Mr. President, as Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I rise in support of the Levin second degree to Senator Warner's amendment restoring $814 million either to the President's missile defense request or to combating terrorism. Senator Levin's amendment clarifies what we know to be true, that the need to address the scourge of terrorism is urgent and is the top priority of our nation.
I want to mention that I do have some concerns about Senator Warner's amendment. I am not aware of the Committee receiving any information from the Administration that the suggested savings from inflation might in fact be realized. I sincerely hope that we are not just talking about "funny money," and that we could be sure that the funds are there before we start talking about how to spend them.
The Levin amendment makes clear that, while both missile defense and efforts to defeat terrorism are important, our priorities are obvious. Let me be clear, I do understand the need to defend our country against missile attack. I believe that all of us here in this chamber would do everything in our power to ensure that US citizens are protected against vicious attacks from those who would do us harm, including those who would launch those attacks with missiles. However, I believe that the reductions taken in this bill to the President's FY03 budget request for the missile defense program are judicious and based on sound reasoning. I support a missile defense effort that is sensible, thoroughly tested, and progresses in a rational manner. I believe that the $6.8 billion included in this bill provides ample funding for reasonable missile defense efforts.
I also believe that there are many immediate threats that we know all too well. The horror of September 11 is seared forever in our minds and shows what these terrorists are capable of. If additional funds become available, I believe we have no choice but to direct them to actions we can take immediately to help us win the war on terror.
As Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, I am acutely aware of the costs incurred by the Department of Defense as we continue to send our military men and women around the globe to hunt down terrorists. Even beyond the supplemental appropriations which may be provided this year and funds for the war already included in this bill, the military services still have war-related needs that are not being met. When we began consideration of the fiscal year 2003 budget, the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps provided us with a prioritized list of those needs that remain unfunded.
For those who may not have had a chance to review those lists, let me note just a few examples. Over the last few years, we have suffered repeated attacks on US embassies overseas, on the USS Cole, and on Khobar Towers. These attacks make clear that terrorists will strike US assets all over the world, and that we have been engaged in this war for longer than we realized. September 11 showed us that we can no longer assume we are safe within our own borders, and that they will try to attack us here at home as well. We are a trusting nation, and, after the earlier attacks, had expected to improve the security of our military installations over time. The atrocities of September 11 made it clear that time may be a luxury we no longer have. If in fact these inflation savings are real, one of the key areas where the money could go is for anti-terrorism and force protection improvements to our bases and installations.
The Service Chiefs agree - the Army, Navy and Air Force included $863 million for improved security for our installations in their list of unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003. The second item on the Air Force's list was $491 million to improve physical security systems at its bases, to enhance its detection capabilities with night vision devices and thermal imagers, to strengthen its facilities to minimize the impact of possible explosions, and to improve security measures at nuclear security storage areas.
The Navy's list included an additional $263 million for improvements to Navy installations. These funds would be spent strengthening the gates at various naval stations and shipyards, fencing off installations and airfields so that intruders would face some obstacle before just walking on to military property, establishing emergency operations centers, and installing better lighting to deter and improve detection of possible incursions.
The remaining $110 million would go to fund the Army's unmet force protection needs, number eight on General Shinseki's list of priorities. This includes installing fencing, more robust gates and barriers, and improving lighting for Active, Guard and Reserve posts.
There are other key war-related needs as well. When the Department developed the budget for the coming fiscal year about two years ago, DOD obviously did not know that we would be at war. Therefore, the budget included assumptions about fuel prices that were based on normal training and deployment needs, and about where that fuel would be purchased.
The global war effort has changed the reality underlying those assumptions. For example, the Defense Logistics Agency, which is responsible for providing fuel to all of the military services, has had to deploy its personnel to areas in and around Afghanistan to make fuel purchases. Moving fuel to and from areas that do not have adequate infrastructure and where there is little competition has proven extremely expensive. In its latest estimates, the General Accounting Office, which monitors fuel prices, projects that DOD will face a fuel-related shortfall of $1.5 billion by the end of the next fiscal year. If these funds are not restored, DOD will be forced to reallocate funds from other sources so that the military continues to have adequate fuel supplies. This is an immediate need, made worse by the war, where any potential savings could easily be redirected.
The Service Chiefs included other priorities on their list of unfunded needs that also deserve consideration. For example, the Air Force needs an additional $92 million to purchase protective equipment, chemical sensors, medical treatment materials, and training for the teams that respond to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons attacks. Improving security at the sites where the Army stores chemical weapons would cost an additional $103 million. The Marine Corps needs an additional $39 million for ammunition, and the Army's ammunition shortfalls total over $500 million more. These bullets would be used to support deployed troops and to train the soldiers and Marines who will replace them in future operations. The Navy, whose ships have been out on surge deployments since the September 11 attacks, needs an additional $164 million to maintain the fleet so that it can continue to support future operations.
These are just a few examples of the costs of this war that remain unfunded because of resource constraints. If savings materialize in the mid-session review, I believe they are better spent on programs that our forces need right now. They need better protection on the installations where they live and work. They need more ammunition, and they need enough fuel to chase terrorists down wherever they are hiding.
This budget provides for an adequate missile defense. Senator Levin's amendment ensures that funds are used where they are needed most urgently. We know where those needs are, because the nation's top military leaders have told us. We need these funds to fight the scourge of terrorism. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Levin's amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.
