Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to note that the Senate authorizes $1.0M for efforts designed to enhance the development of key enabling robotics technologies that will support Army, Navy and Air Force transformational programs. These efforts will leverage and coordinate capabilities that exist in the federal government, industry, academia and not-for-profit entities. The Department of the Army has embarked on a new and ambitious program to develop a Future Combat System (FCS). Robotic and unmanned systems are expected to play a role in the platforms that are developed to support this Objective Force initiative. In addition to FCS, the Air Force and the Navy are pursuing the development of unmanned aircraft and, in the case of the Navy, underwater unmanned platforms. These funds are to be used to begin work and continue work on key robotics technologies that are identified by the Department of Defense and military services as essential to achieving transformational or leap ahead capabilities. Currently, there is no single coordinated service-wide robotics initiative that will support military efforts to transform. The authorized funds would begin the process of advanced product development, prototype development, product testing, demonstration, and validation projects for defense-related unmanned and/or robotic platforms. amendment no. 4138

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, today I stand before you to recognize the outstanding service exemplified by United States Marine Sergeant John Basilone. Sergeant Basilone was killed in action fighting at Iwo Jima on February 19, 1942. He remains distinguished as the only enlisted Marine to receive three of the military's highest honors: The Medal of Honor, the Purple Heart, and the Navy Cross. Sergeant Basilone enlisted in the Army at eighteen years of age and became known as ``Manila John'' during his service in the Philippine Islands. After receiving an honorable discharge from the Army, young Basilone returned home. It was not long, however, before the soldier rejoined the armed services as a Marine In time for the Second World War. He was a member of the First Battalion under the First Marine Division during the Solomon Island campaign. After a courageous victory there, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. He humbly received this honor and declined the opportunity to remain stateside, returning instead to the Fifth Division of the Marines. On the Nineteenth of February, 1942, Sergeant John Basilone completed his final mission at Iwo Jima. Born in Buffalo, NY, to Salvatore and Dora Basilone, John was one of ten children. From his early days as a boxer to his final stand as a gunnery sergeant, it was evident that he possessed a unique spirit of strength, dedication, and determination. His heroism was recognized nationally with the highest military honors, and he posthumously received the Navy Cross, three bronze stars, a Purple Heart, as well as the World War II Victory Medal. As a fellow American sharing Basilone's Italian heritage, it is my honor to celebrate the legacy of a man so committed to defending the cherished ideals of this Nation. Commemorating our Nation's heroes and veterans remains vital to keeping this country's tradition of freedom intact.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to announce the introduction, along with my colleague Senator Miller, of the bipartisan Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002. During the 107th Congress, we have been successful in legislating sweeping reforms in education with the passage last year of the No Child Left Behind Act. We also hope to complete reauthorization of another important Federal education initiative, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we consider this legislation, our greatest responsibility is to improve the quality of the education that students with special needs receive. One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing frustration for the special education teachers working on the frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the children they instruct. This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies, would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General Accounting Office GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the 1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, and the states and local districts can take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this legislation. Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to Individual Education Programs IEPs to better empower parents and schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct research to determine best practices for successful mediation, including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation training support services to support state and local efforts. The resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated through Part D of IDEA. The Council for Exceptional Children, CEC, states, ``No barrier is so irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83 percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to one and a half days each week in IEP-related meetings. There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork. The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second, there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by the states and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) was provided to the special education student. A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation as an alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have the benefit of working together with educators and service providers as partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing due process and legal options. Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, states are required to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000. In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well. According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date. Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80 percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84 percent of those who chose mediation would use it again. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn. It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing their lives, and less time wading through inanimate stacks of paper. I would invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for all students so that no child is left behind.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to announce the introduction, along with my colleague Senator Miller, of the bipartisan Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002. During the 107th Congress, we have been successful in legislating sweeping reforms in education with the passage last year of the No Child Left Behind Act. We also hope to complete reauthorization of another important Federal education initiative, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we consider this legislation, our greatest responsibility is to improve the quality of the education that students with special needs receive. One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing frustration for the special education teachers working on the frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the children they instruct. This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies, would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General Accounting Office GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the 1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, and the states and local districts can take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this legislation. Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to Individual Education Programs IEPs to better empower parents and schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct research to determine best practices for successful mediation, including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation training support services to support state and local efforts. The resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated through Part D of IDEA. The Council for Exceptional Children, CEC, states, ``No barrier is so irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83 percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to one and a half days each week in IEP-related meetings. There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork. The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second, there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by the states and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) was provided to the special education student. A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation as an alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have the benefit of working together with educators and service providers as partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing due process and legal options. Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, states are required to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000. In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well. According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date. Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80 percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84 percent of those who chose mediation would use it again. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn. It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing their lives, and less time wading through inanimate stacks of paper. I would invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for all students so that no child is left behind.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator from Oklahoma----

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma. In committee, when this issue came up, we were not on the same side of the issue. I was clearly supporting the President's request and the Senator from Oklahoma was not, and I have found that in working with him, he has provided a path out of this very difficult conflict. That is why I completely agree with the statements he has made, that there is an opportunity to try to accomplish everything that I think most members of the Senate Armed Services Committee believe need to be accomplished, which is to have a new system up by 2008, to save money in the Army procurement project, which is badly underfunded, and at the same time transition these technologies we have with the Crusader on to the Future Combat System. From my perspective, it comes down to an issue of money. It comes down to an issue of whether we can find money in 2003, in this budget, in this authorization bill, to get together the concept demonstrator we need. Hopefully, we can start this year with 2002 funds and move forward with the $173 million for next year. That is not going to be easy to do. I am not sure we are going to be able to accomplish this on the Senate floor or we are going to be able to get this agreement. Maybe we even should not. Maybe this should be an issue we work out with the House and do it in conference when we have more people who will participate in it. I will say, without the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma on this issue, I do not think the ability to accomplish all the things I laid out would have been possible. The Senator from Oklahoma and I understand Fort Sill is in Oklahoma, and I understand a lot of the Crusader work was going to be done in Oklahoma. Also, I understand this is an issue where the Senator could have come out by saying, I am going to go down with the ship on Crusader and I am going to fight for the folks back home in the sense that there are these jobs. But the Senator from Oklahoma, I have found, has always been doing what is in the best interest of the men and women in uniform. What he has proposed is exactly that. It is not a homer kind of proposal. It is anything but that. It is a proposal of what is in the best interest of the people who are in uniform, and I commend him for his leadership. I commend him for his innovation. I am hopeful we can get our folks from the other side of the Capitol in the House to work with us on this, and hopefully the administration will see the wisdom of taking an issue which is very divisive right now and being able to turn that very divisive issue, that could be very much a flashpoint, confrontation point that can be very damaging to our men and women in uniform, by delaying any system for quite some time, and see this as an opportunity to be able to accomplish all we want to accomplish, which is to field the system, save the money, and have the capability we need to protect our men and women. So I commend the Senator for his leadership and look forward to working on this issue over the next weeks as we finish in the Senate and go to conference.

Mr. SANTORUM. I don't believe that amendment prejudices anything we are doing. My understanding is, within the context of this amendment-- my hope is that we can continue to work on this, even as we are on the floor, to see if we can come up with an amendment that lays out what we need to do in 2003. I didn't get details, but there are other 2002 budget issues. To accomplish this, we need to take care of that in the supplemental. That is another issue. As far as 2003 is concerned, I am still hopeful we can come up with something; whether it is on the floor or we can resolve it by the time the bill is finished, I don't know. I am hopeful we can include it if we can resolve it. I don't see anything in the amendment that prejudices it and trying to work it out in conference.

Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate that. My understanding is that if we terminated the contract--it is a million and a half dollars a day. If we terminated the contract today, there would be roughly $150 million unexpended in the program--I believe unobligated and unexpended from the program. Again, these are rough numbers, and I don't want to hold the Army to any particular number because these numbers have to be negotiated between the Army and the contractor; but the estimate we are getting is that roughly $100 million of that would go toward termination costs for the contractor in 2002 dollars, which would leave aside $40 million to $50 million, which could then be put toward the technology that is applicable to the Future Combat System. So it gets us a start to try to move the Future Combat System from 2011 to 2008. Once that starts, it will be helpful if we can continue to move it up with an additional $173 million in 2003, which will put us in a position in 2004 to get it in a timely way. I know the chairman gets a million requests and there is not a lot of money out there, but $173 million, even in the Senate, isn't chump change. I argue that when you are taking out a system--obviously a very controversial move--for $173 million in 2003, you can replace that system and get another system fielded in the same timeframe as the original one, which is more practical for the usage for the Army, and you have accomplished something very significant. That is the pitch I am making. If we could make that happen, I think it would be good for the Army, and I think it would be taking what is a very difficult and troublesome situation that we have with Crusader and turning it into something very positive for everybody concerned. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be a minute. My criticism of the Army is not that the Army was not studying this issue when asked to do so by the Defense Department in April. My criticism is the Army has not made a decision for quite some time with respect to----

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending amendment. I am the ranking member of the Airland Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. On that subcommittee, I have had a great working relationship with the chairman of that subcommittee, Senator Lieberman. We, for now the sixth year that I have served in this capacity, have always brought our portion of the Defense authorization bill together in a bipartisan way. We have worked together on every amendment. We have either supported or opposed amendments on the floor. We have never had a disagreement. I am hopeful that will continue today because we have been working very hard on trying to get a resolution to the issue that is before us, which is this Crusader issue. Obviously, as Senator Akaka has just mentioned, the way the administration has gone about canceling this program, as we began the markup of the Defense authorization bill, has made it very difficult for us to try to make an adjustment in midstream. But we are working through that. In fact, we are in the process of active negotiations-- Senator Lieberman and myself, with the Defense Department--to see if we can come up with something that can accomplish the goals that have been laid out by Senator Inhofe, Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others, that are vitally important to the future of the Army and their ability to be relevant in the wars of the future. Let me first start out by saying I agree with the comments of Senator Inhofe and Senator Warner--there may have been others, but they are the ones I have heard so far--that we do need indirect fire or artillery fire in support of our troops on the ground; that if we are going to have troops on the ground, we are going to have some sort of weapon there to protect them and provide the fire support they need. So the question is, Is what we have right now, as Senator Inhofe laid out, adequate? I think clearly the Army, in its evaluation of its options going forward, believed what they had was not adequate. That is why they had Crusader in their budget. That is why they had the Future Combat System in their budget. The administration has come in--looking at what I think are real problems that the Army has--and decided the Crusader does not fit with the future of the Army. It is not lighter, it is more lethal, but it is too darn heavy to be deployed in a realistic fashion in the wars that we are going to be fighting in the future. So they made a decision, frankly, the Army could not make. I say ``could not make.'' They obviously did not make it. And I would argue they could not make it. They have not been willing to make some of the tough decisions, in my opinion, that have led them to the problem we are facing today. They have a big budgetary problem. Senator Lieberman and I have had a variety of different hearings on a variety of different subjects throughout the last 6 years, but every year we have a discussion of this problem with the Army. This is the one recurrent theme that we have had, which is the Army is not making the tough decisions to eliminate this bow-away problem they are going to have in a few years. In other words, they are not going to have enough money to fund all the programs they believe they need. We thought it was important they start making tough decisions to start cutting programs. We even had some concerns about some of the new programs they put in place during our 6-year tenure, such as the Interim Brigade Concept, but that is another story. We fought that, we lost, and we are willing to move on. The fact is, they did not have the money to do what was needed, to do what they wanted, what they believed was needed. What I think the Secretary of Defense did was look at that, as Senator Lieberman and I have looked at it over the years, and decided to act and to cut out a system they believed was not going to be relevant based on the experience they have had over the past several months in Afghanistan, and prior to that in Kosovo. So they made a decision. I understand Senator Levin wants the Army to have more of the same. With all due respect to the chairman--and I do respect him--I think the Army has proven they cannot make these kinds of tough decisions. It is not just within their capability to do that. They have gotten rid of a whole bunch of little systems, but when it comes to the tough decisions they have had to make, they have not been able to make them or they have not been able to put a credible alternative forward to the Defense Department to keep systems going in an affordable way. One example is Crusader. Crusader has three times the firing power of the Paladin. Yet what they ask for are the same number of Crusaders as we have Paladins. Yet the Crusader has three times the firing power. You would think if you are being told your program is on the hot seat, that we may cancel this program, this should not be news to the Army. The President of the United States, during the Presidential elections, mentioned Crusader as a program that he might cancel. So they should be aware there is a problem. They never offered a credible alternative to the Department of Defense to downsize the Paladin for the Crusader, to pay for it with force reduction because you need less people if you have less units. So to make this a deal that could be workable, they were unwilling to make that decision. They were unwilling to make that change because it involved force structure, and that is something the Army holds on to dearly. So I would just argue that while I understand the concept of having the Army have its say, I think the Army had plenty of opportunity to have its say, and they were not at the table with credible proposals to make this work. So what Senator Lieberman and I have been trying to accomplish over the past few weeks, once this came to light, is to see whether we can put something together. I think both Senator Lieberman and I have come to the opinion that the administration is right, that the Crusader program should be terminated. I would add a caveat to that. The Crusader program has not yet been terminated. The Department of Defense has not terminated the contract. What does that mean? That means every single day that this contract stays in force--a contract we know the Defense Department is going to terminate--we are spending $1.5 million. We are spending $1.5 million on a contract that we know is going to be terminated. Of that amount, a half a million dollars has no useful purpose for any future defense project. Let's understand what we are doing. Every day the Congress puts heat on the Defense Department; both sides of the aisle and both Houses of the Congress have been putting pressure on the Defense Department not to cancel this contract. The President has said he is canceling this contract. The Defense Department says they are going to cancel this contract. I understand we are putting pressure on them not to do it right away for a variety of reasons: We are on the floor with the bill; the House is marking up over here; there are all sorts of reasons not to do it, not to offend Congress. I tell you what offends this Senator is spending a half a million dollars a day for nothing. I understand the relationships on the hill and all the other things going on, but I think it is unconscionable to spend a half a million dollars a day on a contract we know is going to be terminated because of congressional pressure from both bodies to cancel the contract. If you are going to cancel it, cancel it now. I could take that money, 2002 money, and use it for some better purpose. Secondly, when it comes to this program, what Senator Lieberman and I are concerned about is our ability to have fire support for our troops. We have the Future Combat System. Under the President's proposal, they have moved the Future Combat System. It is another gun, a Howitzer. It is smaller. We don't know what this thing necessarily looks like, but it is projected to weigh about 18 to 20 tons as opposed to the original 60 tons for the Crusader which has been scaled down to 40 tons now. It is still a very heavy and cumbersome piece of equipment. What they want and what the mission and vision of this military is is to be lighter, more deployable, quicker. Why? Because we will be responding to these kinds of isolated events, and we need to be moving faster. It makes sense that we have this system because this 1963 Paladin system will not meet the needs of the Army of the future. So we need to do this system. Hopefully everybody in the Chamber looking at the facts, once they have an opportunity to do so, will agree with me that we need this system. So what the President did in his proposal was move up. We eliminated Crusader. We moved up the Future Combat System, this 18 to 20 ton gun, from being deployed in 2014 to being ready in 2010 to 2011. Now, what Senator Inhofe is arguing is--I think he is right--why don't we see if we can pull it up even a little further, up into 2008, which is when the Crusader was going to be deployed in the first place--see if we can move the Future Combat System up to 2008 so we can take the Crusader out of the mix but fill it in with a more relevant system. What does that do? You have to spend the money in 2008 but you don't buy two systems. You buy one. You buy one that is more relevant to the Army. To me that makes a lot of sense. The question is, How do we get to that? Can we afford to do that? We are going through those discussions right now. I hope we will have the opportunity. What I asked my ranking member to convey was that we would have the opportunity to at least see if we could work out some solution before this amendment came to the floor. The amendment came to the floor, and we will have a vote, I understand, but I am hopeful we can continue to work on this issue over the next week or so to see if we can come up with a solution, working with the Army, with the Department of Defense, with Members on both sides of the aisle who would like to see this mission accomplished. It really comes down to more money. I know that is not a plentiful thing in this bill. Everybody wants more money. What we are looking at--to give some rough figures--is that the money that is in the original bill, in the President's request, was $495 million for the Crusader program in fiscal year 2003. The President has said we will spend $195 million of that, continuing to spend that money on artillery, on this gun system of the future, because there is a technology that we were working on with Crusader as a gun system that is applicable to the next gun system. So it is a technology that we want to continue to move forward. So $195 million stays in a sense in that area. The rest goes into basically smart weapons. Why? Because the Defense Department believes these smart weapons are the future, that what we don't need are big artillery rounds, dumb bombs being fired by big cannons and we don't know where they will hit, at least not with precision. We know generally but not with precision. Why? There are lots of reasons. Frankly, one of them is political in the sense that we are becoming increasingly concerned about collateral damage. Smart weapons reduce collateral damage, civilian casualties. The smarter the weapons, the fewer the casualties. The weapons we were going to fire with the Crusader were not designed to be smart weapons and, therefore, more casualties to civilians. There are other reasons with respect to precision. It is cheaper. It is more effective. There are lots of other reasons. They made the decision for that reason. I support it. I support the allocation of those resources to more smart weapons. With respect to the 495, I think it is properly committed. The administration is very clear on that. Senator Lieberman and I believe strongly that the allocation is the proper one. The question is, How do we get from this artillery piece, moving it up from 2011 to 2008 so we can have it in a more timely manner? What we have found is, to be able to do that, we need an additional $173 million. That is a lot of money. But we have to make the decision, as a body, is it a wise expenditure of money to replace a 1963 vehicle that, as Senator Inhofe said, you still have to pull with a cord. Imagine that, we were doing that in the Civil War. So we are going to replace this vehicle, which is slow, which is small, which does not have the firepower necessary to really protect our troops. Are we going to replace it, and what is the cost of our doing so? I have been working with Senator Lieberman and others with the Defense Department to see, No. 1, can we find some other money; and No. 2, are there some costs we will save by putting this money forward in savings to the contractor which we will terminate with the Crusader program. We are terminating that program. When you terminate a program, there are costs associated with it. You just don't terminate and walk away. You have damages that you have to pay because you canceled a contract that you said you were going to fulfill. So there are damages. They are negotiated damages. We don't have a handle on exactly how much. But my sense is that if we put additional money in a program to move forward this other system and we make that money available, then there might be lower termination costs because the contractor necessarily isn't terminating all of their programs. What we are trying to do is work through to see if we can't come up with a solution that terminates the Crusader, as the President rightly decided to do, so we can get rid of the program--we believe it is an obsolete program--fund the smart weapons we need to fund and about which the Defense Department is passionate--I agree with that--and at the same time get a new gun system by 2008, which is what the Crusader would have done in the first place, that is lighter and more capable, certainly, than the existing system. In a sense what we are trying to do is see if we can accomplish everything and save the Army a tremendous amount of money and not just help with funding this system but help with the other programs that the Army doesn't have a whole lot of money for either, making them more affordable under the budget. We are going to have to vote, I suspect, on the Warner amendment and on the Levin amendment. If that is the case, fine, we may have to do that. But I hope we can continue to work on this issue to see whether we in the Senate can come up with a solution that accomplishes everything I have just laid out, which is what I think, from talking to Members, is the objective for everybody. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia if he has a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Go right ahead.

Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate that. I will be quick because as hard as Senator Lieberman and I have worked, Senator Inhofe has worked 10 times as hard. I do not want to take up his time. That has been my concern with the Army, that they have not made tough decisions, not that they were not studying this issue at the request of DOD when they visited with them that they may be canceling this program. That is No. 1. The reason I have some concerns with moving forward this study--by the way, I understand the Army is already moving forward and studying this; they are doing the study right now--is it is very clear to me the Department of Defense is canceling this contract. A study can go forward, but they are canceling the contract. We can say we do not want you to cancel the contract. We can say a lot of things. But they are going to cancel this contract, and we are spending $1.5 million a day on a contract they are going to cancel. The President has been very clear about that. We can get into a big fight. My problem is twofold. No. 1, I think they are right. Even that aside, even if I think they are wrong, if we fight this thing out, if we have a big to-do, we are pushing this system back to gosh knows when we are going to get this artillery piece. I am doing it this way: Did they do every procedure right? I think the Senator from Michigan said it pretty well. They asked for an analysis, and then a few days later they killed the program. I would argue that is not right. Is it the right decision? I would make the argument it is the right decision. Was it gotten in the right way? No, it probably was not gotten the right way, but it is the right decision, it is a decision they made, and I think they are going to stick to it. I am trying to see if we can craft something, in working with the Army, to keep some continuity so we can bring an artillery piece on at an appropriate time to meet what the Army believes they need, and I would agree with them to do it. I will support this amendment. I will sit down. The reason I would have problems supporting this in conference is if this is the position we want to take in conference--I think it is vitally important and one of the reasons I wanted to deal with it on the floor--if we can find that $173 million piece for next year and if we put this amendment in and say we will wait until the analysis, then there is no chance of getting that money and bringing this system up. That is the problem I have with this amendment. I think the Senator from Michigan has every good intention with this amendment. I have no problem with what he is doing, but I think we need to continue to work on this to see if we can find a solution. If we cannot, I am willing to accept the Senator's amendment. I am willing to go to conference and even accept it at that point, but if we can do something to try to move this system forward, I think we should make every effort to do so. That is all I am suggesting.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy LCDR Paul Gronemeyer, be granted floor privileges during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Absolutely.

Mr. SANTORUM. I was about to finish. I am happy to do so. I encourage my colleagues, No. 1, as I said before, to see if we can work out some sort of bipartisan agreement. This should not be a partisan bill. This should be a bill on which we work together in the Senate. No. 2, I encourage, as a good starting point for that bipartisan arrangement, to support this very minimalist amendment, with all due respect to my colleague from Kentucky. It is a minimalist amendment to eliminate the most egregious aspects of lawsuits available to plaintiffs who want to sue victims of terrorism; that they at least should not be punished, pay compensation as a punishment, unless there was some sort of criminal behavior attached to the victim. I yield.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the assistant majority leader.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. If we can work out a vote on this legislation, that will be amenable to me. I will be happy to put us back in a quorum call and see if we can arrange that.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to deal with this as a separate matter as long as we get a vote on it. I am just looking for a vote. This is an important piece of legislation that deals with terrorism, the implementation of a treaty on terrorist bombing. It is an important vote. It is the implementation act of a treaty that we passed last year. There are criminal code sections dealing with terrorist bombings, as well as people who are financing terrorism. It is important legislation. I think it is something on which we should vote. I am not being critical of what Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch did. I just think it is important legislation that should be voted on in the Senate.

Mr. SANTORUM. My concern is to have a vote. I would be comfortable to have a vote on that legislation which, while I understand it is not identical to the amendment I offered, is legislation that accomplishes the same purpose. Why don't I suggest the absence of a quorum, and we can see if we can work this out.

Mr. SANTORUM. Right.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, a clarification for Members. This is the same amendment that Senator Hatch proposed earlier today. I understand Senator Hatch engaged in some conversation with Senator Leahy about withdrawing his amendment. I think it is vitally important for the Senate to vote on this amendment. It is an important amendment. It is an amendment that is relevant to this bill because it deals with terrorism. We had the same agreement yesterday, I understand, to vote on this amendment. We had consent to do so, and there was an objection filed at the last minute. We are now going out of session and will not be back until next week, and I think it is important we have a record vote.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.