John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President----

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have 4 minutes remaining?

Mr. McCAIN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself what time is remaining.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I outlined in some detail the testimony of the service chiefs last September: The need for $30 billion more than the current defense budget dollars. In a few days, the Department of Defense will come over with a reprogramming request. That will be for $850 million, which is really what this request is all about. What is a reprogramming request? It is a requirement to take money out of one category and put it into another because the wheels are about to come off. They are going to have to take money from existing programs and put it into what this amendment is all about: Personnel, readiness, operations and maintenance, and the lives of the men and women in the military. This amendment puts money in the right accounts, and that is readiness and personnel. Nothing is more important than the men and women in the military and national defense. The Department of Treasury salaries and expenses isn't more important than defense. The NASA Shuttle Electric Auxiliary Power Units are not more important than defense. The Life and Micro- Gravity Science Research is not more important than defense. The Advance Technology Program is not more important than defense. The Job Access & Reverse Commute Grants Program is not more important than defense, nor is Export Promotion Programs or Emergency Loan Guarantees. Nothing is more important than the security of this Nation. I hope this modest amendment, which does have offsets, will be agreed to by this body. It does not have an objection from the Office of Management and Budget nor from the Department of Defense. So, Mr. President, the men and women of our military are suffering. They need help. I promised them that help during the last campaign. This is one very small way of beginning to deliver. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I am deeply, deeply disturbed that the Senator from Alaska would not allow an up-or-down vote on this amendment, which is paid for--which is paid for. And if we are going to play that kind of parliamentary game, the Senator from Alaska can plan on a lot of fun in the ensuing appropriations bills. I move at this point to waive all points of order that may lie against this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. That may lie against this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. There are other points of order, and I might want to try them.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Alaska is giving time to the Senator from Missouri. Is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I object. I want the amendment read.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I object. Is the amendment debatable?

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

Mr. McCAIN. I want the continued reading of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time to be taken from both sides.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I want to explain the modifying amendment removes the offsets of title XI of the maritime subsidies and also the cut in the Export-Import Bank subsidy. So the remaining offsets will remain. I will go through those in a few minutes, but I want to emphasize that both the Export-Import Bank rescission and the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program have also been removed. There have been increases in the amounts of offsets for transit planning and research to $90 million and job access to $116 million. So I will now be glad to discuss that with the managers of the bill, if they have any additional questions. I am pleased to have the support and cosponsorship of Senators Lieberman, Landrieu, Kyl, and Carnahan as cosponsors to this amendment. Basically what it does is it adds a total of $847.8 million in additional spending, all of it for personnel, operations and maintenance, and a very small amount, $45 million, for procurement. So virtually all of this--$800 million of the $847 million--is for the men and women in the military, the Reserve personnel, including funds to remove sailors and Marines from food stamps, and operations and maintenance, which, as we all know, is very badly underfunded. This amendment funds the bare minimum that the military services have said they need. We must prioritize our spending and, in my judgment, fully funding the readiness of our forces must be our first obligation. This amendment will add $847.8 million to the defense portion of the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001, yet it will not exceed the budget resolution caps because it is fully offset by 12 separate rescissions from non-defense programs. This amendment will increase the President's supplemental budget request from $5.5 billion to $6.34 billion. Most of the funding offsets in the amendment were added last year by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills and will not be obligated by this October, according to various agency heads. In other words, much of the money I propose to rescind will not be spent this year--no matter how seemingly worthy the cause. Later this month, the President will send to Congress the Pentagon's Omnibus Reprogramming Request for Fiscal Year 2001. I am told that the reprogramming request is about $850 million. The services will have to reprogram or transfer critical money from other key readiness and modernization accounts to adequately pay and train our service men and women. Our military services, stretched thin and overworked, are raiding Real Property Maintenance readiness funding--already $16 billion underfunded--and other key accounts, just to ensure that they can pay much-needed bonuses to retain servicemembers. We have sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines--some still on food stamps--living in very old, dilapidated homes because the military services keep reprogramming critical funds to shore up other equally urgent needs. In Arizona, for example, there are marines at Yuma Marine Corps Air Station living in World War II-era barracks. Base Commanders tell me that they have deferred maintenance for the past 10 years because they need to fund higher priorities--and who can blame them. We should fund the services adequately, instead of forcing them to make a Hobson's choice. Recent terrorist threats have clearly demonstrated the dangerous impact of the military funding shortfalls. In late June, U.S. Navy 5th Fleet warships in ports of the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Oman, were ordered to sea, after several reports that Osama Bin Laden, the world's most notorious terrorist, was said to be planning a comprehensive attack on U.S. and Israeli targets in the Mideast. The U.S. ships had to leave port, since the U.S. Coast Guard--which had primary responsibility for protecting U.S. Naval ships after the USS Cole attack--had to pull out its port security forces due to lack of adequate funding or reimbursement from the U.S. Navy, whose budget already is underfunded. The U.S. Navy then had to implement an emergency Presidential recall of Navy Reservists, resulting in a nearly $2 million unfunded liability not addressed in this supplemental. This amendment pays for these critical force protection efforts. In 1998, the service chiefs confirmed many of the alarming readiness deficiencies that had been identified by countless sources. The imperative for increasing military readiness and reforming our military is as strong today as it was then, It is my firm belief that as elected officials, providing for a strong national defense is our most serious obligation. Anyone who dismisses our readiness problems, our concerns with morale and personnel retention, and our deficiencies in everything from spare parts to training is blatantly ignoring the dire reality of this situation. Too often in the last century, we ignored warnings from the military that our armed forces were too weak to meet the many grave challenges they face. Today, we must listen to our commanders, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. The service chiefs have indicated that they need at least $30 billion more per year for modernization and readiness accounts. Listen to detailed testimony before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on September 27, 2000--just eight months ago--by our current Joint Chiefs on the underfunded needs of our military services, and the dramatic, harmful consequences likely to occur if we fail to adequately fund these requirements. General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: [C]ontinuing to improve our current readiness posture to desired levels while preparing for tomorrow's challenges will require additional resources. . . . The $60 billion projected by the QDR [for procurement] will not be enough to get the job done. General Shelton continues: [O]ur long-term ability to sustain our [military] equipment is slipping. One cause is due to the negative effects of a higher than planned tempo of operations on our aging equipment. This high tempo and the associated wear-and-tear require more frequent maintenance and repair, further highlighting the need for recapitalization and modernization of our forces. Moreover, we have not been able to procure enough new equipment to reduce the average age of our force structure. It is also important to note that we believe this higher maintenance tempo has also had a deleterious effect on the hardworking troops attempting to maintain this aging equipment, which directly impact retention of our quality force. At posts, camps and stations, such items as housing, fuel lines and water lines, as well as facilities where people work and live, have outstripped their useful life. . . . and this directly impacts our ability to provide a decent quality of life for our troops. . . . How much more funding is needed? . . . Well in excess of $60 billion is needed to maintain our readiness. Gen. Eric Shinseki, U.S. Army Chief of Staff, testified that $30 billion more per year is a move in the right direction, but even that does not take into account Army transformation costs or shortages in critical ammunition needs: We have training shortfalls in institutional training, training support, training range modernization, and combat training center modernization. Real Property Maintenance is currently funded at 75 percent of requirement, a funding level that will not slow or prevent the ongoing deterioration of existing Army facilities. . . . At this rate, it will take the Army about 157 years to fully revitalize our infrastructure. Any of my colleagues who read the recent study conducted by the U.S. Army about the personnel situation in the U.S. Army today should be appalled and deeply disturbed by the findings of the U.S. Army about the lack of confidence amongst the young men and women about their leadership, about their future, about their lack of desire in retention. We are losing captains in the U.S. Army at a greater rate than at any time in the history of the U.S. Army. Adm. Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, concurred in testimony that $30 billion more in total each year is required: I am concerned about the inventory levels of Precision Guided Munitions. . . . We are still below the current warfighting requirement. The shortfall of precision munitions is a major risk driver for our forces . . . with our current inventory, execution of a second MTW will rely more on the use of non-precision munitions, thereby increasing the risk to our pilots and the potential for collateral damage. Madam President, I have a lot of quotes. Admiral Clark continues: It is critical that we begin to fund 100 percent of our manning, maintenance, ordnance, modernization, recapitalization and training requirements. . . . We have not been doing that. Improving the quality of our workspaces requires a commitment to both Real Property Maintenance and MILCON, both of which are seriously underfunded. Admiral Clark continues: [M]anpower is our most urgent challenge. . . . In retention we remain below our goal. [T]oday-- He is talking about last September-- I am 14,000 people short: almost 8,000 at sea, and 6,000 ashore. That has to be redressed soon. We are at war for people. It has to be reflected in our budget. . . . [A]nd we will need the help of Congress. Gen. Michael E. Ryan, Air Force Chief of Staff, testified that the Air Force needs at least $11 billion more per year: [A]ir Force readiness has not turned around--at best these efforts have leveled off the decline. . . . The overall combat readiness of our combat units is down 23 percent since 1996. Because we must assure the readiness of our engaged forces overseas, we have done it at the expense of our stateside units. The reasons for these readiness declines have their basis in operations tempo, past underfunding of spares, dealing with older and aging systems, and a workforce that is less experienced because of retention declines. General Ryan also contends: [T]he Mission Capable (MC) rates of our aircraft have continued to decline by over 10 percent since 1991. Mission Capable rates are directly proportional to how much time an aircraft is not available because of not having parts in supply or because maintenance work needs to be done on the aircraft to make it ready. Some of our units are not getting as much flying as they should get, because of our inability to generate the aircraft because of mission capability rates. We have not had enough funding to do that adequately. He continues: [T]he overall retention rate remains a serious concern. We fell below our end strength authorization of 361,000 active duty members by 5,300. . . . And that is probably 5,000 under what is required. So a total of 10,000 short right now. Madam President, I am again reminding my colleagues, I am talking about testimony that was given last September to the Armed Services Committee. Enlisted retention levels are below goal. . . . A shortage of 1200 pilots exists today, the additional bonuses have made an impact. [Moreover,] [b]ecause of funding shortfalls, we have significantly under-invested in base operating support, Real Property Maintenance, family housing, and military construction. We cannot continue to mortgage this area of our force readiness without significant long-term effects. Over the past six years we have averaged an investment in infrastructure at a 250-year replacement rate. Industry standard is 50 years. We have a $4.3 billion Real Property Maintenance backlog. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James L. Jones, testified that the Marine Corps needs at least $1.5 billion more per year for modernization alone, including $220 million for basic ammunition: We are at a point where failure to rectify modernization and readiness shortfalls can no longer be ignored. . . . It is readily apparent that we are fast running out of short- term fixes for budget shortfalls. One-time increases in defense spending are not the solution. A sustained period of increased funding is required in order to ensure the future readiness of your Corps. He continues: [T]he countless hours of maintenance on our aging ground systems directly impacts the life of our Marines. Many of our aircraft are approaching block obsolescence. The majority of our key aviation equipment is older than the Marines who use it. . . . Since 1995, the direct maintenance man-hours per hour of flight increased by 33 percent and there has been a 58 percent increase in our ``cannibalization'' rate. ``Cannibalization'' means stealing parts from one airplane to make another one operationally capable. During the same time period the full mission capable rate, though still within acceptable parameters, has decreased by 9.45 across the force. These statistics represent data for all Marine Corps aircraft and show a declining level of readiness. General Jones also maintained that: [W]e continue to have a deficit of approximately 10,000 family units. Our backlog of Maintenance and Repair . . . amounts to over $600 million. Budget limitations force us to make hard choices that result in funding only our most critical construction requirements. Although we have reduced our MILCON-- Military construction-- replacement cycle to approximately 100 years, it is still twice the industry standard. The testimony to the service chiefs is alarming. It underscores the rationale for this amendment. It seeks simply to respond to basic requirements of our military services just until the end of this fiscal year, which occurs in fewer than 75 days from now. The amendment will help our service men and women recognize their Government's firm commitment to: Adequately provide for modernization; ensuring equipment maintenance--including reversing the deficiency in spare parts availability--is adequately funded; sufficiently funding critical training needs, including flying hours; beginning to resolve the broad pay and benefits disparity that affects our service men and women; starting to reverse the high rates of attrition across the services; continuing to take service members off the food stamp rolls; and ensuring at least minimum force protection efforts to help prevent further U.S.S. Cole-type terrorist attack. I urge your support for this critical amendment. Madam President, I outlined shortfalls and deficiencies within the Department of Defense that far exceed--far, far exceed--this $847 million amendment. But I would point out that this administration, with my wholehearted support, and this Secretary of Defense are doing everything they can to restructure and reorganize the military and impose necessary savings. I believe a very good faith effort is being made on the other side of the river at the Pentagon. I am proud of the efforts Secretary Rumsfeld is making. I look forward eagerly to supporting him in whatever conclusions and recommendations they make because he has gathered together some of the best military minds in America to come up with these proposals. But they have not been forthcoming yet. We have some very deep and severe short-term needs. I was fully expecting--fully expecting--when this administration came in that there would be significant increases, including in this supplemental appropriations bill. I appreciate the efforts of the managers. But I say to the managers, it is not enough, nor is this amendment enough. But I cannot imagine why these urgent needs, which are being addressed on a personnel and operations and maintenance basis, would be rejected. There may be some questions about the offsets. There is a $30 million offset from the Department of the Treasury ``Salaries & Expenses'' for the 2002 Winter Olympics security. In this rescission we only cut half of the money added for the Olympics by the Senate Appropriations Committee during markup of the supplemental bill. We still leave $30 million for this program, adding to the $220 million in total Federal funding in the fiscal year 2002. It is difficult to understand why the need for Federal funding for safety and security purposes for the Olympic games has more than quadrupled since the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles and more than doubled since the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Compared to the 23 venues spread over a 500-square-mile area used for the Los Angeles Olympic Games and the 31 venues located in 8 cities that spread from Miami, FL, to Washington, DC, for the Atlanta Games, the Salt Lake Games will utilize only 14 venues located within a significantly smaller geographical perimeter. Yet the current total of Federal funding for safety and security purposes, which includes this $60 million in supplemental funding, is $220 million. The total funding for safety and security for Los Angeles, $68 million, and Atlanta, $96 million, combined was far less than what will be spent on the Salt Lake Winter Games. Last year's GAO report demonstrated that taxpayers have shelled out $1.3 billion in subsidies for Salt Lake City alone. As to the NASA shuttle electric auxiliary power units, $19 million: This amendment would rescind the remaining $19 million of FY 2001 funds for this program, whose implementation NASA has chosen to terminate. According to NASA, the anticipated remaining funding for FY 2001 is $19 million. Following the results of the EAPU review process that found technical flaws and cost overruns in the program, NASA has determined that the prudent action at this time is to terminate EAPU implementation while NASA formulates a plan on how to proceed with this upgrade project. The electric auxiliary power unit, EAPU is one of the several upgrade programs that NASA is developing for the Space Shuttle program. As to the NASA life and micro-gravity research, $40 million: The FY 2000 VA/HUD appropriations bill earmarked $40 million for a space shuttle mission, R-2 for life and micro-gravity research. Due to delays in overhauling the Shuttle Columbia the shuttle mission has been delayed and will not be launched in 2001. The supplemental appropriations bill would broaden the use of the $40 million for life and micro-gravity research that was earmarked for a special shuttle mission and other Space Station research in FY 2001. This amendment would rescind this earmark. As to Commerce Department's ``Advance Technology Program,'' known as ATP, $67 million: This amendment would rescind the funds that the Commerce Department carried over from last fiscal year and again and expects to be left over again at the end of this fiscal year. The President's FY 2002 budget request has requested no funds for the program. Historically, I have fought this program as corporate welfare, because it has given awards to Fortune 500 companies such as General Electric, Dow Chemical, the 3M Company, and Xerox. As to the Labor Department unspent balances in worker employment training activities, $141.5 million: This is the same amount rescinded by the other body for this program. The House supplemental appropriations bill rescinded $359 million from the $1.8 billion in advanced funding provided in the FY 2001 Labor/HHS Appropriations Act for adult and dislocated worker employment and training activities. The Senate bill only rescinded $217.5 million from these employment and training activities. We increase the amount rescinded by $141.5 million from these same activities so that we merely do the same thing as the House did and rescinded $359 million in total. Even with the rescission, States will still have $5.1 billion available to support these activities in 2001--$455 million over amounts available in 2000. The reason for this rescission is that when the advance appropriations were provided, it was not anticipated that there would be such high levels of unspent balances in these programs. As to the Transportation Department Job Access Reverse Commute Grants Program, $76 million: This offset in the amount of $76 million represents surplus funds from the Job Access Reverse Commute Program account that remained unused at the end of FY 2000. The enacted FY 2001 budget authority for this account was approximately $100 million. When added to the surplus funds from FY 2000, this account contained nearly $176 million. I have been informed by the budget office of the Department of Transportation that this account has a current unobligated balance of $146 million, which means that in the past 9 months of the current fiscal year, only about $30 million has been spent. We are thus rescinding only $76 million out of the total amount, leaving nearly $50 million for the Transportation Department to use over the next 82 days for this purpose. The Transportation Department transit planning and research, $34 million: The offset of $34 million is surplus funds which remained in the transit planning and research account at the end of fiscal year 2000. As to the Commerce Department International Trade Administration, Export Promotion Program, $19 million: The International Trade Administration's trade development program helps U.S. industries export their products. This program amounts to a corporate subsidy. There is no need to burden the American taxpayers with this program. U.S. industries wishing to export goods and services should pay for this type of counseling themselves. The fiscal year 2001 omnibus appropriations bill appropriated $64.7 million to this program. According to the Department of Commerce, $21 million remains unexpended in this account. As to the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program, $126.8 million: These are loan guarantees to qualified steel companies. There remains $126.8 million in unspent balances in the account for fiscal year 2001 out of a total appropriation of more than $129 million. I am told that none of this money will be spent in the 82 days left in this fiscal year. As to the Treasury Department U.S. Customs Service Byrd antidumping amendment funds rescission, $200 million: The ``continued dumping and subsidy offset'' was added in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture appropriations conference report--the wrong way to do business, I say to the managers of the bill, the wrong way to do business. However, the important point is that the entire sum of money collected during the current fiscal year under this law is not being spent. CBO scores the Byrd amendment at $200 to $300 million annually, and the chief financial officer of the Customs Service confirms this figure for fiscal year 2001. None of the money that is being collected throughout fiscal year 2001 will be disbursed to companies this year. In fact, it will not be disbursed until the second quarter of fiscal year 2002. The money that has been collected since the law was signed in October 2000 but which will not be disbursed in fiscal year 2001 is currently sitting unused in the general treasury. I am philosophically opposed to this program that distorts trade policy by taking antidumping duties levied to protect U.S. companies and actually redistributing duties collected to those very companies, providing them a double reward: punitive tariff rates for imports from overseas competitors, as well as a slush fund of public money. Again, the point here is that none of the $200 million collected annually for this program will be spent this year and sufficient funds will be collected next year to meet the law's fiscal year 2002 obligations. I have described the offsets because every one of those programs which this money is being reduced from, most of it unused at this time, pales in significance to the importance of taking care of the men and women in the military. Which is more important, decent housing for the men and women in the military or Commerce Department international trade administration export promotion programs? We have to always set priorities. I argue that the priority that exists today and that those of us on this side of the aisle promised the American people as a result of the election last year was that we would do a much better job of taking care of the men and women in the military than had been happening in the previous 8 years. I strongly urge adoption of this amendment. I yield such time as the Senator from Texas may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will read from an article in the Washington Post dated May 31, 2001, titled ``Bush Eyes Additional $5.6 Billion For Military: Increase Is Far Less Than Services Expected,'' by Robert Suro and Thomas Ricks, Washington Post staff writers. In part it states: The supplemental budget request . . . does not include any new money for ballistic missile defense which [Bush] has depicted a top priority, or for the weapons systems and operating costs that he said the Clinton administration had grossly underfunded. Some senior military officers and defense experts said yesterday the president's request is so small that it will not fully cover the Pentagon's current expenses. ``This request is the barebones, just the items that are absolutely to get by, and no one has any illusions that it is anything more than that,'' said a senior military officer speaking on the condition of anonymity. The article goes on to say: In the early days of the new administration, top military officials said they hope to get much more, at least $8 billion to $10 billion, in a supplemental that would, in effect, be the first installment of a Bush buildup. But the White House and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld decided they would take care of only immediate needs in modifying this year's defense budget. . . . The new priorities will not be fully felt until the 2003 budget is unveiled next winter . . . Although relatively small sums are at play, compared to the size of the defense budget, some senior military officers have complained. ``On the campaign trail he said over and over, `Help is on the way,''' said a flag officer . . . ``Well, we are going to need help when the fourth quarter of this budget year rolls around, and it is not going to be there.'' In principle, supplemental spending requests are meant to provide relatively small amounts for contingencies that arise after the Federal budget is enacted. But the Pentagon, unlike other Federal agencies, has regularly used supplementals to fill out identity funds for basic operations, maintenance, and supplies. Rumsfeld has warned that he intends to put an end to this practice, beginning with a crackdown this year. I certainly hope that will be the case. I challenge a Member of this body to find any member of the U.S. military leadership, any chief petty officer or sergeant who would tell them this is enough, that what is in the supplemental is enough. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am not quite ready with the amendment so I suggest the absence of a quorum. I understand the time will be taken from my allotted time.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to send a modification to my amendment to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is not objected to by the Department of Defense or the Office of Management and Budget. The amendment adds a bare minimum to fund defense readiness and personnel programs. It is $850 million. There are offsets. Whenever there are offsets, there are some objections. Nothing is more important, I believe at this time, than national defense. And this money is earmarked for the men and women in the military and their operations and maintenance accounts. Very soon the administration will come over with a reprogramming request for $850 million, meaning that the wheels are going to come off unless they devote more money to exactly these accounts. I hope we can vote to take care of the lifestyle, the readiness, and the operations of the men and women in the military. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. On the managers' amendment, none of us had ever seen it. It was just presented. I notice that it is now an emergency for an additional amount for State and private forestry, $750,000 to the Kenai Peninsula Borough Spruce Bark Beetle Task Force for emergency response and communications equipment, and $1.75 million to be provided to the municipality of Anchorage for emergency firefighting equipment and response to respond to wildfires in Spruce bark beetle-infested forests. Provided, that such amount shall be provided as direct lump sum payments within 30 days of enactment of this act. That is an unusual amendment. There are forest fires all over the West, including in my State. But, again, here is a managers' amendment worth many millions of dollars which none of us had seen or heard about, but we will go ahead and pass it by a voice vote. On the issue of the B-1, I believe very strongly that what we are doing is micromanaging the Department of Defense. The amendment is led on this side. I think the communications could have been and should have been established with the Secretary of Defense. I believe strongly that this amendment, which is going to be accepted, will not allow the transfer of one B-1 bomber from one base to another--not one will be allowed to be transferred from one to another. The sponsors of the amendment at least removed the preparation and planning clause that was also preventive. I think it is a very dangerous precedent for us to start at the beginning of a new administration and pass an amendment that says not one single airplane that is a B-1 can be transferred from one place to another. Yes, there should have been better communications. Yes, the affected Senators whose bases have B-1 bombers in that State should have been better informed. All of those things. But for us to act in this Draconian fashion is something I think sets a very bad precedent. We all know the Department of Defense needs to be restructured and reorganized. This message being sent by this amendment--don't tamper with our planes in our State--is not the right message to begin this very important period of restructuring and reorganizing our Nation's national security capabilities. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?