National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
PAGE S6789
May 21, 2003

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I yield the floor.

    The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.

    Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

    The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.

    Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is not an issue of drafting or clarity of language. The amendment I propose is very clear. It simply takes the existing ban and walks it back from phase 1, phase 2, and phase 2-A to phase 3. If this language was unclear, then the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense would have leaped over these barriers a long time ago because they would have ignored the first phase and gone to the third, fourth, and fifth phase.

    This is about whether we are going to begin a new but different nuclear arms race. Last week, President Putin announced that Russia is beginning to develop new weapons. His words:

    I can inform you that at present the work to create new types of Russian weapons, weapons of the new generation, including those regarded by specialists as strategic weapons, is in the stage of practical implementation.

    Most analysts interpret that as meaning they are going to develop low-yield nuclear weapons. With those remarks in the Russian Duma, initiating a reversal of history, of the beginning of a new arms race, the Duma applauded. I hope we do not applaud here today.

    The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.

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

    The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes.

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

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

    Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?

    Mr. WARNER. Yes.

    Mr. REED. I do not have the statute before me but the——

    Mr. WARNER. Let me provide it to you.

    Mr. REED. Let me tell you this: The original moratorium said: The Secretaries of Energy and Defense may not initiate research and development leading to the production of a low-yield nuclear weapon. We have replaced the term "research and development" with the development definition "development engineering" leading to the production of a nuclear weapon.

    Essentially, what we have done, Mr. Chairman, is we have taken the existing ban, which the DOE says restricts their efforts to do any meaningful research, and simply said do the research.

    Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I reclaim my time.

    The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia does have the floor.

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

    Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, if I may have a moment, I think the world is pretty clear as to what is taking place. Your amendment strikes the ban. We used to have a prohibition against low-yield nuclear weapons development. Your amendment strikes that. In place, you say you have to come back to Congress.

    Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senate did that yesterday.

    Mr. REED. My amendment leaves the ban in place.

    The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. All time has expired.

    The question is on agreeing to the second-degree amendment.

    Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
    
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

    Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?

    Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

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

    Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.

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

    Mr. DORGAN. I am sorry, I do not understand your question. Would you rephrase the question.

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

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

    Mr. DORGAN. For purposes of the Senator from Virginia, giving him comfort, let me say my amendment will end the second step. If his point is the research for the bunker buster nuclear weapon was last year a first step, then let me suggest to you my amendment will withhold the money so we do not take the second step.

    However, I think the larger point the Senator from Virginia understands. The step this country wants to take, to say there are usable nuclear weapons, that there are designer nuclear weapons that can be produced with lower and higher yields for special kinds of uses is a very dangerous step and exactly the wrong step for those of us who believe our leadership responsibility is both to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. I think the larger point the Senator from Virginia understands. But if he is more comfortable with my saying we will stop the second step rather than the first step, we will stop whatever steps are taken in the wrong direction, in my judgment.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

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

    This amount includes $21 million for advanced concepts, of which $15 million is authorized to continue the feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

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

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

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

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

    Mr. DORGAN. If I may use the word credibility, as the Senator from Virginia did, let me say to those who might listen to this debate or watch this debate, it is incredible to believe Congress will be in charge of every step of the development of this program. That is preposterous. That is not the case on any defense system of which I am aware.

    My amendment is very simple, I say to the Senator from Virginia. My amendment prohibits the use of these funds. You did not talk about prohibiting funds. You want to fund it. You want to authorize it. You want to move ahead with it. That is fine. We have a disagreement about that. But there is no credibility issue here.

    The question is whether this country wants, with this legislation, to say to the rest of the world, By the way, we have embarked on a new venture here and with this new venture, whether it is last year or this year, it is decided we need new nuclear weapons including bunker busting nuclear weapons.

    If the answer to that is yes, that's what we want to do, then the answer is we vote with my colleague from Virginia. If you believe it is moving in exactly the wrong direction, it is driving 500 miles in reverse like the flying farmer from Makoti, if you really believe this is stepping backward, as I do, and dangerous for the rest of the world, you vote no. You vote to strip the money.

    Look, money is money, as you know. This $11 million, $15 million is probably not a lot of money to some. But my amendment strips that money to say let's stop this. We do not need earth penetrating bunker busting nuclear weapons. Does the Senator from Virginia believe at this moment we can't sleep because we don't have bunker busting earth penetrating nuclear weapons?

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

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

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

    Mr. DORGAN. I am sorry, if the Senator wants to talk about credibility, let me correct the Senator, if you do not mind. On page 2 of my amendment it prohibits it for the year 2004, because that's all I can do, with respect to 2004.

    Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

    Mr. DORGAN. And for the year 2004 it says: No funds authorized or appropriated or otherwise made available, et cetera, for a feasibility study.

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

    Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish my point. If we are going to be completely accurate here.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Chair will advise the Senator from North Dakota has the floor. All conversations are being charged against his time.

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

    Mr. DORGAN. That was my understanding.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time will be so charged.

    Mr. DORGAN. Let me just make this point because I think it is important. I, too, want to be accurate. I want to be accurate on my side and your side. My amendment prohibits the use of funds for the earth penetrator weapon to be "obligated or expended for development, testing, or engineering on a nuclear earth penetrator weapon." That is perpetual. And "(b) Prohibition on Use of Fiscal Year 2004 Funds" deals only with this fiscal year.

    So to be perfectly accurate, the question of the withholding of funds with respect to the feasibility study only applies to this fiscal year. It is not permanently banning that funding because I can only ban it for this year. So I just want to make that point.

    I am happy to yield and happy to engage in this colloquy, but I think the issue is quite simple actually: Either one believes we ought to have new nuclear weapons, earth penetrating bunker busters—and I don't remember exactly who showed up to testify yesterday; someone from the Joint Chiefs, I guess, and they have told us that somewhere around the world, somebody is auguring deep into the earth, God forbid, and we might well need a nuclear weapon to go get them.

    I would say to people who come around here with those stories: Go get some fresh air. Put some sugar on your cereal. I don't, for the life of me—there are people around here, I swear to you, who, if told our adversaries were creating a cavalry, would be on the floor trying to buy horses. I don't understand this notion that there is a rumor that somebody is doing something, so let's create a new nuclear weapon.

    The reason I offer this specific amendment, I say to the Senator from Virginia, is that I know they talked about this in Afghanistan, in Iraq. And they talked about the issue of "usable" nuclear weapons. They talked about the difficulty in caves. I have flown over those mountains. I have seen those mountains and the caves. But for us to come back here and say: Oh, by the way, our new global strategy is to create a new class of nuclear weapons—I think that has profound implications with respect to the stability and the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

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

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

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

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

    Mr. DORGAN. No, it does not.

    First of all, read the last words, "development, testing, or engineering," and then compare that to (b) in which I am talking about the feasibility study. I am withholding the funds from the feasibility study. I was attempting to make that distinction for you.

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

    Mr. DORGAN. I am all for that statement: Why waste money? I am all for that. If the proposition is, what I am trying to do is tell the Defense Department, don't waste money, then sign me up and count me in.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

    I commend the Senator. I urge its adoption.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

    Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I very much support this effort on the part of the Senator from Florida. It is a very precise, straightforward, and short amendment. The language has great meaning. The Secretary of Energy is not allowed, under this language, to commence the engineering development phase of a robust nuclear earth penetrator without specific authority of the Congress. Each word has meaning. There are not a lot of words in this amendment. It is one of the shortest amendments we have seen around here. But every single word in that amendment has meaning.

    I thank not just my good friend from Florida but also the Senator from Virginia because they have really made a constructive contribution to this entire debate by supporting this approach. It is not as strong as some of us would have liked, but it nonetheless is very clear and very specific and says you may not proceed to engineering development unless Congress specifically authorizes that action. It is a significant improvement of the bill.

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

    I urge its adoption.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

    Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman very much for that comment. I think the Senator is right. People do not realize that the makeup of our Armed Forces is much different today demographically than it was in the past. There are more families. There are two-service families, and it used to be mostly single people. So we have had to make accommodations which I think the distinguished chairman and ranking member and the committee have done in many areas, such as in health care. We did not have to have pediatricians as a reliable component of health care in the military so much in the past as we do now, or OB/GYN, but those are the issues we must address today.

    I am pleased the Senator is doing so, and I hope we will all work together.

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

    Mrs. HUTCHISON. Things have changed for sure.

    If the ranking member would also work with, that would be very much appreciated.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

    Mr. LEVIN. I commend the Senator from Texas for this amendment. I have, as recently as last weekend been reminded about the role of families as I joined hundreds of families and family members in welcoming home the National Guardsmen and Reserve officers from their tour of duty in Iraq. I was in Battle Creek, MI, to receive back the 110th Tactical Fighter Wing. The contribution of our Guard and Reserve is more and more relied upon, I agree with the Senator, to too great an extent. We have to do something about that.

    In the meantime, families are at the center of this effort and we must do more for families. I know the chairman of our committee will seek to protect the language we are adding and enhance it in conference, and I will join him in that effort.

    Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.

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

    Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I think the committee went a long way toward exactly the point we are making, and that is we will never be able to repay fully those family members who have lost their loved ones.

    I have talked to a mother who lost her only son, and she had lost her husband. She has nothing else left in life. There are many stories like that. But the chairman has gone a long way toward trying to compensate in the only way Congress can, by adding money for support services, adding money for the hardships, making sure health care is better, doing what we can do in Congress, though we know from our hearts we will never repay these people in totality. We cannot. We do want them to know that with the monetary compensation and the benefits we are giving, there is a deep respect for what they have done for our country that will last throughout eternity.

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

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

    I thank the Senator.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

    Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their attention, and their responses. I know the Senators and their staffs, on both sides, have worked on this matter going back some years. I appreciate that.

    This seems like that whack-a-mole type thing; you keep hitting it and something else pops up. From our side, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee side, I have been addressing this since 1995. GAO even said here:

    Since 1995, we have reported on imbalances in DOD's inventory, and our current work shows that these imbalances continue to exist.

    I know the chairman and ranking member have a lot on their plate. This is a big bill. There is a lot you have to pay attention to. But somehow we just have to get our hands on this.

    In response to what Senator Levin had said, we found in one of our reports—I am sure the chairman is very familiar with it—where we had at one point 100 years or more of inventory of some items. Of course they are going to be long obsolete before that hundred years is out.

    Some of that has been taken care of. I compliment the chairman and ranking member, now and in the past, for attending to that, because a lot of that has been reduced. I compliment you for that.

    But we still have one problem here—well, one among others—of the secondary inventory and the fact they keep buying, even though they themselves say they do not need it.

    So I appreciate what you said. I know you have not had a chance to take a look at it. I look forward to my staff and your staff working together and maybe coming up with some things so we can get them moving in the right direction.

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

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

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

    Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me respond that I am certainly not trying to kill the development of any of the program that is ground based. I am saying, however, that we should not proceed to establish, to design, develop, and deploy a space-based weapons capability absent some debate about it.

    Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is quite clear.

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

    Mr. BINGAMAN. That is correct. I think that should not be done without much more deliberation than we have given it.

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

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

    Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to my colleague's question, I am aware that we put substantial funding in and most of that funding was for research.

    Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

    Mr. BINGAMAN. There is nothing in my amendment that would interfere with research. What I am trying to head off is the actual design and development and deployment of space-based weapons as part of this new program start. But research has proceeded. We have funded it at a high level. I have supported that.

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. I draw the Senator's attention to the first words:

    No amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act for research. .    .    .

    It is right in there.

    Mr. BINGAMAN. I think the operative language is on page 2, where I say what this sentence is intended to mean: that no amount authorized to be appropriated by this act for research, development, test, and evaluation may be expended for design, development, or the deployment of these types of weapons in space.

    I think I have made it very clear we are trying to head off the use of funds for designing weapons in space until Congress has a chance to debate this issue and until there is a specific authorization required.

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. The level of shipbuilding is clearly of concern to me. The Navy is in transition, and we find ourselves building the last of the older 20th century surface combatants, submarines, aircraft carriers, and amphibious assault ships and transitioning to those ships of the line for the 21st century. Understandably, there is a development period we are involved in as well as recapitalization. The committee chose to support the Navy's proposals for DDX, LCS, LHA(R), LPD and CVN-21. These are the naval vessels of the future.

    Mr. BREAUX. As the Senator knows well, this transition period has a substantial impact on the shipyards and their workers who will be asked to construct these future vessels. After the decline in shipbuilding in the last quarter century, our ability to build naval ships of all kinds has been substantially reduced. During this period of transition, I am concerned, as well as you, that the shipyards retain their engineers and workers, so they may build the next generation of ships when these ships are mature.

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

    Ms. LANDRIEU. The LPD-17 is certainly an excellent example of the dilemma posed in our Navy's shipbuilding program. I am hopeful that as we move through the authorization process, some accommodation will be found to move that shipbuilding program along. Certainly, this ship class, if produced at greater levels can clear the decks, so to speak, for the other, advanced ships, which are in development now.

    Mr. WARNER. I acknowledge the Senator's comments and concerns.