THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in March of this year, when we passed the energy bill, Senator VOINOVICH offered an amendment to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act that passed overwhelmingly 78-21. The Price-Anderson Act expires on August 1, 2002. This act sets up a system of insurance and indemnification to protect the public against losses stemming from nuclear accidents. It has served the nation well since the 1950s and has been reauthorized three times. Price-Anderson has been amended over the years so that the utility industry that operates nuclear reactors is charged premiums for this insurance . The private Department of Energy (DOE) contractors that are involved in strategic weapons production, clean up of national security sites, nuclear research and technology, as well as other related national priorities are indemnified by the government. In keeping with the directions in the current law both the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have issued reports urging renewal. The provisions of the Voinovich amendment to the energy bill to reauthorize this legislation were crafted in consonance with these reports. In the Defense authorization bill we are now considering, there is a provision to only renew the authority for the private DOE contractors. There is strong justification for doing so, since a lapse in the authority will affect important cleanup and defense programs as I mentioned before. Private industry must be indemnified properly before undertaking these important national projects. Reauthorization is vital to national defense and must be considered on ``must do'' legislation such as the defense bill. However, the NRC provision of Price-Anderson, one that falls under the jurisdiction of the Environment & Public Works Committee, is not included in this bill. Historically, in the reauthorization of Price-Anderson, we have never separated the DOE contractor provision from the NRC licensee provision. The three previous renewals of Price-Anderson have extended both the DOE and NRC portions of the Act at

[Page: S6209]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. INHOFE. I am in complete agreement with my colleague. Should we let this authority lapse, it will jeopardize national security programs. Therefore, we must act in this bill with the provisions that cover the private DOE contracts. However, we must try to get the entire act renewed as recommended by the administration and the agencies that have help to develop, modify and oversee its activities over the past nearly half century that have served us so well. I strongly believe that it vital to pass full and comprehensive reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act. The law has worked well and has been considered a model in other countries. It insures against terrorism against the plants and has been studied in an attempt to help fashion the terrorism insurance recently passed in this body. I would urge that we do what we can in this body to get Price-Anderson renewed in the most expeditious fashion. I want to thank my colleagues on both the Armed Services Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member of the Nuclear Subcommittee, and I look forward to working with them so that we may pass comprehensive Price-Anderson reauthorization during the 107th Congress.

   Mr. VOINOVICH. I Thank my colleagues for their commitment to this issue that is of the utmost national importance. I add my support to the idea that we should keep the pieces of this legislation together. I certainly agree that we should make certain that our private DOE contractors do not experience a protracted lapse in authority that will surely delay the implementation of important programs. But I want to point out that energy security and national security are very much related, and both are integral parts of our overall economic security. Nuclear power, science and technology are vital to this country. Nuclear generation provides 20 percent of our electricity and is the largest contributor to avoiding emissions. If we are to meet the future demands for electricity we will have to build more nuclear plants to augment the present fleet. All over the world, nations are considering building new nuclear facilities. The current administration wants to move forward with new plants that use new, more efficient nuclear technologies that reduce the volume of spent fuel and have even more safety features than the current plants which have unparalleled safety records. The original law was put together to support both aspects of nuclear operations. They have worked very well together. I would agree with my fellow Senators who have just spoken on this matter. I was proud to have introduced the original Price-Anderson reauthorization bill and was very pleased when the Senate voted overwhelming to include my Price-Anderson amendment on the energy bill. It is important that we reauthorize the entirety of this statute and I look forward to continuing to work with my fellow Senators to ensure that the Price-Anderson Act is reauthorized this Congress.

   Mr. WARNER. I agree with my colleagues that reauthorization of Price-Anderson, both for DOE contractors and for NRC licensees is a priority for the Nation. I am hopeful that these two provisions to extend Price-Anderson will soon be enacted into law.

   Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, we just passed an amendment which will require the Missile Defense Agency to provide yet another report. While we accepted this amendment, I believe it is redundant and wasteful.

   The criticism of MDA for classifying information on targets and countermeasures for future missile defense tests has been surprising, at best. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) informed us some time ago that such information would be classified as testing becomes more sophisticated.

   From the last three successful long-range intercept test successes, MDA has begun a progressive and more rigorous testing program to evaluate emerging and evolving technologies. These technologies include countermeasure to missile defenses that our adversaries might use and the means MDA devises to overcome those countermeasures. MDA has laid in a structure and process to identify likely or possible countermeasures and to assess their potential effectiveness; and to identify and assess possible counter-countermeasures.

   I can't resist noting that the majority has cut about half the funding for this function in its missile defense proposals in this bill. I think if they were that concerned about countermeasures, perhaps they wouldn't have made this cut.

   After MDA has identified these countermeasures, it designs and builds them. That's the only way MDA can test against them. Detailed knowledge of ballistic missile defense countermeasures techniques--techniques that we may be developing ourselves to test the strengths and weakness of our missile defense systems--could lead our adversaries to develop capabilities that can defeat our systems.

   I don't believe anyone wants to reveal information that might compromise our security. We should not share information on targets and countermeasures with the likes of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

   I fully concur with those who believe that Congress should have access to all relevant information related to missile dense tests. MDA has assured me that it will provide us with this information. All members, and staff with appropriate clearances, will have access to this information. Indeed, staff received classified information related to targets and countermeasures prior to the last long-range missile defense test.

   To those who suggest that this move is designed to disguise or hide missile defense test failures, I would note that test successes or failures really can't be hidden.

   Congress will have access to all the information, classified or otherwise. Not all information will be classified. it will be clear to the public whether the interceptor hit the target or not. Classification may actually make it harder for MDA to demonstrate success to the public because it can't make details of the test public. Details of almost all military tests are classified. Have we ever explained to our adversaries how to defeat stealth technologies? Why would we do so with missile defense technology?

   The decision to classify this information meets the criteria of Executive order 12958 that guides all DOD agencies in decisions on these matters. This executive order notes that information can be classified if it relates to ``military plans, weapons systems, or operations'' and ``vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems....... relating to the national security''; or if release of the information could reasonably be expected to ``reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.''

   I believe MDA countermeasures and targets information qualifies in all three categories.

   Is classification premature? I don't think so. We hope to have early missile defense capabilities in the field in the not too distant future. These capabilities will be based on test assets. Publicly revealing the weaknesses of our test systems to our adversaries simply doesn't make any sense.

   At this time, I would also like to make a few more points regarding the original cuts made by the Majority to the missile defense programs.

   While I am very happy that the $814 million cut was restored by the Warner/Allard amendment, I am concerned that there is confusion that the second degree amendment in some way reflects that this Senate believes that the President does not have the flexibility to spend the money as he fits between missile defense and counter-terrorism . As a matter of fact, according to the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the chairman, the second

[Page: S6210]  GPO's PDF

   One of the major criticisms stated by the majority is the expenditure rates for Ballistic Missile Defense projects, particularly the rate of expenditure in the BMD System program element.

   The Missile Defense Agency is attempting to develop a single integrated ballistic missile defense system capable of attacking missiles of varying ranges in all phases of flight and defeating missiles of all ranges.

   Thus MDA has shifted from an element-centric approach with a focus on THAAD, PAC-3, NTW, NMD etc., to a system-centric approach that knits each of the elements into an integrated whole. The goal is to develop a seamless took-kit of sensors, shooters, platforms battle management, and command and control assets that function as a single integrated BMD system.

   Critical to this refocusing are integration efforts to tie disparate BMD projects into a coordinated whole. The BMD System program element is key to success in the endeavor.

   But the chairman seems to argue that some funding will be left over at the end of fiscal year 2002 and thus not all the funding requested for fiscal year 2003 will be needed.

   I strongly disagree and several points need to be made.

   The 2002 budget was approved late. The FY 2002 defense authorization act wasn't signed until January of this year, at the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year. MDA projects--and all other DOD projects--were late in getting FY 2002 funds.

   The expenditures that the chairman cited are already out of date. The figures he used were the expenditure figures from March 31, less than three months after MDA started receiving 2002 funds. The figure updated for the end of April is already about $100 million.

   The end of year expenditure projection for this program element is about half the funds appropriated. More than 90 percent will be obligated. These figures are well within expected ranges.

   I have the Missile Defense Agency projections for all their major project activities. All appear to be within expected ranges.

   It is also very important to remember that the funding request in the BMD System program element is all R&D money. R&D funding is available for obligation for two years and available for expenditure until disbursed or rescinded. Congress provides extended availability for R&D funding specifically to help assure funding stability and planning and contractual flexibility.

   If we accept the argument that we can cut funding in this program element because MDA will have Fiscal Year 02 funds left over, we have to accept the argument that the whole rationale for providing extended availability for R&D funding is flawed. We may as well go ahead and cut all R&D programs that have any funding left over from the previous year.

   I don't think any one believes we should do that.

   Citing an outdated expenditure figure for this program element so early in the fiscal year is simply misleading and I believe misguided.

   Another concern I had with the Majority's cuts was the $147 million reduction in program operations. This reduction may sound mundane but is critical to the success of the programs.

   The majority has justified the cuts on grounds that the funding is redundant and excessive. The committee report notes that program operations are adequately funded in each Missile Defense Agency project and the program operations funds justified in separate lines in each program element simply aren't needed. So the Armed Services Committee bill cuts each and every one of these funding lines.

   But this justification is simply wrong. It is simply mistaken to state that the funding for program operation is redundant to funding elsewhere in the MDA budget. Not only is it mistaken, this funding reduction is extraordinarily damaging to the Missile Defense Agency.

   What are ``program operations?'' Program operations are people. They provide the basic support for any program. They provide information technology support--the computer support people. They provide communications support. They provide security. They provide contract support. They support basic infrastructure and facilities.

   It is true that this work is done at the project level. The THAAD project funds program operations unique to the THAAD project. Each MDA projects fund program operations unique to that project.

   But the simple fact is that the program operations funds in each project are not used for same purposes as the funds that have been cut in Armed Services Committee bill. The funds cut by the Committee bill are not for activities unique to any particular project. They are for common program support.

   The funds identified in the MDA budget for program operations will be used to support government and contractors for common program support at Missile Defense Agency Headquarters and for the service executive agents for missile defense programs. The Missile Defense Agency is required by law--Section 251 (d) of the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act to request these funds in separate program elements.

   This bill cuts almost all of this funding--$147 million of $185 million requested, or nearly 80 percent.

   What does this cut do?

   This reduction cuts nearly 1,000 people who provide basic support for Missile Defense Agency projects and activities. Army Space and Missile Defense Command will lose almost 400 people. The Army Program Executive Office for Air and Missile Defense will lose another 60. Missile Defense Agency Headquarters will lose around 400. The Navy and Air Force will lose about 75.

   Heres how MDA describes the impact:

   The majority of Army SMDC and Army PEO-AMD staffs would be eliminated.

   Air Force and Navy organizations responsible for centralized management and/or sharing of common program management costs would be eliminated.

   All contract support at MDA for program operations would be eliminated; computer center and thus computers shut down; no security (technical or physical), no staffing for supply/mail room, cleaning, and facility maintenance; no contractor support for common acquisition management functions performed by MDA, e.g. contracting, financial management, cost estimating, human resources.

   That is an incredible hit on any organization.

   Could MDA recover by redirecting funds to cover these functions? If these cuts survive the process, MDA would have to move money into activities in direct contravention of Congressional intent which is usually a pretty bad idea.

   But even if MDA were to try use project funds to perform these program-wide activities, the agency would be in the position of trying to use new people to do many of these jobs. The Missile Defense Agency simply could not do this in anything approaching a timely manner. Consider contracting support. The whole thrust of the missile defense program has changed, moving toward a single integrated missile defense system and away from autonomous ``stove-piped'' systems. This will inevitably mean contract changes as the architecture evolves. Yet MDA's institutional memory would have been surgically excised by this reduction at precisely the time it is needed most. So MDA would take a double hit--a cut to project funds to pay for program operations, and inefficient and ineffective program operations because all the people who did that job will have been fired.

   The 80 percent reduction to program operation is just one example of how damaging the missile defense reductions in this bill. It is inconsistent with good management, current law, and common sense. I cannot say if the majority simply erred in this reduction, or if the intent was to cripple the organization.

   Another program that was it hard by the majority's missile defense cuts deals with countermeasures--which for me makes these cuts even more surprising.

   Many critics on the majority side have argued that simply countermeasures can render missile defenses ineffective. They have criticized missile defense technology and testing as too simple, and not sensitive enough to the measures our enemies might take

[Page: S6211]  GPO's PDF

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display