Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.

Mr. BYRD. Right. Exactly.

Mr. BYRD. No.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is an appropriations bill. I believe Mr. Stevens at some point in the afternoon will be on the floor to manage the bill. Mr. Domenici, who is very deeply involved in this bill as well, and who is on the Appropriations Committee, will be on the floor and will, as between himself and Mr. Stevens, manage the bill. I am not managing the bill, but until one of those Senators comes to the floor, I have a few things I can say about it. First, I thank the majority leader for making it possible for us to take up this bill at this time. I also thank the minority leader for his cooperation in that regard. I thank the majority leader for keeping his word with respect to calling up this matter. I will have possibly a little more to say about that later, so I will explain what I mean in having said that. I thank Mr. Stevens, who was chairman of the Senate side of the conference, which occurred on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill a few weeks ago. I thank the House chairman of the conference, Mr. Bill Young of Florida, for his many courtesies that were extended upon that occasion, and for his fairness in conducting the conference, and for his cooperation in helping to work out a way in which we could at that point let the emergency supplemental appropriations conference report be on its way and be sent back to the House and Senate for the final consideration of both of those Houses. I thank him for his efforts in bringing about an agreement whereby that emergency supplemental appropriations bill was let loose--if I may use that term--from the chains which at the moment had it locked in an impasse in conference. The provision in this bill, which is before the Senate, and in which I am very interested, is what we refer to as the ``steel loan guarantee provision.'' There is a similar provision which Mr. Domenici was able to include in the bill, and it is similar to the steel loan guarantee except that it has to do with oil and gas. It provides a loan guarantee program for the oil and gas industry. He will more carefully and thoroughly explain that part of the bill later on. Both of these provisions had been included in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Both of these provisions were in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill when it passed the Senate. Senators had an opportunity, when the emergency supplemental appropriations bill was before the Senate, to offer amendments to the steel loan guarantee language and to the oil and gasoline guarantee language. Senators had that opportunity. No amendments were offered to those provisions when that bill was before the Senate. Those provisions were put into that bill when that appropriations bill, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, was marked up in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Therefore, those provisions, as I have already said, were included in the bill when it reached the floor, when it came before the Senate. The Senate passed the bill. No amendments were offered to those provisions at that time. That bill went to conference with the House in due course. It was a period of several weeks before the House-Senate conference took place on that bill. When the conference did occur, these two provisions--the steel loan guarantee provision and the oil and gasoline guarantee provision--were gradually put off until the very end of the conference. The conference on that bill lasted for several hours over a period of 3 or 4 days. But it was the wish of both Chairman Young and the chairman of the Senate conferees, Chairman Stevens, to delay consideration of those two parts of the bill until other matters in the bill, other differences between the two Houses, had been resolved. As a consequence, as I say, it was toward the very end that we finally got around to those two provisions, the loan guarantee provisions. In the conference, a vote occurred on the steel loan guarantee provision late one evening. I think the vote really occurred after midnight, so it was 12:30 or 1 o'clock in the morning of the next day that we finally voted on the steel loan guarantee provision, which had been written in the Senate Appropriations Committee, which had come before the Senate, which had been adopted by the Senate. When that vote occurred, all of the Democratic conferees on the House side voted to accept the steel loan guarantee provision which was in the Senate bill; three of the Republican House conferees voted to accept the steel loan guarantee provision. So by a vote, I believe, of 13-10, the conference adopted the steel loan guarantee provision. The next day when the conferees met, a motion was made to reconsider the vote that had occurred the previous late evening and the motion to reconsider carried. Two of the Republican House Members of the conference switched their votes from the previous position of supporting the steel loan guarantee to their new position of opposing that guarantee. As a consequence, my steel loan guarantee provision lost, I think, by a vote of 12-11. It lost by one vote. An impasse prevailed. Senator Domenici's oil and gas loan guarantee provision had been rejected by the House conferees; on the second vote, the steel loan guarantee provision, which I had authored, was rejected by the House conferees. There was an impasse. The House conferees wouldn't give and the Senate conferees wouldn't give. Therefore, rather than see the emergency supplemental appropriations bill die in conference, I suggested we have a recess and try to work out an agreement whereby we could find a way to let that emergency supplemental appropriations bill fly with its wings out of the conference, go to the President's desk. In that bill, there were appropriations for the military in Kosovo, there was a pay increase for the military, and there were various and sundry disaster relief provisions which were intended to help people in South and Central America and in the United States, as well--American farmers and so on. It was certainly not my desire to kill that bill; it was not my desire to delay. I said: Let's have a recess, Mr. Chairmen--addressing my remarks to the two chairmen--let's have a recess and see if we can't work things out. We had a recess and met down below, on the next floor of this Chamber, where we stand now. I met in the Appropriations Committee room with the House chairman, Mr. Young, the Senate chairman, Mr. Stevens, being present, along with the House minority, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, being present, and with the Senate minority or ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, myself, being present, together with a couple of other House Members representing the majority and the minority and a couple of other Senate Members representing the majority. It was there that we agreed to take our hands off the emergency supplemental appropriations bill and let it go to the President and be signed. We wanted a commitment that these two provisions which had worked their way through the legislative process, coming before the Senate, going to conference, be given a chance to pass and become law aside from the emergency appropriations supplemental. I talked with our majority leader, Mr. Lott, and our minority leader, Mr. Daschle. They both agreed that it was very important to let the emergency supplemental appropriations bill be on its way and that they would help me and Mr. Domenici soon get a freestanding appropriations bill up before the Senate which would have in it the steel loan guarantee provision and the oil and gas loan guarantee provision. With that assurance from the two leaders here, I proceeded to ask Mr. Young, the chairman of the House conferees, if he and Mr. Obey and Mr. Callahan, a Republican member of the House conference, could proceed to talk with the Speaker of the House and get a commitment out of the Speaker that would let us deal with a freestanding appropriations bill that would give these two provisions I referred to a chance for consideration in both Houses, and hopefully for passage in both Houses. The Speaker committed himself to calling up the bill within 1 week if it came over from the Senate; committed himself, secondly, to appointing conferees in the normal fashion so that there would not be stacked conferees; committed himself, thirdly, to having a vote on a conference report on the measure promptly. With those commitments, we let the emergency supplemental appropriations bill fly on its way to the White House and the Oval Office where it was signed into law. Now came the time for the leadership and the Senate to keep its commitment. It did. That is what I was referring to when I thanked the majority leader a few minutes ago for having kept his word. He and Mr. Daschle kept their word. Of course, as we all know, the main responsibility and power rests with the majority leader in the Senate in things of this kind. Mr. Lott arranged for us to call up this bill, have this bill before the Senate now. Cloture was invoked on it last Friday by an overwhelming majority, 71-28, on the motion to proceed. The motion to proceed was then adopted by voice vote. So the bill is before the Senate this afternoon. I see my good colleague, Mr. Domenici, is on the floor, ready to proceed. Let me just add one or two things. Having made the explanation here as to where we are, how we came to be here, let me say that because of the circumstances which have been obtained from the beginning and which I have outlined and which resulted in the two provisions in this bill having already been before the Senate, having passed the Senate, without amendment in the Senate, I would hope there would be no amendments to this bill by the Senate today. The Senate has already had its chance to make a run at these two provisions. Senators have already had their chances to offer amendments to these two provisions when they were before the Senate in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Now the majority leader has carried out his commitment of helping to get the bill up. The minority leader has carried out his commitment. I hope we will have the support of the two leaders, but they have carried out the spirit of their original commitment. Now the commitment by the Speaker remains. But he didn't make a commitment to this bill if it is loaded down with a lot of amendments when it goes back over there. He did not make any commitment on that score. Whatever we put into this bill, whether it be nongermane or germane, he made no commitment on that kind of thing. He made a commitment with respect to these two provisions, the steel loan guarantee and the oil and gas loan guarantee. I want the Speaker to keep his commitment, but I want him to be able to keep his commitment. I don't want us to load this bill down with nongermane amendments and send them back over there. We can't expect the Speaker to keep his commitment on that kind of thing, because he didn't make any such commitment. He only made a commitment with respect to these two provisions. That is not saying that the two provisions cannot be improved. Perhaps they can be. And I may support an improvement. I think, if they were improved upon, the Speaker would, I have a feeling--I haven't talked with him--would still feel that came within his commitment. But we can't bring in an amendment by every Tom, Dick, and Harry and add it and let it run the gamut of whatever the subject matter may be, nongermane, and expect the Speaker to take this bill up within 3 days, or whatever it was, promptly after it goes over there. So help us to help the Speaker to keep his commitment. I urge all Senators to be conscious of the facts as I have attempted to state them and see that we have an obligation. I think the Senate has an obligation, having passed these two provisions once, and in the face of losing my grip on the emergency supplemental appropriation bill. I had that bill in these two fists, and so did Mr. Domenici. We didn't want to kill that bill. But we let that bill go, as we should have done. After all, we are all interested, first of all, in our country, and we want to see legislation passed that is in the best interests of our country. Senator Domenici and Senator Stevens and I, and other Senators on the conference, came to that conclusion. We did the right thing. Now I think Senators have some obligation. I understand their rights. Senators have a right to offer any amendments they want. There is no rule of germaneness in the Senate with respect to circumstances as they prevail at this moment. But it seems to me there is an unwritten obligation on the part of Senators to play fair, and to play fair here is to let our provisions be debated, and if they can be improved upon, fine. But let's not muddy the waters by offering amendments that are not germane, because when we do that, as I say, we can't expect the Speaker just to take anything we send over there and let his commitment earlier govern his actions. I think that is about all I have to say at the moment. I will have more to say on the steel loan guarantee provision later. Mr. Domenici, as I have already indicated, can far better explain the somewhat similar loan guarantee on the oil and gas provision. I do have a luncheon I am supposed to attend. I am supposed to speak there now. I have discussed this with my friend. Senator Domenici has indicated that, if he can, he would watch the floor and help me to be away a little while. He has to be away some, too, as does Mr. Stevens. Having said that, I thank all Senators for listening. I thank my friend from New Mexico, who is a valiant comrade and colleague and formidable opponent and a very worthwhile and desirable supporter. I prefer to be on his side rather than not. I thank him for all of the courtesies and considerations that he has given to me in this bill, as well as in thousands of other instances in which we have worked together.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this measure is not at the moment covered by any time agreement, is it?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his insistence upon order. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this bill and to vote for the bill. I am going to direct my remarks to that portion of the bill, insofar as I can in this brief period, that deals with the steel loan guarantee. Mr. Domenici and others will speak about the similar oil and gas loan guarantee. There is a real need for this legislation, for this assistance to American firms and to American workers, and that need is now. A crisis does exist in our own steel industry. The illegal dumping of below-cost steel into our country is real. Our domestic steel industry has been seeking remedy through antidumping and countervailing trade cases. The Commerce Department tells us these cases are being considered, but it takes time. Opponents of this loan guarantee program would have us believe this is an excessively costly solution to a nonexistent problem. It is neither. The loan guarantee program outlined in this bill would provide qualified steel producers access to loans through the private market that are guaranteed by the Federal Government in the same way the Federal Government now guarantees loans made to homebuilders, farmers, even foreign nations such as Mexico, Israel, and Russia. It sets no precedent. Similar programs have been successfully implemented for New York City, Lockheed, and Chrysler. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget have calculated the budget authority estimates of this program at $140 million, reflective of the fairly low risk of default and the value of the potential collateral to be offered. This cost is fully offset. I want to stress that. This cost is fully offset. The total amount of all guarantees will not exceed $1 billion. All loans must be repaid within 6 years with interest. The program also contains a funding mechanism for the borrowers to pay for the cost of administering the program. Importantly, this loan guarantee program is GATT legal. We are still playing fair. We are not subsidizing our steel industry. I respect those who will oppose this measure. But let me ask this question: Are we going to ship another U.S. industry overseas? We have already shipped the shoe industry, the leather industry, the pottery industry, the textile industry and other industries. Are we going to ship another U.S. industry overseas, the steel industry this time? Are we going to allow foreign entities to make ghost towns of our steel- dependent communities? These are loan guarantees, similar to the guarantees we have provided for all manner of national endeavors in the past whenever it was in our national interests to do so. We have provided such guarantees to foreign nations as well whenever we deemed it to be necessary and beneficial to our international interests. I am not against doing that, if it is in our national interests. This bill is a short-term helping hand to a vital American industry which is being severely damaged by illegal--illegal--foreign dumping. Can we not act here to stand up for American businesses and for American workers? This is a pro-American- business vote as well as a pro-American-jobs vote. We have already lost 10,000 jobs in the U.S. steel industry since last November. How many more must we lose before we act? When we continue to lose these industries and these jobs, are you going to explain it on the basis that you voted against cloture? Good luck!

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in little more that six months time, each and every American is going to be impacted by one of the simplest, yet most complex technological problems we have ever faced. The so-called Y2K computer problem--simple to understand, but enormously complex in terms of its solution--has the potential to adversely affect every facet of our lives. Yet, while no one can say with absolute certainty what consequences will flow from the new year, there is one thing our litigious nation can be sure of: Come January 1st, many Americans will seek redress in our nation's courtrooms. At the very time when businesses will need to focus their attention on mending computer problems and helping others deal with service disruptions, too many companies will, unfortunately, find themselves distracted from that important task by the threat of legal action. Equally troubling is the possibility of hundreds of thousands of law suits being brought in a matter of weeks or months; a situation which could simply overwhelm our judicial system. Consequently, I am concerned that, unless we act now, our legal system may not be able to adequately address the ramifications of the new year in an efficient, fair, and effective manner. But beyond the courthouse doors, I am also deeply concerned about the potential long- term effect on our nation's computer industry. Mr. President, a generation ago, the United States was the world's preeminent producer of manufactured goods. At one time, we were unrivaled in our construction of automobiles, aircraft, consumer electronics, communications equipment including satellite technology, and steel, to name but a few. For various reasons, though, we have lost our dominant position in each of these important areas. No longer do foreign companies immediately look to the U.S. when seeking to purchase an airplane or a role of steel. And no longer do consumers around the world automatically purchase an American-made television, an American- made radio or an American-made camera. Those days are gone. Yet, despite that circumstance, unsettling as it may be, the fact remains that the United States is predominate in the world of computers and computer technology. Companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq, are household names around the world, and for good reason. They, among many others, are American success stories that have produced enormous benefits to our nation's economy and provided our workers with good, high-paying jobs. Like many of my colleagues, I am troubled by the fact that some small businesses may suffer as a result of a Y2K failure. But it also troubles me to think that we may be on the verge of litigating our computer industry into submission. Where are we if, in our zeal to place blame, we cripple these corporate entities, some of which may be big and rich, but most of which are small? And how do we preserve what may be our last industrial stronghold if we are willing to treat the overwhelming majority of these companies, which have worked diligently and in good faith, the same way we treat those few unscrupulous firms that do not wish to accept their responsibilities? I believe that the protections afforded small business in the bill, while not as I would have written them, are adequate. We must acknowledge that what is at stake here is of enormous long- term importance to the economic well-being of every American. Each of us has a duty to ensure that our technological and industrial base flourishes, not just in the coming months, but for decades. In weighing those factors, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will come to the same conclusion as I and support this legislation for the good of our economy, our workers, and our nation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last afternoon, Senator Stevens cast his 12,000th rollcall vote. Many of my colleagues joined in commending Senator Stevens on this very worthwhile and considerable accomplishment. I was not on the floor at that time. Today, I join in commending Senator Stevens on having cast his 12,000th vote. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate on December 24, 1968, Senator Stevens has worked tirelessly on matters relating to defense and national security. Having served in World War II, as a pilot in the China-Burma-India theater, Senator Stevens was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross twice, two air medals, and the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China. He joined the Appropriations Committee on February 23, 1972, and 3 years later he began service on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, where he has served continuously since that time, and served with great distinction. Since he became chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 1981, Senator Stevens has served either as chairman or ranking member of that vitally important subcommittee. As of January 1997, Senator Stevens assumed additional responsibilities that come with being named chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I have worked by his side on many, many occasions on subcommittees, particularly on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I have served with him on matters that have come before the Committee on Appropriations, where I now serve as his ranking member. In addition, for many years, I have been privileged to have the honor of serving with Senator Stevens on the Arms Control Observer Group, as well as on the British-American Parliamentary Group. Senator Stevens works indefatigably to ensure that his State of Alaska receives appropriate consideration in all matters that come before the Senate. He does that work and does it well. The people of Alaska can be preeminently proud of the service that their Senator, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, performs. He works for Alaska every day, and he works for the Nation every day. Not only do I consider him one of the most distinguished and one of the most capable Senators with whom I have served in more than 41 years now, I also count him as a dear and trusted friend. I was in the Middle East when Ted Stevens was in the airplane crash in which he lost his wife, and I called him from the plane in which I was flying in the Middle East on that occasion. He was in the hospital. I talked with him and, of course, I was glad that he had survived the tragic accident. Ted Stevens is a friend who can be always trusted. A handshake with Ted Stevens is his bond, and his word is his bond. I have always found him to be very trustworthy. I have always found him to be very fair, very considerate. He is a gentleman. I think all of my colleagues on my side on the Appropriations Committee treasure their friendship with Ted Stevens. So I congratulate him on his new milestone and what has been and continues to be a most remarkable career in public service. There are many things about Ted Stevens that we can admire. I admire his spunk. I was saying to someone on my staff today that he would be one whale of a baseball team manager. He would take on all of the umpires if he thought they didn't call the plays right. He sticks up for what he believes. He has the courage of his convictions, and I certainly would not want to be a player on his team in the locker room if I lost a ball game through some error on my part. He is a hard driver. He works hard every day. He represents his people in the Senate, and he reverences the Senate and, perhaps best of all, he is, as I have already said, a gentleman. He thinks, as I do, that there are some things more important than political party. The U.S. Senate happens to be one of them, as far as I am concerned, and, I believe, as far as he is concerned. Let me now say that I am extremely proud of Ted Stevens. He is a wonderful family man. He loves his family; he loves his daughter, Lily, and his other children. Let me close by what I think is an appropriate bit of verse written by William Wordsworth. The title of it is, ``Character of the Happy Warrior.'' I will not read the entire poem, but extracts from it I think will be useful in this regard: Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he That every man in arms should wish to be? * * * * * 'Tis he whose law is reason; who depends Upon that law as on the best of friends; Whence, in a state where men are tempted still To evil for a guard against worse ill, And what in quality or act is best Doth seldom on a right foundation rest, He labors good on good to fix, and owes To virtue every triumph that he knows: --Who, if he rise to station of command, Rises by open means; and there will stand On honorable terms, or else retire, And in himself possess his own desire; Who comprehends his trust, and to the same Keeps faithful with a singleness of aim; And therefore does not stoop, nor lie in wait For wealth, or honors, or for worldly state; * * * * * And, through the heat of conflict, keeps the law In calmness made, and sees what he foresaw; Or if an unexpected call succeed, Come when it will, is equal to the need: * * * * * `Tis, finally, the Man, who, lifted high, Conspicuous object in a Nation's eye, Or left unthought-of in obscurity-- Who, with a toward or untoward lot, Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not-- Plays, in the many games of life, that one Where what be most doth value must be won: Whom neither shape of danger can dismay, Nor thought of tender happiness betray; Who, not content that former worth stand fast, Looks forward, preserving to the last, From well to better, daily self-surpassed: Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth Forever, and to noble deeds give birth, Or he must fall, to sleep without his fame, And leave a dead unprofitable name-- Finds comfort in himself and in his cause; And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause: This is the happy Warrior; this is He That every Man in arms should wish to be. That, Mr. President, in my judgment, is Ted Stevens, ``The Happy Warrior.''

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for his very gracious remarks.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman. If he would yield for a final question, am I correct in my understanding that it is the Committee's further intent that all JCALS defense information infrastructure funds provided in the Army Operations & Maintenance account, approximately $20 million, are to be allocated to the JCALS southeast regional technical center currently located in Fairmont, West Virginia? I am advised that to the maximum extent practicable, the contractor plans to use these funds in Hinton, West Virginia, to further develop JCALS capabilities to support weapons systems.

Mr. BYRD. Will my friend, the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who also ably serves as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, the Senator from Alaska, yield for a colloquy?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for his clarification and assistance with this most important issue. improved materials powertrain architectures for 21st century trucks

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the able managers of this bill, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, for producing a balanced and comprehensive bill that addresses some of the most pressing needs of the U.S. military. Together with the emergency supplemental spending bill that Congress sent to the President last month, and the Defense authorization bill that the Senate passed prior to Memorial Day, this Defense appropriations bill marks a major commitment to our men and women in uniform by funding a wide array of vital defense programs. In acting quickly and decisively on these three bills, the Senate has sent a strong message of support to the military, particularly to those forces currently engaged in the air war over Yugoslavia. That support is richly deserved. Once again, America's military forces have demonstrated their superior skills and leadership in the Balkan conflict. We are indebted to them for their service and dedication to their country. This appropriations bill represents a strong effort on the part of the managers to balance the very real needs of the Defense Department against the pressing needs of other domestic programs in the budget. This is a tough year for the appropriators. We are working under very tight budget caps to meet a whole host of escalating infrastructure needs--both physical and human--in this nation. Senator Stevens was able to trim slightly more than $3 billion from defense spending to allocate to other programs without damaging the integrity of this bill. Even so, it will be difficult to pass all 13 appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2000 within the constraints of the current budget caps. I do not know what the resolution to this problem will be, but I commend Senator Stevens for the steps he has taken so far, and I look forward to working with him on the remaining appropriations bills.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe the Joint Computer-Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support, JCALS, program is one of the most successful joint defense programs in the information technology area. It was begun in 1991 to automate the acquisition and logistics processes that support the Defense Department's weapon systems-- to provide a paperless acquisition and procurement process across all major defense agencies and commands. For example, at the Defense Logistics Agency, the Electronic Folderization Contract used to require 126 tons of paper and 100 days for an acquisition cycle. As a direct result of JCALS, the process is now paperless and the acquisition cycle takes just 15 days. The DOD estimates that JCALS will save $2.3 billion through 2014 just by digitizing documents that now are prepared in paper form. Is my understanding correct that the FY 2000 Defense Appropriations bill now before the Senate contains the President's budget request of $154.1 million for JCALS, with $121.8 million in the Army Operations and Maintenance account and $32.3 million in the Army Other Procurement account?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman for his assurances. If I may inquire further, is it also my understanding that it is the committee's intent that all of these JCALS funds, including those in the Operations and Maintenance account allocated for defense information infrastructure (DII) purposes, are to be spent exclusively on activities directly related to JCALS?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. The Department of Defense operates over two million separate computers and 25,000 distinct computer systems to conduct its mission. These computer systems are integral parts of a wide variety of Department of Defense (DOD) programs. Many of these programs are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions; but other vital activities also affected include command and control, satellites, inventory and transportation management, medical equipment, payment of checks, and personnel records. The Department is now becoming aware that attacks on these systems may be capable of significantly affecting our military power, just as surely as a direct physical assault. Experience with ``hackers'' and DOD exercises indicate that defense systems, often globally-linked and readily-accessed, are vulnerable to unauthorized penetration of their information networks. Newspapers have been filled with reports in recent days about ``hackers'' attacking the web sites of the FBI, the White House, the Department of Interior, and even the Senate. For example, I am told that by using unsophisticated ``hacker tools,'' intruders are able to crack systems passwords, establish super-user status (network control), search for and turn on microphones or cameras on personal computers connected to the installation campus area network. Hackers may then capture intra-office conversations and live video and download it to their computers. A simple test of the microphone sensitivity revealed low-level conversations were easily heard from roughly thirty feet away. This is particulary critical in areas where classified and sensitive information is stored and discussed. The compelling need for controlling access to our Nation's vital information networks through computers becomes immediately evident when one considers just one battlefield scenario--the possibility that one of our important command and control outposts on the ground is overrun by hostile forces. Just imagine what leverage that would provide to a computer-sophisticated enemy. And, I am told that the Department has learned from its experience in Kosovo that this kind of a threat is not limited to major world powers. At the present time, the basic process the Department relies upon to protect its computer systems are some kind of card and/or passwords including random characters. Users often are required to have several such cards or passwords in connection with their work. This approach to information security has some serious drawbacks for the long run. Passwords can be forgotten, shared, or observed, and cards can be lost, stolen, or duplicated. Moreover, as the need for even more security grows with advancing technology, the situation will become more cumbersome and less effective. On the other hand, more sophisticated means are expected to become available to make unwanted intrusions, necessitating even more complex password and card systems. There is an emerging technology available to the Department that promises to provide a more effective information security system, and that is biometrics. Almost everyone is familiar with fingerprints. Fingerprints are a biometric signature. Others are voice, face recognition, the iris of the eye, and keystroke dynamics or typing patterns; and I understand there are others as well. With this approach, access to a particular computer or network of computers is controlled by comparing one or several biometric signatures of the person asking to use the machine, with a template on file in a central location that contains the biometric identification of the authorized user of that computer. There is no card. There is no password. The test is whether the potential user is who he or she claims to be. The system authenticates a claimed identity from previously enrolled patterns or distinguishable traits. I understand that in the commercial world there are some examples of biometric identification already in use. Some ATM machines, for instance, now rely on iris signatures to permit access rather than the familiar card we all carry. The Army has a particular interest in developing an effective control over the access to its information systems through computers, because of the far flung nature of its forces, and because its battle systems are becoming increasingly dependent on information networks. This bill already includes $5.0 million in the Other Procurement, Army, appropriation for an initial biometrics computer information assurance system prototype project. I understand that the Army has exhibited strong leadership in the exploration and development of technologies in the biometrics arena, and is a natural leading candidate to be considered as the executive agent in this work for the Department of Defense and perhaps the federal government. The amendment I am offering is intended to respond to the immediacy of the critical information assurance requirement of the Army, and to build on the Army's leadership role in biometrics technology. The amendment also builds on the biometrics prototype project to explore a more focused and synergistic effort to develop information assurance technology. Finally, it also builds on and anticipates a working relationship with the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI, which houses and operates the world's finest single biometric data base-- fingerprints. Specifically, my amendment provides an additional $10.0 million for an immediate assessment of biometrics sensors and templates repository requirements, and for combining and consolidating biometrics security technology and other information assurance technologies to accomplish a more focused and effective information assurance effort.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the United States is engaged in a dangerous air war against Yugoslavia. More than 30,000 members of the U.S. military have been deployed to the Balkans to prosecute this campaign. While we read the latest news from the front every morning in the comfort of our homes and offices, American men and women in uniform are living the harrowing details day in and day out. It is fitting that the Senate, in the midst of this conflict, enact without delay the National Defense Authorization Bill. This bill-- which includes a significant pay raise for the military as well as a healthy increase in funding intended to improve military readiness-- sends a strong signal of support to the men and women of the United States military, and to their families. I commend Senator Warner, the new and capable Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Levin, the able ranking minority member, for their leadership in producing an excellent bill. This legislation bears testament to the skills and willingness of both of these distinguished Senators to craft meaningful policy decisions in the context of bipartisan consensus. Earlier this week, the Senate Appropriations Committee, of which I am the ranking member, approved a Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2000 that goes hand-in-glove with this measure. Last week, Congress sent to the President an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund the Kosovo operation. Together, these bills take great strides toward giving our military forces the tools that they need and the support that they deserve to protect the national security of the United States and to execute the military's many critical missions both at home and overseas. While the air war over Yugoslavia is on the front pages of the newspapers every day, we must never forget that behind the headlines, scores of other U.S. forces are engaged in difficult, and often dangerous, missions around the globe. From the peacekeeping patrols in Bosnia to the dangerous skies over Iraq to the tense border between North and South Korea, U.S. military personnel face the potential peril of combat every day. Resources have been stretched thin while operating tempos are constantly being accelerated. These are difficult times for the military, and I salute the dedication of the men and women who serve their nation so diligently. These are the individuals who stake their very lives on the policies and programs that we debate here in the Senate. These are the individuals to whom we must dedicate our best legislative efforts. Mr. President, this bill delivers the goods. It includes a 4.8 percent pay raise for the military, and it restores full retirement benefits to service members. It adds more than $1.2 billion to the nuts-and-bolts readiness accounts--base operations, infrastructure repairs, training, and ammunition--that are so vitally needed to improve the long term readiness of the armed forces. It funds the purchase of essential equipment and weapons systems. And, through the efforts of the newly established and forward looking Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, on which I am pleased to serve, it invests in programs to combat the ever increasing threat to the United States of terrorist attack, information warfare, and chemical and biological weapons. Mr. President, we cannot put a price on the sacrifices and contributions of our military, but we can make sure that the best fighting forces in the world have the necessary tools of their trade. That is the purpose of this bill. We are sending a message to the troops that we have heard their concerns and we have responded to them. I urge the Senate to move quickly to pass this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the debate on this amendment, and I appreciate the wrenching emotion that has motivated those on both sides of this issue. The NATO operation in Kosovo is a difficult issue for many of us to come to terms with. Our hearts ache for the suffering of the Kosovar Albanians who have been banished from their homeland by the forces of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. At the same time, we fear for the safety of U.S. and NATO military forces who are engaged in a perilous mission in a corner of the world that has been torn by ethnic conflict for centuries. We cannot foresee the outcome of this operation. We have a duty to watch it carefully, to debate it fully on the floor of this Senate. But in our concern to do what is right, we should not act in so much haste that we run the risk of making a fatal mistake. There may come a day when I will stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate with the Senator from New Hampshire and call for a cutoff to the funding of U.S. operations in Kosovo. But that day is not today. That time is not now. A decision of that magnitude must not be taken on the run, after a hastily called 60-minute debate among a handful of Senators. Mr. President, this amendment sends the wrong message at the wrong time. By all means, let us debate the U.S. involvement in Kosovo. But let us do it with deliberation and forethought. I urge the Senate to table this amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I further ask unanimous consent that the explanatory statement of the committee be printed at the appropriate place in the Congressional Record.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the Committee on Appropriations met and reported, en bloc, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill, the Fiscal Year 2000 302(b) allocations for the committee, and H.R. 1664, by a recorded vote of 24- 3. At that full committee markup, the committee also adopted an explanatory statement of the committee's recommendations in relation to H.R. 1664. That explanatory statement, which was adopted in lieu of a committee report, was filed with the Senate by Mr. Stevens (for himself and Mr. Byrd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bayh, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Hatch). Subsequent to that markup, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Breaux.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I again thank the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and I likewise express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for his leadership overall on this bill. He is very dedicated, very able, and he works very hard. I am proud to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee. But in this case, I regret that I have to oppose his position. Mr. President, I yield the floor.