[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S9497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will soon begin 
consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2002. This bill would authorize $343.5 billion for national defense 
programs, the full amount requested by the administration, including 
the $18.4 billion requested by the President in his amended budget 
request.
  The bill would also address a number of important priorities 
identified by the Armed Services Committee, adding significant funding 
for military compensation and quality of life, the readiness and 
transformation of the military services, and the capability of our 
armed forces to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism. In 
light of recent events, we will obviously do more, as we already have, 
with the enactment of the $40 billion emergency supplemental 
appropriation bill last week. However, these are no ordinary times, and 
the debate on this bill will be no ordinary debate. Debate on a bill 
like this is an inherent part of our democracy, and while our 
democratic institutions are stronger than any terrorist attack, in one 
regard we operate differently in times of national emergency. We strive 
to set aside our differences, and ask decent people everywhere to join 
forces with us to seek out and to defeat the common enemy of the 
civilized world.
  For this reason, I am today introducing two new bills. The first bill 
is identical to S. 1416, as reported by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee in every respect but one--the removal of legislative language 
dealing with missile defense. The second bill, which would be deferred 
for debate at a later and more appropriate time, would include the 
missile defense language.
  I strongly believe that the missile defense provisions took an 
appropriate step on an issue of national importance, and I was 
disappointed that this single area of disagreement led the Republican 
Members of our committee to vote against this bill that is so important 
to our national security.
  In my view, however, this is the wrong time for divisive debate on 
issues of national defense. We cannot let issues like this pull us 
apart and undermine our common sense of national purpose in fighting 
terrorism. Rather, we should leave this debate to a later time and link 
arms against our attackers.
  When we take up the defense authorization act, I hope that my 
colleagues will join me in putting controversial issues aside and help 
us move forward together to pass this bill promptly and indicate our 
strong and unified support for the national defense with a minimum of 
divisive debate.

                          ____________________