Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding Air Force officer, General Charles T. ``Tony'' Robertson, Jr., upon his retirement from the Air Force after more than 33 years of commissioned service. Over the years, many Members and staff have enjoyed the opportunity to meet with General Robertson on a variety of joint military issues and have come to appreciate his many talents. Indeed, throughout his career, General Robertson has served with distinction, and it is my privilege today to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided the Air Force and our Nation. General Robertson entered the Air Force in 1968 as a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. After successfully completing pilot training, he served his Nation by flying 150 combat missions as a gunship pilot in Southeast Asia while stationed with the 18th Special Operations Squadron in South Vietnam. Lieutenant Robertson was then assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, where he became a B-52 co-pilot, aircraft commander, instructor pilot, and flight examiner with the 17th Bombardment Wing. Moving on to Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, he first became Assistant to the Chief of Staff, then Aide and Executive Officer to the Vice Commander in Chief, Headquarters, Strategic Air Command. His next assignment was to Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York, as an FB-111 Aircraft Commander, Flight Commander, and Assistant Operations Officer. As a lieutenant colonel, he served as a Plans and Programming Officer in the Air Force Programs and Evaluation Directorate at the Pentagon before returning to Plattsburgh Air Force Base, in 1982, as Commander, 529th Bomb Squadron, and then as Assistant Deputy Commander for Maintenance, 380th Bombardment Wing. After completing studies at the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington D.C., he was promoted to colonel in 1985. During that same year, Colonel Robertson returned to the Pentagon to serve as Executive Officer to the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. He went on to become Commander of the 2nd Bombardment Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, in 1987, then Commander of the 384th Bombardment Wing at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, in 1989. As Commander of the 384th, Colonel Robertson was honored as the Strategic Air Command Outstanding Wing Commander of the Year for 1989. Following his tour at McConnell, he returned to Offutt Air Force Base where he served as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Resources, Headquarters Strategic Air Command, and was promoted to Brigadier General in 1991. As a general officer, General Robertson excelled in a number of key assignments, including Director of Personnel Plans, Headquarters U.S. Air Force and then Vice Director of the Joint Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon; Vice Commander, Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois; Commander, 15th Air Force at Travis Air Force Base, California; and culminating with his current assignment as Commander in Chief, United States Transportation Command, USTRANS- COM, and Commander, Air Mobility Command, AMC. Over his career, General Robertson demonstrated his skill as an aviator by safely accumulating over 4,700 hours of flight time in the AC-119K, B-1B, B-2, B-52, C-5, C-9, C-17, C-20B, C-21, C-37, C-130, C- 141, EC-135, FB-111A, KC-10, KC-135, T-1, T-6, T-37, T-38, and T-39 aircraft. As Commander in Chief, USTRANS- COM, General Robertson's leadership has been indispensable to the readiness of the Defense Transportation System to accomplish its mission, getting troops to the fight, sustaining the fight, and then bringing the troops back home when the fight is over. As a tireless ``Total Force'' advocate, his commitment to fully integrating guard and reserve forces into all aspects of the Command has reaped great dividends and great praise. Recognizing the essential role of our commercial transportation industry in supporting the USTRANSCOM mission, General Robertson lifted this partnership to unprecedented levels through such critical programs as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, the Maritime Security Program, and the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement. Following the terrorist bombing of Khobar Towers, and then again after the attack on the USS COLE, the global force protection programs he developed for his always ``in-transit'' forces were held as the model for others to emulate. His factual and pointed testimonies before the Senate Armed Services Committee illustrated the professionalism and expertise which has enabled him to foster exceptional rapport with all members of the Senate and was a clear indication of his ability to work with the Congress in addressing the priorities of his Command. Finally, as evidence of his clear vision for the future, he diligently labored to ensure programs such as follow-on C-17 procurement, C-5 modernization, and airlift defensive systems were in-place to ensure the transformation of the mobility fleet to meet the challenges of tomorrow. An exemplary officer of unmatched skill and talent, General Robertson personifies the Air Force core values of integrity, selfless service, and excellence in all things. I offer my congratulations to him, his wife, Brenda, and sons, Sean and Jason. The Congress and the country applaud the selfless commitment his entire family has made to the Nation in supporting his military career. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation to General Robertson. He is a credit to both the Air Force and the United States and I congratulate him on the completion of an outstanding and successful career. May God continue to bless Tony, his family and the United States of America.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I had thought there would be five judges in this group. These are, I believe, four district judges. There was a hearing and I thought there was a plan to report out a circuit judge, but I notice she is not on this list. I inquire about the nominee--I believe a woman for whom a hearing had been held, for the fifth circuit. What happened on that nomination?

Mr. LOTT. I withdraw my objection, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I know the Senator from New Hampshire has been working a long time on this issue. In fact, when he sponsored this legislation back in 1995, I was a cosponsor of his bill. He has been a leader on this issue, he passed his legislation, and the Court was created.

Mr. LOTT. I understand, and I agree that the law needs to be strengthened.

Mr. LOTT. It is my opinion, that if we can deport known terrorist, we should do it. We cannot let the Justice Department be barred because the evidence was too sensitive to use in Court.

Mr. LOTT. That is my understanding, and it is a serious problem. I am in complete agreement with the Senator.

Mr. LOTT. Let me say to the Senator that he can count me as a cosponsor of this amendment. It is an excellent amendment, it is needed, and I commit to the Senator that I will do my best to see that it is added in conference. I would further say to the Senator that I have also talked about this issue with the Attorney General, and he indicated to me that the Administration supports your amendment and that he will also work to support it in conference when we get to that point. So, I appreciate his withholding at this time so we can get this bill to conference where we can work to get the Smith amendment added to greatly improve this bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with regard to the schedule, I support what Senator Daschle is trying to do. I think we have done the right thing by moving the aviation security bill. We will have an opportunity to work on it further in conference, for those who do have concerns, but we have to say to the American people--in fact, we have to be assured we can tell the American people we have addressed this aviation security question as soon as possible. Next week hopefully we will be able to get into conference and produce a bill. It is very important that as soon as possible we move this counterterrorism legislation. Good work has been done in the Senate. We have pointed the way in this effort, and so I hope our colleagues will work to complete the bill as soon as possible. I hope all of the general debate time will not necessarily be used, although it is up to 4 hours. We also have as many as four amendments in order under the agreement that was reached. I hope we can get through that at a reasonable hour and complete the work tonight, but if it becomes evident it is going to take 4 or 5 hours to do this, then we will have to have the votes in the morning. Even then, I presume the votes would begin at a relatively early hour, 9 or 9:30 a.m. Certainly Senator Daschle will announce that. Whether there are two or three votes, whatever it would be, we will be completed after that. Having said that, at the end of this week, if we complete action on these two bills, I think we will have done a great deal to move toward restoring the confidence of the American people. I am proud of the progress I am seeing made. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. If I might say briefly--I don't want to drag this out-- obviously we need to be able to move our appropriations bills. I must say, of course, how quickly we do that depends on several things: One, how many controversial issues are in these bills when they come out of the committee. I don't know what happened, for instance, on the D.C. appropriations bill, but it had difficult and time-consuming issues in it. There may not be now. The other thing is several of the bills, including Labor-HHS, often take a week or two; Defense quite often takes 3 or 4 days. Part of it depends on the willingness of Senators to withhold controversial amendments to move the process along. We have been doing that magnificently over the past month. Hopefully, we can do that even with appropriations bills--even though these are big bills, important bills, and Senators may want to be heard and offer amendments. We also have to continue to work together on other issues that become problematic, such as getting judicial confirmations moving because there is a need for that, too. Senator Daschle and I are working on this on all fronts. I talked to Senator Stevens about it. I want to get the appropriations bills completed. It will take a lot of cooperation. We are prepared to give it that cooperation and time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and wish a fond farewell to a longtime staff member, Stanley Blake Harris, who is departing my personal office staff and returning to the State of Mississippi after more than fifteen years of exemplary service here in Washington. Throughout his career, Stan has served with distinction. It is my privilege to recognize his accomplishments and commend him for the superb service he has provided to me and to our home state. A native of Hattiesburg, MS, Stan graduated from William Carey College in 1982, ranked first academically in his class. During his tenure at William Carey, Stan earned the degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science summa cum laude, with a triple major in English, History, and Social Science as well as a double minor in Business Administration and Political Science. In addition, Stan's classmates bestowed upon him the honor and privilege of serving as Student Government Association President while at William Carey. Upon his graduation, Stan enrolled in the University of Mississippi School of Law, from which he received a Juris Doctorate in 1985. His endeavors and accomplishments on behalf of the law school and his classmates were recognized as he was awarded the Dean's Outstanding Service Award, the Edward R. Finch Award, and the Stephen Gorove Award. Immediately following his graduation from law school, Stan continued his educational pursuits at Mississippi State University, where he enrolled in the Public Policy and Administration Program. However, before he could complete the program, duty in Washington called. At the beginning of 1986, Stan came to work for me in Washington as a Whip Assistant in the House of Representatives Republican Whip Office. From there, Stan went on to serve as Counsel in my personal office while I was a member of the House of Representatives. Upon my election to the United States Senate in 1989, Stan was named Counsel and Director of Projects in my office, and was charged with responsibility for establishing my Projects Department. In this role, Stan has directed efforts in my office to pursue public projects for the State of Mississippi. Along these lines, he has handled cases and projects involving virtually every Federal department and agency, including the Department of Agriculture, NASA, the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Appalachian Regional Commission and the White House. In addition, he has worked closely with officials in virtually every city, county, and state agency in Mississippi, while looking after Mississippi's needs. Further, Mississippi has benefited from the close working relationships Stan has developed with Congressional staff members in both the House and Senate. Although Stan has worked diligently for the nation throughout his tenure on Capitol Hill, he has always put Mississippi first. The thing I will always remember the most about Stan is his unflinching ability to ``out-bureaucrat the bureaucrats.'' His tenacity and refusal to yield on matters of importance to Mississippi have produced great results for our state. For instance, Stan has been instrumental in my efforts to secure a new Federal courthouse for Harrison County, Mississippi. He has worked tirelessly for me for the past decade to ensure that a new bridge over the Pascagoula River is built for the people of Jackson County. And just last year on my behalf, he opened doors in Washington for officials from his hometown of Hattiesburg, who are endeavoring to construct a new intermodal center for the City of Hattiesburg. He also has worked closely with Mississippi's universities to improve educational opportunities in our State and to make these facilities the finest in the Nation. But Stan's work on Capitol Hill has not been limited to Mississippi projects alone. Over the past fifteen years, he also has maintained a special focus on Federal ethics. During this time, Stan has served as my counsel through such prominent cases as the Durenberger and ``Keating Five'' hearings, as well as other notable ethics inquiries. In fact, because of his work, Stan was selected to serve on the Senate Ethics Reform Task Force. As an outgrowth of his Federal ethics work, Stan has also developed a special commitment to law enforcement organizations nationwide. Because of his work on behalf of law enforcement groups everywhere and our nation's parks, Stan has been named an honorary member of the U.S. Park Police. Several years ago, as if his plate wasn't already full enough, Stan fulfilled a lifelong dream of joining the Mississippi Army National Guard. For a number of years now, he has regularly communted between Washington, D.C. and Jackson, Mississippi to fulfill his duty requirements. During that time, he has risen to the rank of Major in the Judge Advocate General Corps where he now serves as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate for Headquarters, 66th Troop Command. On Wednesday, October 17, 2001, Stan will conclude over fifteen years of faithful and loyal service in my office. And while it is difficult to lose a staff member with such dedication and institutional knowledge, I know that he and his family are excited about returning home to Mississippi where Stan and his wife, Lauren, can begin raising their four children with an appropriate southern accent. In the weeks ahead, Stan will begin a new journey in his professional and legal career as the Chief Deputy Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Southern District office in Mississippi. I have no doubt that Stan will serve the Department of Justice, the State of Mississippi, and the people of our Nation, in this role with distinction and integrity. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want to wish Stan all of the best in his new career. Stan, may this new chapter in your life and career be rewarding, fulfilling, and bring you all that you hope for in your future endeavors. Thank you, again, for your service and my warmest congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Leahy for his work. We have clearly come up with a superior bill to the one being moved in the House, but the House is also moving forward. I know Senator Smith of New Hampshire has an amendment he wanted to offer, too. Every Senator has the right to object. We should not be critical of a Senator exercising that right. But I think there is urgency on this legislation. I hope, I say to Senator Leahy, we will continue to work to see if we can clear this bill and get it considered tomorrow. If we don't, there is a danger that the aviation security bill will tangle up the rest of the week and we might not be able to get to this bill until next week. I think the American people have appreciated the way we have worked together, shoulder to shoulder, regardless of party. We are all feeling a great need to pull together with patriotism while protecting fundamental rights. I hope we can continue to do that. We will be glad to work with Senators Leahy and Daschle to see that happens.

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT. I will not object, but I do wish to commend Senator Daschle for working to make it possible to move this antiterrorism bill forward. I also commend Senator Leahy. Two weeks ago, it looked as if it was hopelessly balled up and an agreement or compromise was not going to be worked out. There was a lot of give and take, and Senator Leahy hung in there. Even though some people were being critical of him, he did not let it deter him. He stuck with it and came up with a very strong bill, a delicately balanced bill. He worked with the administration. He worked with his colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I think compliments are due all around. Is it a perfect bill? No. I have people on our side of the aisle who believe it is still not nearly strong enough, and Senators who would like to have an opportunity to offer amendments that would make it even stronger from the standpoint of how we deal with the necessary information we need, wiretaps, and from a law enforcement standpoint, but this was a way for us to deal with this critical issue. I do not make a blanket indictment. I do worry about, Heaven forbid, something further happening that we could have avoided if we had had these tools at our disposal. We still have to get through the Senate, get through the House, get into conference, and get this bill done. We are talking about, if we get this done tomorrow or the next day, still probably a week. So I urge my colleagues on both sides, let us work together. An example has been set, and I am proud of what the Senate has done. I am proud of what the committee has done and is willing to do. I hope the rest of us will take advantage of the opportunity to follow that leadership. I wanted to get that on the record. I will not object, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I was hoping to have a brief opportunity to speak about the magnificent leadership of Senator Mike Mansfield, but I will be glad to withhold on that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, it is a great honor for me to join Senator Daschle in sponsoring a resolution memorializing our friend and the great Senator from Montana, our former majority leader in the Senate and Ambassador to Japan, Mike Mansfield. I didn't get to know Senator Mansfield as well as many Senators who actually served with him. I was in the House during many of the years he was serving as the majority leader through 1976. I remember watching and liking the fact he would go on some of the talk shows and be interviewed. They would ask this convoluted, complicated, long question; he would answer with a one-syllable word. I loved that. Quite often that is all that is necessary: Yes; no. It makes it very difficult to drag out a long program. As I watched him closer over the years, there was something about his demeanor that was very attractive. When I became majority leader, I read books on previous majority leaders. There had only been 15 before I had the opportunity to be majority leader. There were some in particular, and I went over the style of their leadership: Lyndon Johnson, Mike Mansfield, Howard Baker, and all of our majority leaders. I particularly was attracted to Senator Mansfield's style. It was one of letting the Senate work its will. It was not threatening. By the way, the style was so different from Lyndon Johnson's. Lyndon Johnson was very effective but worked Senators late hours and weekends. Behind Lyndon Johnson came Mike Mansfield who took a completely different tack. Yet he got as much done. If you look at the substance of what was produced during the leadership period of Lyndon Johnson compared to the critical period that Mike Mansfield served, he got as much done. While some will disagree that I did this, I decided in my own mind I would try to adopt more of the style of Mike Mansfield, and not necessarily keep the staff here when it was not necessary, and see if I couldn't get more done by not being in session late at night or threatening weekends. I think it had an effect. I found quite often if you don't try to punish Senators, you get more done than you do if you press them to the wall. He was a great leader from Montana. He served longer than any other majority leader in history. Of the now 17 majority leaders, only he served 15 years in that position. He also had the exact personality that we needed to have for Ambassador to Japan. In a way, he was maybe even Japanese in his demeanor: Soft spoken, courteous, honorable, man of high integrity, man of few words. When he spoke, it was worth listening. So we have lost a great leader in the Senate, a friend. He came back and spoke to our Leader's Lecture Series. I was totally enthralled with what he had to say. He gave us the speech he was going to give on the Friday that John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He had not given that speech. It was a speech defending his style of leadership. It was quite interesting to get the juxtaposition of what we go through today and what he was going through, the historical nature of that speech. In fact, he delivered it to the Senate some 35 years later. So we will miss Mike Mansfield. He stayed active until the very end. But somehow I felt when Mrs. Mansfield passed away not too long ago that he wouldn't be long because they were inseparable. He loved her so dearly. And, once again, I think they exhibited the type of couple we want in government but also in life. As a Republican, but more importantly as a Senator of America, I came to admire Mike Mansfield. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. He has been a legend. He has made this institution a better place for his service. We shall miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, first let me say to our colleagues, Senator Daschle and I have been talking about this issue, along with antiterrorism, off and on for the last week or 10 days. We are committed to dealing with those two important issues as soon as is humanly possible because we believe, I believe, strongly that aviation security needs to be addressed. The administration has a lot of things it can do and is doing. Secretary Mineta has outlined things he is proposing to do in terms of sky marshals and strengthening the cockpits and a number of areas where they can move forward without additional legislative authority. Some of the things that need to be done will require additional legislative action. This is one of the two highest priority matters we need to address that would be positive for the American public to feel more secure in flying, get flying back up to where it should be. Along with antiterrorism, which will allow us to have additional authority for our law enforcement people and intelligence to address this threat, it is the highest possible priority. I agree with Senator Daschle that we should find a way to consider aviation security, but there are two or three problems. I am going to be constrained to have to object because there are two or three objections on this side that come from a variety of standpoints at this time. There is some concern that it did not go through the Commerce Committee for the traditional markup so that other good ideas could be offered, but they could, of course, be offered when the bill is considered. And there are some concerns about the federalization of the screening, the bifurcated arrangement between urban hubs and nonurban hubs. Those that are nonurban hubs want to make sure they will not be given second-class service in that area. There is also a concern about what may be added to this bill from any number of very brilliant Senators, very good ideas that are not relevant at all to this issue. Some of them could relate to energy, about which I feel very strongly. Some of them could relate to Amtrak, about which I also feel very strongly. But this is about aviation security. We should have an understanding about how we deal with the displaced workers issue, how do we deal with the Amtrak security issue, and other issues. If we do that, this very important issue will begin to sink of its own weight. We have, over the past 3 weeks, done good work in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way. But we addressed the issues that needed to be addressed, maybe not perfectly but we took action. I believe the American people have appreciated that. We should continue to find a way to make that happen. We are not ready for consent right now, partially because Secretary Mineta will be here in 20 minutes to meet with Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, Senator Hutchison, Senator Rockefeller, and others, to talk about some specific recommendations the administration would like to make. I also understand that there will be a specific recommendation as to how to proceed on the dislocated workers or the employees issue that perhaps will be discussed with Senator Daschle and me and others within a short period of time. So I think all of these are very important. But for now, unless we could get an agreement that we would limit this to relevant amendments, which would knock out a number of these side issues that are floating around, then we would have to object at this time. I understand that Senator Daschle will then be inclined to file a motion to proceed, and that would require a vote on the motion to proceed--we will have to talk through exactly what is required--either on Friday or next Tuesday. In the interim, I hope we will work, as we have in the past, to find a way to get a focus and to get aviation security addressed. I know Senator Hollings wants to do that. He doesn't want nonrelevant amendments. He is willing to work with Senators on both sides to make that happen. I know Senator McCain is very intent on getting a focused aviation security bill. I believe we can make it happen, but we need a little bit more time to pursue understandings of how that would happen. Let me inquire of Senator Daschle. I presume at this time that the Senator would not be prepared to agree to limit this to only relevant amendments. Is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I might respond, and then I will yield because I know the chairman and ranking member want to comment, too, I think what Senator Daschle is saying is that he would not be able to agree to limit it only to relevant amendments now. But there is another option here, and that is for us as Senators to focus on aviation security and not put all of our very best ideas on this particular bill. If we could do that, we could complete this legislation tomorrow. We would have aviation security done tomorrow. Senator Hollings and Senator McCain would be happy. I would like to have a different approach to screening, but I am prepared to debate and vote on that. If it goes beyond that, the option for ideas--good ideas--and alternatives and unrelated and nonrelevant amendments, it could go on and on. I think maybe we can get this worked out this afternoon. If we do not, it guarantees that instead of being on the counterterrorism legislation on Tuesday, we will be on this, and counterterrorism will be shoved off another day or 2 or 3. That is not disastrous because we want to make sure we do them both right, but for the sake of getting this done, I plead to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's find a way to agree to do aviation security and to do these other issues that are also important. Regarding Amtrak, everybody in this Chamber probably knows--and Senator McCain knows it and doesn't like it--I have been a big supporter of Amtrak. I am interested in making sure that it is safe and secure and that we have a viable Amtrak system, but we should not do it on this bill. So I have to object at this time to the unanimous consent request. I understand Senator Daschle will be prepared to offer a motion to proceed and file cloture on that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know we are about to vote. I yield myself some leader time.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is no secret that I have always opposed the BRAC process. I think it is an abdication of the responsibility of the Congress. For years and years, the Pentagon made recommendations for Congress, and Congress considered them, acted on many of them, and bases were closed. Second, we know for certain that the BRAC process severely disrupts the local economies of communities in States across the Nation. We also know there is still a question about the BRAC savings from the past base closures. For instance, I know that in the military construction appropriations bill that will be coming up, perhaps later today or tomorrow, there is $150 million for cleanup as a result of previous base closures, most of it going, I guess, to California, some to Texas, and some I think maybe to New York. We are still in the process of trying to expend money so that the process can be completed. Also, I think the timing is bad. We are arguing about exactly what we should do now, but I saw an Air Force general talking the other day about how our fighters had been looking outward up until 2 weeks ago; now they have to look inward. The world did change. I think that at a time of our Reserves being called up, the National Guard being called up, communities being told to support the military, we are going to be together, we have been attacked, and we are going to respond appropriately, but we are going to say: By the way, we are going to look at closing your base. I don't think the timing is good. While I have never supported BRAC, it is not to say I won't someday. I realize we have excess capacity and duplication. I think we could do this. Maybe we could even look at it in a few weeks or months when we see exactly what the force structure is going to be, what this conflict is going to look like. After more consultation, in my opinion, we will know about how this would look. I was interested and appreciative of the language Senator Levin pointed out about the force structure. Obviously, before we go forward on this, we should match base infrastructure with force structure. We still have a lot of questions out there about this homeland defense. And Secretary Rumsfeld is still working on his strategic review and is currently executing the congressionally mandated quadrennial defense review. It is underway, but it is not completed. Also, my concern is that every base, every community, every State is going to be affected by this. They are going to be alarmed by this. They are going to hire consultants and all kinds of people to make sure their case is made appropriately. I think that is the wrong way to go. Where we have excess capacity, identify it and say we are going to look here. Where we know we may not have sufficient capacity now, why have a question about that particular base? I continue to wonder why we have not done more about overseas bases. We gave the Pentagon authority a few years ago to move in that area. Have they done it? No. Have they consolidated missions and looked at closing bases? No. Do we need bases in Europe? Yes. We need to have air and naval bases where we can project power from Europe. We have 523 activities in Europe, 116,000 troops. We have spent well over a half- billion dollars since 1997 on MILCON in Europe. So should we not take a look at that before, or at least at the same time we are looking at bases in our own country? Mr. President, I support the Bunning amendment. I think this is a classic case of getting the cart in front of the horse. I am committed and prepared to work with Senator Warner and Senator Levin and the Defense Department to see if there can be a way to do this. I don't think the way this is set up in the bill is appropriate. I think the timing could not be any worse. I urge a vote for the Bunning amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her remarks and for her leadership in this area. She paid attention to these issues when she was in the House and served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate and is very knowledgeable and makes such a good point. To go forward with this, with no plan, no certainty about where we are going in the future, would be a big mistake. I thank her for her efforts. Madam President, I rise in support of an amendment that strikes section 29 of the National Authorization Act of 2002. Section 29 provides authority to carry out a base closure round in 2003. As this body considers yet another round of base closure hearings, I think it is very important that we pause and reflect on where we have been, and examine where we are, and particularly today, where we are going with our future force structure considering we find ourselves in a new war against terrorism. I've said it many times before; we have been down this ``old BRAC Road'' before, actually four times. The pros and cons of the BRAC process should be well defined by now. I have always opposed the BRAC process because, first and foremost, it is an abdiction of responsibility by Congress. For years, Congress made base closure decisions based on recommendations from our military leaders. This supposedly independent BRAC commission was supposed to take politics out of the base closure process, but it has failed. There are always concerns about the fairness of how it is done. There are always implications or indications that some political considerations came into play, and always will be. Regrettably there have already been statements from Defense officials, which hint at bases that should be reduced or moved. In a USA Today article Ray DuBois, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, said the Pentagon wants to consolidate its bases by relocating some operations from congested areas to sparsely populated regions. He offered hints about moving training bases in the fast-growing Southeast to the Northern Plains State, whittling down some of the 150 military operations in the Norfolk, Virginia area, and moving activities out of Andrews Air Force Base. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said the Pentagon was considering a variety of options, including mothballing some bases, mothball part of a base and keep the rest open, or close only part of a base. Mothballing means that even the surrounding community will be prevented from using the abandoned facilities, devastating any hope of economic development in these local communities. We must realize that an attempt to close bases, through any means, is in some form political. The future of our bases, our base communities and our Nation's security should therefore be decided by the elected officials of this nation, not by an appointed commission. Secondly, we know for certain that the BRAC process severely disrupts the local economies of communities across the nation. Statements like those coming out of the DOD in the past few months only exacerbate the anxieties of local communities. These communities have hired consultants and will spend millions of dollars trying to prove the worth of their bases out of fear that they will be closed. For such communities, losing a base is more than just an economic loss; it is an emotional loss and a blow to the core of their identity. These are not just nameless, faceless people involved. In most military communities, personnel from the base are their church leaders, little league coaches and scout leaders, not just men and women with money to spend. Communities that closed a base have lost must more than economic well being, they have lost friends. neighbors, and community leaders. I think it is very important that we remember what this process does to these communities and to the people who are involved. The third thing we now know about BRAC is that its savings cannot be documented. The economic and fiscal ramifications of closing and realigning bases Congress has already authorized will stretch well into the 21st century. The proposed savings from previous BRAC rounds are nothing more than imprecise Department of Defense estimates that cannot be confirmed. In fact, both the CBO and the GAO have said the Department of Defense cannot back up its savings estimates with hard facts. Given BRAC's purpose in life is to save money, I find this especially disturbing. If DOD cannot tell us how much has been saved by previous base closures, it begs the question, how can they say we need more? Now are know that it is almost impossible to assess the real damages, savings, or benefits from these previous base closings. We have seen this time and time again. For instance, we have made decisions that certain bases would be closed and there would be certain savings. Yet, we have found that it is very difficult to move toward closing these bases and getting the savings for no other reason than there are extensive environmental problems in cleaning up those bases before they can be turned over to the private sector or the local communities. To this day, many of the recommendations from previous BRAC's have not been completed. We are still operating bases, facilities, or depots that supposedly were going to be closed. Today, they are still not closed. Finally, the objective of BRAC is to match base infrastructure with force structure. Yet today, the Department of Defense is working on their plan to transform our Armed Forces. In light of current events, I think we all agree that a new threat has emerged and a new type of war will be fought. I have to ask, what will be the force structure of the future? And, where will we need bases for operating, training, and maintaining this force? These are just a few of the questions that must be answered before we make a large-scale commitment to change our defense infrastructure. Secretary Rumsfield is still working on his Strategic Reviews to define the environment for the future and to make recommendations on force structure changes. He has stated that the fiscal year 2003 Defense budget submission will be his first opportunity to implement these transformational ideas. DOD is also currently executing the Congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and was scheduled to report to the Congress later this month on the results. I have no doubt this report will be delayed due to the terrorist attack on the Pentagon. This body has been patient, and continues to wait anxiously for these reviews because we know their importance to the future of our military. Why, then, would we make such an important decision as closing certain bases before these long awaited reports are even available? Without these key assessments, how do we define the base requirements for our future force? We have yet to decide not only what that force should be, but where it should be based. Now is not the time to get the proverbial ``cart in front of the horse.'' Another round of base closures should not occur until all of the studies and reviews have been completed and the President is given the appropriate time to update the National Security Strategy. So without having had an opportunity or a means to assess the changes in our infrastructure, and without having the opportunity to get previously identified bases closed and savings realized, and without even identifying the future force structure of our military, we now have to confront the recommendation that we should have yet another round of base closures. As a result of all these factors, CBO observed that additional base closures ``should follow an interval during which DOD and independent analysis examine the actual impact of the measure that have been taken.'' I agree. Before we go forward, we need to take a look at what we have already done, evaluate it, and make sure we understand the cost savings and the costs that have been expended--both in financial terms and in terms of our military capabilities. Only after this review can we make an informed decision about whether or not to have another round. To go forward and blindly close more bases when we are not even sure what the benefits, if any, would be, just does not seem like good policy. I have stated to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and all the Service Chief of Staffs that if they desire another round I could only support a round that focuses on those areas identified with large excess capacity. This focused round would provide savings but not reduce infrastructure below what might be required by the future force. One area is overseas bases and facilities. The 1990 BRAC legislation outlines the sense of Congress that closure of military installations outside the United States should be accomplished at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense at the earliest opportunity. Yet today, we have over 700 activities in Europe and Asia alone. Europe has 523 activities with 115,650 active duty personnel. We invested $572 million in military construction in Europe from 1997- 2001. That equates to an average annual investment of $114.5 million per year. In Asia we have 188 activities with 129,482 active duty personnel. There are more troops in Asia than Europe but 60 percent less activities. The United States invested $653.8 million in military construction in Asia from 1997-2001. That equates to an average annual investment of $121 million per year. In a recent meeting with Secretary of the Army Tom White, he mentioned the possibility of moving 10,000 troops from the European theater to the Pacific theater. During a separate meeting, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz mentioned transferring 10,000 troops from Europe back to the United States. Just last week on Friday, September 14, President Bush granted the authority to mobilize 50,000 reserve personnel for Homeland Defense. How will these large-scale troop realignments affect our infrastructure requirements of the future? Why are we continuing to close installations in the United States when there are so many facilities overseas that we continue to sink large amounts of funds into year after year? In light of the events of September 11, I believe we need to consolidate overseas installations, therefore providing a more secure environment as well as improving the quality of life for our service-members and their families. These are some of the questions we need answered before we authorize an additional round of BRAC. If after the Strategic Reviews and the QDR, the required force structure supports further base closures, then I think DOD should identify bases they no longer feel are necessary and submit their finding to Congress. I have full faith that this body is capable of looking objectively at our defense needs and determining whether a base has outlived its usefulness. Given what we already know about BRAC, the ongoing reviews, and more importantly, what has happened in recent days, I cannot support and vigorously oppose the Department of Defense's request for another round of base closure. For that and many other reasons, I offer these amendments, one to strike and one to modify section 29 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. I hope my colleagues will support me on this important issue. I support and am a principal cosponsor of the amendment to strike section 29 of the national authorization act of 2002. That section provides authority to carry out the base closure round of 2003. As this body considers yet another round of base closure hearings and proceedings, I think it is important we pause and reflect on where we have been and examine where we are, and particularly, today, where we plan to be in the future with our force structure, considering the events we have witnessed in the last 2 weeks. I have said many times before we have been down this old BRAC road-- actually, four times--and there are pros and cons about whether we should do it. This time I have listened to the arguments of the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense and I have weighed it very carefully. I still oppose the process. I still think this is an abdication of responsibility, to turn decisions of this nature over to this Base Closure Commission. I have always taken that position. Some people, say, well, how did you plan to do it? How did we do it before? We started this process in the 1980s. The Pentagon would make decisions about excess capacity, bases we did not need, missions that were not necessary or could not be consolidated, and they sent a recommendation to the Congress. And the Congress would take it under advisement, sometimes accept the recommendation, sometimes reject it. In many instances, bases were closed in the late 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. I know of at least four bases in my immediate region that were closed, including one I believe in the 1970s, Brookley Air Force Base in Mobile, AL, bases around my State. Congress faced up to it. If it could be justified, if it can be, and we can be assured it will leave us the capacity to do what we need to do, I think Congress will step up to it. Some will say this is a way to get politics out of it. Really? How many think politics did not come into play the last time we had a base closure round? It clearly did. That is why many Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have opposed another BRAC process over the last 2 years. Some would have said 3 weeks ago that it is time we give it another chance, and we do have duplication and excess capacity. In my meetings with the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries and representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, I have indicated I would do one round, not two, but also if it would be targeted to those places where we know we have redundancy or excess capacity; or, to put it conversely, where we know we are not going to close bases, then say it will not apply in these areas. By the way, one of the key questions I want to ask in my remarks: What about bases in other places of the world? We have given the Pentagon the authority to consolidate missions and close bases in Europe and other parts of the world, but they have done very little of it. In fact, I think one of the most interesting statistics I have come across anywhere is this: We have over 700 activities in Europe and Asia alone. Europe has 523 activities with 115,650 active-duty personnel. We have invested $572 million in military construction in Europe from 1997 to 2001. That equates to an average annual investment of $114.5 million per year. Shouldn't we look at excess capacity and consolidation in Europe before we start closing bases and facilities we may need at home? Now I support and understand the need for having some Air Force bases in Europe, such as at Rhein-Main, and we need naval bases so we can project force. But when you look at the number of missions, where the missions are, what we are doing in Europe, you cannot help but realize they are snickering at us. They view it as economic development and jobs activity. I would like to make sure in fact something is going to be done in Europe before we start down this track of another base closure round in the United States. We have already had some hints at how this might work. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment was quoted as saying maybe we would want to accommodate bases by relocating some operations from congested areas to sparsely populated regions, even talking of moving bases from one region to another. I understand there is some denial of that or apology for it. Maybe it shows some of the thinking. We have also had the suggestion from the Pentagon that they were maybe considering a variety of options, including mothballing some bases, or mothballing part of a base and keeping the rest open or closing only part of that base. What that means is, even the surrounding community will be prevented from using the abandoned bases. That might be the worst of all worlds. We will not say yes or no. We will say, well, we might want to keep part of it, not this part, maybe mothball it, we will not turn it over to the county, community, the State, for them to do something else with it. I don't think this has been thought out. I don't think there is a plan of how this would work. We know for certain that the BRAC process severely disrupts local economies of communities across this Nation. If we have another BRAC, every community, every State in America for the next 2 years will have to hire some high-priced, high-powered consultants and lobbyists to tell them what to do. You are not talking about cheap money, you are talking about $200,000 a year, a quarter of a million a year. Everybody will get on their war footing to try to satisfy the anxieties. And, by the way, in many instances where they are not even going to be considered--or where they might be considered, but clearly in the end it will not happen. But let me tell you, that is what will happen. Here is one thing that worries me. I had this feeling basically before 2 weeks ago, but think about it now. Think about it today. Our National Guard units are being activated. Tankers from Meridian, MS, are flying overhead to keep our jets flying. Our Air Guard unit that has the C-141 cargo aircraft, they are going to be involved. You can be sure of that. We have already had reservists called up, medical units, intelligence units and military police forces. At a time when we are activating Reserve units and calling up Guard units and we are telling the American people: We have been attacked, get ready, be ready and break out the flags. Let's support our men and women in uniform--oh, gee, and by the way, your base may be on the base closure list. Great timing? This is a great way to rally the troops. While we are expanding and planning for the future and not really sure what all we are going to need, making demands on communities, individuals, every community in every State in America is about to be affected by this, and then we are going to come with this particular proposal? I don't think so, colleagues. Some people say: Don't worry, it will be taken care of in conference. I have counted on that before and it did not quite work out that way. So I hope my colleagues in the Senate will think about the timing of this. What are we to expect in the future? The third thing we now know about BRAC is the savings cannot really be documented. Again, we will get arguments there can be savings. Yes, maybe there should be savings in the future, but as a matter of fact the proposed savings from previous BRAC rounds are nothing more than imprecise Department of Defense estimates that cannot be confirmed. In fact, both the CBO and GAO have said the Department of Defense cannot back up its savings estimates with hard facts. One thing, the cleanup we have to go through, you can argue about whether it is necessary or not, and sometimes I think we go to the extreme on that. But the cleanup has been a big problem in terms of cost and also in getting it into some other usage. In some areas, some communities, some States, they have been able to turn these bases into economic development opportunities, and they worked out in those local communities. But I think the savings are of a very dubious nature. Finally, the objective of BRAC, as I understand it, is to match base infrastructure with force structure. Yet today the Department of Defense is working on their plan to transform our Armed Forces. In light of current events, we all agree a new threat has emerged and a new type of war will have to be fought. So I have to ask what will be the force structure of the future? What it likely may have been 3 weeks ago may not be what it is now. Where will we need bases for operating, training, and maintaining this force? Just this past weekend I heard an Air Force general talking about how our jets and our mission had always been set up and planned from inside out, looking out to stop attack. Now we have to change that thinking. We have to think about how do we have protection inward. It is going to be fundamentally different. We have to now think about, if we have to scramble planes, where would they have to come from to get to New York? Where would they have to come from to get to Chicago? Where would they have to come from to get to Boston? I understand we did have some planes scrambled out of Massachusetts. But we have to look anew at how we have this force structure and where these aircraft will come from, what type of forces we will need, what type of training will we need for our men and women. Secretary Rumsfeld is still working on his strategic review to define the environment for the future and to make recommendations of force structure changes. He stated that the fiscal year 2003 defense budget submission will be his first opportunity to implement these transformational ideas. If that is the case, shouldn't we at least wait until we know that before we move toward another base closure round? I have never supported a BRAC, but I have also never said I would not someday if I could be convinced there was a plan, that there was a force structure, that we knew what we were going to need and we could be shown there is duplication and redundancy and overlapping, things we did not need because of changes in plans for the future, and it would be aimed at those areas, not just a broad brush at every base. DOD is also currently executing the congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review and was scheduled to report to Congress later this month on the results. I have no doubt this report will be delayed due to the terrorist attack. So I think I have made my point here. This could be done, but I think it would have to be done with more planning, with more indication of what our needs are going to be, what we want in the future, and with some targeting. But that is not what we have here. I say again, I think we need to take a look when we do it, not just at what we have here in America but what we have around the world. We are going to have this new homeland defense position. Would we like to see how that is going to be formed and what their recommendations would be, before we start down this trail? I think that would be the responsible thing to do. This is an administration that I am very proud of. I have had a long relationship with Secretary Rumsfeld. I have listened to Secretary Cohen, my personal friend-- I sat next to him on the Armed Services Committee-- the Secretary of Defense with President Clinton; I have listened to the Pentagon officials this time around. I think they are the experts, but I think we have a responsibility to ask the tough questions. This time, the toughest question is, Are we ready? Do we know what we are doing, or is this just the knowledge that maybe we have some activities that we can do without? But is that the case today as it was 2 weeks ago? I don't think we know. So I hope we will move on this amendment to strike. I appreciate the effort that has been made by the chairman and the ranking member to come with this bill. Concessions were made. Senator Daschle and I kept encouraging them to keep working and they did. They did a great job. I hate to stand up and speak on behalf of an amendment to strike anything out of this bill. I hoped basically we could just come together and get it done. I still think we can. There is no reason why we should not be able to get a list of amendments agreed to and complete this legislation tomorrow or Wednesday morning. I think that would be another important sign of how we are working together. We are doing the right thing for the defense of our country and our efforts to help the economy and help deal with the threats this country faces. The American people are saying they like seeing us do that. I think we should do it on this bill. But for now, I think we should do it without this section. I thank my colleagues for their patience and I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we have a commitment to Senators who wish to be heard, such as Senator Kyl and Senator Fitzgerald, that they will be yielded time out of the one half hour on our side. Of course, Senator Hutchison will be my designee to handle the time on our side, and she will speak also, but I urge the Senators to speak within the allowed time and hopefully keep the total time under an hour.