Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, this is an issue on which we have held discussions. We have put together the provisions that deal with many of the modernization elements of the defense and Armed Forces of the country. This is an amendment that did not get brought forward during deliberation in the subcommittee, nor deliberation in the Armed Services Committee, as far as I recall. I am concerned about continued efforts on the floor of the Senate to stymie our reaching out to new technology. We have had an amendment concerning low-yield nuclear weapons that allows for a study to think about what our alternatives might be. We have had amendments here concerning robust nuclear earth penetrators, just to study the concept. Here is another concept that the committee has decided we should study. It seems to me that in a modern military, these are things we should be looking at. Things are changing. I commend the President's Secretary of Defense. He is trying to modernize our military forces, get them to work together on the battlefield more than we ever had before. We saw that happen in Iraq. These are all issues that are part of a joint force effort. I hope we can defeat the amendment. I oppose the Bingaman amendment. Again, it prohibits us even taking the time to study the concept. After you do the study, you list the pros and cons and then decide if this is something you want to move forward, whether it is feasible. We need to gather facts on actual costs. We may decide, after doing the study, that it is too expensive. On the other hand, we may do the study and look at the threats facing the country and say: This is something we need to be doing. It is foolhardy that we have amendments that continually keep coming up that don't allow us to study our alternatives. We need to have the studies. We need to be thinking about what kind of threats and what we want the military to look like 10, 20, 30 years down the road. I hope other Members of the Senate will join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. ALLARD. First, I thank the sponsor of the amendment, Senator Bingaman, for working in this compromise language. We do maintain, out of the ballistic missile defense system interceptors account, we have the $14 million kept available for research and concept definition for the space-based test bed. I thank Senator Levin and his contribution to help us work out the compromise, as well as the chairman, Senator Warner. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time. The other side is prepared to yield back the remainder of their time. Then we are ready to voice vote.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 783 To Amendment No. 725

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``national export strategy.''

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21 at 10:00 a.m. to consider pending calendar business. Agenda Item No. 2--S. 520--A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District in the State of Idaho for sure. Agenda Item No. 3--S. 625--A bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies in the Tualatin River Basin in Oregon, and for other purposes. Agenda Item No. 5--S. 500--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study certain sites in the historic district of Beaufort, South Carolina, relating to the Reconstruction Era. Agenda Item No. 6--S. 635--A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails, and for other purposes. Agenda Item No. 7--S. 651--A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the System, and for other purposes. Agenda Item No. 8--H.R. 519--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the San Gabriel River Watershed, and for other purposes. Agenda Item No. 9--H.R. 733--To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the McLoughlin House National Historic Site in Oregon City, Oregon, and to administer the site as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes. Agenda Item No. 10--H.R. 788--To revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona. Agenda Item No. 11--S. 203--A bill to open certain withdrawn land in Big Horn County, Wyoming, to locatable mineral development for bentonite mining. Agenda Item No. 12--S. 246--A bill to provide that certain Bureau of Land Management land shall be held in trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso in the State of New Mexico. In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 21, 2003. The following agenda will be considered: S. 1053, Genetics Non- Discrimination Act.

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

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2004. While there will be much debate on a few of the provisions in this bill, there is one thing we can all agree on--the defense of this Nation is our No. 1 priority. The bill before us is a reflection of that priority. With the passage of this bill, we are saying this body is determined to ensure our Armed Forces have the resources, tools, and equipment they need to effectively combat those who threaten the United States, its interests overseas, and its friends and allies. With the passage of this bill we are saying our military personnel are the best in the world and should be paid and equipped as such. Modern equipment and sophisticated technology were certainly critical factors in recent operations. However, it was the extensive training, superb leadership, and valiant service of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen which has been the deciding factor time and time again. With the passage of this bill, we are also admitting that threats to our way of life persist in many parts of the world. The global reach of terrorist networks is extensive, as demonstrated by the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is growing. There are reports, for example, that North Korea may try to sell a nuclear weapon. These threats and others require us to remain vigilant. Our military must be prepared and ready to respond in a moment's notice. I would like to take a few moments to draw the attention of the body to some of the more important provisions in this legislation. Section 534 of the bill, which I sponsored, lays out several actions the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of each military department must take to address sexual misconduct at service academies. These include promulgating policies on sexual misconduct, conducting annual cadet surveys, and submitting a report to Congress on the board of visitors of each academy. The recent sexual assault scandal at the United States Air Force Academy highlighted the importance of being proactive and taking appropriate action at the first sign of trouble. This provision will be helpful in discovering sexual misconduct problems at the academies. This provision will also help academy leaders develop new tools for addressing sexual misconduct and give Congress and the board of visitors insight into the size and scope of the problem. Another provision which I sponsored focuses on improving the Defense Department's management of travel credit cards. This provision builds on the purchase card legislation of Senators Grassley and Byrd which was approved by this body last year in the Defense appropriations bill. Federal agencies are required by law to use purchase cards for certain transactions and travel cards for official trips. While utilization of these cards has yielded considerable savings for the American taxpayer, abuse has continued. Recent GAO audits have reported these cards have been used at brothels, adult clubs, sporting events, and even Internet pornographic Web sites. Section 1013 will help address this deficiency. It requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe guidelines and procedures regarding disciplinary action against personnel guilty of improper, fraudulent, or abusive use of Defense travel cards. The provision recommends to the Secretary that he consider enforcing various penalties allowed in law, including assessing a fine three times the size of the abuse, requiring the guilty party to pay court and administrative costs, and firing or court-martialing Department of Defense personnel. Lastly, the provision requires the Secretary to report to Congress on these guidelines and provide legislative proposals should legislative action become necessary. The bill before us also includes two provisions I sponsored regarding military voters. With the current deployments resulting from the war on terrorism, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and numerous other military actions, we must do all we can to ensure these military men and women are given every available opportunity to exercise their right to vote. I believe it is our duty to remove as many barriers as possible for military voters to be heard. One provision included by the Armed Services Committee addresses those voters who fall through the cracks when they leave the military and move before an election but after the residency deadline. The other provision addresses problems with overseas military absentee ballots. After the 2000 election there were numerous reports of ballots mailed without the benefit of postmarking facilities. Sometimes mail is bundled from deployed ships or other distant postings and the whole group gets one postmark which would invalidate them under current law. The provision adopted will change the law so our military personnel would be ensured their votes count. I am encouraged by the $40 million added to the President's request for formerly-used defense sites, better known as FUDS. As noted in the committee report, there are over 9,000 FUDS in the program which historically have been underfunded. The longer these sites wait to be remediated, the more expensive they become. That is why I am pleased to see the extra funds and encourage the Army to address these problems in an expeditious and thorough manner. Turning to the provisions that originated from the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which I chair, these provisions reflect a net increase of $85 million in procurement, a net increase of $202 million in research and development. They also reflect the requested level of funding for the Department of Energy programs and activities. The total net increase was $287 million. These provisions fully fund the President's $9.1 billion request for missile defense. I was pleased that my ranking member, Senator Bill Nelson, and I were able to work together effectively on these issues. I am hopeful any missile defense amendments considered as part of this debate will be noncontroversial. Significant funding actions in the committee's bill for missile defense include an increase of $100 million for the ground-based missile defense system for additional testing and hardware improvements to reduce risk and enhance operational effectiveness, and a $70 million decrease for the ballistic missile defense system intercept project. The bill before us also includes a number of space-related provisions that originated from my subcommittee. One would help to more fully develop an effective cadre of space professionals. Another would establish assured access to space for national security payloads as national policy. Significant funding actions for space include the following: An $80 million increase for the GPS III, which is an advanced navigation satellite; a $60 million increase for the Advanced EHF Satellite communication system; a $60 million increase for assured access to space; and a $50 million decrease for the Advanced Wideband system, which will put this program on a sounder schedule. There are two significant legislative provisions regarding the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, referred to as ISR. The first would require establishment of a Department of Defense ISR Integration Council, and formulation of a 15-year ISR roadmap to ensure the development of an efficient, interoperable, complementary ISR architecture for the Department. The second reemphasizes the committee's support for the acquisition and use of commercial imagery to meet Department of Defense and Intelligence Community needs. The bill also adds funds to a number of high-priority ISR programs. Another set of provisions originated from my subcommittee focuses on Department of Energy programs. These provisions authorize the weapons activities within the National Nuclear Security Administration at the budget request level of $6.4 million; the Naval Reactors program at $788 million; and the Defense Environmental Management program at $7.7 billion. Another DOE provision would authorize $21 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration to begin research on advanced concepts, and $15 million of that research money will be used to continue the feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator. A repeal of the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research and development was also included--emphasizing just the repeal, and this involved the research and development. Mr. President, our Armed Forces are highly capable, superbly led, and devoted to the protection of the American people. During Operation Enduring Freedom, the Taliban unwittingly discovered our military has the capability to deploy and supply thousands of soldiers in the most remote of regions of the world. And during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam Hussein experienced firsthand the devastating precision firepower our forces can unleash from a multitude of platforms. Yet despite these capabilities, we cannot stand still because, most assuredly, our enemies will not. We must be determined, committed, and focused on the task before us. It is our duty. The Armed Services Committee, under the outstanding leadership of Chairman Warner, has spent many hours developing, analyzing, and reviewing the provisions in this bill. I also want to thank the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Senator Bill Nelson, and his staff for their cooperation and leadership during our hearings and committee markup. While we may not all agree on the merits of some of the provisions, we can all agree the overall bill will go a long way toward meeting the growing needs of our men and women in uniform. The American people depend on us, just as we depend on our Armed Forces. Let us do our duty and quickly approve this bill. I yield the floor. Seeing no other member seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Reed amendment. First, there have been a number of issues that Senator Reed and myself have worked together on, and I think quite effectively. It is with considerable regret that I stand today and oppose his amendment. It is an amendment that would add a number of reporting requirements for the Missile Defense Agency and the Office of Test and Evaluation. I cannot buy into the argument that a few good, well-thought-out regulations does the job; that if we just put in more regulations it is even better. There is a good balance we need to sustain. We have found that balance. This is an issue that in previous years has been hotly debated within the Armed Services Committee and within my subcommittee in which this issue comes out. This year we did not have any amendment--we had some debate but no amendment in the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which I chair; we did not have any amendments in the full committee. Now we are dealing with this issue in the Senate. The Missile Defense Agency is attempting to develop an effective missile defense system as rapidly as possible. They are structuring the program to meet the threats we currently face, while recognizing that the missile threats will unpredictably evolve in the future. That is one of the problems I have with the Reed amendment, its unpredictability. To do so, the Missile Defense Agency has taken a capabilities-based approach that focused on developing a number of systems. The Reed amendment attempts to relate ballistic missile defense element performance criteria to specific threats that these elements are designed to defeat. If it takes effect, the amendment would push the Missile Defense Agency back toward threat specific development and acquisition, away from capabilities-based development and acquisition. Why is that a problem? We do not always understand the threat facing the United States. I can take us back to a couple of current situations where we did not understand what was happening with potential adversaries. In 1991, for example, in the Persian Gulf conflict, we got into Iraq. Only then did we begin to recognize how far along the nuclear development program was in Iraq. That was 1991. The people in the Defense Department, our experts, were surprised. People in defense intelligence were surprised. We looked back to the North Korea situation. For some time we suspected there was, perhaps, nuclear development going on but we were not able to get that confirmed until just recently where North Korea finally admitted they were developing nuclear weapons. My point is, when we have the development of a weapons program based on what you think the threats are, it may not truly reflect what is happening. The best thing we can do is decide, for example, on missile defense, it is a capability that we need to have and we base it on the capability of being able to develop that technology so we have the best technology. That is where we get the best deterrence in a program such as the ballistic missile system. The systems or capabilities will be upgraded on a 2-year spiral, or blocks, as the technology matures. The Missile Defense Agency is seeking to develop a single integrated missile defense system consisting of a seamless web of sensors and shooters tied together by command and control, battle management and communication systems. Each system element, such as THAAD or PAC-3 or the sea-based aegis systems, can support the other, and it makes the other more effective. Congress has already approved a number of Missile Defense Agency reporting and process requirements in the fiscal year 2002-2003 National Defense Authorization Acts. Yet the Reed amendment requires another layer of reporting requirements. In response to the previous 2 years of legislation, the Missile Defense Agency provided a 300-plus-page system capability specification that describes block 2004 system specifications and metrics in painful detail, including battle manager, sensor, weapons by each element such as THAAD, PAC-3, and ABL and ground-based, midcourse, among others. ABL also provided over 1,000 pages of a 2-volume adversary capabilities document which describes all the performance characteristics that might be embodied in foreign threat missiles that U.S. missile defense systems might have to defeat. The budget justification document provides a funding breakdown by element and block--a detailed set of goals for 2004 and more general goals for block 2006 and beyond. The amendment in question appears to require much that is already provided by the Missile Defense Agency as well as reporting that is already required by law. The Director of the Missile Defense Agency already provides performance criteria. The Director of OTNE already established and provides operational test plans for missile defense systems and also provides an annual assessment of the Missile Defense Agency test plan. Here we are, saying a few well-thought-out regulations are good, they are fine, and we are making the assumption if a few are good, more regulations ought to be better. I don't agree with that. That takes away from and delays a program that needs to be moving forward in an expeditious and thoughtful way. What we have in the present system provides the accountability we need as lawmakers. The other point is, when you tailor your development of your technology to the threats or perceived threats from your enemy, you will be left in the dust. We do not always know what our enemies or potential enemies are doing. We have a capability to defend this country. If we want a strong defense system, we need to move ahead with that defense system. It does have a deterrent effect. It should be noted that the Missile Defense Agency already provides more reporting than any other program in the Department of Defense. There is no reason for Congress to require duplicative reporting on top of what is already authored or required. We cannot and should not be in the business of micromanaging missile defense. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I think it behooves all of us to take the time and review where we are in this debate. The current law prohibits research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. It prevents scientists from even thinking about low- yield nuclear weapons. There is a provision in the bill before us that says we will be able to think about low-yield nuclear weapons, but it specifically prevents testing, acquisition, or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons unless you come to the Congress and ask permission to move forward with that type of effort. The Kennedy-Feinstein amendment we are currently considering takes it back to the current prohibition of even thinking about what it is we need to do about low-yield nuclear weapons. During the Easter break, which was a 2-week break, I spent the first week on townhall meetings in Colorado. The second week I spent visiting our National Laboratories. Our National Laboratories are pretty much known for their responsibility of managing the nuclear stockpile to make sure that it is safe and reliable. As I visited these laboratories, I found out they do much more than that. They give a lot of thought to what type of deterrence should we have as far as being a superpower. They do a lot of thinking about our vulnerabilities. They think about our potential threats and what might be the proper response to those threats. So the nuclear laboratory scientists tell me that they wish at least they could study the low-nuclear weapon alternative. I agree. I think at least we ought to look at the pros and cons. We ought to try to gather the scientific data and understand which situations may be needed. Maybe we do not need low-yield nuclear weapons, but they at least need to think about it and they need to have a study. Ambassador Linton Brooks testified before the Armed Services Committee, and he was the acting administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. He also testified before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on April 8, 2003. This is what he said: Repeal of the low- yield restriction simply removes the chilling effect on scientific inquiry that could hamper our ability to maintain and exercise our intellectual capabilities and to respond to the needs that one day might be articulated by the President. He also noted that such warhead concepts could not proceed to full- scale development, much less production and deployment, unless Congress authorizes and appropriates the funds required to do this. As a point of reference in the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons--low yield is defined as below 5 kilotons as a comparison. So in nuclear technology, we are talking about a relatively small type of warhead. I respect the view of the scientists I visited at our various laboratories. One thing I came away thinking is they are dedicated Americans. They are dedicated scientists. They have a lot of ingenuity, and they are supported by a tremendous workforce that is dedicated to making sure we have a safer world and that we can actually preserve freedom. They are concerned that we remain a world leader. My view is we are a world leader, but we are a world leader in reducing nuclear weapons. Earlier the Senator from North Dakota commented about the fact that where he had silos for missiles with nuclear warheads, he now has sunflowers growing in the field. Well, right now, under the Presidential directive of President Bush, we are removing peacekeepers from the ground. We are taking out a sizable proportion of some of the cold war relics that are supposed to act as deterrents as far as a nuclear war is concerned. While these sunflowers are growing and the President is removing more of our nuclear warheads, what is the rest of the world doing? What I have observed is that there are countries such as Iran and Iraq--no longer Iraq but at one point in time at least--Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea are building more nuclear weapons. They are trying to develop that technology. We have been a leader. The problem is nobody is following. I think these countries are more concerned not so much about what the United States is doing but about what their neighbors are doing, what it is that they are going to have to require to defend their borders. So this is beyond what we do in this country. Even though this country remains committed and has shown leadership in reducing our nuclear weapons, we have to remember that other countries are moving ahead, regardless of what we are doing. We need to give some thought to that. We need to study that issue. I am looking at some figures on nuclear testing which we postponed on September 23, 1992. That was the last date of underground nuclear tests by the United States. Since that date, we have had a number of nuclear tests by China, France, India, and Pakistan. I have a whole list of them. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. ALLARD. I have contacted the leader on the Republican side. He is expecting us to leave this open to somewhere around 8:10. Now we both have time to yield back.

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

Mr. ALLARD. Now I move to table the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ALLARD. I think we are getting to the point where we are ready to wrap up debate. I will make a few comments and we will move to table and have a vote in a relatively short period of time. I am warning everyone we are getting close to a vote. I thought I would take a few moments to review some of the comments made by individuals in the administration about the need to allow for research, at least, and study as far as the low-yield nuclear weapons were concerned. I rise in opposition to the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment. Let me read from a letter from Secretary of State Powell, dated May 5, 2003. I am writing to express support for the President's FY2004 budget request to fund the feasibility and cost study for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), and to repeal the FY1994 legislation that prohibits the United States from conducting research and development on low yield nuclear weapons. I do not believe that these legislative steps will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea. This is a statement from our Secretary of State. ADM Ellis, U.S. Navy, had this to say in a letter to the chairman: The nation needs to understand the technical capabilities of threats under development by potential adversaries and to thoroughly explore the range of options available to the United States to deter or defeat them. Once we complete the precise engineering analyses necessary to validate facts related to nascent advanced concepts, the results of the research will enable dispassionate, fact-based decisions on very important defense and policy issues. If you repeal the law on low-yield nuclear weapons, you end up producing nuclear weapons which will cause less collateral damage if used and, therefore, the United States is more likely to use that. That is the assertion. First, in response to that, NNSA cannot produce or deploy a new nuclear weapon without an authorization and appropriation from Congress. Second, there have been thousands of deployed low-yield nuclear weapons during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and today, and that has not lowered the nuclear weapon threshold. Nuclear weapons are still a very high threshold that only the President can initiate. On April 8, 2003, Admiral James Ellis said: . . . it's not clear to me there is a direct linkage between the size of the weapons and the awesome responsibilities embodied in that decision. Ambassador Linton Brooks quoted, as then acting director of NNSA, in an April 8, 2003 hearing: Is there a logic to saying that we have older low-yield weapons, but that we now know we are not going to ever want to produce new low-yield weapons. Now to some extent I admit we are talking about--since I'm not going to develop or produce anything without the permission of the Congress and if the Congress decided to give me permission, it could modify the ban . . . Now, we are looking at both administrations that have basically taken the position that we need to have a nuclear response to either chemical or biological weapons or weapons of mass destruction. On December 7, 1997, President Clinton issued some guidelines which would permit nuclear strikes after enemy attacks involving chemical or biological weapons, which was reported widely at that time. Finally, I point out some language and remind my colleagues we have specific language in the bill, and I will again repeat that language: Nothing in the repeal made by subsection (a) shall be construed as authorizing testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon. The issue is clear. I am now willing to move forward with the vote.

Mr. ALLARD

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