I was the first Democrat to announce publicly that I would do that. I voted for the second gulf war. I have no problems with having done that.

   I have the greatest respect for the senior Senator from Alaska. I know what a fine chairman he is on the Appropriations Committee. But I do say this: That for anyone now to say the war is over, it is not over. The war is going on as we speak. One need only go to the families of the 16 people who were killed when the helicopter was shot down just a few hours ago.

   Having said that, we still have a long hard row ahead of us in this war in which we are engaged.

   I yield back the remainder of our time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from West Virginia yield back all of his time?

   Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield back my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the conference report is adopted.

   The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. I do not think it should be adopted by unanimous consent. That was not meant to happen. I understood there would be a voice vote. I hope the Chair will propound the question for the voices to vote.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

   The conference report was agreed to.

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

   The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

   Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

• [End Insert]

END

4B) Support for American Troops

   Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise this morning in support of the U.S. forces in Iraq and all our forces engaged in the war on terrorism. I am delighted and very pleased that the vast majority of this body voted overwhelmingly in support of the supplemental and our ongoing efforts to protect our troops to finish the job so we can bring our troops home.

   Last week, I had the honor of going out to Walter Reed to visit a number of our wounded soldiers recently returned from Iraq. The spirit and enthusiasm of our service men and women serving in the war on terror is inspiring. It should remind all of us that our warfighters have the will to win as long as the American people have the will to win.

   We cannot be defeated by Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden militarily. They are engaged in a psychological war to break our will. This past weekend brought news of the tragic loss of 16 soldiers in a Chinook helicopter mishap. No one in this body takes that current conflict lightly. Any loss of life is difficult to bear, particularly this tragic situation. Yet we must not forget the losses incurred in the United States on 9/11, and the loss of innocent lives in other terrorist attacks, from the marine barracks in Lebanon to the disco bombing in Bali.

   The message we must send, if we are to avoid future catastrophic attacks, is that no price is too great for the freedoms we and other freedom-loving peoples now hold dear. The message we need to send our enemies is that we will not cut and run.

   There are critics of U.S. foreign policy who now want us to pull out. They are just dead wrong. Do they think Saddam Hussein was not really evil, was not really a threat?

   Last week, I talked a little bit about the unclassified report released by Dr. David Kay, the head of the Iraqi Survey Group, who has been over there looking. He has found a tremendous record of denial, deception, and destruction, which among other things is likely the reason we have not found the storehouses of weapons of mass destruction.

   Dr. Kay believes that people have been distorting his record. I will submit for the record a copy of his November 1, 2003, piece in the Washington Post. It begins:

   The October 26 front-page article ``Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat,'' is wildly off the mark.

   I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the RECORD after my remarks.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   (See exhibit 1.)

   Mr. BOND. I am going to quote from just pieces of his report, because apparently a lot of my colleagues who are saying it confirms that there were no weapons of mass destruction have not read the report.

   Here is what Dr. Kay said:

   With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information, including research and development of BW-applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi intelligence service in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq, after 1996, further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents. Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the U.N. and was previously unknown.

   Again, he said two key former BW scientists confirmed that Iraq, under

[Page: S13844]

the guise of legitimate activity, developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. Iraq concealed equipment and materials from U.N. inspectors when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of referenced strains that ought to have been declared to the U.N. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced.

   ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003.

   Information obtained since OIF has identified several key areas in which Iraq may have engaged in proscribed or undeclared activities since 1991, including research on a possible VX stabilizer, research and development for CW-capable munitions, and procurement concealment of dual-use materials and equipment.

   Officials assert Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Iraq did take steps to preserve some capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.

   Detainees and cooperative sources indicate that beginning in 2000, Saddam ordered the development of ballistic missiles with ranges of at least 400 kilometers and up to 1,000 kilometers, and that measures to conceal these projects from UNMOVIC were initiated in late 2002, ahead of the arrival of inspectors.

   Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kay report be printed in the RECORD. It talks about several revelations of his efforts to obtain ballistic missiles and unmanned air vehicles.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

   What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

    We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

   A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

   A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

   Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

   New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

   Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

   A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

   Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

   Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km--well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

   Clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles--probably the No Dong--300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

   In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence--hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use--are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example,

   On 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the main building contained an archive of documents situated on well-organized rows of metal shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage despite the total destruction of the upper floors from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the exploitation team encountered small piles of ash where individual documents or binders of documents were intentionally destroyed. Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their contents.

   All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal of nameplates from office doors.

   Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations, including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch.

   I would now like to review our efforts in each of the major lines of enquiry that ISG has pursued during this initial phase of its work.

   With regard to biological warfare activities, which has been one of our two initial areas of focus, ISG teams are uncovering significant information--including research and development of BW applicable organisms, the involvement of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) in possible BW activities, and deliberate concealment activities. All of this suggests Iraq after 1996 further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller, covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of BW agents.

   Debriefings of IIS officials and site visits have begun to unravel a clandestine network of laboratories and facilities within the security service apparatus. This network was never declared to the UN and was previously unknown. We are still working on determining the extent to which this network was tied to large-scale military efforts or BW terror weapons, but this clandestine capability was suitable for preserving BW expertise, BW capable facilities and continuing R&D--all key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production. The IIS also played a prominent role in sponsoring students for overseas graduate studies in the biological sciences, according to Iraqi scientists and IIS sources, providing an important avenue for furthering BW-applicable research. This was the only area of graduate work that the IIS appeared to sponsor.

   Discussions with Iraqi scientists uncovered agent R&D work that paired overt work with nonpathogenic organisms serving as surrogates for prohibited investigation with pathogenic agents. Examples include: B. Thurengiensis (Bt) with B. anthracis (anthrax), and medicinal plants with ricin. In a similar vein, two key former BW scientists, confirmed that Iraq under the guise of legitimate activity developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available.

   A very large body of information has been developed through debriefings, site visits, and exploitation of captured Iraqi documents that confirms that Iraq concealed equipment and materials from UN inspectors when they returned in 2002. One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery--hidden in the home of a BW scientist--illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons. The scientist who concealed the vials containing this agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.

   Additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities using chemical and biological substances, but progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

   We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort. Investigation into the origin of and intended use for the two trailers found in northern Iraq in April has yielded a number of explanations, including hydrogen, missile propellant, and BW production, but technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers. That said, nothing we have discovered rules out their potential use in BW production.

   We have made significant progress in identifying and locating individuals who were reportedly involved in a mobile program, and

[Page: S13845]

we are confident that we will be able to get an answer to the questions as to whether there was a mobile program and whether the trailers that have been discovered so far were part of such a program.

   Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous.

   While searching for retained weapons, ISG teams have developed multiple sources that indicate that Iraq explored the possibility of CW production in recent years, possibly as late as 2003. When Saddam had asked a senior military official in either 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to produce new chemical agent and weapons, he told ISG that after he consulted with CW experts in OMI he responded it would take six months for mustard. Another senior Iraqi chemical weapons expert in responding to a request in mid 2002 from Uday Husayn for CW for the Fedayeen Saddam estimated that it would take two months to produce mustard and two years for Sarin.

   We are starting to survey parts of Iraq's chemical industry to determine if suitable equipment and bulk chemicals were available for chemical weapons production. We have been struck that two senior Iraqi officials volunteered that if they had been ordered to resume CW production Iraq would have been willing to use stainless steel systems that would be disposed of after a few production runs, in place of corrosive-resistant equipment which they did not have.

   We continue to follow leads on Iraq's acquisition of equipment and bulk precursors suitable for a CW program. Several possibilities have emerged and are now being exploited. One example involves a foreign company with offices in Baghdad, that imported in the past into Iraq dual-use equipment and maintained active contracts through 2002. Its Baghdad office was found looted in August 2003, but we are pursuing other locations and associates of the company.

   Information obtained since OIF has identified several key areas in which Iraq may have engaged in proscribed or undeclared activity since 1991, including research on a possible VX stabilizer, research and development for CW-capable munitions, and procurement/concealment of dual-use materials and equipment.

   Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced--if not entirely destroyed--during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections. We are carefully examining dual-use, commercial chemical facilities to determine whether these were used or planned as alternative production sites.

   We have also acquired information related to Iraq's CW doctrine and Iraq's war plans for OIF, but we have not yet found evidence to confirm pre-war reporting that Iraqi military units were prepared to use CW against Coalition forces. Our efforts to collect and exploit intelligence on Iraq's chemical weapons program have thus far yielded little reliable information on post-1991 CW stocks and CW agent production, although we continue to receive and follow leads related to such stocks. We have multiple reports that Iraq retained CW munitions made prior to 1991, possibly including mustard--a long-lasting chemical agent--but we have to date been unable to locate any such munitions.

   With regard to Iraq's nuclear program, the testimony we have obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials should clear up any doubts about whether Saddam still wanted to obtain nuclear weapons. They have told ISG that Saddam Husayn remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. Some indicated a resumption after Iraq was free of sanctions. At least one senior Iraqi official believed that by 2000 Saddam had run out of patience with waiting for sanctions to end and wanted to restart the nuclear program. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) beginning around 1999 expanded its laboratories and research activities and increased its overall funding levels. This expansion may have been in initial preparation for renewed nuclear weapons research, although documentary evidence of this has not been found, and this is the subject of continuing investigation by ISG.

   Starting around 2000, the senior Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) and high-level Ba'ath Party official Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives that could be applied to nuclear weapons development. These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program, but could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term. We do not yet have information indicating whether a higher government authority directed Sa'id to initiate this research and, regretfully, Dr. Sa'id was killed on April 8th during the fall of Baghdad when the car he was riding in attempted to run a Coalition roadblock.

   Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.

   According to documents and testimony of Iraqi scientists, some of the key technical groups from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program remained largely intact, performing work on nuclear-relevant dual-use technologies within the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). Some scientists from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program have told ISG that they believed that these working groups were preserved in order to allow a reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program, but none of the scientists could produce official orders or plans to support their belief.

   In some cases, these groups performed work which could help preserve the science base and core skills that would be needed for any future fissile material production or nuclear weapons development.

   Several scientists--at the direction of senior Iraqi government officials--preserved documents and equipment from their pre-1991 nuclear weapon-related research and did not reveal this to the UN/IAEA. One Iraqi scientist recently stated in an interview with ISG that it was a ``common understanding'' among the scientists that material was being preserved for reconstitution of nuclear weapons-related work.

   The ISG nuclear team has found indications that there was interest, beginning in 2002, in reconstituting a centrifuge enrichment program. Most of this activity centered on activities of Dr. Sa'id that caused some of his former colleagues in the pre-1991 nuclear program to suspect that Dr. Sa'id, at least, was considering a restart of the centrifuge program. We do not yet fully understand Iraqi intentions, and the evidence does not tie any activity directly to centrifuge research or development.

   Exploitation of additional documents may shed light on the projects and program plans of Dr. Khalid Ibrahim Sa'id. There may be more projects to be discovered in research placed at universities and private companies. Iraqi interest in reconstitution of a uranium enrichment program needs to be better understood through the analysis of procurement records and additional interviews.

   With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.

   Detainees and co-operative sources indicate that beginning in 2000 Saddam ordered the development of ballistic missiles with ranges of at least 400km and up to 1000km and that measures to conceal these projects from UNMOVIC were initiated in late 2002, ahead of the arrival of inspectors. Work was also underway for a clustered engine liquid propellant missile, and it appears the work had progressed to a point to support initial prototype production of some parts and assemblies. According to a cooperating senior detainee, Saddam concluded that the proposals from both the liquid-propellant and solid-propellant missile design centers would take too long. For instance, the liquid-propellant missile project team forecast first delivery in six years. Saddam countered in 2000 that he wanted the missile designed and built inside of six months. On the other hand several sources contend that Saddam's range requirements for the missiles grew from 400-500km in 2000 to 600-1000km in 2002. ISG has gathered testimony from missile designers at Al Kindi State Company that Iraq has reinitiated work on converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles with a range goal of about 250km. Engineering work was reportedly underway in early 2003, despite the presence of UNMOVIC. This program was not declared to the UN. ISG is presently seeking additional confirmation and details on this project. A second cooperative source has stated that the program actually began in 2001, but that it received added impetus in the run-up to OIF, and that missiles from this project were transferred to a facility north of Baghdad. This source also provided documentary evidence of instructions to convert SA-2s into surface-to-surface missiles.

   ISG has obtained testimony from both detainees and cooperative sources that indicate that proscribed-range solid-propellant missile design studies were initiated, or already underway, at the time when work on the clustered liquid-propellant missile designs began. The motor diameter was to be 800 to 1000mm, i.e. much greater than the 500-mm Ababil-100. The range goals cited for this system vary from over 400km up to 1000km, depending on the source and the payload mass.

   A cooperative source, involved in the 2001-2002 deliberations on the long-range solid propellant project, provided ISG with a set of concept designs for a launcher designed to accommodate a 1m diameter by 9m length

[Page: S13846]

missile. The limited detail in the drawings suggest there was some way to go before launcher fabrication. The source believes that these drawings would not have been requested until the missile progress was relatively advanced, normally beyond the design state. The drawings are in CAD format, with files dated 09/01/02.

   While we have obtained enough information to make us confident that this design effort was underway, we are not yet confident which accounts of the timeline and project progress are accurate and are now seeking to better understand this program and its actual progress at the time of OIF.

   One cooperative source has said that he suspected that the new large-diameter solid-propellant missile was intended to have a CW-filled warhead, but no detainee has admitted any actual knowledge of plans for unconventional warheads for any current or planned ballistic missile. The suspicion expressed by the one source about a CW warhead was based on his assessment of the unavailability of nuclear warheads and potential survivability problems of biological warfare agent in ballistic missile warheads. This is an area of great interest and we are seeking additional information on warhead designs.

   While I have spoken so far of planned missile systems, one high-level detainee has recently claimed that Iraq retained a small quantity of Scud-variant missiles until at least 2001, although he subsequently recanted these claims, work continues to determine the truth. Two other sources contend that Iraq continued to produce until 2001 liquid fuel and oxidizer specific to Scud-type systems. The cooperating source claims that the al Tariq Factory was used to manufacture Scud oxidizer (IRFNA) from 1996 to 2001, and that nitrogen tetroxide, a chief ingredient of IRFNA was collected from a bleed port on the production equipment, was reserved, and then mixed with highly concentrated nitric acid plus an inhibitor to produce Scud oxidizer. Iraq never declared its pre-Gulf War capability to manufacture Scud IRFNA out of fear, multiple sources have stated, that the al Tariq Factory would be destroyed, leaving Baghdad without the ability to produce highly concentrated nitric acid, explosives and munitions. To date we have not discovered documentary or material evidence to corroborate these claims, but continued efforts are underway to clarify and confirm this information with additional Iraqi sources and to locate corroborating physical evidence. If we can confirm that the fuel was produced as late as 2001, and given that Scud fuel can only be used in Scud-variant missiles, we will have strong evidence that the missiles must have been retained until that date. This would, of course, be yet another example of a failure to declare prohibited activities to the UN.

   Iraq was continuing to develop a variety of UAV platforms and maintained two UAV programs that were working in parallel, one at Ibn Fernas and one at al-Rashid Air Force Base. Ibn Fernas worked on the development of smaller, more traditional types of UAVs in addition to the conversion of manned aircraft into UAVs. This program was not declared to the UN until the 2002 CAFCD in which Iraq declared the RPV-20, RPV-30 and Pigeon RPV systems to the UN. All these systems had declared ranges of less than 150km. Several Iraqi officials stated that the RPV-20 flew over 500km on autopilot in 2002, contradicting Iraq's declaration on the system's range. The al-Rashid group was developing a competing line of UAVs. This program was never fully declared to the UN and is the subject of on-going work by ISG. Additional work is also focusing on the payloads and intended use for these UAVs. Surveillance and use as decoys are uses mentioned by some of those interviewed. Given Iraq's interest before the Gulf War in attempting to convert a MIG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry spray tanks capable of dispensing chemical or biological agents, attention is being paid to whether any of the newer generation of UAVs were intended to have a similar purpose. This remains an open question.

   ISG has discovered evidence of two primary cruise missile programs. The first appears to have been successfully implemented, whereas the second had not yet reached maturity at the time of OIF.

   The first involved upgrades to the HY-2 coastal-defense cruise missile. ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100km to 150-180km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF--one was shot down and one hit Kuwait. The second program, called the Jenin, was a much more ambitious effort to convert the HY-2 into a 1000km range land-attack cruise missile. The Jenin concept was presented to Saddam on 23 November 2001 and received what cooperative sources called an ``unusually quick response'' in little more than a week. The essence of the concept was to take an HY-2, strip it of its liquid rocket engine, and put in its place a turbine engine from a Russian helicopter--the TV-2-117 or TV3-117 from a Mi-8 or Mi-17 helicopter. To prevent discovery by the UN, Iraq halted engine development and testing and disassembled the test stand in late 2002 before the design criteria had been met.

   In addition to the activities detailed here on Iraq's attempts to develop delivery systems beyond the permitted UN 150km, ISG has also developed information on Iraqi attempts to purchase proscribed missiles and missile technology. Documents found by ISG describe a high level dialogue between Iraq and North Korea that began in December 1999 and included an October 2000 meeting in Baghdad. These documents indicate Iraqi interest in the transfer of technology for surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 1300km (probably No Dong) and land-to-sea missiles with a range of 300km. The document quotes the North Koreans as understanding the limitations imposed by the UN, but being prepared ``to cooperate with Iraq on the items it specified''. At the time of OIF, these discussions had not led to any missiles being transferred to Iraq. A high level cooperating source has reported that in late 2002 at Saddam's behest a delegation of Iraqi officials was sent to meet with foreign export companies, including one that dealt with missiles. Iraq was interested in buying an advanced ballistic missile with 270km and 500km ranges.

   The ISG has also identified a large volume of material and testimony by cooperating Iraq officials on Iraq's effort to illicitly procure parts and foreign assistance for its missile program. These include:

   Significant level of assistance from a foreign company and its network of affiliates in supplying and supporting the development of production capabilities for solid rocket propellant and dual-use chemicals.

   Entities from another foreign country were involved in supplying guidance and control systems for use in the Al-Fat'h (Ababil-100). The contract was incomplete by the time of OIF due to technical problems with the few systems delivered and a financial dispute.

   A group of foreign experts operating in a private capacity were helping to develop Iraq's liquid propellant ballistic missile RDT&E and production infrastructure. They worked in Baghdad for about three months in late 1998 and subsequently continued work on the project from abroad. An actual contract valued at $10 million for machinery and equipment was signed in June 2001, initially for 18 months, but later extended. This cooperation continued right up until the war.

   A different group of foreign experts traveled to Iraq in 1999 to conduct a technical review that resulted in what became the Al Samoud 2 design, and a contract was signed in 2001 for the provision of rigs, fixtures and control equipment for the redesigned missile.

   Detainees and cooperative sources have described the role of a foreign expert in negotiations on the development of Iraq's liquid and solid propellant production infrastructure. This could have had applications in existing and planned longer range systems, although it is reported that nothing had actually been implemented before OIF.

   Uncertainty remains about the full extent of foreign assistance to Iraq's planned expansion of its missile systems and work is continuing to gain a full resolution of this issue. However, there is little doubt from the evidence already gathered that there was substantial illegal procurement for all aspects of the missile programs.

   I have covered a lot of ground today, much of it highly technical. Although we are resisting drawing conclusions in this first interim report, a number of things have become clearer already as a result of our investigation, among them:

   1. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.

   2. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.

   3. In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.

   Let me conclude by returning to something I began with today. We face a unique but challenging opportunity in our efforts to unravel the exact status of Iraq's WMD program. The good news is that we do not have to rely for the first time in over a decade on the incomplete, and often false, data that Iraq supplied the UN/IAEA;

   Data collected by UN inspectors operating with the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed;

   Information supplied by defectors, some of whom certainly fabricated much that they

[Page: S13847]

supplied and perhaps were under the direct control of the IIS;

   Data collected by national technical collections systems with their own limitations.

   The bad news is that we have to do this under conditions that ensure that our work will take time and impose serious physical dangers on those who are asked to carry it out. Why should we take the time and run the risk to ensure that our conclusions reflect the truth to the maximum extent that is possible given the conditions in post-conflict Iraq? For those of us that are carrying out this search, there are two reasons that drive us to want to complete this effort.

   First, whatever we find will probably differ from pre-war intelligence. Empirical reality on the ground is, and has always been, different from intelligence judgments that must be made under serious constraints of time, distance and information. It is, however, only by understanding precisely what those difference are that the quality of future intelligence and investment decisions concerning future intelligence systems can be improved. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is such a continuing threat to global society that learning those lessons has a high imperative.

   Second, we have found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation. Even in the area of actual weapons there is no doubt that Iraq had at one time chemical and biological weapons. Even if there were only a remote possibility that these pre-1991 weapons still exist, we have an obligation to American troops who are now there and the Iraqi population to ensure that none of these remain to be used against them in the ongoing insurgency activity.

   Mr. Chairman and Members I appreciate this opportunity to share with you the initial results of the first 3 months of the activities of the Iraqi Survey Group. I am certain that I speak for Major General Keith Dayton, who commands the Iraqi Survey Group, when I say how proud we are of the men and women from across the Government and from our Coalition partners, Australia and the United Kingdom, who have gone to Iraq and are carrying out this important mission.

   Thank you.

   Mr. BOND. We are engaged in a monumental fight against terrorism and tyranny on a global scale, one in which all freedom-loving people have a stake. Other free countries ought to realize this is a battle in which we all have a stake. The Middle East region has long been marked by instability and marred by war, the threat of war and torture, terrorism, and ruthless dictators. Saddam Hussein was at the heart of it. On September 11 we lost close to 3,000 citizens when foreign terrorists attacked innocent civilians. It is a miracle we did not lose more. But we are now fighting that battle against terrorism in Baghdad, not in Boston or Boise or Baldwin, MO.

   As I said earlier, some argue that Saddam has not been linked to terrorism. Well, what David Kay has already described puts the lie to that. Also, tell that to the thousands of Israeli families who have lost innocent relatives at the hands of Hamas suicide bombers whose families received $25,000 from the Iraqi dictator for each successful attack on innocent men, women, and children.

   Today, on the good-news side, there are close to 100,000 Iraqis who are assuming control of essential civil responsibilities such as border police, civil defense, police facilities protection, and as soldiers. With each passing day, more and more Iraqis are taking the lead in security and in protecting Iraq. Over 85 percent of Iraq is relatively stable, with the exception of the troubled Sunni Triangle.

   It is no surprise the Sunni Baathists are putting up the most resistance, for they have the most to lose. We have seen recently declassified reports of the Iraqi-sponsored torture, which are too disturbing even to watch. We found mass graves. We know Saddam conducted mass chemical attacks against his own people and launched chemical attacks against Iran.

   I believe the President was correct when he said we must take on the war on terrorism, which would take years, not months. This is a global conflict against terrorism. The will of the American people is being tested. We cannot flinch. If we do not pursue terrorists where they live now, then we will continue to invite more attacks any time U.S. interests collide with the interests of terrorists.

   Exhibit 1

   The Oct. 26 front-page article ``Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat'' is wildly off the mark. Your reporter, Barton Gellman, bases much of his analysis on what he says was told to him by an Australian brigadier, Stephen D. Meekin. Gellman describes Meekin as someone ``who commands the Joint Captured Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to [David] Kay.''

   Meekin does not report, nor has he ever reported, to me in any individual capacity or as commander of the exploitation center. The work of the center did not form a part of my first interim report, which was delivered last month, nor do I direct what Meekin's organization does. The center's mission has never involved weapons of mass destruction, nor does it have any WMD expertise.

   Gellman's description of information provided by Mahdi Obeidi, chief of Iraq's pre-1991 centrifuge program, relies on an unnamed ``U.S. official'' who, by the reporter's own admission, read only one reporting cable. How Gellman's source was able to describe reporting that covered four months is a mystery to me. Furthermore, the source mischaracterized our views on the reliability of Obeidi's information.

   With regard to Obeidi's move to the United States, Gellman writes, ``By summer's end, under unknown circumstances, Obeidi received permission to bring his family to an East Coast suburb in the United States.'' The reader is left with the impression that this move involved something manipulative or sinister. The ``unknown circumstances'' are called Public Law 110. This mechanism was created during the Cold War to give the director of central intelligence the authority to resettle those who help provide valuable intelligence information. Nothing unusual or mysterious here.

   When the article moves to describe the actual work of the nuclear team, Gellman states that `'frustrated members of the nuclear search team by late spring began calling themselves the `book of the month club.' ``But he fails to note that this was before the establishment of the Iraq Survey Group. In fact, the team's frustration with the pace of the work is what led President Bush to shift the responsibility for the WMD search to the director of central intelligence and to send me to Baghdad.

   One would believe from what Gellman writes that I have sent home the two leaders of my nuclear team, William Domke and Jeffrey Bedell, and abandoned all attempts to determine the state of Iraq's nuclear activities. Wrong again, Domke's assignment had been twice extended well beyond what the Department of Energy had agreed to. He and Bedell were replaced with a much larger contingent of experts from DOE's National Labs.

   Finally, with regard to the aluminum tubes, the tubes were certainly being imported and were being used for rockets. The question that continues to occupy us is whether similar tubes, with higher specifications, had other uses, specifically in nuclear centrifuges. Why anyone would think that we should want to confiscate the thousands of aluminum tubes of the lower specification is unclear. Our investigation is focused on whether a nuclear centrifuge program was either underway or in the planning stages, what design and components were being contemplated or used in such a program if it existed and the reason for the constant raising of the specifications of the tubes the Iraqis were importing clandestinely.

   We have much work left to do before any conclusions can be reached on the state of possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program efforts. Your story gives the false impression that conclusions can already be drawn.

--

   When Barton Gellman interviewed me last month I stressed on a number of occasions that my remarks related to Iraqi's conventional weapons program. I am responsible for aspects of that program as the commander of the coalition Joint Captured Materiel Exploitation Center. I did not provide assessments or views on Iraq's nuclear program or the status of investigations being conducted by the Iraq Survey Group.

   On the issue of Iraq's use of aluminum tubes, I did confirm, in response to a question by Gellman, that aluminum tubes form the body of Iraqi 81mm battlefield rockets and that my teams had recovered some of these rockets for technical examination. Further, I stated that the empty tubes were innocuous in view of the large quantities of lethal Iraqi conventional weapons such as small arms, explosive ordnance and man-portable air defense systems in this country. I did not make any judgment on the suitability of the 81mm aluminum tubes as components in a nuclear program.

   In discussing the disbanding of the Joint Captured Materiel Exploitation Center, I told your reporter that the center's work was largely complete, and I made clear that its role was in the realm of Iraq's conventional weapons and technologies.

   Gellman attributed to me comments about the effect of U.N.-imposed sanctions. Again, I referred to Iraqi efforts to acquire conventional military equipment. I made no assessment about the effect of U.N. sanctions on Iraq's nuclear program.

4C) Unwelcome Truths

SPEECH OF

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

OF VIRGINIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003

• Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the current human rights situation in North Korea and that nation's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. The leadership of the North Korean government has proven to be volatile and unpredictable with a tight rein on a very closed, repressed society.

• Thousands of American soldiers are stationed in South Korea to ease the tensions between North and South Korea.

• The North Korean government is one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world, and 1.5 million North Koreans have already died of starvation. The international community must pressure North Korea to reach an agreement to end its quest for nuclear weapons. A country that suppresses its people and poses a threat to its neighbors cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

• I submit for the RECORD a recent Wall Street Journal article detailing a proposal from Hwang Jang Yop, North Korea's highest-ranking defector. Hwang's proposal for peace and security focuses on regime change and a larger international focus on the human rights situation.

4D) Senate Intelligence Committee and Iraq WMD

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for conducting this time for morning business.

   I rise in a very different mood today--different from any other mood I have been in since I had the privilege of becoming a Member of this body. I had the privilege of serving for 8 years in the House of Representatives, and now for a year in my first term in the Senate. During my last 2 years in the House, I served on the House Intelligence Committee. For the past year now, I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, under the strong leadership of the Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts, as well as his vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia. We operate in a very bipartisan way in both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

   I was privileged to serve alongside of the now-ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee in conducting a very thorough and detailed review of the intelligence community leading up to September 11 and particularly concluding with a report detailing the failures in the intelligence community leading up to September 11, 2001. All of this oversight work has been done in a very bipartisan way since I have been in the Senate. Again, we have operated within the Intelligence Committee in a very bipartisan way. We can have our differences, and we have had them; but it has been a very healthy debate up to this point in time.

   Unfortunately, yesterday, the Republicans on the Senate side of the Intelligence Committee came into possession of a two-page memorandum that details a systematic way in which the other side of the aisle intends to undermine and attack the President of the United States on the intelligence information not only leading up to the conflict in Iraq, but also moving beyond that, into the policy area--again, trying to undermine the policy of the President of the United States with respect to the conflict in Iraq.

   This is a different road than the Intelligence Committees on the House and Senate sides have been down before. It is not the kind of road an Intelligence Committee should be

   traveling down. I rise to say that I don't know where this memo came from. I have seen a copy of it. I don't know whether it was staff driven or member driven. I have great respect for the members of the Intelligence Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I don't think anyone on the other side of the aisle would intentionally try to undermine the operation of our troops in Iraq today. Yet, as I looked at this memorandum and read through it, there was a very clear and definite outline of undermining the policy of the President of the United States, the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and anybody involved in the current conflict with Iraq.

   If that particular outline were followed, it would be devastating not only to this body--the bipartisan integrity of this body--but it would have the potential effect of truly undermining the operation in Iraq.

   I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will rethink the position if it is one in which they are moving toward. I hope they will certainly disavow any knowledge of the position or intent to undermine the operation in Iraq from an intelligence or oversight standpoint within the Senate Intelligence Committee with respect to a report we are going to be concluding and preparing within a matter of days or weeks.

   I truly hope we can move forward in a positive way, with a strong, positive attitude toward ensuring the operation in Iraq is concluded in a satisfactory manner, and that the intelligence community can move forward knowing they have the support, in a bipartisan way, of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the matter-of-fact ideas and plans laid out in this memorandum will certainly not be carried out.

   I thank the chairman for his leadership and position on this. I yield the floor.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who I believe is doing a very fine job under very difficult circumstances, leading a bipartisan inquiry, which is the legitimate scope of the Intelligence Committee on how we can improve our intelligence system.

   When we are fighting the battle against terrorism, there is no question that intelligence is the coin of the realm. There is no way we can deter terrorist attacks by threatening to retaliate or administer retributive justice to those who make terrorist strikes against us. When you are dealing with suicide bombers, there is not going to be anything left for us to retaliate against or take retribution against.

   Finding the holes in our intelligence system, and how we can do a better job, is a major challenge. I joined the Intelligence Committee this year because I realized how important it is to the future of peace and security in the world and to our own security. I know from personal experience that we and our staffs--and particularly our staffs--have been engaged in an exhaustive examination of what the intelligence was prior to declaring Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was a major effort.

   As those in the Chamber may know, I have supported the President. I supported the Iraqi supplemental, and I thank our colleagues for passing that bill to defend our troops and also to make sure we build Iraq so we can move our troops out.

   But when the revelation came out yesterday of a memorandum apparently from Democratic staff, minority staff on the Intelligence Committee, indicating there was a different agenda, I was very much concerned. The key element in the Intelligence Committee, unlike any other committee, is that we have to do our work in confidence. We have to be able to maintain the confidence of the intelligence community that comes before us. We must protect intelligence sources, and we cannot get engaged in partisan battles.

   Yet the memorandum that came out yesterday has such interesting quotes such as:

   Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials.

   They are not looking at the Intelligence Committee; they are looking at the administration. They say:

   We need to look at activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the State Department.

   They talk about preparing additional views. And they say:

   Among other things, we will castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

   They talk about an independent investigation, and they say:

   We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation on the administration's use of intelligence at any time.

   When you talk about what goes on and how intelligence is used, that is a topic of debate in the political realm, and there is no shortage of that debate in particularly the Democratic primaries right now. We see many of the candidates who are arguing very forcefully about it. I am disappointed that the discussion in the Presidential primary has totally ignored or forgotten the old adage that politics stops at the water's edge; that we should not be getting into political battles when we have troops in harm's way, and there is no question we have troops in harm's way.

[Page: S13949]

   It appears this memo suggests there is, at least at the staff level, a Democratic game plan to make the Intelligence Committee a focal point for the 2004 Presidential debates. This memorandum said:

   Yet, we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilaterally preemptive war.

   Those are pretty harsh words. Those are the words of a political attack.

   Unfortunately, it is not just the staff who has been talking about them. There is an article in the Sunday Telegraph of London quoting a Democratic member of the Intelligence Committee:

   We want to know whether the administration put pressure on the agencies to come up with certain kinds of information. It's a question that's been explored at great length in Britain. If the Republican leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee is determined to protect the administration at any cost, we'll do the investigative job on our own.

   I can assure you that this inquiry goes into every area that we can find in the intelligence operation, in many intelligence agencies, how that information is developed. There are suggestions that there is improper influence. This is something we are exploring assiduously. The committee staff has interviewed many members of the Intelligence Committee, anybody who might have information. They have been asked: Were they pressured? Was the information tainted or changed or pressured? And absolutely not. If there is evidence of pressure, that will undoubtedly be included in the chairman and vice chairman's report.

   Moreover, I tell you regrettably, it will be leaked almost immediately because the committee has a tendency right now to leak like a sieve. There was one person who said he had a problem, and I turned to my colleague on the Intelligence Committee and said: Let's take bets on how long before it is on the national news wire. It was less than an hour. It turns out that the analyst did not have any problem with the intelligence related to the operations of Iraq, but it came out immediately.

   The question that is being raised that some of our Democratic colleagues want to address in the Intelligence Committee is: Can we find a way to undercut the President, the Vice President and the administration? That, I submit, is not the role of the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee has a very important responsibility. We need to determine how to improve our intelligence system to win the war on terrorism, not to win the war for the White House.

   What is the job of the Intelligence Committee? Is it to determine and argue with the policy or is it to find out if the intelligence-gathering information is appropriate? The people in the intelligence community have to deal with information that is fragmentary. We criticized them as a result of 9/11 for not having connected all the dots and come together to forecast and perhaps forestall the attacks of 9/11. Now we are saying they didn't have enough information, but this information has been available and has been supplied by the Intelligence Committee for some time.

   I quote a statement by the President. The President said:

   Heavy as they are, the cost of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction, he will deploy them, and he will use them.

   Those are the words of the President talking about intelligence that he received. And by the way, that was a speech on December 16, 1998, by President Bill Clinton. That was based on the information he was receiving at the time.

   If that intelligence was grossly inaccurate or inadequate, then we in the Intelligence Committee need to fix it. I happen to think there were some major mistakes made 7 or 8 years ago in the intelligence community when they decided to restrict severely the number of human intelligence sources they could use by refusing to take intelligence sources from people who didn't meet the highest moral and ethical standards. Frankly, those people often don't deal with terrorists and provide us the information we need.

   We need to do a better job. We are making improvements in intelligence, but I don't think anybody will say we have an intelligence system that is as good as it should be. I can tell you, the battle over how intelligence is used is a broader political battle.

   Leaving aside the question of whether it should be carried on while we have troops in harm's way in Iraq, it is not a question, in any case, to be fought out in the Intelligence Committee by trying to change or develop information that is not there.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.

   Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I urge our colleagues to remember that the battle of the Intelligence Committee is to win the war against terrorism, not to win the White House.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator retains 15 minutes.

   Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for up to 5 minutes.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee and applaud him for the work he has been doing and commiserate with him today. Having served on that committee for 8 years, I know how difficult it is to keep focused on the important intelligence issues that confront our country, especially in this time of war, and do that in a way that maintains the traditional bipartisan relationship that has heretofore characterized the members of the Intelligence Committee.

   Having served there for 8 years, I never saw the kind of blatant, partisan politics emerge that has apparently emerged as revealed in this memorandum that has been discussed this morning. It is a disgusting possibility that Members of the Senate would actually try to politicize intelligence, especially at a time of war, even apparently reaching conclusions before investigations have been performed.

   This memo refers to the fact that, for example, if we carry this plan out that has been discussed already, we will identify additional views and castigate--well, I will quote it exactly:

   Our additional views will, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

   In other words, before something is even done, the plan has already been devised about how they are going to criticize the majority about something it has not even done yet. This is blatant partisan politics.

   Now, our Democratic colleagues have denied that this memorandum represents their plan. One of two things is true. It either is or it is not. If it is, it is reprehensible. If it is not, there is a sure way to prove it and that is to repudiate the memorandum and to ensure that this plan of action is never carried out. So we shall see.

   Are the denials of the Democrats going to result in this plan being repudiated and not carried out? That will be the test of whether this is really the plan of the Democrats.

   I note that parts of the plan appear already to have been set in motion. The first item of the plan:

   Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to new disclosures. ..... We are having some success in that regard.

   I mean, this is being done. This is not a plan that somebody had, an idea that is out in the future someplace. It is part of what is currently a Democratic process in the committee.

   Secondly, the suggestion that there should be an independent commission, well, while there is some confusion in the memo about when to ``pull the trigger'' on that, the ranking member on the committee has already called for an independent commission. So there appears to be some elements of a plan that are already in play, but I am willing to accept the denials of my Democratic colleagues that this represents their proposed course of action. As I said, the sure way to prove that is for them to repudiate it and to ensure that, in fact, that plan does not go forward.

   I note one other thing. There is much in this memo that deals with how the Republican position will be characterized. We are talking about a Republican Senate position. I urge my Democratic colleagues to consider this. It is

[Page: S13950]

unethical and improper under the rules of the Senate to characterize the motives of fellow Senators. We all know that. We do not do that. That begins the breakdown of the comity that must

   exist in this body.

   I do not question my colleagues' motives and clearly they should not question mine, but there is an opportunity in this memorandum for questioning motives. I want to bring this to the attention of people because clearly this should not be a part of anything we do in this body.

   In the summary, the memorandum itself says:

   Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

   I think it may be inappropriate to question the motives of senior administration officials, as well as Senators. In any event, as I say, there is much in here that goes to the questioning of the report that they presume will be prepared by the majority. That would be a breach of ethics, and I urge my colleagues to strongly consider what that would result in and to repudiate this memorandum because of language like that.

   We do not need more reviews. We have already had the review that was conducted when I was on the Intelligence Committee that resulted in a lengthy report. The Kean Commission is doing its work right now; and, third, we have the Intelligence Committee doing its work. So I think that enough review has occurred. We certainly should not let partisan politics intrude into the important work of the Intelligence Committee.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas retains 10 minutes.

   Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee for yielding me this time. I will adhere to the 4 minutes because I know that he wants to wrap this up, too.

   First, I want to thank the chairman for his diligence in trying to make sure the Intelligence Committee does its job and does its job in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way. I went on the Intelligence Committee this year because I believe it was one of the most important committees in the Senate. I like the fact that while the committee's work is always difficult, the committee worked together in a bipartisan way and has not become a political tool.

   I have also expressed myself that I am concerned about the intelligence that we have received before going into Iraq, and the intelligence that is available even today. So I am not one who is going around trying to make excuses for the intelligence community. But my approach is different. I think we need to find out where our problems are, where we need more assistance, and how we can do a better job in the future.

   It should not be about the blame game. It should not be about politics. It should not be about trying to find a way to blame it on the President or the Vice President or anybody else, even though obviously there will be some criticism directed at one place or another. The thing we need to do is to make sure we have the intelligence that our officials need and our military men and women need, and that should be the focus.

   This memorandum outlines a political plan of attack in the Intelligence Committee. Our adversaries around the world must be smiling this morning. They must be enjoying watching us fight among ourselves instead of focusing on doing what we

   need to do to get the kind of intelligence we require to do the job against the terrorists around the world. This memorandum is a very sad commentary. While I am not quite sure of its origin, whether it was written by a particular Senator or by a staff member at the direction of a Senator, it clearly is something that a Democrat staff member, working with some members of the Intelligence Committee, drafted.

   When you start talking about castigating the majority or pulling the trigger on an independent investigation, or an independent commission, the Senate voted on that just a week ago and overwhelmingly defeated the idea that we kick the football over to somebody else, let somebody else do our job. I say we should do our job, do it here, and do it in a constructive, aggressive, nonpartisan, bipartisan way.

   This is a very debilitating thing that we have seen. One might say, well, maybe we are protesting too much, that this does not necessarily reflect all of the Democrat members of the Intelligence Committee. But already the London Telegraph in London is quoting Democrats in the Senate Intelligence Committee using some of the exact words in the memorandum.

   We want to know whether the administration put pressure on the agencies to come up with certain kinds of information.

   If the Republican leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee is determined to protect the administration at any cost .....

   I have watched the chairman aggressively pursue information and insist that the administration provide information to this committee. We have not been shrinking violets. We are doing our job.

   To have this attack plan come out and make it totally political is one of the most disquieting things I have seen in recent months in the Senate. We should not proceed in this way. I hope the Democrats will disavow this whole approach and say that is not their political plan, that is not their intent. The alternative is chaos in the committee that is so critical to making sure we have what we need in terms of intelligence.

   Just this week I proposed that we make the membership permanent on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I know there has been an argument that permanent membership on the committee could impact objectivity, but what I want are members who are experienced enough to do the job.

   I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I am looking forward to hearing Democrats assure us that this is not what is going on.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina). The Senator's time has expired.

   Mr. ROBERTS. How much time do I have remaining?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five and a half minutes.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are well aware, we have spent almost 6 months pouring over thousands of documents that are related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its ties to terrorism. We have interviewed over 100 people. This is probably the most thorough and complete review of intelligence that has ever been conducted, and the committee's process is completely open and transparent to Members on both sides of the aisle.

   All staff involved certainly participate on an equal basis. I have worked to ensure the minority's voice has been heard at all times. There should be no legitimate question as to our approach or our dedication to following the information no matter where it leads. I have said that over and over. We have asked the hard questions.

   When the inquiry is complete, I believe strongly the facts will speak for themselves.

   Yet despite all efforts to handle this review in the most professional and bipartisan way, we have learned of an effort to develop a plan to discredit the committee's work, undermine its conclusions, no matter what those conclusions may be.

   Our goal is to discover the facts, not to target any individuals or to serve any agenda. We want to know that the assessments reached by the intelligence community were based on sound intelligence and that the policymakers, including the President and the Congress, got the best information possible.

   I have been asked, Where do we go from here? The answer is simple: We go back to work. We build a bridge and go back to work. We have a number of documents yet to review. We have a handful of interviews yet to conduct. Then we will begin the process of drafting a committee report and preparing for public hearings. It is critical that all of this take place in an atmosphere of good faith and mutual trust. Secret plans to undermine the committee's work are examples of neither. I urge my friends across the aisle, those members of the committee, to disavow--and

[Page: S13951]

if that word is too strong, just to say not to go down this path of a strategy of attack, and join us to work together to complete the business of the committee. The American people, and particularly those currently serving in uniform overseas, deserve nothing less.

   I know Senator Rockefeller. He is a good friend. He is a good colleague. We have had a good private discussion. It is time to put this in the past, build a bridge to the future, and let the Intelligence Committee, unique among the committees in the Congress, do our work, our congressional oversight on behalf of national security.

   I yield the remainder of my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on my own time I would like to ask the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee if he would respond to a question.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

   Mr. DURBIN. I ask the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is he prepared to say on the Senate floor today that the investigation of this committee will not only look into the conduct and activity of the intelligence agencies, but allow us to follow the intelligence information gathering to its use by the administration, from the President on down, specifically whether the committee, as we have requested on the Democratic side, will take this intelligence information, determine whether there was any influence by the administration on intelligence agencies, and determine whether or not the administration and any of its spokesmen, before the invasion of Iraq, in any way exaggerated or distorted the intelligence that was gathered in portraying the case to the American people?

   Mr. ROBERTS. I say to my friend and colleague, we are in the process of conducting an inquiry. That inquiry I would say is about 85 percent complete. We have had full cooperation--not full cooperation but a spirit of cooperation from the White House, State Department, Department of Defense, and the CIA. Once our inquiry is complete, I think I can answer the question the Senator has posed.

   We are on the right track. We want to get at the timeliness and the credibility of the intelligence that was provided. We had four goals to do that, agreed upon by Senator Rockefeller. We will do that job. At that particular time, why, the Senator's question would be pertinent.

   I yield.

   Mr. DURBIN. Let me reclaim the time. The response or lack of response from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee explains why we are in the Chamber today. There are two responsibilities of this Intelligence Committee: Not only to determine whether the intelligence agencies did their job but whether or not the information they generated was correctly portrayed by the administration.

   I have just asked the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee directly whether this investigation will go into the use of intelligence information by the administration, and you heard his response: Only after we have completed the first round of inquiry about intelligence agencies would we consider asking the question whether anyone in the administration exerted influence on intelligence agencies or mischaracterized the information coming from those agencies.

   That was the direct question. There was an opportunity for the chairman of the committee to say point blank that we will allow this investigation to take its normal course, and he deferred. He said we will wait to a later time. That, I believe, is the source of frustration within this committee.

   Our ranking member on this committee, Senator JAY ROCKEFELLER of West Virginia, has shown the patience of Job. He has tried literally for months to encourage and convince the Republican majority on this committee to have a full and complete investigation. That is what the American people deserve. That is what this committee should do. But, sadly and unfortunately, the Republican majority has built a wall and said we will gather all of the information and all the investigation about intelligence--but we will not breach that wall and go over the other side to see how the administration used this information.

   That is the critical issue. How can you have a complete investigation without asking both questions? Unfortunately, it has been a decision by the Republican majority that they will not allow us to look into the use of intelligence data.

   I have never seen this memo that has been referred to. No one has ever given it to me. I certainly had no role in the preparation of this memo. I don't know what it said. But if that memo expressed the frustration of many Senators on the committee that we have created this firewall to protect the administration, then the memo, frankly, speaks to real feelings.

   The Intelligence Committee historically has been bipartisan, as it should be. Our efforts on the Democratic side were to urge the Republican majority to take perhaps the uncomfortable but necessary step so that the investigation would be complete. You heard what Chairman Roberts said this morning. He is not prepared to take the investigation of the Intelligence Committee to the use of intelligence data. And as long as that wall has been created, sadly, this cannot be the kind of investigation the American people deserve.

   Just several weeks ago--maybe 2--Senator JOHN CORZINE of New Jersey came to the floor and asked for an independent commission on the intelligence that was gathered and how it was used by the administration before the invasion of Iraq. At that time his amendment was rejected by the Senate. It was opposed by Chairman Roberts of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Senator Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat. They said: Stay with the investigation of the Intelligence Committee.

   I, frankly, took a different position. I really think this debate this morning proves the point that it is now time

   to appoint an independent commission--independent and bipartisan--that will literally take this investigation wherever it leads. If the chips fall on a previous administration or this administration, so be it. It is not our role in the Intelligence Committee, nor in Congress, to protect any political party or administration. Our role is to protect the United States of America. Our responsibility is national security. Once the chairman of the committee, as he said this morning, decided this investigation will not go into the use of intelligence data, it is clear that this Intelligence Committee cannot do its job as it should. It makes the case now more than ever that an independent commission needs to be appointed so there is integrity, transparency, and believability in this process.

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

   Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for a question.

   Mr. LOTT. I appreciate that because I believe Senator Roberts did respond to your question.

   I didn't mention any names quoted in this London Telegraph article. But, Senator Durbin, you are quoted as saying that a public split and new inquiry is inevitable. I hope that is not a quote from you.

   Mr. DURBIN. Well, it is a quote from me.

   Mr. LOTT. Because to prejudge----

   Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time----

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators will respond to each other through the Chair.

   Mr. DURBIN. Responding to my friend from Mississippi, let me say that quote is accurate, that quote is mine, and what you heard from our chairman this morning is the reason for the quote. If we do not allow a complete and full investigation, a split is inevitable. If a decision is made to protect this administration at any level at the expense of the credibility of this investigation, we are not serving the American people well.

   Senator Rockefeller has tried time and time again to convince the chairman, the Republican chairman of this committee, that we need a complete investigation. He said repeatedly to Senator Rockefeller, I have been led to believe, what he said on the floor this morning: We are going to draw the line. We will not look into the use of intelligence.

   That, sadly, I think, is the reason we are here today and tied in this political knot. It is time for an independent commission.

[Page: S13952]

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

   (The remarks of Mr. HOLLINGS pertaining to the introduction of S. 1821 are located in today's RECORD under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

END

4E) Creation and Use of Intelligence

CREATION AND USE OF INTELLIGENCE -- (Senate - November 05, 2003)

[Page: S13952]  GPO's PDF

---

   Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, early this morning there was a discussion on the

[Page: S13953]  GPO's PDF

floor of a staff memo from some Intelligence Committee staffers which had not either been authorized or indeed shared by members of the Intelligence Committee. But it was characterized--and I think mischaracterized, quite clearly--as a Democratic plan relative to the review of the intelligence that was created and used prior to the Iraqi war.

   The only thing that Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee have pressed is for a full investigation, a full inquiry into not just the creation of the intelligence but the use of that intelligence.

   Without looking at the use of intelligence that was created by the intelligence community, there would only be half a picture painted. Hopefully, that half of a picture will be fully explored on a bipartisan basis. I think the first half of the picture, indeed, is being fully explored on a bipartisan basis. That is the part of the picture that looks at the intelligence community's production of intelligence and as to whether or not that intelligence community in some way either shaped or exaggerated that intelligence for whatever purpose. It has also been now added that if any of the administration put pressure on the intelligence community that would also be included in the review.

   But what is left out is the critical half of the picture which the American public hears, which is the use of the intelligence given to the policymakers by those policymakers. Now, the word ``use'' of intelligence, that word ``use'' actually appears in the resolution creating the Intelligence Committee and identifying the oversight role of the Intelligence Committee. So the word ``use'' is actually embedded in the very document creating the Intelligence Committee that sets forth what its role will be and what its oversight responsibilities are. Yet so far the majority of the Intelligence Committee has said: We will not look at the use of the intelligence which was given to the policymakers.

   Now, that is a huge gap. That means we will be walking up to the water's edge and stopping there. That means instead of letting the chips fall where they may, the chips will only be allowed to fall on the intelligence community's side of the fence. They will not be allowed to fall on the policymakers' role and responsibility.

   We were told by the policymakers, prior to the war, that--this is Secretary Rumsfeld--

   We know where the weapons of mass destruction are.

   We were told, before the war, by the Vice President:

   Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction .

   We were told, before the war, by the President, himself, that:

   Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

   So the heart of the problem that we have at the Intelligence Committee is whether or not we are going to stop at that water's edge or look at the use of the intelligence, whether a critique will be made of the intelligence community's shaping or exaggeration, to the extent that existed, or whether or not the same searchlight will be placed upon the policymakers as to whether they exaggerated or shaped or misstated what was given to them by the intelligence community.

   The Department of State had a Web site. On December 19 of last year, that Web site said:

   Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?

   This is months after the CIA apparently told the State Department that there was no such effort on the part of Iraq to obtain uranium, or at least that they had not reached that conclusion. Yet in December--and by the way, much later--the State Department's Web site still is representing to the public that the Iraqi regime is hiding uranium procurement.

   Why should we not look into that Web site? How does that Web site get created, despite what we now believe was the intelligence community's conclusion or lack of conclusion relative to uranium acquisition?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.

   Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

   Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. I appreciate very much the comments of the Senator from Michigan, particularly in informing the Senate that the charge of the Intelligence Committee includes the use of intelligence as part of its mission.

   Frankly, this whole discussion of this leaked memo today only reinforces my own view that we need an independent, bipartisan commission because it is now becoming a political debate about whether there is politics inside the Intelligence Committee.

   I listened to the earlier discussion on the floor. People are talking about Presidential politics and talking about how inappropriate it is for people to talk in a thoughtful manner about how processes may occur over a period of time. We are missing the point.

   There are men and women who are dying in Iraq because either the development or the use of our intelligence is not at a level where we are protecting the people of America and the men and women in uniform.

   The issue is not whether this is a political debate. The issue is whether Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons.

   It is whether Iraq had links to al-Qaida or whether Iraq attempted to acquire uranium. It is an issue of whether we are going to turn loose the names of our intelligence operatives because there is political use of the need or want to discredit someone who might challenge some of the answers to the questions I just raised.

   We have a fundamental question right here and now of whether we are going to have an intelligence operation that informs policymakers so they can make good decisions or whether we are going to have an intelligence operation that is used to justify policy decisions already taken.

   The idea that we are going to debate whether this is a political issue or not really does argue in the strongest terms that we need to have an independent, bipartisan approach to understanding whether the development of our intelligence was appropriate and whether the use of that was even consistent or whether it was designed to justify as opposed to inform.

   When men and women are dying, I don't understand why we are even thinking about this in the context of politics on either side of the aisle. The real issue is, we ought to get to the bottom of it. What led to decisions that don't match the reality we have come to find on the ground in Iraq?

   I have over and over again--and will again--asked for an independent investigation, a bipartisan investigation, a commission to understand why we don't know what we should have known when we entered into this. It seems to me that is the essence and the most important issue we ought to be discussing, not some memo that wasn't seen by anybody else in the committee, developed by a staffer as a concept memo. That really diverts from the fundamental issue of protecting our men and women, protecting the people of the United States.

   By the way, there is some reason to believe we are not getting all the information, whether it is in the Intelligence Committee. We know the independent commission studying 9/11 has said they have been stonewalled. People from both sides of the commission, as far as political background, have said that. They had to subpoena information from the FAA to be able to get information to move forward to investigate.

   We are missing the point. One of the reasons I do believe we need an independent, bipartisan commission is so we don't have the kind of discussion we had on the floor today, so we can get to the facts that actually will protect the American men and women in uniform. It is high time we put our priorities right, which is understanding how our intelligence operations develop and how they are used, not whether we have a political issue that can be talked about on the talk shows at night.

   I find it very hard when senior people in the State Department, who have worked there 25 or 30 years, say, speaking about folks, that we have a faith-based approach to intelligence, that we are developing intelligence to show what we want to conclude.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[Page: S13954]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, 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.

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

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. BENNETT. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 8 minutes remaining in morning business that the Senator may consume or yield back.

   Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, given that opportunity, I will consume a few of those minutes to respond to the conversations about Iraq.

   I was in this body when we went to S-407 and heard the intelligence community brief us on the manufacture of chemical weapons taking place at what appeared to be a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan. We were told repeatedly by high officials of the administration this was a plant producing weapons of mass destruction , chemical weapons; it had to be taken out by a cruise missile. Some of us asked to see the intelligence. We asked to know exactly what it was that led the administration to believe this was in fact a chemical plant.

   As we were given that intelligence, I found myself questioning it. I walked away from that meeting saying to myself: This is a little bit thin. There is not a lot of substance here. But administration officials were very emphatic in saying, no, we have gone through the intelligence. It is very firm. We have to take this out.

   The administration in this instance, of course, was the Clinton administration. The intelligence being presented to us was being presented by Secretary Cohen, the Secretary of Defense. We now know the intelligence was wrong. This was not, in fact, a factory for weapons of mass destruction . It was, rather, a pharmaceutical plant, just as the people said it was.

   We blew it up nonetheless. We killed some people with the cruise missiles we threw in there. After recognizing the intelligence was wrong, we apologized, as indeed we should.

   The question I would ask those who are now raising the issue about intelligence in Iraq would be this: Would they suggest the result of our actions in Iraq called for an American apology? Are they suggesting we should apologize to the people of Iraq for having taken out Saddam Hussein and, when we find him, replace him in power?

   This is a man who killed 300,000 of his own people. We have uncovered the mass graves. This is a man responsible for over 1 million additional deaths in the two wars he started with his neighbors.

   This is a man who has destroyed his own country. This is a man who has raped and brutalized those of his citizens whom he has not killed. This is a man who was willing to pay $25,000 to anyone who would wrap himself in dynamite and blow himself up, as long as he took some others with him. This is a man who had weapons of mass destruction and has used them against his own people. This is a man whose actions are clearly in violation of the U.N. Resolution 1441.

   Am I supposed to apologize for having supported an effort to remove him just because some people are challenging the details of the intelligence that led us to this action? I do not apologize for one moment for supporting the war or for supporting the supplemental to pay for the war, because the consequences of the action we have taken have liberated over 20 million people and made the neighborhood in which Saddam Hussein lived substantially safer for all of the neighbors around him.

   This is not similar to the case of the blowing up of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan because the intelligence was faulty, which took place in the Clinton administration. This is an action that history will look back upon and say we did the right thing.

   With that, I yield back the remainder of morning business time.

4F) Intelligence Information

INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION -- (Senate - November 05, 2003)

[Page: S13952]  GPO's PDF

---

   Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer a few remarks on behalf of myself and also the distinguished Senator from Oregon with regard to the brouhaha that has broken out over the Intelligence Committee and our inquiry into the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction and the use of intelligence information by this administration.

   In many ways, it is an unfortunate debate because if there is one thing that should absolutely be above and beyond partisanship, it is the Intelligence Committee, our intelligence services, and the use to which that information is put. We need to dedicate ourselves not to scoring political points but, instead, to protecting the national interest. When we have Members' motives cast in a bad light and heated rhetoric used, it does not serve that purpose in any way whatsoever.

   Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, has been doing a very admirable job. It is my strong impression that he has been pursuing his responsibilities in a bipartisan way, trying to get at the truth in a way that is consistent with the finest traditions of the Intelligence Committee.

   I have never seen the report that has been alluded to. I understand it was simply a listing of possible options. And I can guarantee you that Senator Rockefeller has been under intense pressure by some others to pursue a much more partisan line of inquiry and to be much more confrontational. Instead, he has chosen to try to pursue the cooperative path first. I compliment him for that because it is exactly the course that needs to be pursued on the Intelligence Committee and in this body. Most importantly, we need to get beyond this current controversy.

   I happen to think those who are watching this debate out beyond the beltway are scratching their heads and saying: There they go again. What on Earth are they doing?

   We have gone to war at least in part because of the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction in the nation of Iraq. Our credibility is at stake. We need to get to the bottom of this and understand, if they do exist, what we can do to root them out and, if they do not exist, why we were led to believe they do exist. This is important to ensuring the national security interests of our country.

   We also need to get to the bottom of allegations about the possible manipulation or misuse of intelligence in the runup to the war--not for the purpose of scapegoating or witch hunting but for the purposes of ensuring that in fact it never takes place.

   Those in the majority shouldn't stonewall or circle the wagons, and those on our side of the aisle shouldn't engage in finger pointing and trying to score political points in a runup to a Presidential election next year. We need an objective, dispassionate search for the truth. That is what the American people deserve. It is my understanding that is what Senator Rockefeller is pursuing.

   Finally, the British have some experience in this area. They have just recently gone through an inquiry of their own over what was allegedly the ``dodgy dossier.'' I think that is how it is referred to in British circles. The Prime Minister even had to offer evidence under oath as part of that inquiry.

   No one is suggesting anything so intrusive on our side of the aisle. On the contrary, we would like to pursue this in a cooperative, nonpartisan manner to get at the truth, to determine whether weapons of mass destruction existed and, if not, why we were led to believe they did, and always to fairly and dispassionately analyze how information from the intelligence world was used in making the case to pursue the ouster of Saddam Hussein. That is in the national security interests of our country.

   I salute Senator Rockefeller for taking the appropriate course. I hope this debate will calm down and refocus on the business at hand, which is protecting the national security of our country, rather than engaging in heated, partisan rhetoric which we have way too much of around this town and in this Chamber.

   Those are my thoughts.

   I again compliment Senator Rockefeller, and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to bring about that kind of inquiry.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I very much share the view of the Senator from Indiana. I simply say that a lot of paper floats around Capitol Hill that never sees the light of day. The document that has to guide the members of the Intelligence Committee--both Democrats and Republicans--is the Constitution of the United States. That is the tone that our vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, has consistently set throughout this effort to get at the facts with respect to Iraq. That is the path I think every Member of the Senate ought to continue to follow. It ought to be a bipartisan goal. The American people deserve no less.

   There are legitimate and very troubling questions that need to be answered about the intelligence used to bring this Nation to war in Iraq. In fact, serious issues have come up just in the last week.

   I will say that I found it exceptionally troubling--really chilling--that just last week, Paul Bremer, who is the point man with respect to the efforts on the ground in Iraq, was asked about the nature of the Iraqi resistance and in fact was told there really wasn't a capability in the intelligence community to give our country the information that is so necessary to protect our courageous men and women who are in harm's way.

   That is the kind of issue about which I think every Member of the Senate ought to be concerned. That is what the Intelligence Committee ought to be tackling in a bipartisan way. That is what Senator Rockefeller has consistently been trying to do.

   We can go through a lot of the past history. Certainly, in discussions about weapons of mass destruction , we were told right here in the U.S. Capitol on a number of occasions that those weapons have not materialized. There are issues with respect to the past that need to be examined. There are issues such as the point Mr. Bremer made just in the last week that I think are very troubling.

   I just urge that every Member of the Senate--and certainly those on the Intelligence Committee--recognize it is not the paper that floats around here that may or may not see the light of day and various kinds of draft documents that are important; what is important is that we do the work of oversight. That is what is in line with the document that ought to guide us--the Constitution of the United States. And that is what Senator Rockefeller has set out for us in his work. I commend him for it.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

   (The remarks of Mr. AKAKA pertaining to the introduction of S. 1822 are located in today's RECORD under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

4G) The Kay Report: Recognizing an Ever-Present Threat

SPEECH OF

HON. DOUG BEREUTER

OF NEBRASKA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003

• Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in recent days, Dr. David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, has visited Washington to provide an interim report detailing what he has thus far uncovered regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction . Dr. Kay's initial findings make it clear that Saddam Hussein maintained a large, undeclared WMD infrastructure, much of which has escaped the attention of UN arms inspectors. So far, Dr. Kay's teams have uncovered dozens of WMD-related activity programs, a series of clandestine chemical/biological weapons labs, huge amounts of laboratory equipment suitable for WMD research and productions, and secret UAV production lines tailored for WMD delivery. As a recent editorial in the Omaha World-Herald correctly noted, ``the larger picture of these findings shows that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his neighbors, to his own people (just ask the Kurds) and potentially to anyone else on the planet whom he viewed as his enemies.''

• Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask to place into the RECORD an editorial entitled ``An ever-present threat'' from the October 11, 2003, edition of the Omaha World-Herald. This Member commends these insightful remarks to his colleagues.

4H) H.R. 1828 Syria Accountability Act

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent request regarding the Syria Accountability Act in just a minute.

   This is an important piece of legislation that requires our immediate attention.

   This bill would establish economic sanctions against Syria, unless the President certifies that Syria has ceased all support for international terrorism and has gotten out of the weapons of mass destruction business.

   As we have known for some time, Syria supports and sponsors Hizballah and other terrorist groups. Hizballah, of course, was responsible for the deadly attack against 298 of our marines in Lebanon 20 years ago, and they have also been behind repeated attacks against Israeli civilians over the years.

   It is also no secret that the Baathists of Syria and Iraq shared a common view of the world. They are anti-western, corrupt, and dangerous. Our intelligence experts have noted a significant amount of weapons and terror traffic between Iraq and Syria leading up to the war. This would be consistent with reports that Syria offered sanctuary to senior figures from the Iraqi regime.

   And now, as our brave men and women fight a low-intensity conflict in Iraq, it is becoming clear that many of the threats that they face result from the porous border with Syria, and the failure of Syria to crack down on cross-border terrorism .

   Make no mistake: This bill is critical to our troops, and to restoring peace in the Middle East. It is also critical to holding Syria accountable for their shabby record on terrorism and human rights.

[Page: S14172]  GPO's PDF

   I am hopeful my colleagues on the other side will pass it without further delay.

   To my knowledge, no amendment has been filed tonight. I hope tomorrow morning we can pass the Syria Accountability Act. We can shorten the time to 1 hour. Under the present consent agreement which has been approved before this body, we will move to it for an hour and half at any time the majority leader wishes. We have waited a long time to get to this. I hope we can do it tomorrow.

   I hope that also tomorrow--and I was willing to do it tonight, but it has been rejected on two separate occasions--we can pass the Military Construction appropriations bill. I don't understand why we can't do that. We could have this matter on the President's desk in a matter of hours. After it is signed, places such as Nellis Air Force Base and Fallon Naval Air Training Center would be able to start construction projects that are badly needed. Both of those bases are terribly busy because of what is going on in the Middle East and because of the training for our naval airmen and Air Force airmen.

   I know the people at Nellis badly need this money.

   I ask consent that the order entered with respect to H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability Act, be changed to reflect the time for consideration be reduced to 60 minutes; that there be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Specter, 15 minutes each for Senators Lugar and Boxer, or their designees; and at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning the Senate proceed to the measure under limitations provided under the previous order as modified above with the remaining provisions of the order now in order to remain in effect.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Mr. McCAIN. I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

   Mr. REID. I would hope that the majority would allow the Senate, before we take our weekend break, to do these two pieces of legislation--the Syria Accountability Act and the military construction conference report. I hope we can do that. These are non-partisan measures. I don't know what advantage any of us have by taking a few minutes and passing them. I hoped we could do military construction in tonight's wrap-up. It is something that needs to be done that no one disputes. No one needs it more than the military of our country.

   I yield the floor.

4I) Iraq and Pre-War Intelligence

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

   Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am a conferee on the Defense Authorization Act. Virtually all of the funding for intelligence is contained in this bill.

   This bill is far from perfect. Like a number of conferees, I am enormously concerned about developing bunker buster nuclear weapons, weakening nonproliferation programs, and an assault on collective bargaining, all of which is unfortunately part of this legislation.

   Nonetheless, I signed the conference report and I intend to vote for final passage. The lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, Marines and civilians are on the line in Iraq and in the global war on terrorism. Accurate and actionable intelligence is vital if we are to prevail, and I intend to do everything I can to provide our forces with the best intelligence possible.

   The funds in this bill meet important intelligence needs vital to our Nation's security and, in contrast to the recent $87 billion supplemental, these funds come through the regular budget process.

   Still, the following needs to be said: The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism. Sketchy and often circumstantial evidence produced estimates that likely were substantially wrong. At a minimum, I believe the Intelligence Community overstated the strength of the underlying data supporting the conclusions.

   The Intelligence Community has yet to acknowledge any flaws in prewar intelligence. With American lives on the line now, the shortcomings in prewar intelligence must be addressed now. A ``lessons learned'' study cannot await the conclusion of David Kay's ongoing WMD search. Regardless of what he finds, there were problems with collection, analysis and the way policy makers used the information.

   I strongly support this bill's requirement of an Iraq ``lessons learned'' report by the Department of Defense due March 31 of next year. As a conferee on the intelligence authorization bill, I plan to push for an interim ``lessons learned'' report from the Intelligence Community on the same date as the military's report is due, and I hope that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) will join me in this request.

4J) Politicizing the Senate Intelligence Committee

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to spend the next several minutes commenting on a matter that I regard, as majority leader of this body, to be one that is very serious. As is the case with a number of my colleagues, in fact, most of the U.S. Senators, we have been given the opportunity to reflect on the publication of a very disturbing internal memorandum, a memorandum that lays out a blatant, partisan strategy to use the Senate Intelligence Committee to politically wound the President of the United States.

   That is unacceptable. There is really no other way to read this memo. I am deeply disappointed that anyone--that anyone--would have a plan to so politicize the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. Senate, to render it incapable of meeting its responsibilities to this institution, to the U.S. Senate, and, indeed, to the American people.

   Moreover--I had hesitated to come to the floor to address this directly, but now is the time to do that--the response by those behind this memo has been miserably inadequate, has been disappointing, and has been disturbing.

   We are at a time of peril in our Nation's history. As our intelligence agencies and our Armed Forces in the Middle East are at war against our mortal enemies, those responsible for this memo appear to be--and anybody can read this memo. It is available now. The copy I have here is actually on the FOXNews Web site. But if you read it, those responsible for this memo appear to be more focused on winning the White House for their party than on winning the war against terror.

   Those priorities are wrong. They are dead wrong.

   As majority leader of the U.S. Senate, as one responsible for preserving the integrity of this institution and the direction of this institution, it is incumbent upon me to make sure we address this matter properly, appropriately, and adequately.

   In the aftermath of the war in Iraq, the failure thus far to find deployed weapons of mass destruction is a legitimate matter for inquiry by this body, this institution, for our colleagues. After all, for nearly 10 years--throughout the 8-year tenure of President Clinton and the first 2 years of President Bush--the U.S. Congress and the White House were given a steady flow of information by the intelligence community that suggested such weapons did exist.

   In fact, it was this information that precipitated, in 1998, the U.S. military attack Operation Desert Fox, ordered by President Clinton at that time, and, in part, Operation Iraqi Freedom, ordered by President Bush in 2003.

   Thus, if there is incomplete or imprecise information that had been provided to President Clinton or President Bush and the U.S. Congress over a 10-year period, the intelligence community should be asked to explain. That is what the Intelligence Committee is expected to do; it is really charged by this body to do; and that is exactly--that is exactly--what Senator Roberts, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, set out to do.

   Last spring, Senator Roberts, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, made a commitment, jointly with

   Senator Rockefeller, to conduct a thorough review of U.S. intelligence on the existence of and the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

   The review was also intended to cover Iraq's ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein's threat to stability and security in the region, and his violations of human rights, including the demonstrated actual use of weapons of mass destruction; namely, chemical weapons against his own people.

   The review was intended to examine the quantity of information, the quality of U.S. intelligence, the objectivity, the independence, the accuracy of the judgments reached by the intelligence community, whether or not those judgments were properly disseminated to policymakers in the executive branch, as well as to this body and the Congress, and whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone to shape the analysis to support policy objectives.

   Thus, that was the initial charge and what, in fact, has occurred over the past 5 months. The Intelligence Committee staff has reviewed thousands of documents. It has interviewed over 100 individuals, including private citizens and analysts and senior officials with the Central Intelligence Agency, with the National Security Council, with the Defense Intelligence Agency, with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and even the United Nations.

[Page: S14255]

   It is indisputable the chairman of that Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, has complied in good faith with the nonpartisan--the nonpartisan--commitment which he made to his Democratic colleagues. Most recently, this nonpartisan commitment was manifest, once again, in a series of very direct, no-nonsense letters directed to the administration, demanding the immediate production of documents and interviews necessary to move the Iraq review forward.

   Senator Rockefeller, himself, formally recognized, on the floor of the Senate, the fundamental good work performed thus far when, on November 5, he stated on this floor, and I quote:

   I have been vocal in my appreciation of the absolutely excellent job done to date by the staff on the aspects of the investigation they have been asked to perform, which is reviewing the prewar Iraqi intelligence. They have done a superb job, absolutely superb job.

   The words of Senator Rockefeller.

   The chairman of the committee, Senator Roberts, has acted with the utmost attention to that nonpartisan tradition of this critically important Intelligence Committee. That nonpartisan tradition--and it is unusual to have nonpartisan traditions in this body--but it has always been preserved, for good reason, in that Intelligence Committee.

   The tradition is reflected in the committee's founding resolution, S. Res. 400, enacted in 1976, as a result of nationwide concerns at that time about intelligence activities in earlier years.

   The committee's nonpartisan tradition has been carefully cultivated and respected over time, over all these years, by its members. The tradition is part and parcel of the committee's rules, which extend the prerogatives of the minority, that are not found in any other committee in this body.

   For a quarter century there has been a consensus in the Senate that the committee's nonpartisan tradition must be carefully safeguarded. Nothing less is acceptable. Why? Because this committee deals with information that is unique, that is privileged information, because of the dangerous and sensitive nature of the subject matter for which the Intelligence Committee, this committee, has unique oversight.

   I come to the floor because that critical tradition has now been willfully attacked.

   How can I say that? By this memo. You read the memo. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been harmed by a blatant partisan attack. I have no earthly idea who wrote this memo. I do know why. I don't know who it was intended for, but I do know why. If you read the memo, you can look. It is a sequence of steps spelled out. The sequence of steps proposed in this partisan battle plan for the committee itself is without question intended to sow doubt, to abuse the fairness of the committee chairman, Senator Pat Roberts, to undermine the standing of the Commander in Chief at a time of war, and to launch a partisan investigation through next year to continue into the elections.

   The memo lays clear that over the past several months there has been a partisan design at work ``to pull along the majority.'' According to the memo, the good will, the sense of fairness, the nonpartisan approach of the chairman of the committee, Senator Roberts, is still seen as providing ample ``opportunity to usefully collaborate'' in attacking the President of the United States. That is an abuse of the chairman of that very committee. This whole idea of leading that chairman or the committee along is simply unacceptable and out of the spirit of this committee. Again, it is something we simply cannot tolerate.

   Finally, in the memo the author proposes that once the committee can be duped no longer, a partisan core of Senators can ``pull the trigger'' on another investigation.

   The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence simply cannot function. Worse than that, it cannot fulfill its purpose for us without a complete understanding of what is at work in this matter. I thought it would come forward over the last 48 hours, but it simply has not. That is unacceptable.

   Thus I suggest we take the following three steps. First, I don't know who wrote this memo, but as majority leader of the Senate, I do ask the author or authors to step forward, to identify himself or herself or, if there are several people, to stand up with that information for the full Senate. We would be much better equipped to understand the level of intent behind this partisan strategy as well as the depth of the problem within the committee itself.

   It is necessary to know who the memo was intended to go to, who was to receive that memo. It was obviously written as a strategy. Who was that memo to be delivered to? Was it intended for political purposes beyond what is permitted in the Senate rules?

   Second, it is reasonable to expect, I think--in fact, I know--that the author or authors and the designated recipient or recipients disavow once and for all this partisan attack in its entirety. It is hard to believe this disavowal has not come forward given what is at stake. The Senate cannot permit a committee chairman with the integrity of Senator Pat Roberts to be subjected to such abuse. The Senate as an institution should not permit a committee upon which all of us are so dependent--because of its privileged status with access to information, we are dependent on that committee to make decisions--to be so misused or potentially misused for partisan purposes.

   Third, I expect there to be a personal apology to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, for the manipulative tone and the injurious content of this document. Senator Roberts is one of this body's most distinguished Members. He is a friend. He is a trusted

   colleague. He served in this body for 7 years, rising to that position of trust as chairman of one of the Senate's most respected, most important, most critical committees, especially at this time of war. Senator Roberts, with his straight-talking manner, has the complete trust of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He served this Nation in uniform, in the Marine Corps, in the House of Representatives. His integrity is unimpeachable. He is doing an outstanding job as chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

   But only with the fulfillment of the three steps I outlined--No. 1, who wrote it and who was the intended recipient; No. 2, a total disavowal of the writing of this and, more importantly, the intent of this memo; and No. 3, an apology to the chairman--will it be possible for this important committee to resume its work in an effective manner, in a bipartisan manner, a manner that is deserving of the confidence of 100 Members in the Senate as well as the confidence of the executive branch.

   In light of this partisan attack, Chairman Roberts and I have taken the opportunity to discuss the scope of the unfinished work on the review of the prewar intelligence in Iraq. It is our view that the committee's review is nearly complete. Together we have called upon the administration to provide the remaining requested materials. We have jointly determined that the committee can and will complete its review this year.

   To the authors of this memo, there will be no more pulling along and no more useful collaboration on partisan schemes, borrowing from the malicious intent of this memo.

   This must be addressed forthrightly. I call upon my colleagues to pay attention to this memo. It is something we can resolve and we must resolve over the coming days.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend our distinguished leader for addressing this matter which is of extraordinary importance to the institution and indeed the United States.

   I humbly say I have been privileged to serve in this body for 25 years. I have been a member of the Intelligence Committee in years past, 8 years; the last 2 of those years serving as the ranking member with Senator DeConcini, who is now retired from the Senate. I speak now as a former member of the committee and draw on those 25 years of my own experience.

   I have never seen an incident of the level of seriousness to our very vital security interests in this country as this particular memo presents. I think our leader, in a very fair and balanced way, has addressed the challenges. I commend the distinguished chairman, Senator Roberts, with whom I have served these many years in the Congress and the Senate.

   I conclude by saying, speaking for myself and I think many Senators,

[Page: S14256]

with everything we do in this body today, I keep in mind the young men and women of the Armed Forces, wherever they are in the world today, serving valiantly, most particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how the actions we as an institution take hopefully are in their best interest.

   I thank the Chair and the distinguished leader.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank our leader for bringing this matter to the floor. I join with the very distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee because that is what we really ought to be about. We ought to be focused on winning the war against terrorism, not allowing one of our primary, sensitive committees, the Intelligence Committee, to be focused on winning the White House. I can't say it any better than the Senator from Virginia. We have heroic young men and woman in harm's way fighting to bring order to a region of the world where we have had many threats to our security. The least these brave men and women could expect would be that our country and our Congress would be behind them.

   Frankly, one of the reasons I sought membership on the Senate Intelligence Committee as a new member was I realized that in this critical battle against terrorism worldwide, we cannot win unless we have the best possible intelligence.

   As I understand it, the job of the Intelligence Committee is not only one of oversight but of taking a look and seeing what has happened in the intelligence-gathering analysis and sharing in the past, how we can do a better job. Our staffs have been deeply engaged in this exercise for many months. We have followed it. We have had numerous hearings. We have read some, but not all, of the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of pages that have come before us. We need, on a bipartisan basis, to be able to find out how we can improve that intelligence.

   One of the reasons the Intelligence Committee is so special is the tradition it has. The intelligence community members, whose lives are at risk because of what they are doing--often undercover work, dealing with classified, sensitive subjects--have been able to come before the committee in the past, knowing they could count on confidentiality, professionalism, and on a body that was not going to be using their words or their actions for partisan political gain.

   Unfortunately, when we first saw this memo, it looked as if there was somebody, or ``somebodies,'' in the Intelligence Committee who wanted to use it to win the White House. That is just unacceptable. Some people on the other side have said this is just an options memo tossed up for review. I have been around here for a few years, and a staff person on his or her own doesn't write a memo saying: We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and we believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows.

   I say that the occupant of the chair, and probably everybody else here, would be totally stupefied if they got a memo from the staff that was supposed to be an option memo and said: This is our plan. This is not an accident. Days have passed and there have been no consequences. If somebody was really off base, there would have been something that would have happened. Some steps would have been taken. As the distinguished majority leader has pointed out, nothing has happened. Unfortunately, too many of the actions we have seen seem to fit right in with this plan. Not only are they not disavowing it, they appear to be preparing to implement it, or are in the process of implementing it.

   What is this plan? Is it to find out how the intelligence gathering could be better? Not likely. In addition to the President's State of the Union speech, they say, they want to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. They want to go after political figures.

   Somebody in my office said, ``This looks like a political witch hunt.'' I said maybe that is not a bad way to characterize it.

   They are going after political scalps, not trying to find out whether the intelligence that we received, the White House received, the Department of Defense received, and the State Department received was good, but how they can use the process of the Intelligence Committee to win political points.

   By the way, when they talk about ``when we can pull the trigger''--pull the trigger on an investigation--they say

   the best time to do so will probably be next year.

   If I remember correctly, that happens to be a general election year. That would seem to square with some of the statements made by the many Democratic Presidential candidates who want to raise questions, who want to attack the President, using the process of the Intelligence Committee.

   One of the things that is really bothersome is that they are not just speaking to an audience in the Senate. When they launch these attacks, these attacks get carried across the Nation and across the world. They get back to the people we are trying to fight. Do you know something? There is nothing a terrorist likes better than seeing discord, disharmony, and political infighting among the people they are trying to terrorize. That is one of the victories of terrorists. If they can tie up the intelligence-gathering operation, which is so critical for the protection, first and foremost, of our soldiers on the front line, but ultimately our allies and ourselves--if they can see that tied up in a political Gordian knot, then they know they are winning.

   I strongly support what the majority leader has said. I strongly believe that our fine chairman has not only gone the extra mile, he has gone the extra mile and a half.

   Some on the other side said we have not been able to get the information we want. When we have found we could not get information, the chairman has demanded it and we are going to get it. When they want to ask questions, they can do so. When they want to call witnesses, they can call witnesses.

   There has been a suggestion that there was pressure on intelligence community members. The chairman has gone out and asked publicly of the intelligence community, if anybody has any information or concerns that they have been pressured, to come forward and talk to staff. We have set up elaborate procedures so they can come forward. We are still waiting. If we find any of that, we will certainly let it out.

   In the meantime, it is time for us to get back to the job of the Intelligence Committee--how we can support, rather than tear apart, our intelligence-gathering system. It is with great regret we note that we have gone down this path and there doesn't seem to be any remorse or disavowal from the other side.

   I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

   Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today, first of all, to ask that I be associated with the remarks of the majority leader, as well as the Senator from Virginia and my colleague from Missouri, and to also pay a great compliment to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Chairman Roberts, who throughout the past 10 months has led the Senate Intelligence Committee through one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, times in the history of the United States of America from an intelligence community standpoint.

   Today, our men and women are fighting a war that is unlike any war America has ever been involved in before. The intelligence community is playing a more high profile and much more public role than ever before in the history of our great country. Chairman Roberts has been at the tip of the spear when it has come to providing oversight in a bipartisan manner with respect to the activities of our intelligence community.

   Over the past week, he has provided great leadership with respect to the most sensitive issue that has taken place in the short time I have been a Member of the Senate. We have seen a security breach unlike any other security breach I have ever experienced.

   As my colleagues have noted, the memo that has been referred to that was prepared by someone on the other side of the aisle--we have yet to find out who--was a blatant political attempt to impede what I consider to be an independent, nonpartisan review of prewar Iraq intelligence. America

[Page: S14257]

should expect more from this Congress. The Democrats in this body should expect more from themselves as well as their staffs.

   The Select Committee on Intelligence was established to be nonpartisan in nature, in which Congress could perform critical oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States. This nonpartisan environment was, and is, a crucial feature. This nonpartisan environment creates a crucial level of trust between the executive branch and the Senate, permitting the President to share sensitive national security information, with the confidence that the committee will protect the information and not use it to engage in rank political misconduct.

   We have seen just the opposite take place with this blatant political attack that comes from the other side in the form of this memo.

   We can have our differences over issues involving Iraq, and we have had those differences, and we will continue to debate issues such as weapons of mass destruction. But no one in this body and no one in the intelligence community ever expected a weapon of mass destruction to be dropped on the Senate Intelligence Committee, as was done this week.

   I implore the leadership on the other side of the aisle to follow the initiative of the majority leader: examine what he has said with respect to what needs to be done from this point forward. I certainly hope the leadership on the other side of the aisle will do just what they are charged to do, and that is to provide leadership and come forward to explain the purpose of this memorandum, its intended use, and where they expect us to go from here because otherwise, that weapon of mass destruction that has been dropped on the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to impede our ability to function in the bipartisan way that is absolutely crucial if we are going to exercise our oversight role in the intelligence community.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to reinforce the very serious concerns just raised by the distinguished leader and my colleagues, and I thank them for that. The Senator from Tennessee is an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee. He has also been a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He thoroughly understands the complex and important foreign policy issues which depend on reliable intelligence for their proper resolution.

   I associate myself completely with his comments and agree with him that neither the Intelligence Committee nor the Senate, let alone the American people, are well served in the current atmosphere of raw partisanship that was created by a minority attack strategy that was revealed this week.

   I have come before the Senate many times to report on the progress and good work that has been done by the committee staff in a bipartisan way on the Iraq intelligence review. That has been under review since the spring of this year. Two days ago, I expressed an interest in getting back to work in the Intelligence Committee. Some Senators across the aisle have taken this sentiment as an expression of readiness to simply close the book on this episode and pretend like it never happened. They are mistaken.

   What has occurred in the Intelligence Committee was not a simple misunderstanding over policy or a mild disagreement about philosophy or oversight responsibilities. Far from it. What occurred was a direct assault on the heart of what makes the Intelligence Committee a unique and credible and respected entity in behalf of our national security. It was a direct assault on our concept of oversight that is the product of some of our country's most trying days. It has

   functioned well, although imperfectly, for nearly 30 years. And now we find ourselves at a crossroads, and, boy, is this a road we didn't have to take.

   Unless and until this reprehensible attack plan and strategy to derail the committee's important work is properly addressed, I am afraid it will be impossible to return to business as usual in the committee.

   I remain absolutely stunned that just one Member of the minority of the Senate has disavowed this destructive strategy and said we are on the wrong trail, said it would lead to a box canyon. That courageous Member saw it for what it is: ``A highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo.'' Those are his words, Mr. President.

   What really disturbs me the most is that most Democratic Members just haven't remained silent about this outrage; some of them have openly embraced it. They have actually tried to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear by dressing up their planned attack on the Intelligence Committee as some kind of frustrated cry for help from their committee staff. That is not going to wash.

   Democratic reaction to the attack memorandum is as destructive as the strategy itself. We face mounting intelligence challenges in places such as North Korea, Iran, and, of course, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Members across the aisle should carefully reflect and decide whether their caucus should repudiate or disavow--pick any word you want--this plan and embrace our Nation's security instead of self-interest. Critically important work lies ahead for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and an atmosphere of mutual trust and professionalism must be restored.

   According to Senator Bob Kerrey, a former Senator and a former vice chairman of the committee said:

   Rank partisanship like this destroys the comity needed for compromise.

   There is a way to restore that comity quickly and completely. It seems to me that Democratic Senators must clearly repudiate or disavow the blatantly partisan strategy laid out in the attack memo. If they refuse, it seems to me, then, that the Democratic caucus must be prepared to accept responsibility for destroying the Intelligence Committee's 25-year, almost 30-year tradition of effective nonpartisanship when the country needed it most.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I first compliment the distinguished chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Senator from Kansas, not only for the remarks he just made, but for the way he led this committee during very difficult times, as has been mentioned before.

   I regret he has been criticized for the very acts of comity which are required of a chairman in a position such as this for trying his best to accommodate the members of the minority, trying his best to be as open and as broad as he could possibly be in approaching the issues that have been brought to his attention by members of the minority, even criticized, I have seen, in his own hometown press, his own press in Kansas for being too soft in dealing with the members of the Democratic Party in this matter.

   It is his job to bend over backwards, to make the Intelligence Committee work in a nonpartisan fashion. I didn't say ``bipartisan,'' I said ``nonpartisan'' because that is the way this committee was set up 25 years ago: to be a place where politics could not intrude.

   I don't know how many people are aware of where the Intelligence Committee works. It works in an area that is secure. That is the phrase. There are special physical arrangements in the construction of this area in which the committee works. It is literally a vault that you walk into, totally closed off from the rest of the world, obviously because we don't want any electronic surveillance or other means of intercepting what is said within the confines of this secure area.

   It could also be a metaphor for its location in this very political city because there is a lot of politics in Washington, DC. We all understand that.

   This is a special place where politics is not to intrude. It is literally an island in this political sea that is supposed to be out of bounds for politics.

   The chairman has done a great job of trying his best to get all of the information he can from the intelligence community, from the administration, from any other source that would be useful to the committee's work, and to bend over backwards, as the memorandum itself notes, for the members of the minority. I take my hat off to him for that and suggest that he should not be criticized for it; he should be praised for it.

   He, too, has made the point that there is a point beyond which one just cannot go. When it appears that the

[Page: S14258]

other side has attempted to take advantage of your goodwill, as the chairman has done, he has got to say that is it; no more; this committee is not going to be used for partisan political purposes. That is what he should do, and I applaud him for that effort.

   I also appreciate the comments of the distinguished majority leader in bringing this to the full body as he has done, to raise the critical questions and to simply ask for those responsible to step forward and acknowledge their responsibility and identify for whom this memorandum was written; for the responsible people, including the leadership of the Democratic minority, and certainly the leadership of the committee, to disavow the contents of the memo, the plan that has been written, and to make a public apology to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

   I think those are very reasonable requests and, frankly, too many hours have passed since the first calls for disavowal. Yet the memorandum remains not disavowed.

   I would like to take just a moment to try and explain why some of us feel so strongly about this. I served on this committee for 8 years. There is a rule that a Senator can only serve for 8 years because we never want this to become a politicized committee. We never want it to be a source where power is gathered around people who maintain their position. This is supposed to be a place where a Senator comes in, gets expertise, serves time, and then moves on. I had the honor and privilege of serving for 8 years.

   One of the things that always stuck with me was the fact that it was not bipartisan, it was nonpartisan. The staff was selected primarily from the intelligence community, people who were experts in matters of intelligence. When I first came in, I said I had a member of my staff who used to be with the Intelligence Committee. He has the top clearances, and I would like to have him on staff to help me on this committee. Bob Kerrey, the former Senator from Nebraska and distinguished former chairman referred to by Senator Roberts, made the point at the time: No, we cannot do that because we do not want there to be any suggestion that there is influence in the committee from the private staff of individual Senators. This is professional intelligence community staff, and if it ever were thought to be otherwise, we would never get the cooperation of the intelligence community providing us with secrets that are the most significant, important secrets of our Nation.

   Our committee staff of the Select Committee on Intelligence has the complete knowledge of the most significant, serious secrets of this country. They have to be above reproach. Think for a moment what would happen if it were perceived that they were political staff just like

   all the other committees. There is nothing wrong with political staff, but we all understand they have a substantive and a political dimension to the work that they do. We all operate within that understanding. But here, think about what a Senator could do knowing all of these secrets if they decided to use them for partisan political advantage.

   I can state unequivocally that I could have gone out and criticized the Clinton administration with things I knew, and people on the committee today could probably go out and criticize the current administration for things that they know. It would be very hard to respond to that because the only response is to use similarly classified information to respond.

   We cannot get into that game. No one would share information with the intelligence committee if they felt that it could be used for political purposes. Indeed, what foreign country or other sources would be willing to provide information to our intelligence community with the understanding that it might go right to a partisan political committee of the Congress? It could not be done.

   I was interested to go to Great Britain and visit with Parliamentarians who only recently obtained oversight, like the Intelligence Committee oversight of the United States, over intelligence activities of the executive branch of their government. Now, understand they are a parliamentary form of government so the distinction is not nearly as bright as it is in the United States, but they sought advice from us as to how they could best do oversight of this important intelligence function.

   They were interested in how we were able to get these deep dark secrets of our country into the legislative branch of government when in the past they had always been the sole province of the intelligence community and the executive branch. One of the explanations was because we were trusted. We were not a partisan committee like the other committees.

   Well, this memorandum and the conduct of the staff in this particular case begins the process of destroying that credibility and that trust and thus eliminating any prospect that this committee can operate in a successful way in its oversight function. That is why this is such a big deal.

   I mentioned former Senator Kerrey. I would also mention former chairmen of the committee, Senators SPECTER and SHELBY, both of whom spoke to this issue a couple of days ago and recounted how in their experience they had never seen anything like this during their time as chairman and noted that they could not possibly function as a committee if there were a perception that the committee was being used for political purposes.

   I might note one other thing just as an aside. I wrote additional views, along with the distinguished chairman of the committee, today to the report that the Intelligence Committee issued at the end of last year about the events leading up to September 11, 2001. One of the reasons that those other views are not as eloquent as I would have liked them to have been is that we had to draft them very quickly, after the report was done, after we knew what its conclusions were. We were able to read through it, and the Senator from Kansas and I noted that we did not totally agree with everything--more precisely, there were other things that we thought should have been said in that report, and we hastily put together our additional views and got them attached to

   the report. I hope they are helpful for people who read that report and our additional views.

   We did not come to a conclusion before that report was done, before the committee's work was done, that no matter what that report said, we were going to attach additional views and be critical of the report. We could not have done that because we did not know what it was going to say.

   That is what this memorandum suggests is the plan of these Democrat staffers, that irrespective of what the report says the Senator from Kansas will oversee the issuance of in the next few weeks, they plan to attach additional views castigating the majority. I will quote that in just a second. That is a misuse of the process and that is the kind of thing that we are talking about.

   I would just finally note in this regard, the report that the committee is working on now is the second of three major reports. First, the committee put out the report at the end of last year. Then there is the followup report that is being done right now on the intelligence leading up to September 11 and leading up to the conflict in Iraq, and finally the Kean commission, which is also going to be issuing a report on the same subject. So all three investigations overlap in one way or another to ask the question about the adequacy of our intelligence pre-September 11 and pre-Iraqi war. It is not as if this subject has not gotten a lot of attention.

   The public might be a little confused about what this memorandum actually says. I just wanted to note finally what this memorandum says. It begins by saying:

   We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows.

   So this is not a recitation of options. This is a statement that they reviewed the options and this is what they came up with: The plan, ``our plan is as follows.'' It clearly is written for someone who understands fully what the idea was.

   Our options for what? It would have to be options for something that the recipient of the memo already understood. It says:

   First, pull the majority along as far as we can.

   That is the distinguished chairman of the committee.

[Page: S14259]

   Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials.

   In other words, a fishing expedition. Let us see how long we can string this out and maybe we will get lucky and come up with something. In fact, they say it right here: `` ..... We don't know what we will find,'' and then there is a parenthesis at the end of this paragraph that I find very interesting. ``Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.''

   No, you cannot, not under the committee rules.

   It is absolutely forbidden.

   What is in that committee is confidential. You cannot verbally mention some of the intriguing leads that ``we are pursuing.''

   Second:

   Assiduously prepare Democratic ``additional views .....''

   That would be appropriate if the report is already done, but what does it say?

   ..... to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release.

   In other words, it doesn't matter what the committee says. We'll write these views ahead of time and attach them.

   ..... we intend to take full advantage of it,

   it said.

   Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

   The majority has not done anything yet but, by golly they are going to be castigated for this.

   Third:

   Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority.

   I like that phrase. I think that reveals a malevolent intent here. Then:

   ..... we can pull the trigger on an independent investigation. ..... The best time to do so will probably be next year. .....

   They then talk about the advantages or disadvantages of doing it at that time. They note that:

   We could [under the second view here] attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the ``use'' of intelligence.

   It concludes:

   ..... we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading--if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives--of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.

   This is political. This is staffers who have already prejudged. They cannot believe President Bush. There must be bad, dishonest motives. It is their mantra, and I think they think it is their duty to expose and blame the Bush administration. Yes, it is political, but in their view it is a higher calling. Bush must be exposed, so any method is acceptable, so the end justifies the means even if it risks destroying the intelligence committee.

   These staffers should know better because they are senior staffers, presumably. That is the kind of people who get hired on this committee. But it is wrong to put partisan politics above national security and certainly the members of the committee know better. That is why the majority leader is absolutely correct in calling upon them to disavow this memorandum, which puts partisan politics ahead of national security.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me initially state I have the highest respect for PAT ROBERTS, with whom I served for a number of years on the Ethics Committee. I served with him

   in the House of Representatives. I also have the highest respect and the deepest admiration for JAY ROCKEFELLER, a man who has devoted his life to government and who, as I have indicated, I admire greatly.

   But the American people must understand this memo that has been talked about was somehow stolen from the offices of Senator Rockefeller and his people who work in the Intelligence Committee. It was purloined--I used the word stolen--and then made public by the majority. I think one of the things we should consider here, in addition to what is in the memo, is how this information was taken. How it was obtained and how that came to be is something the Intelligence Committee should really be concerned about because, as a number of Senators have spoken about this afternoon, the information that is spoken of in the Intelligence Committee, the memos, letters, and other information that is in the Intelligence Committee, has to remain secret. It has to be something that is within the confines of that office.

   That wasn't done in this instance. All you need to do is compare the situation where, just a few weeks ago now, information was leaked from somewhere within the confines of the White House to Robert Novak, a distinguished columnist in the Washington area, and that information was obviously leaked in an effort to get even with Ambassador Wilson. How did they intend to get even with Ambassador Wilson for questioning how the war came to be in Iraq? How were they going to get even with him? They were going to disclose the name of his wife who was a CIA agent. By her name being made public, not only could it lead to her physical harm but harm to the people with whom she had intelligence contacts all over the world. Where is the hue and cry about this?

   I have been terribly disappointed over the last several days about what is happening in the Senate. There were speeches this afternoon accusing Senators who are not here to defend themselves and who are only trying to do what they think is right for national security--it may not be right, but they think it is--of being unpatriotic. That makes me feel even sadder.

   The American people should understand, what we have here is an investigation being conducted by the Intelligence Committee. It is a very important committee. I acknowledge everything that has been said by the Senators here this afternoon. It is very important. But the minority believes the investigation should be more than looking at what the civil servants did; that is, the CIA itself, and should be looking at not only what the civil servants did but what the policymakers did.

   I voted for the first gulf war. I voted for the second gulf war. I have no regrets about having done either. But I am very interested in how we got to the situation we are in.

   I said we can win the war, but can we win the peace? I want to know about how the policymakers made the statements they did.

   I think it is also of note, as my friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, indicated, he did file the same views--he and Chairman ROBERTS. In this report, on page 4 in their views I quote:

   Because the fundamental problems that led to 9/11 are almost certainly rooted in poor policy and inadequate leadership, the investigation should have delved more deeply into conflicting interpretations of legal authorities, including presidential directives, budget allocations, institutional attitudes, and other key areas. Only penetrating these areas will tell us how policymakers, including Congress, contributed to the failures the Report identifies.

   So as I understand this memo, which was stolen from the Intelligence Committee--I don't see anything wrong with their asking for more information and how we should start looking at the policymakers, not just the bureaucrats.

   On page 17 of the report, Senators ROBERTS and KYL said:

   The failures that led to 9/11 occurred not only in the intelligence community. The [Joint Inquiry] was selective about what threads of inquiry it was willing to follow beyond the intelligence community.

   So they were asking for what I understand the memo asked for.

   Rather than talking about the Intelligence Committee being landlocked, blocked, I think they should just go ahead and do their report, enlarge it, and include this information.

   Last night on this floor and earlier today I tried to get permission from the majority to pass military construction. The conference report should have been passed. We are not doing that. We could do it right now. I also tried to pass the Syria Accountability Act. I understand procedurally why on the Syria Accountability Act the majority may want to hold it over. An hour and a half is plenty of time, but the appropriations bill has no time on it. I can't understand why we will not do that.

   Talk about political grandstanding, we now learn that starting next

[Page: S14260]

Wednesday at 6 o'clock we will spend 30 hours talking about judges.

   I ask unanimous consent that the debate time for discussion on judges, which we have all learned is going to be 60 hours, be divided and controlled equally between the two leaders or their designees.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Mr. FRIST. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, it is interesting to me; comments have been made over the course of the day that there was some attempt to figure out how time would be divided, and I believe the allegation has been made that had been discussed with me before. We have not gotten to that point yet. So I am a little bit surprised about some of the statements which were made earlier.

   As we discussed the judicial issue and the filibusters that are ongoing, which are unprecedented--partisan filibusters in this country on the judicial nominees--I do think it is critically important that we have the opportunity on both sides to be heard. The plans will be, after we finish the appropriations process over the next several days, that at that point in time we will turn to the judicial nominees. We will be debating two nominees who haven't yet been considered on the floor of the Senate. The intention has been made very clear that the Members on the other side of the aisle will filibuster. Therefore, I look forward to an active debate between both sides of the aisle. We would be happy to talk to the Democratic leadership about how the time will be divided.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw the unanimous consent request and express my appreciation for hearing that at a later time the leader will determine how he feels the time should be allotted. I am glad he is thinking about some

   allocation of time to the minority.

   I also say that my friend from Arizona raised questions and made statements about the 9/11 Commission of which Governor Kean is chairman. Of course, that has a number of people on it, such as Senator MAX CLELAND. But as we have read from the press accounts, even Governor Kean, a Republican, is concerned about the lack of information.

   From the 9/11 Commission, Governor Kean has indicated publicly that he may go to as far as issuing subpoenas to the White House to get the information he hasn't gotten yet.

   If we are talking about divulging information, one of the things that we need to talk about is what has gone on in preparing this intelligence report between the White House and the Intelligence Committee which is supposed to be sacrosanct in itself.

   Numerous questions have been raised about what the intelligence community told the Bush administration about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and how administration officials used this information in the days leading up to the war with Iraq.

   What was the factual basis for the administration's assertion that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium in Niger?

   What was the factual basis for the administration's assertion that there were concrete ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida?

   What was the factual basis for the administration's assertion that Iraq posed an imminent danger to the United States?

   What was the factual basis for the administration's assertion that if we did not act in Iraq, the so-called smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud?

   In all the speeches, not one of my colleagues has suggested that these are not legitimate questions for congressional inquiry. That is because each of us recognizes that we need a strong, independent intelligence community to win the war on terrorism.

   In order to answer these questions, we need to understand both what intelligence told the administration about these issues and how the administration used that information.

   Both issues have important implications for national security, and both issues should be thoroughly examined by Congress.

   Nevertheless, the Intelligence Committee chairman rejected the Armed Services Committee chairman's proposal to conduct a joint investigation.

   My friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, asked for a joint inquiry by the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence. But that didn't come to be, even though we all know it was a good idea.

   At the same time that he was rejecting these entreaties from members of both parties, press reports indicate that the majority was meeting with the White House, as I have already indicated, to discuss how to proceed on matters that affect the intelligence community.

   I don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone who knows these issues that some in this body who are concerned about our national security have seen their pleas ignored by the majority. They have been frustrated.

   It is difficult for Members in this position to understand why the majority would refuse to explore the questions that I have outlined only briefly--questions which we all agree

   need to be answered if we are to succeed in this war on terrorism. We all agree that these are important questions. We all agree the committee has authority to look into these issues.

   While we are posing questions for each other here, my question is this: Why isn't the Intelligence Committee looking at both what the intelligence community knew and how the administration used that information?

   Again, the memo that is the subject matter of the discussion here today was not leaked by anyone we know. In fact, we believe--and I think there is credible evidence to indicate--that it was stolen, purloined, and then made public. It wouldn't have been made public but for the majority.

   Doesn't the minority have a right, in the secret confines of the Intelligence Committee room, to have pieces of paper there that aren't going to be pilfered by the majority? The staff allocation is very unfair. Some say it is about 30 to 3. But in spite of that, those 30 should have better things to do than to pilfer through the records of the minority.

   I have the greatest confidence in Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller. I think we should get back to the business of this Intelligence Committee. We should get back to it, and I hope they will broaden the investigation. If they decide not to broaden the investigation, as the memo indicated--and I have only read little bits and pieces of it; I haven't studied the memo--then there are things the minority can do to bring this out because the issues that I have raised should be made public.

   I hope these two fine Senators--the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from West Virginia--will work together as they have so well and not let this stolen memo hurt the deliberations of this most important committee, the Intelligence Committee.

   I apologize to the majority leader. I know he is a busy man. I am sorry I took so long to respond to the remarks made by others here today.

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are about to wrap up here in just a couple of minutes.

   But just from my standpoint, based on the comments that have been made, we still have no one disavowing the contents of the memo or the intent of the memo. All I ask at this juncture is, Who wrote it? Who was it intended for? Who was the recipient?

   Second, I ask for someone to stand up and disavow either the intent or the content of the memo.

   Third, an apology to the chairman, who it certainly seems to me there is an intent to in some ways embarrass and subtract from the integrity he has brought to that committee.

   Those three things.

   Just to respond very briefly about some other business, we share the minority whip's concern about getting our business done. I have mentioned that November 21 is the target date for us to adjourn.

   I am pleased that we have been able--speaking to the legislation that we mentioned--to lock in a time agreement on Syria accountability. It was a priority of mine. It is a priority on my side of the aisle, and on the other side of the aisle. And I can assure our colleagues that it will be done early next week. I am not sure exactly what that date would be but sometime early next week.

   There are Members on both sides of the aisle who desire to speak on the Syria Accountability Act. I urge them to be available early next week, Monday or Tuesday, or they might not get that opportunity. I understand both sides of the aisle want to progress quickly to this important piece of legislation, the Syria Accountability Act.

[Page: S14261]

   On MILCON, I am prepared to move on that conference report. If the minority whip is willing, I am prepared to lock in a 20-minute time agreement to allow the managers to make short statements and then to allow us to finish that measure. I ask the Democratic whip if he would allow us to proceed to that when we proceed to the conference report, that it be considered, and that a short time agreement be part of that agreement.

   Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I ask that the consent be modified to allow the statements to be made after the bill passes today. We would pass it today, and people could have more than 20 minutes next week to speak on it all they want. This matter should be passed immediately.

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as I said earlier, I renew my request as made because it is very important that people who have worked very hard on MILCON, out of respect for them and those managers, be here and they make the appropriate speeches and response in support of this bill.

   Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, does the leader have the time in mind when he would bring this up?

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we would bring it up the early part of next week.

   Mr. REID. As I have indicated, I want it passed tonight. People in Nellis Air Force Base and Fallon can do without speeches. It should be passed now. If it will not be passed now, I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as you can tell, we have a very busy week next week. I will comment a little bit more on the schedule shortly and we will be doing MILCON and Syria as well as many other things over the next several days.

END

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.