John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, you know there are issues that never go away. I have only been here since 1987. But we have revisited this issue--I think my colleagues from Michigan and Virginia would agree-- probably more often than any other issue affecting our Nation's security. Issues come and go. This one keeps coming back. Every expert on military national security who doesn't have any particular bias will tell you we have too many bases. We have too many military bases. I am happy to say we are already in the process in Europe of making some significant changes which will result in significant savings. Why do we have the BRAC process? We have the BRAC process because we proved to anyone's satisfaction that we cannot close an individual base. Yes, we abrogated our responsibilities, but we didn't completely abrogate our responsibilities because it will still come back to the findings of the commission, and we will vote yes or no. The issue that continues to intrigue me is this argument that it will cost more to close bases. If that logic were true, we never should have closed the bases following World War II when we had thousands of bases all over America. But we closed bases following World War II because we had a decrease in the requirements to meet our national security needs. In 1991, we had approximately 3 million men and women in the military. We now have 1.4 million men and women in the military. And those reductions in the size of our military were made with the full knowledge, support, and legislative action of the Congress of the United States. The President didn't reduce the size of the military by Executive order. Every year, a part of our bill is the authorization of the numbers of people and appropriations to pay them. We are now down to 1.4 million Americans. Maybe we need some more. But there clearly is not the need for the number of bases we had in 1991. The Secretary of Defense--obviously a strong leader, obviously a highly respected individual, as his predecessors have said--will recommend a veto of the entire legislation if this BRAC process is taken out of it and not allowed to proceed. Here we are placing at risk all of the hard work that has been done by the committee in hearings and coming up with our authorization. The bill is now at risk if we destroy the BRAC process. I remind my colleagues that the BRAC process has worked. Yes, it has caused some pain. Yes, it has caused some dislocation. But over time in the vast majority of bases that are closed, revenue increases to the community rather than decreases. That is not to say there isn't severe dislocation in the short term and severe economic difficulties because communities are dependent upon the military presence. But I urge my colleagues to do what is best for our Nation's security, as articulated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by our Secretary of Defense, and literally every other expert on national security: that we need to reduce the number of bases so we can spend the money on the men and women in the military, for their pay, their benefits, their health care, and their housing. One of the reasons why we have dilapidated barracks in some bases in America is because we have too many of them. We cannot afford to maintain all of them at the level we would like for this magnificent All-Volunteer Force. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Let's move forward and have this bill enacted and signed into law by the President of the United States. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, every so often a clarifying moment in international affairs reminds us of the stakes involved in a particular conflict, and of our moral obligation to stand with those who risk their lives for the principles of freedom. The violent crackdown against Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters over the weekend underscores the brutal and unreconstructed charter of Burma's dictatorship. The assault should remind democrats everywhere that we must actively support her struggle to deliver the human rights and freedom of a people long denied them by an oppressive military regime. The arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi following a coordinated, armed attack against her and her supporters is a reminder to the world that Burma's military junta has neither legitimacy nor limits on its power to crush peaceful dissent. The junta insists it stepped in to restore order following armed clashes between members of Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy and unnamed opponents. In fact, the regime's forces had been harassing Suu Kyi and the NLD for months. The Junta's Union Solidarity Development Association orchestrated and staged last weekend's attack, killing at least 70 of her supporters and injuring Suu Kyi herself, perhaps seriously. Credible reports suggest that the regime's thugs targeted Suu Kyi personally. She is now being held incommunicado by Burmese military intelligence; her party offices have been closed; many of its activists are missing; and universities have been shut down. After having spent most of the last 14 years under house arrest, Ms. Suu Kyi is, once again, a political prisoner. Aung San Suu Kyi is one of the world's most courageous champions of freedom. I join advocates of a free Burma everywhere in expressing outrage at her unwarranted detention and call for her immediate, unconditional release, and the freedom to travel and speak throughout her country. Closing party offices, shuttering universities, and detaining Aung San Suu Kyi and senior members of her party in the name of ``protecting'' her demonstrate how estranged the junta is from its own people, and how potent are Suu Kyi's appeals for democratic change in a nation that resoundingly endorsed her in democratic elections 13 years ago. The junta's decision to release her from house arrest a year ago, and to permit her to speak and travel within tightly circumscribed limits, appeared to reflect the generals' calculation that her popular appeal had diminished, and that perhaps her fighting spirit had flagged. They could not have been more wrong. Aung San Suu Kyi remains the legitimately elected and overwhelmingly popular leader of her country. Even though she was under house arrest in 1990, her party captured 82 percent of the vote, shocking the generals. Neither the huge majority of the Burmese people who voted for the NLD nor the international community have forgotten how Burma's junta rejected the election results, nor how the regime's forces massacred its own people at a democratic rally 2 years earlier. We have not forgotten the many political prisoners who remain in Burma's jails, or the repression Burma's people have endured for decades. The assault on Burma's free political future at the hands of the regime last weekend has reminded us of what we already knew: the junta cannot oversee the reform and opening of Burma, for it remains the biggest obstacle to the freedom and prosperity of the Burmese people. Burma cannot change as long as the junta rules, without restraint or remorse. Despite these obvious truths, of which we have been reminded again this week, some countries have chosen to pursue policies of political and commercial engagement with the government in Rangoon on the grounds that working with and through the junta would have a more significant liberalizing effect than isolating and sanctioning it. ASEAN admitted Burma in 1997, Beijing has enjoyed warm relations with Rangoon, and most countries trade with it: only the United States and Europe impose mild sanctions against the regime. Proponents of engagement pointed to the nascent dialogue between Aung San Suu Kyi and the regime, and her release from house arrest last May, as indicators that perhaps external influence was having some beneficial effect on the dictatorship. But advocates of engagement have little to show for it following last weekend's assault on the democrats. Burma's junta must understand quite clearly that it will not enjoy business as usual following its brutal attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. It is time for the international community to acknowledge that the status quo serves nobody's interests except those of the regime: Burma's people suffer, its neighbors are embrassed, companies cannot do the kind of business they would with a free and developing Burma, the drug lords flourish in a vacuum of governance, and the situation inside the country grows more unstable as the regime's misrule increasingly radicalizes and impoverishes its people. No country or leader motivated by the Welfare of the Burmese people, a desire for regional stability and prosperity, or concern for Burma's place among nations can maintain that rule by the junta serves these interests. I find it hard to believe that any democratic government would stand by the junta as it takes Burma on a forced march back in time. Yet this morning, when asked about the weekend's assault, the Japanses Foreign Minister denied that the situation in Burma was getting worse, said progress is being made toward democratization, and announced that Japan has no intention of changing its policy on Burma. Shame on the Japanese. Music to the junta's ears, perhaps, but I believe friends of the Burmese people must take a radically different, and principled, approach to a problem that kind words will only exacerbate. The world cannot stand by as the ruination of this country continues any farther. Free Burma's leaders, and her people, will remember which nations stood with them in their struggle against oppression, and which nations seemed to side with their oppressors. American and international policy towards Burma should reflect our conviction that oppression and impunity must come to an end, and that the regime must move towards a negotiated settlement with Aung San Suu Kyi that grants her a leading and irreversible poticial role culminating in free and fair national elections. If it does not, the regime will not be able to manage the transition, when it does come, for it will come without its consent. I believe the United States should immediately expand the visa ban against Burmese officials to include all members of the Union Solidarity Development Association, which organized the attack against Aung San Suu Kyi's delegation last weekend. The administration should also immediately issue an executive order freezing the U.S. assets of Burmese leaders. U.N. special envoy Razali Ismail should not travel to Burma as planned this week unless he has assurances from the regime that he will be able to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi. Congress should promptly consider legislation banning Burmese imports into the United States, and the administration should encourage the European Union to back up its commitment to human rights in Burma with concrete steps in this direction. The U.S. and the E.U. together account for over 50 percent of Burma's exports and therefore enjoy considerable leverage against the regime. The United States alone absorbs between 20 and 25 percent of Burma's exports. Consideration of a U.S. import ban should help focus attention in Rangoon on the consequences of flagrantly violating the human rights of the Burmese people and their chosen leaders. In coordination with a new U.S. initiative, an E.U. move in the direction of punitive trade sanctions would make the regime's continuing repression difficult if not impossible to sustain. The junta's latest actions are a desperate attempt by a decaying regime to stall freedom's inevitable progress, in Burma and across Asia. They will fail as surely as Aung San Suu Kyi's campaign for a free Burma will one day succeed. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined this morning by Senators Hollings in introducing legislation to reauthorize the United States Fire Administration, USFA, for fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2006. This legislation would also re-establish the position of the U.S. Fire Administrator, which would serve in the new Department of Homeland Security. USFA's mission is to reduce the loss of life and property because of fire and related emergencies. Each year, fire injures and kills more Americans than all other natural disasters combined. Death rates by fire in the Unites States are among the highest in the industrialized world. The U.S. Fire Administration utilizes a number of tools to fulfill its mission. USFA's National Fire Data Center administers a national system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data and information on fire and other emergency incidents to state and local governments and the fire community. The National Fire Academy, NFA, is the premiere training academy for fire services. It is estimated that since 1975, over 1.4 million firefighters and other first-responders have benefitted from NFA training classes in emergency management, fire prevention, and anti-terrorism. USFA also engages in research, testing, and evaluation activities with public and private entities to promote and improve fire and life safety. Finally, USFA administers the popular Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which provides competitive grants to local fire departments for training, wellness and fitness programs, vehicles, firefighting equipment, and fire prevention. The U.S. Fire Administrator plays an important role in our nation's fire control policy and homeland security initiatives by serving as the point-of-contact for the fire services. This position was eliminated in last year's legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. On April 30, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation heard testimony from many of the major fire service organizations regarding the importance of the U.S. Fire Administrator position, and the need for the Administrator to serve as a representative of the fire services within the Department of Homeland Security. This legislation would re-establish this position. Firefighting remains one of the most dangerous professions in the Unites States. We rely on firefighters to aid us in fires, accidents, and natural disasters. However, we have also witnessed the role that firefighters play as the first responders on the scene of any possible terrorist attack. It is important that we pass this legislation to ensure that the Federal government continues its appropriate role in helping our fire services adapt to this new challenge. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and look forward to working with them to ensure timely passage of this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined this morning by Senators Hollings in introducing legislation to reauthorize the United States Fire Administration, USFA, for fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2006. This legislation would also re-establish the position of the U.S. Fire Administrator, which would serve in the new Department of Homeland Security. USFA's mission is to reduce the loss of life and property because of fire and related emergencies. Each year, fire injures and kills more Americans than all other natural disasters combined. Death rates by fire in the Unites States are among the highest in the industrialized world. The U.S. Fire Administration utilizes a number of tools to fulfill its mission. USFA's National Fire Data Center administers a national system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data and information on fire and other emergency incidents to state and local governments and the fire community. The National Fire Academy, NFA, is the premiere training academy for fire services. It is estimated that since 1975, over 1.4 million firefighters and other first-responders have benefitted from NFA training classes in emergency management, fire prevention, and anti-terrorism. USFA also engages in research, testing, and evaluation activities with public and private entities to promote and improve fire and life safety. Finally, USFA administers the popular Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which provides competitive grants to local fire departments for training, wellness and fitness programs, vehicles, firefighting equipment, and fire prevention. The U.S. Fire Administrator plays an important role in our nation's fire control policy and homeland security initiatives by serving as the point-of-contact for the fire services. This position was eliminated in last year's legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. On April 30, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation heard testimony from many of the major fire service organizations regarding the importance of the U.S. Fire Administrator position, and the need for the Administrator to serve as a representative of the fire services within the Department of Homeland Security. This legislation would re-establish this position. Firefighting remains one of the most dangerous professions in the Unites States. We rely on firefighters to aid us in fires, accidents, and natural disasters. However, we have also witnessed the role that firefighters play as the first responders on the scene of any possible terrorist attack. It is important that we pass this legislation to ensure that the Federal government continues its appropriate role in helping our fire services adapt to this new challenge. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and look forward to working with them to ensure timely passage of this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed for our brave military men and women that the conferees for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 decided to omit the Senate-passed Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003 from the conference report. I offered an amendment to the tax bill that would add the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003, which has been previously passed by the Senate. The amendment was accepted by unanimous consent. Since this legislation has already passed numerous times in the Senate, I believed that the conferees would include this important legislation for our military in the conference report without hesitation. But again, politics ruled the day. Despite the recent successful war in Iraq, which highlighted the bravery and sacrifice of our military, the conferees provided nothing for them in this so-called growth bill. The only thing growing will be the tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens of this country. And in a time where we are also facing growing deficits and must also pay for the cost of the war, what the conferees did in the interest of ``getting a deal'' was the height of irresponsibility. What the conferees denied was much-needed tax relief for our men and women in uniform whose sacrifice and commitment are the foundation upon which the freedom we all enjoy has been built. How they can deny these committed men and women who defend our country simple fairness is beyond understanding. One of the provisions in the legislation that the conferees dismissed from inclusion in the conference report is what is popularly known as the Military Homeowners Equity Act. This legislation would allow service members, who are away on extended active duty, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation, and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership--the Joint Chiefs of Staff-- as well as outgoing Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of The Military Coalition, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association. The average American citizen participates in our Nation's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among service members and Foreign Service officers. What we are doing is not creating a new tax benefit. We are merely modifying current law to include the time members of the military are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors, and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history. As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the military and Foreign Services. The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefited elderly taxpayers while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families. Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must, one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and, two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. The bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much-needed form of tax relief is commendable. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many service men and women who are deployed overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the military and Foreign Service. Nonetheless, some service members and Foreign Service officers choose to purchase a home in a certain local, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the house during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the new home sales provision because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families who serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``lives'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion. This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the military and Foreign Service will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned. In the wake of September 11, our Armed Forces are now deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the Tax Code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform. The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including those who serve this country abroad. It it true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our military and Foreign Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code. Mr. President, the case is clear. The conferees should have included the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003 in the conference report for this tax relief bill. If they can look into the eyes of all the men and women in our military who have committed themselves to the defense of this country in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, and justify how they spent billions of Federal dollars to cut taxes for our Nation's wealthiest at their expense, then the process is clearly broken. And that is a disgrace for which they are solely responsible.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Baucus in introducing the Middle East Trade and Engagement Act of 2003. Our legislation would permit eligible countries in the greater Middle East to gain greater access to American markets through the duty-free treatment of certain exports, and ultimately to negotiate free trade agreements with the United States. It would condition broader trade relations on fundamental political and economic reforms, cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, among other issues, in order to promote liberalization and reform across the Arab and Muslim worlds. Free trade is a powerful tool for opening up closed societies, if leaders in the greater Middle East are willing to make necessary and overdue political and economic reforms. It is past time for nations in the region to join the global economy, and for rulers to lead increasingly restive populations in the direction of democracy and free markets. Today, the countries of the Middle East account for a small percentage of non-energy sector trade for the United States. With the exception of oil, most Arab nations barely trade with each other, much less with the rest of the world, and many still maintain a hostile economic boycott on Israel--policies that isolate the Middle East from the global economy and perpetuate conflict instead of building prosperity. The wave of free-market reform and democratization that swept Europe, Latin America, Asia, and parts of Africa in the 1980s and 1990s has left most of the Middle East untouched and unchanged. America's interest in economic opening and political liberalization in the region requires a new level of engagement with the countries of the greater Middle East, premised on the acceleration and active implementation of a host of reforms without which prosperity and democracy are not possible. Our legislation would tie preferential trade access to American markets to progress towards adoption of these reforms, as well as meaningful progress on human rights protections, decisive movement towards democracy, full cooperation in the war on terrorism, and an end to the primary, secondary, and tertiary economic boycott of Israel. Our bill is modeled on the success of the Andean Trade Preferences Act and the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Ideally, enactment of the bill we are introducing today would create a regime of duty-free trade in a number of goods from the greater Middle East. Such a trade preference program would encourage and often require eligible nations to undertake the kind of significant economic reforms that ultimately lead to free trade agreements, as President Bush has called for and which we support. The Andean Trade Preferences Act was created to expand the economies of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. By granting duty-free and reduced rate treatment to various products from these nations, we took action to strengthen the fragile economies of the region, expand their export bases, and provide Andean farmers and workers with legitimate employment outside of the drug trade. It has worked. The trade agreement created new industries in the region outside of the drug trade and expanded the economies of the region which helped to create legitimate jobs. We foresee similar effects from this legislation on parts of the Middle East, if leaders have the courage and vision to complement progress on trade with internal political and economic reforms. Reform in the Arab and Muslim worlds requires not just greater trade but accelerated political and economic liberalization, including respect for fundamental human freedom. It is my hope that the spirit and effect of our legislation will help move countries of the greater Middle East in that direction.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support S. 1050, the fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. This legislation funds $400.5 billion for defense programs, which is 3.2 percent or $17.9 billion above the amount appropriated by Congress last year. The Defense Authorization bill would authorize appropriations to purchase new weapons systems and funds research and development for new weapons systems, funds operations and maintenance for the services, provides pay and quality of life improvements for service members and funds military construction projects at military bases. A number of provisions in this bill go a long way to ensure our service members get the benefits they deserve. I am pleased the Senate included a provision which I offered as an amendment that was adopted by the committee that would eliminate the remaining so-called ``pay comparability gap'' between military pay and civilian pay. This amendment would tie subsequent military pay raises after 2006 with increases in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). As a former ranking member and long-time member on the Personnel Subcommittee when Senator John Glenn was the chairman, my experience with capping military raises below ECI during the last three decades shows that such caps inevitably lead to significant retention problems among second-term and career servicemembers. Those retention problems cost our Nation more in the long run in terms of lost military experience, decreased readiness, and increased training costs. Since military pay was last comparable with private sector pay in 1982, military pay raises have lagged a cumulative 6.4 percent behind private sector wage growth--although recent efforts by Congress have reduced the gap significantly from its peak of 13.5 percent in 1999. Our efforts in 1999 increased pay raises, reformed the pay tables, took 12,000 servicemembers off of food stamps, and established a military Thrift Savings Plan. A key principal of the all volunteer force (AVF) is that military pay raises must match private sector pay growth, as measured by ECI. The Senate's action in this area will send a strong message of support to our servicemembers and women and their families that will continue to promote high morale, better quality-of-life, and ultimately a more ready military force. For the past 12 years, I have offered legislation on concurrent receipt. This matter is of great significance to many of our country's military retirees, because it would reverse existing, unfair regulations that strip retirement pay from military retirees who are also disabled, and costs them any realistic opportunity for post- service earnings. Last year, I was pleased that the committee, for the first time, included an authorization to begin to address a longstanding inequity in the compensation of military retirees' pay over previous attempts in the past. I am disappointed that Senator Harry Reid was unable to offer his amendment on concurrent receipt, because the amendment was not ruled relevant under an unanimous consent agreement that was passed by the leadership of the Senate. We must do more to restore retirement pay for those military retirees who are disabled. I have stated this before, and I am compelled to reiterate now--retirement pay and disability pay are distinct types of pay. Retirement pay is for service rendered through 20 years of military service. Disability pay is for physical or mental pain or suffering that occurs during and as a result of military service. In this case, members with decades of military service receive the same compensation as similarly disabled members who served only a few years; this practice fails to recognize their extended, more demanding careers of service to our country. This is patently unfair, and I will continue to work diligently with the committee to correct this inequity for all career military servicemembers who are disabled. We have a military force that continues to rely more on the Reserve Components--men and women in the National Guard and Reserves--to go to war and to perform other critical military tasks abroad and at home. Many combat, combat support and other support missions are being carried out on the backs of our active and Reserve Component forces-- soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. National Guard and Reserve servicemembers are performing many vital tasks: direct involvement in military operations to liberate Iraq in the air, on the ground, and on the sea; guarding nuclear power plants, our borders, and our airports in the United States; providing support to the War on Terrorism through guarding, interrogating, and extending medical services to al-Qaida detainees; rebuilding schools in hurricane-stricken Honduras and fighting fires in our western states; overseeing civil affairs in Bosnia; and augmenting aircraft carriers short on active duty sailors with critical skilled enlisted ratings during at-sea exercises, as well as during periods of deployment. I believe that the civilian and uniformed leadership of our Armed Forces and the Congress must recognize this involvement, and, at a minimum, provide equal benefits for reserve component servicemembers when they put on the uniform and perform their weekend drills or other critical training evolutions. Reservists, on duty, who resemble their active duty counterparts during training evolutions and are deployed at times around the world, should be treated equally when the administration and Congress provide for quality of life benefits. I am pleased at the inclusion of language authorizing a Selective Re- enlistment Bonus (SRB) for National Guard and Reserve service members when they are mobilized under a Presidential Select Reserve Call-up and they re-enlist during that period. National Guardsmen and Reservists are prohibited from receiving SRB payments until they get off active duty or mobilization status, sometimes 1 or 2 years later. The Senate has also authorized Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, benefits to survivors of National Guard and Reserve service members who die while performing inactive duty training or weekend drills. This legislation provides equity with active duty servicemembers and is consistent with Defense Department regulations when National Guardsmen and Reservists are mobilized under a Presidential Select Reserve Call-up. Since January, there have been 13 Reserve Component deaths during weekend military training while their units were preparing for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom where families of National Guard and Reservists did not receive the Survivor Benefit payments. The Senate has also authorized Commanders' pay for National Guardsmen and Reservists, similar to the pay that active duty commanding officers and commanders receive. Additionally, the Senate Authorization bill removes and arbitrary cap on commissary privileges for drilling reservists and National Guardsmen, making the benefit similar to the benefit similar to the benefit of authorized for active duty servicemembers. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) continue to be of interest to me. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have been watershed events for military utilization of UAVs. Increased use in the future as new war fighting capabilities come on line is key to our militaries strategy for future conflicts. During the 1999 Yugoslav air campaign only three UAV systems were used. There are nine UAV systems currently deployed and in extensive use in Iraq. The Army's Shadow, Hunter, and Pointer, the Marine Corps' Pioneer and Dragon Eye; the Air Force's Global Hawk, Predator and the Force Protection Surveillance System; and, the Navy's Silver Fox. The Silver Fox is a small, inexpensive UAV with tremendous application, particularly in downed pilot search and air rescue, border patrol operations, tactical support for ground troops and SOF, submarine detection, marine mammal detection efforts and other critical reconnaissance missions. Ninety Silver Fox systems were deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom with great success. Additional resources should be afforded to the unmanned aerial vehicle programs. Low cost, innovative systems, like the Silver Fox, deserve considerable support by the committee and I strongly support this effort. I am extremely please the Senate included a UAV pilot program to study the potential uses of UAVs on our borders. As part of its consideration of this bill, the Senate approved an amendment I sponsored with Senators Session, Lindsey Graham, and Bayh creating a reporting requirement that should shed light on how to improve decision-making within NATO. As a lifelong Atlanticist, my interest is in keeping NATO relevant and effective as it adapts its mission to the new threats we face today. Doing so will require a hard look at what works well within NATO, and what we can do to streamline decision-making processes to improve the effectiveness of the Alliance. Our amendment would build on a reporting requirement related to NATO is in the underlying bill. Our intention is to make NATO work better by taking a close look at how some of its decision-making structures have recently evolved, for expressly political reasons, in ways that I believe have weakened NATO, but which we, NATO's full members, can rectify in order to ensure that our Alliance remains strong. Our amendment would require the Secretaries of Defense and State to assess whether certain new NATO military initiatives are within the jurisdiction of NATO's Defense Planning Committee, which has historically overseen NATO's core defense and security missions. The report would relate how NATO defense, military, security, and nuclear decisions traditionally made in the DPC came to be made in other bodies within NATO. It would discuss the extent of France's contributions to each of NATO's component committees, and specifically the degree of French involvement in specific military and security issues within the competence of the DPC, on which the French do not sit. The report would examine how NATO could make greater use of the DPC, by assuming its traditional role of managing NATO's core defense mission, and how to otherwise streamline NATO decisionmaking to make NATO more effective. NATO is actively engaged in discussions on how to reform and improve NATO decisionmaking, and I strongly believe our amendment will play a useful role in animating that discussion. In February, Turkey requested assistance from the Alliance to improve its defenses in the event of war with Iraq. Given Turkey's status as a key member of NATO and the Alliance's only front-line state with Iraq, Turkey's routine request for defensive reinforcements under the terms of the NATO charter should not have been controversial in any way. Regrettably, France denied Turkey's request, and the Alliance spent 3 weeks in crisis trying to overcome French objections. France's position was initially supported by Germany, Luxembourg, and Belgium, but these nations ultimately sided with every other member of the Alliance, leaving the French isolated but refusing to relinquish their effective veto over a fundamental Alliance commitment to the defense of a member state. Ultimately, Turkey's Article Four request for defensive assistance was approved by the Defense Planning Committee (DPC), a component committee of NATO which does not include France. But the singular French obstructionism over the course of nearly a month caused the gravest crisis NATO has known in a generation and raised real questions about whether NATO was going the way of the U.N. Security Council or, more ominously, the League of Nations. In the wake of this debacle, Atlanticists in Europe and the United States have pondered ways to reform and improve decision-making within NATO. In the interests of avoiding another such near-calamity within NATO that threatens the Alliance itself, Secretaries Wolfowitz and Feith have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the DPC could be used more frequently for decision-making within NATO, thereby circumventing the French veto. Since the mid-1990s, NATO's North Atlantic Council has been the primary venue within the Alliance for decisions to be taken on Alliance operations. But for most of NATO's existence, the NAC was not preeminent. The Defense Planning Committee was created in 1963 and was co-equal to the NAC. The DPC was charged with NATO's core defense and security business, including questions relating to Article Five, the mutual defense clause that is at the heart of NATO's charter. In 1966, when France withdrew from NATO's integrated military structure, the DPC assumed responsibility for the Alliance's core defense business. This allowed the Alliance to continue to function effectively without France's military involvement, and to avoid a French veto over matters related to NATO's core defense mission, in which France did not then and does not now participate. The Defense Planning Committee was surprisingly active from its creation in 1963 until 1995. It became less prominent following the end of the cold war because the use of NATO forces appeared less likely in Article Five scenarios and more probable in non-Article Five scenarios. The role of the DPC diminished when the North Atlantic Council rose to pre-eminence in the 1990s with NATO peacekeeping scenarios, in the aftermath of the dismal failure of UNPROFOR in Bosnia. In the 1990s, looking for new roles, the NAC endorsed NATO peacekeeping missions in the Balkans. The process of relying on the North Atlantic Council was also rooted in the futile effort to woo France back into full membership in NATO. Starting with a 1992 decision to support peacekeeping operations and the desire to involve France in Balkans operations, defense issues during the 1990s came to be addressed in the North Atlantic Council. The inclusion of France in NATO Defense Ministerials began in 1993 at Travemunde and has continued. Although they have not rejoined NATO's intergrated military structure, and are therefore not full contributing members of the Alliance, the French have very effectively shifted NATO decision-making into the North Atlantic Council and other bodies in which they have a voice and a vote. Although France does not participate, or participates only selectively, in command structure, infrastructure budget, and defense planning, it has successfully transferred these issues to NATO committees on which it has a seat. France does not participate in 60 percent of NATO budget areas, but participates in 100 percent of the development of resource policy and contribution ceilings. The upcoming issues for the June NATO Defense Ministerial are of a military and security nature. They include the Capabilities Initiative, the Command Structure Review, and the NATO Response Force. These are military and security issues within the core competence of the DPC. Our amendment is therefore not backward-looking, but would anticipate possible reforms to improve NATO's effectiveness in light of issues currently on the Alliance's agenda. France unilaterally withdrew from NATO's military structure in 1966-- at the height of the Cold War. France has since chosen to remain outside NATO's military structure. If France wants to return to NATO's military structure, NATO should discuss it, debate it on the merits and make a decision--among the 18 full members of NATO. What we need now is a better understanding of why NATO came to rely on the NAC, and what can be done to make NATO more effective. We need to understand what we can do to limit France's ability to manipulate NATO, and oppose American foreign policy goals. The report required by our amendment should shed light on how to make our Alliance work as it should, in defense of the supreme national interests of the democracies it protects and nurtures. I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on bilateral trade relations with our allies of the domestic source for instance, ``Buy America'', restrictions enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. I am extremely concerned that an amendment was proposed that would impose ``Buy America'' restrictions on the Department of Defense. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, the added ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in the international markets and could also result in loss of existing business from long-standing trading partners. Although, I fully understand the need to maintain certain critical industrial base capabilities, I find no reason to support a ``Buy America'' requirement for a product, like marine pumps, that is produced by no fewer than 25 U.S. companies or a bullet-proof vest made from fabric by a U.S. manufacturer which is inferior and more expensive than a bullet-proof vest made in the U.S. from a fabric produced overseas. There are many examples of the trade imbalance that I can point to. I would like to review one example for you. The Dutch government, between 1991 and 1994, purchased $508 million in defense equipment from U.S. manufacturers, including air-refueling planes, Chinook helicopters, Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter equipment, missiles, combat radios and various training equipment. During that same period, the United States purchased only $40 million of defense equipment from the Dutch. Recently, the Defense Ministers of the United Kingdom and Sweden pointed to similar situations in their countries. In every meeting regarding this subject, I am told how difficult it is to buy American defense products because of our protectionist policies and the strong ``Buy European'' sentiment overseas. Our protectionist practices will hurt us nationally and internationally. Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to ``buy European,'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. DOD should have the ability to make purchases from a second source in an allied country covered by a defense cooperation MOU or Declaration of Principles agreement when only one domestic source exists. This would ensure both price and product competition. Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces with which we are increasingly likely to operate in coalition warfare or peacekeeping missions. They increase our influence over recipient country actions, and in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to terminate support for equipment. Exports also lower the unit costs of systems to the U.S. military, and in recent years have kept mature lines open while the U.S. has developed new systems that will go into production around the turn of the century. Finally, these exports provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports--higher paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. ``Buy America'' restrictions on procurement will hurt funding for readiness, personnel land equipment modernization. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters. During debate on this legislation, I offered a second degree amendment with the intention of striking the protectionist amendment proposed by one of my colleagues. I thank my colleagues who successfully supported my amendment that worked to protect not only our allies but the American taxpayer and most importantly our servicemen and women who depend on the Department of Defense to train them and Congress to equip them with the best equipment irrelevant of its country of origin. Why is it that our special forces servicemembers routinely procure equipment without ``buy America'' requirements? In all my years on the committee, I have never seen anything like the proposed leasing scheme of the KC-767 aerial tankers. In my efforts and those of others on the Senate Armed Service Committee, to get information on this proposed deal with Boeing, there has been obfuscation. There has been delay. There is withholding of information from me and this committee. Senior Air Force officials have even mislead the committee, according to the DoD Inspector General. It is incumbent upon all of us to provide the men and women of the Armed Forces with the most capabilities in return for our expenditures. In several hearings this year, we have heard the Air Force Secretary and the Air Force Secretary of Acquisition testify that they have not completed an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) on aerial tankers. The KC- 767 aerial tanker effort requires the Secretary of Defense to do an AOA. Authorized funding should come from Air Force aviation programs which would have originally funded AOA if the program was appropriately planned and programmed like other DoD program. Moreover, the AOA is required by Air Mobility Command (AMC) & DoD documents, TRS-05 and KC- 135 ESLS. I am pleased the Senate is requiring the Secretary of Defense to undertake an AOA on aerial tankers. In the Air Force's fiscal year 2004's budget request the Air Force proposed eliminating 68 KC-135E aerial tankers. The Tanker Requirement Study (TRS-05) was conducted by the Air Mobility Command and the Secretary of Defense Program, Analysis, and Evaluation Division--OSD PA&E. TRS-05 identified the need for approximately 500 to 600 operational KC-135 equivalents to meet air refueling requirements. No other program has received so much attention by the Air Force Secretary. Yet, in direct contrast to his own Air Force studies, he seems relentless in exaggerating aerial tanker shortfalls in order to win approval of his KC-767 leasing scam. I am pleased the committee has included language reducing the number allowed to be retired to 12, but I still feel the Air Force should be prohibited from retiring the requested number of tankers until the AOA is completed and we have determined the best way to replace these national assets. It is foolhardy to begin retiring planes without a plan to replace them. I am pleased the Senate included a provision that will save millions down the road. The Senate directs the Air Force to provide adequate funding for aviation depots for the purpose of correcting corrosion for the KC-135 aerial refueling fleet. The Armed Services Committee has heard testimony that every $1 spent in preventive maintenance saves $7 in repair or replacement costs. This action to add funding to KC-135 aviation depot level facilities would meet a top objective in the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's fiscal year 2004 Unfunded Priority List. Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom demonstrated to the world what we saw just 12 years ago. We went to war as the most combat- ready force in the world. The value of that readiness is clear. We won a massive victory in a few weeks, and we did so with very limited loss of American and allied lives. We were able to end aggression with minimum overall loss of life, and we were even able to greatly reduce the civilian casualties of Afghani and Iraqi citizens. In order to understand the issues involved, it is necessary to recognize just how difficult it is to achieve the kind of readiness we had during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Readiness is not solely a matter of funding operations and maintenance at the proper level. It is not only a matter of funding adequate numbers of high quality personnel, or of funding superior weapons and munitions, strategic mobility and propositioning, high operating tempos, realistic levels of training at every level of combat, or of logistics and support capabilities. Readiness, in fact, is all of these things and more. A force beings to go hollow the moment it loses its overall mix of combat capabilities in any one critical area. Our technology edge in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been meaningless if we did not have men and women trained to use it. Having the best weapons system platforms in the world would not have given us our victory if we had not had the right command and control facilities, maintenance capabilities, and munitions. The military forces that we sent to participate in Operation Desert Storm, Kosovo and Serbia, and Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, trained for their missions on military ranges here in the United States. Perhaps the premier range in the continental United States is the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona. This nearly 3 million acre range comprises portions of the Sonoran desert and the Cabeza Prieta wilderness. It is estimated that the military spends approximately $77 million a year on conservation efforts on the Barry M. Goldwater Range. There are nearly 80 employees dedicated to continued protection of the Goldwater Range, including archaeologists, biologists, ornithologists and other natural resources experts. In my view, the Air Force and the Marine Corps are very good stewards of this critical habitat. Efforts are ongoing among environmental agencies, the Department of Defense, and the various land management agencies to further clarify and define the use and management of the Goldwater Range land and the airspace above it, While I applaud these efforts, I must affirmatively state my strong support for preserving the military use of this land and associated airspace. Every service has approached me to convey their deep concern that the military maintain its ability to train in this one-of-a-kind training range. The Barry M. Goldwater Range is one of the last open-space ranges available to our Armed Forces for realistic, integrated, joint training exercises. I am glad the Senate has included language to help ensure that this training ``jewel'' remains available to our military for training purposes. I am very concerned with the trend in the services to curtail live fire opportunities in training. As weapon systems become more expensive and are manufactured in fewer quantities, we are creating a military force that often fires a weapon for the first time in combat. In the Navy, aviators used to fire one radar-guided and one heat-seeking annually. This was reduced to one missile each during a single tour of duty, and has now been further reduced to a single missile each during an entire career. Luke Air Force Base (AFB) is home to the 56th Fighter Wing and 228 F- 16, single engine, high performance aircraft. Luke AFB, similar to the situation at Nellis AFB, that the committee has previously addressed, has significant urban development encroachment issues that impact training at the base. Armed aircraft are no longer permitted to take off to the north of Luke AFB and over the past several years, there have been 16 serious aircraft accidents due to catastrophic engine failure. It is critical that land use along the southern departure corridor (SDC) remain compatible with armed aircraft weapons training, to preserve access to the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR), to prevent land use or encroachments that are incompatible with activities at Luke AFB in the SDC and to increase the margin of safety associated with the Live Ordnance Departure Are (LODA) southwest of Luke AFB. The Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act provided $10 million to the Air Force for land acquisition at Luke AFB intended to prevent encroachment from residential development and to ensure safe operations for flight departures and munitions storage. The Air Force identified an immediate requirement to purchase 234 acres around the munitions storage and is in the process of executing this purchase to correct the most serious safety deficiencies. Furthermore, other parcels have been identified to be purchased to protect surrounding communities from impeding upon explosive blast distance arcs and the danger of single-seat F-16 Falcon jets with live ordnance that overfly land areas in the Southern Departure Corridor headed to the BMGR. A land compatibility use study is currently ongoing to identify potential additional real estate to be purchased in the Southern Departure corridor of the airfield overflown by F-16's headed to the BMGR. I am pleased the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support included in the chairman's mark, $14.3 million as a modification to the Fiscal Year 2003 authorization to facilitate the quick acquisition of additional parcels around the munitions area and in the Southern Departure corridor once they are identified. The Air Force has identified significant encroachment problems hindering safe flight operations at Luke AFB and will be able to protect accident potential zones from residential development through additional land acquisitions. The Senate Armed Services Committee expects the Air Force to send the committee the results of the land compatibility use study by June 1st, as promised by the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. The project is a modification to a current requirement previously considered by this committee, authorized, appropriated, and now being executed by the Air Force. For too long, we have asked our Armed Forces to do more with less. Now it is time to provide them with the funding they need, and to ensure that it is spent more wisely. The American people must also be assured that their tax dollars are being spent to provide for their defense--for the national interest, not for special interests. More must be done to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative work and military installations. More effort must be made to turn over nonmilitary functions to civilian contractors, to reduce the continuing bloat of headquarters staffs, and to decentralize the Pentagon's labyrinth of bureaucratic fiefdoms. The base realignment and closure (BRAC) legislation that Congress authorized in 2000 will make available from $4 to $7 billion per year by eliminating excess defense infrastructure. There is another $2 billion per year we can put to better purposes by privatizing or consolidating support and maintenance functions, and an additional $5.5 billion per year by eliminating ``Buy America'' restrictions that discourage U.S. competition and raise costs. Similar attention is required to wean our political system of its highly developed taste for pork. I identified $5.2 billion in items that the Appropriations Committee, not the Defense Department, added to the budget last year. We should not tolerate the sacrifice of limited defense resources to special interests masquerading as improvements to our defense. These total savings in the Defense Department amount to almost $20 billion per year--$20 billion that must be reallocated within the defense budget to higher priority military personnel and modernization requirements. While I am pleased that amount of member adds in this year's legislation has been reduced to around $1 billion, I am still troubled by the amount of unrequested spending on this legislation. Year after year, funding for the same unrequested, unnecessary projects are included in this legislation. For example, the 21st century truck has received $17.5 million dollars in this legislation. I wonder how many veterans Concurrent Receipts benefits would be funded by the total amount we have sunk into the development of the 21st century truck over the years? In the wisdom of the Senate, we have provided $35 million more than the President requested to buy the JPATS Texan. That is a lot of money for an aircraft the Navy does not need or even want. We have provided $10 million for the High Temperature Superconducting Alternating Current HRSAC Synchronous Motor. We have provided $60 million for Advanced Extra High Frequency Spare Parts. Also on the member adds list is $50 million for the Los Alamos National Lab. The fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill adds $60 million for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). This project is one of the largest additions in the bill. This is in addition to the $609.3 million that was included in the President's defense budget request. With this funding the Air Force will provide a $669.3 million boost to defense companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin to keep both companies in the rocket-launch business, easing the impact of a steep falloff in commercial orders for such services in the commercial-satellite market, where orders have all but dried up. I am opposed to the ``assured access to space program'' as it is currently designed. I believe the Committee should hold hearings to review whether to drop one company. I do not believe that two companies are providing adequate competition in this critical program. I believe that a proper accounting of the EELV program will result in a report that more rocket launches and additional weather, communications, reconnaissance, eavesdropping and global position satellites would be launched if the Department of Defense would simply choose a single source for military rocket launches. I could continue in this vein, but it is sufficient to say that the military needs more money and should spend it more wisely to address the serious problems caused by a decade of declining defense budgets. I have included a copy of the fiscal year 2004 Member Add List which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the record. I will continue to fight for additional support of increases to the Department of Defense budget. I also will continue to examine with a keen eye all congressional marks that take money away from needed military programs and instead buy political support through favoritism in awarding contracts. In addition, I will persist in placing the men and women who fight for our flag and country at the top of my priority list where they belong; we owe them our gratitude, respect, and unwavering support. They keep us free. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I join Senator Baucus in introducing the Middle East Trade and Engagement Act of 2003. Our legislation would permit eligible countries in the greater Middle East to gain greater access to American markets through the duty-free treatment of certain exports, and ultimately to negotiate free trade agreements with the United States. It would condition broader trade relations on fundamental political and economic reforms, cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, among other issues, in order to promote liberalization and reform across the Arab and Muslim worlds. Free trade is a powerful tool for opening up closed societies, if leaders in the greater Middle East are willing to make necessary and overdue political and economic reforms. It is past time for nations in the region to join the global economy, and for rulers to lead increasingly restive populations in the direction of democracy and free markets. Today, the countries of the Middle East account for a small percentage of non-energy sector trade for the United States. With the exception of oil, most Arab nations barely trade with each other, much less with the rest of the world, and many still maintain a hostile economic boycott on Israel--policies that isolate the Middle East from the global economy and perpetuate conflict instead of building prosperity. The wave of free-market reform and democratization that swept Europe, Latin America, Asia, and parts of Africa in the 1980s and 1990s has left most of the Middle East untouched and unchanged. America's interest in economic opening and political liberalization in the region requires a new level of engagement with the countries of the greater Middle East, premised on the acceleration and active implementation of a host of reforms without which prosperity and democracy are not possible. Our legislation would tie preferential trade access to American markets to progress towards adoption of these reforms, as well as meaningful progress on human rights protections, decisive movement towards democracy, full cooperation in the war on terrorism, and an end to the primary, secondary, and tertiary economic boycott of Israel. Our bill is modeled on the success of the Andean Trade Preferences Act and the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Ideally, enactment of the bill we are introducing today would create a regime of duty-free trade in a number of goods from the greater Middle East. Such a trade preference program would encourage and often require eligible nations to undertake the kind of significant economic reforms that ultimately lead to free trade agreements, as President Bush has called for and which we support. The Andean Trade Preferences Act was created to expand the economies of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. By granting duty-free and reduced rate treatment to various products from these nations, we took action to strengthen the fragile economies of the region, expand their export bases, and provide Andean farmers and workers with legitimate employment outside of the drug trade. It has worked. The trade agreement created new industries in the region outside of the drug trade and expanded the economies of the region which helped to create legitimate jobs. We foresee similar effects from this legislation on parts of the Middle East, if leaders have the courage and vision to complement progress on trade with internal political and economic reforms. Reform in the Arab and Muslim worlds requires not just greater trade but accelerated political and economic liberalization, including respect for fundamental human freedom. It is my hope that the spirit and effect of our legislation will help move countries of the greater Middle East in that direction.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. After his amendment has been second-degreed?

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, if the pending amendment prevails, then it prevails. If the pending amendment fails, then we would be agreeable to a voice vote.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Minnesota ought to read his own amendment because the effect of his amendment would be to prohibit these countries from competing to sell their military equipment in the United States of America. I think that is a great disservice to the men and women in the military, and it is protectionism at its worst. I would hope my colleagues will vote for the second-degree amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I do not object.

Mr. McCAIN. Reclaiming my time, Madam President.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we are waiting for the imminent return of Senator Warner so we can start a vote on the second-degree amendment. While we are waiting--F-16s: The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Singapore, United Arab Emirates; F-18s: Switzerland, Finland, Canada, and Australia; Tomahawk missiles: United Kingdom, Israel; F-15s and F-16s, AAMs, air to air missiles, 31 countries we sell those to. All of that equipment is sold to these other countries, and they are at least under the understanding that they can compete to sell some of their equipment in our Nation. It is remarkable. I would imagine that if the Dayton amendment goes through, we will see cancellations of a number of those commitments to buy that equipment from the United States of America. No other freely elected government would do anything else. I ask the Senator from Minnesota again the following question: If there is a country that is a close ally of ours that can produce a better piece of military equipment at a lower price, and our military decides it is the best with which we can provide our men and women in the military, would the Senator from Minnesota reject that?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment narrows the numbers of countries to six that would be eligible under the provisions of the bill and would modify the pending amendment to remove the restrictions that would be imposed by the pending amendment at least in the case of six nations which are our closest allies. Last week we passed an AIDS bill through the Senate, and there were numerous amendments. One of them was a very interesting amendment because it basically protected an industry in the United States of America, thereby causing AIDS drugs to be only available at much higher prices, which then had the obvious effect of reducing the number of people who will be treated for AIDS. I forget the vote. I think it was 54 something to 40 something. By protecting a major American industry, the pharmaceutical industry--in the estimates of some--hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will not be able to obtain a cure for AIDS because the drug money is obviously finite. I was embarrassed by that. I think the Senator from Minnesota voted with the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, in his amendment of which I was a cosponsor. Basically what we are doing now is to set up protection for other industries--primarily, the defense industries in the United States--by prohibiting the United States from purchasing military equipment that is manufactured in other countries which is the effect of the Dayton amendment. It is rather remarkable because we just came out of a conflict from which we suffered Americans dead and wounded. One would think that the priority should be not where the equipment is manufactured, whether it be in the United States or England, Great Britain, one of our closest and most steadfast allies, a friend whose men and women fought alongside of ours, but the question should be, What kind of equipment can best secure victory as quickly as possible with a minimum of casualties? Believe it or not, there is equipment that is manufactured in other countries which is superior to our own--defense equipment--not many, because there is a tremendous imbalance between the amount and kinds of equipment that is purchased by our NATO Allies as opposed to the equipment that is purchased by the United States from our NATO Allies. But there still is some. For example, body armor. Body armor is used by the police departments, border patrol, and many law enforcement agencies, but not by the American military, because it is prohibited from doing so. Yet anyone who compares that manufactured in the U.S. to that manufactured in the Netherlands will testify it is superior equipment. What is our priority here in the Dayton amendment? Is the priority to protect an American industry, and not allow our closest allies and friends to compete to sell their products, their defense equipment, to the United States of America, as we do in their countries? Everything from F-16s, to tanks, to incredible amounts of military equipment, because of our superiority, is purchased by our NATO allies, but we are going to be prohibited from purchasing any of theirs even if, in the judgment of the men and women in the military who test these things and make the judgments, and the Secretary of Defense--we are not going to buy it even if it is better equipment because we want to protect an industry in the United States of America? We have seen this protectionism going on here in the textile industry, even though the Caribbean countries are decimated because they cannot export their product to the United States. Here we are talking about the lives of the men and women in the military. Can we not at least allow our military to look at equipment made by our closest allies to see if it is superior; that we might want to purchase it just as they purchase massive amounts of military equipment from us? Is the Senator from Minnesota--who, unfortunately, is not on the floor to respond--more interested in protecting an industry or more interested in protecting the lives of the men and women fighting in the military? Don't they deserve the very best equipment we can procure? I am sorry, you cannot have the following equipment which is superior to that made in Minnesota because we want an industry in Minnesota to be protected. I don't get it. Frankly, neither will the men and women in the military who are unable to function in the most effective fashion if they are deprived of the ability to procure the most effective equipment. We are talking about not every country in the world but our closest allies; we are talking about our closest friends--those who supported us in the war on Iraq and those who even sent troops, in the case of the British, to fight alongside ours. If the Dayton amendment is approved, no British manufacturer can compete to sell equipment to the United States military. How do you justify that if it happens to be superior equipment? In the name of protectionism, we would deprive the men and women in the military of the best equipment we can find for them to fight and risk their lives. Well, I have a second-degree amendment that states this removal of the Buy America equipment would not apply to our six closest Allies. I hope my colleagues will see their way clear to vote in favor of it. Let me also tell my colleagues one other practical effect. We now tell these countries that we cannot, under any circumstances, buy their equipment. These are the same countries that are buying billions of dollars of our military equipment--F-16s, Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters. The list goes on and on. If you are running a company and you manufacture military equipment and you get the word that the United States, under no circumstances, will purchase it from you, what would you say about proposed purchases of American-made equipment? I think the answer is obvious. These are all freely elected governments, all governments that have to respond to their constituents. What will they say? So the effect of this Dayton amendment, if passed, would be some $5.5 billion, which is the difference between what we buy from these countries and what they buy from us on an annual basis. I hope we will be able to adopt the substitute. I understand my colleague's dismay and unhappiness about the performance of the French government and, to a lesser degree, the Germans and the Belgians but I also remind my colleagues there was a very large number of European countries that supported us, even in the face of public opinion which was against the government policy of supporting us in Iraq. So their support will now be rewarded by a prohibition from buying any military equipment they manufacture in their country. I don't think that is fair. I don't think it is right. Most of all, I think it is wrong if we are not going to purchase the best equipment no matter where it is produced in the world so our men and women in the military can best function in the safest and most efficient fashion. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, there is an old saying about everybody is entitled to their opinion, but not everybody is entitled to their facts. The Department of Defense, to whom we give the responsibility to carry out the procurement of weapons, says: These flexibilities-- Which are in the bill-- are needed to counter restrictions that severely impede the ability of the Department of Defense to promote our national security policy that calls for standardization and interoperability of conventional defense equipment used by U.S. armed forces and used by the armed forces of our allies and coalition partners. The Department of Defense should have authority to make exceptions to these restrictions in the interest of national security comparable to the public interest exception authorized by the Buy America Act. By providing these flexibilities, Congress better enables the Department of Defense to acquire the best equipment and technology available, promotes improved readiness and capabilities of the U.S. armed forces, strengthens coalition warfighting capabilities, promotes competition in contracting needs of the U.S. armed forces. . . . Obviously, the Department of Defense has a very different view of the impact of this legislation than the Senator from Minnesota. My colleagues can decide where the expertise lies. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, how long will it take?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Nevada if we have all of the amendments from that side which are going to be proposed?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Mike Jendrzejczyk was an unusually decent man whose commitment to human freedom left an indelible imprint on all of us who knew him, and laid the foundation for a legacy of lasting importance to the cause of human rights in Asia and the world. Everybody who works on Asia in Washington knew Mike, and many of us came to rely on his singular knowledge of human rights conditions across Asia, as well as his operational ability to get things done by astutely working with and through the myriad components of our government. Time and again, I found Mike to be a unique authority on the human rights agenda in Asia, and an extremely skilled advocate who was able to cajole, charm, shame, and ultimately convince his listener that a particular human rights initiative was not only a moral imperative, but would best serve the national interest. Mike's pragmatism never detracted from his high principles; on the contrary, the combination of pragmatism and principle was what led people in Government to reach out to Mike, time and again, for advice on how to advance the human rights agenda, given his unique talent for producing deliverables, in terms of policy and legislation, that advanced human freedom. Mike was a man of unimpeachable integrity. You could trust his word and his judgment, a particularly admirable quality in Washington. He could speak to so many audiences so well: whether to Burmese dissidents, Tibetan exiles, Cambodian reformers, Chinese activists, Republicans, or Democrats, Mike had a way of engaging his listener without abandoning his trademark straight talk about practical solutions to the grave challenges that confront those who fight oppression every day. Mike had a friendly way of co-opting many of his allies, making them want to pursue the goals he had laid out, with the means he had proposed, in order to earn his respect and, as importantly, the respect associated with those causes that met with his approval. Mike was in the process of helping my staff draft a bill related to human rights in Vietnam when we lost him. Just as he accomplished so much, Mike left behind so much more to do. I'd like to think Mike will remain a voice of conscience to each of us who had the privilege of working with him, and who found his work inspiring. Perhaps each of us will try a little harder to fill the space Mike left behind in his quest to advance the cause of basic human dignity, and hope. There was no one like Mike. But if Mike's memory doesn't fade; if we still rhetorically fumble his amazing last name in recollecting his full life; if we each absorb a small bit of the energy that drove him; and if we are true to the principles he held so deeply, reminding us of our own obligation to uphold them as well, he will stay with us, and freedom's light will shine a little more brightly for it.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment, like this bill, addresses a specific pandemic that demands our attention and our action. According to the most recent data available, at least 20 million people have died of HIV/AIDS globally, orphaning 14 million children. On the African continent, approximately 30 million people have the AIDS virus--3 million of whom are children under the age of 15. In the spirit of the underlying bill, I have joined my friend Senator Kennedy in cosponsoring this amendment to ensure that this bill saves as many lives as possible. Our amendment will allow for the purchase of many more drugs to treat those suffering from HIV/AIDS, stretching the taxpayers' dollars as far and as effectively as possible. This amendment allows U.S. taxpayer dollars to go towards the purchase of safe, but less expensive equivalent medications on the global market if they are available. It enables the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to use Federal funds to procure drugs at the lowest possible price on the global market to treat HIV/AIDS patients, provided that they are approved for treatment in the U.S.; the EU; have been selected by the World Health Organization's, WHO, Pilot Procurement Quality and Sourcing Project for HIV-related medicines; or are authorized for use by the country where the product will be used. These are the same qualifications used by the United Nations Global Fund to procure drugs. This amendment does not give preference to a particular treatment for HIV/AIDS. Patients will not be precluded from receiving the drug treatments that are medically necessary; however, if there is a less expensive equivalent drug included in that treatment, this amendment will require the purchase of that lower-cost drug. As a proponent of free trade and a staunch supporter of upholding our global trade obligations, I don't believe this amendment violates carefully negotiated agreements on intellectual property rights at the World Trade Organization, WTO, nor does it weaken the position of our trade representatives in future intellectual property negotiations. The language of this amendment closely tracks the most recent intellectual property rights agreements at the WTO. I urge my colleagues to choose to make treatments available to many more people suffering from this terrible disease and vote for this amendment.