[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 130 (Tuesday, October 2, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10043-S10055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1724

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will finish my statement in a moment, 
but, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1724, now 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I do not know how many people were listening breathlessly 
when I made the first part of my statement earlier today, but I will 
not repeat it. I will have mercy upon you.
  This is a very important amendment. I want to serve notice to the 
managers of the bill that I shall not contest or try to contest any 
motion that may be made on this amendment. I do hope the managers will 
give some thought as to whether they will support my offering this 
amendment freestanding as a bill, but that is up to them.
  Mr. President, to complete my statement that I began earlier, the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States has sent me a letter in 
support of my amendment. I want to read part of it. It is from Robert 
E. Wallace, the Executive Director. It is addressed to all Members of 
the Senate, dated October 2. It says:

       On behalf of the 2.7 million members of the Veterans of 
     Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary, I 
     want to express our strong support for amendment number 1690 
     to the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1438, the 
     ``American Service Members' Protection Act of 2001.'' We 
     think this legislation brought forward by Senators Jesse 
     Helms (R-NC) and Zell Miller (D-GA) is an appropriate 
     response to the threat to American sovereignty and 
     international freedom of action posed by the International 
     Criminal Court. Also, we believe it is essential that our 
     nation's military personnel be protected against criminal 
     prosecution under procedures inconsistent with our 
     Constitution.
       We oppose the International Criminal Court (ICC) in its 
     present form. We believe it poses a significant danger to our 
     soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, who are deployed 
     throughout the world. U.S. military personnel and other U.S. 
     Government officials could be brought before this court even 
     though the United States is not a party to the treaty. The 
     court will claim jurisdiction to indict, prosecute, and 
     imprison persons accused of ``war crimes,'' ``crimes against 
     humanity,'' ``genocide,'' and other ``crime of aggression'' 
     (not yet defined by the ICC.)

  I ask unanimous consent the entire letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2001.
     To: All Member of the U.S. Senate.
     From: Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director.
       On behalf of the 2.7 million members of the Veterans of 
     Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary, I 
     want to express our strong support for amendment number 1690 
     to the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1438, the 
     ``American Service Members' Protection Act of 2001.'' We 
     think this legislation brought forward by Senators Jesse 
     Helms (R-NC) and Zell Miller (D-GA) is an appropriate 
     response to the threat to American sovereignty and 
     international freedom of action posed by the International 
     Criminal Court. Also, we believe it is essential that our 
     nation's military personnel be protected against criminal 
     prosecution under procedures inconsistent with our 
     Constitution.
       We oppose the International Criminal Court (ICC) in its 
     present form. We believe it poses a significant danger to our 
     soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, who are deployed 
     throughout the world. U.S. military personnel and other U.S. 
     Government officials could be brought before the court even 
     though the United States is not a party to the treaty. The 
     court will claim jurisdiction to indict, prosecute, and 
     imprison persons accused of ``war crimes,'' ``crimes against 
     humanity,'' ``genocide,'' and the ``crime of aggression'' 
     (not yet defined by the ICC). These crimes are expansively 
     defined by the treaty and would be interpreted by the court's 
     judges, who will be appointed with no input from the United 
     States. The ICC will not be required to provide Americans the 
     basic legal protections of the constitution. We think it is 
     wrong to expect our servicemen and women to serve their 
     country under this threat.
       Also, it is equally important the President, cabinet 
     members, and other national security decision-makers not have 
     to fear international criminal prosecution as they go about 
     their work. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that 
     Americans are not brought before an international criminal 
     tribunal for simply performing their duty to their country.
       The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States supports 
     enactment of this amendment to S. 1438 as written. Therefore, 
     we strongly urge you to support this amendment offered by 
     Senator Helms and others, and vote for the amended bill when 
     it comes to the floor of the Senate for vote.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I hope Senators will support this 
legislation, to protect soldiers and their civilian leaders from this 
new U.N. court. The President and his national security team support 
the legislation and have raised no concerns about acting on it now. In 
fact, there is greater need to enact this legislation now. We must not 
send our troops out to fight terrorists, or any other aggressors, 
without protection from trumped-up claims that they committed ``war 
crimes'', ``crimes against humanity'' or some new, undefined, catch-all 
``crime of aggression'' before the Court.
  I urge support for this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will momentarily make a parliamentary 
inquiry as to germaneness. I say to my friend, who has been by my side 
in the Senate the 23 years I have been here, I was a cosponsor from day 
one. Should the Senator elect to pursue this as a freestanding or in 
other measures legislatively, I would like to be a cosponsor.
  At the appropriate time--I see another colleague who wishes to 
address the issue--I will make the inquiry with regard to germaneness. 
The distinguished chairman and myself have made clear, in order to 
manage this bill, I will have to move for those amendments on my side, 
and he is going to move accordingly on germaneness for amendments on 
his side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand the postcloture situation we 
are now in and the germaneness argument that the Senator from Virginia 
has just placed.
  I stand in support of the concept and the intent that Senator Helms 
brings to the floor as it relates to the International Criminal Court.
  I, along with Senator Helms and a good many others, have worked for 
some time to clarify this Nation's position in relation to the Rome 
treaty and the International Criminal Court. We became signatories to 
that in the final days of the Clinton administration and even then 
President Clinton spoke about it with concern. We are now faced with 
participating or not participating in something that we believe, as the 
Senator has just spoken to, puts our men and women in uniform at risk 
and the possibility that an international body, as adjunct of the 
United Nations, might choose to prosecute them, even though they were 
under the direct orders of our Commander in Chief in the execution of 
their duties.

[[Page S10044]]

  If we were to gain on an International Criminal Court a rogue 
prosecutor, it is also arguable that civilians serving at the behest of 
the United States could become subject to the same prosecution. In 
other words, what is happening, by engaging in and/or participating in 
what we believe to be an illegitimate body and the formation of that 
body, it appears we are beginning to agree or to associate ourselves 
with it for certain purposes.
  I don't believe we ought to be doing that. In fact, when we were 
dealing with Justice-State-Commerce appropriations, we passed, by voice 
vote, an amendment that would prohibit any moneys being spent for the 
purpose of the ICC preparatory commission and/or direct participation 
in the International Criminal Court.

  What is at question? Our sovereignty, the right of this country to 
protect its citizens under our judicial system, but to hand that system 
and the absence of that protection off to an international body.
  Senator Helms has spoken to what we deem are rogue adjuncts of the 
United Nations--the conference that was held in Durban, South Africa 
that we had to withdraw from, along with the State of Israel, because 
of racist expressions that that conference was willing to make 
concerning certain nations with which we could not agree. The 
International Criminal Court stands alone by the characteristics of the 
defining language within the Rome treaty. In other words, once it is 
ratified, it isn't just a question of our men and women in uniform 
becoming subject to it. It is a question of any citizen of the world 18 
years of age or older or any nation in the world becoming subject to 
it.
  That is why I believe we ought to disassociate ourselves and, in 
fact, reverse our policy and work to deny its ratification.
  I have a second-degree amendment I would offer, but I understand 
there will be a question of germaneness. If that question fails, then I 
would offer that second degree. It does not disallow the protection the 
Senator from North Carolina has brought but says that we protect 
others--and that is, citizens --in that we don't associate ourselves 
with the International Criminal Court, nor do we allow on special cases 
confidential information to flow from our Government to the court. In 
other words, we should not be facilitators to a court that by its very 
definition denies our citizens the right of sovereignty and the 
protection under our judicial system. That is what is at issue. None 
who study it deny that.
  Those who have joined with me in my second degree are Senators Lott, 
Nickles, Allen, Smith, Crapo, Kyl, and a good many others. It is a 
subject that deserves a stand-alone debate on the floor and full 
consideration by the Senate. At stake, I believe, are everything 
Senator Helms has spoken to and, additionally, what I have just spoken 
to. That is why it is important that at some time this Senate 
collectively speak out against the whole of the ICC and the 
illegitimacy that we think it creates and the denial of the sovereignty 
of our citizens within the construct of the judicial system of our 
country.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the 
amendments introduced by Senators Helms and Craig relating to the 
proposed International Criminal Court. Regardless of how one feels 
about the court, this amendment could have the unintended but 
devastating effect of alienating our allies and undermining the global 
coalition against terrorism. By imposing sweeping limitations on the 
President's capacity to cooperate with other countries on security and 
intelligence matters, and by taking a unilateral approach to an 
important global issue, this amendment weakens the United States hand 
in pursuing the most urgent foreign policy priority before us--building 
an strong and lasting coalition to fight terrorism.
  I recognize and share many of the concerns with the proposed 
International Criminal Court, but this bill would not accomplish its 
primary objective of protecting American service members. It could in 
fact have the opposite effect, particularly as it stands to jeopardize 
our country's ongoing diplomatic efforts to build a broad coalition in 
opposition to terrorism. I urge you to oppose the amendment at this 
extraordinary moment in our national history.
  Let me just highlight a few of the ways in which this amendment could 
tie the hands of our President and our diplomats as they move forward 
in building a coalition to combat terrorism. The amendment, if fully 
enacted, would limit the ability of our President to enter into global 
security alliances at a time when such alliances may be more important 
to our national interest than ever before. The amendment could also 
limit our ability to share essential security information with some of 
our closest allies in the war against terrorism. This limitation is 
particularly offensive, as it comes at a time when we are asking those 
same allies to share their intelligence information with us as we track 
the global terrorist networks that may have been involved in the 
devastating attacks of September 11.
  Finally, and perhaps most significantly, a much noted provision in 
the Helms bill would allow the President ``to use all means necessary 
and appropriate to bring about the release'' of certain U.S. citizens 
detained by, or at the request of, the International Criminal Court. As 
such, the bill has been labeled the ``Hague Invasion Act'' by some 
opponents, a point that serves to highlight how provocative the measure 
may appear to even our closest allies. Of course, our first priority 
must be to protect our service members. But this amendment would not 
accomplish that goal, and we simply cannot afford to create a rift in 
our growing global alliance against terrorist networks by adopting such 
a troubled amendment. This is the wrong amendment. And this amendment 
is offered at the wrong time; it is offered just as we are beginning to 
realize important diplomatic successes in building a global coalition 
against terrorism. I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry regarding the 
germaneness of the amendment by the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that the amendment is not 
germane.
  Would the Senator from Virginia state the question? Would the Senator 
from Virginia restate the question?
  Mr. WARNER. I asked the Chair as to the parliamentary status of this 
amendment. The Chair has responded. I was awaiting the Chair's ruling. 
I raised a point of order, but I mean, the Chair then rules that the 
amendment falls, am I not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. If the Senator will bring the 
point of order, the Chair will rule.
  Mr. WARNER. I have done that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that the amendment is not 
germane. The amendment falls.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I wonder if the managers of the bill would 
be willing to support a suggestion by me and perhaps Senator Craig that 
this be converted into a freestanding bill, as suggested by the Senator 
from Idaho, and be considered immediately following passage of this 
pending legislation?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I cannot exercise the decision of the 
leaders as to when it would be brought up.
  It certainly can be introduced today as a freestanding measure, again 
with the second-degree amendment of the Senator from Idaho. I indicated 
I would like to be a cosponsor. As to the time it will be considered by 
the Senate, that is within the purview of the two leaders.
  Mr. HELMS. I understand. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan will comment.
  Mr. LEVIN. There is objection to scheduling debate on a subsequent 
bill. I have to object, if that is a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HELMS. I understand.
  Mr. WARNER. I am not sure I understood it as a unanimous consent. It 
was an inquiry to the managers. I certainly have indicated my support 
for it, and Senator Levin and I are of the opinion it is a matter that 
has to be addressed by the leadership as to the schedule.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, we will be here on another day in another 
way. I thank the Chair and the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

[[Page S10045]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have the matter of the Allard 
amendment. That is the only amendment on this side I have knowledge of, 
I so advise the chairman. I am advised that Senator Allard is on his 
way. I wonder if the chairman might comment on his knowledge. Senator 
Allard indicated to me he believed his amendment had reached a 
resolution and that it could be cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is my understanding, and there will be a voice vote 
on this matter. The Allard amendment is germane. My understanding is he 
will modify that amendment, and he will then agree to a voice vote on 
it.
  Mr. WARNER. On our side, I know of no further amendments. May I 
inquire of my colleague, the chairman?
  Mr. LEVIN. I know of no further germane amendments anyone intends to 
offer. If there are such germane amendments that have been filed, I 
hope somebody will let us know very quickly. Otherwise, as soon as we 
dispose of the Allard amendment, we will want to presumably go to third 
reading.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader has asked that I advise 
the Senate there will be two votes beginning at 4:45, one on final 
passage of this bill and the other dealing with another matter, the 
Vietnam trade bill, a motion to proceed.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the disposal of the Allard 
amendment there be no amendments in order and that we could then go to 
third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with that unanimous consent agreement having 
been granted, we can start the vote at 4:30. I ask unanimous consent 
the vote begin at 4:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1755

   (Purpose: To maximize the access of uniformed services voters and 
 recently separated uniformed services voters to the polls, to ensure 
      that each of the votes cast by such voters is duly counted)

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up the amendment numbered 1755.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1755.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')


                    Amendment No. 1755, as Modified

  Mr. ALLARD. I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1755), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 147, beginning with line 13 strike through page 
     154, line 16 and insert the following:

             Subtitle F--Uniformed Services Overseas Voting

     SEC. 571. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF 
                   VOTING BY MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that each administrator of a Federal, State, or local 
     election should--
       (1) be aware of the importance of the ability of each 
     uniformed services voter to exercise their right to vote; and
       (2) perform their duties with the intent to ensure that--
       (A) each uniformed services voter receives the utmost 
     consideration and cooperation when voting;
       (B) each valid ballot cast by such a voter is duly counted; 
     and
       (C) all eligible American voters, regardless of race, 
     ethnicity, disability, the language they speak, or the 
     resources of the community in which they live should have an 
     equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted.
       (b) Uniformed Services Voter Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``uniformed services voter'' means--
       (1) a member of a uniformed service (as defined in section 
     101(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code) in active service;
       (2) a member of the merchant marine (as defined in section 
     107 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-6)); and
       (3) a spouse or dependent of a member referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) who is qualified to vote.

     SEC. 572. STANDARD FOR INVALIDATION OF BALLOTS CAST BY ABSENT 
                   UNIFORMED SERVICES VOTERS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Each State'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Each State''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Standards for Invalidation of Certain Ballots.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may not refuse to count a ballot 
     submitted in an election for Federal office by an absent 
     uniformed services voter solely.
       ``(A) on the grounds that the ballot lacked a notarized 
     witness signature, an address other than on a Federal write-
     in absentee ballot (SF186), or a postmark, provided that 
     there are other indicia that the vote was cast in a timely 
     manner; or
       ``(B) on the basis of a comparison of signatures on 
     ballots, envelopes, or registration forms, unless there is a 
     lack of reasonable similarity between the signatures.
       ``(2) No effect on filing deadlines under state law.--
     Nothing in this subsection may be construed to affect the 
     application to ballots submitted by absent uniformed services 
     voters of any ballot submission deadline applicable under 
     State law.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to ballots described in section 
     102(c) of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 
     Act (as added by such subsection) that are submitted with 
     respect to elections that occur after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 573. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL.

       Article VII of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act 
     of 1940 (50 U.S.C. App. 590 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``Sec. 704. (a) For purposes of voting for any Federal 
     office (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or local 
     office, a person who is absent from a State in compliance 
     with military or naval orders shall not, solely by reason of 
     that absence--
       ``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in 
     that State, without regard to whether or not the person 
     intends to return to that State;
       ``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in 
     any other State; or
       ``(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident 
     of any other State.
       ``(b) In this section, the term `State' includes a 
     territory or possession of the United States, a political 
     subdivision of a State, territory, or possession, and the 
     District of Columbia.''.

     SEC. 574. EXTENSION OF REGISTRATION AND BALLOTING RIGHTS FOR 
                   ABSENT UNIFORMED SERVICES VOTERS TO STATE AND 
                   LOCAL ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1), as amended 
     by section 572(a)(1), is further amended by inserting after 
     subsection (a) the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Elections for State and Local Offices.--Each State 
     shall--
       ``(1) permit absent uniformed services voters to use 
     absentee registration procedures and vote by absentee ballot 
     in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for State 
     and local offices; and
       ``(2) accept and process, with respect to any election 
     described in paragraph (1), any otherwise valid voter 
     registration application from an absent uniformed services 
     voter if the application is received by the appropriate State 
     election official not less than 30 days before the date of 
     the election.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for title I of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``FOR FEDERAL OFFICE''.

     SEC. 575. USE OF SINGLE APPLICATION AS A SIMULTANEOUS 
                   ABSENTEE VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATION AND 
                   ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICATION.

       Subsection (a) of section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1), as 
     redesignated by section 572(a)(1), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) accept and process the official post card form 
     (prescribed under section 101) as a simultaneous absentee 
     voter registration application and absentee ballot 
     application; and''.

     SEC. 576. USE OF SINGLE APPLICATION FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS FOR 
                   ALL FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

       Subsection (a) of section 102 of the Uniformed and Overseas 
     Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-1), as amended 
     by section 575, is further amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (4) the following new paragraph (5):

[[Page S10046]]

       ``(5) accept and process, with respect to all general, 
     special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal office 
     occurring during a year, any otherwise valid absentee ballot 
     application from an absent uniformed services voter or 
     overseas voter if a single application for any such election 
     is received by the appropriate State election official not 
     less than 30 days before the first election for Federal 
     office occurring during the year.''.

     SEC. 577. ELECTRONIC VOTING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Establishment of demonstration project.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
     Defense shall carry out a demonstration project under which 
     absent uniformed services voters (as defined in section 
     107(1) of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-6(1))) are permitted to cast ballots in 
     the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office 
     for November 2002, through an electronic voting system.
       (2) Authority to delay implementation.--If the Secretary of 
     Defense determines that the implementation of the 
     demonstration project under paragraph (1) with respect to the 
     regularly scheduled general election for Federal office for 
     November 2002 may adversely affect the national security of 
     the United States, the Secretary may delay the implementation 
     of such demonstration project until the regularly scheduled 
     general election for Federal office for November 2004. The 
     Secretary shall notify the Armed Services Committees of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives of any decision to 
     delay implementation of the demonstration project.
       (b) Coordination With State Election Officials.--To the 
     greatest extent practicable, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     carry out the demonstration project under this section 
     through cooperative agreements with State election officials.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than June 1, 2003, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to Congress 
     analyzing the demonstration project conducted under this 
     section, and shall include in the report any recommendations 
     the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate for continuing 
     the project on an expanded basis for uniformed services 
     voters during the next regularly scheduled general election 
     for Federal office.

     SEC. 578. FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall promulgate 
     regulations to require each of the Armed Forces to ensure 
     their compliance with any directives issued by the Secretary 
     of Defense in implementing the Federal Voting Assistance 
     Program (referred to in this section as the ``Program'') or 
     any similar program.
       (b) Review and Report.--(1) The Inspector General of each 
     of the Armed Forces shall--
       (A) conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of the 
     Program or any similar program;
       (B) conduct an annual review of the compliance with the 
     Program or any similar program of the branch; and
       (C) submit an annual report to the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense on the results of the reviews under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       (2) Not later than March 31, 2003, and annually thereafter, 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall 
     submit a report to Congress on--
       (A) the effectiveness of the Program or any similar 
     program; and
       (B) the level of compliance with the Program or any similar 
     program of the branches of the Armed Forces.

     SEC. 579. MAXIMIZATION OF ACCESS OF RECENTLY SEPARATED 
                   UNIFORMED SERVICES VOTERS TO THE POLLS.

       (a) Absentee Registration.--For purposes of voting in any 
     primary, special, general, or runoff election for Federal 
     office (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)), each State shall, with 
     respect to any uniformed services voter (as defined in 
     section 571(b)) requesting to vote in the State accept and 
     process, with respect to any primary, special, general, or 
     runoff election, any otherwise valid voter registration 
     application submitted by such voter.
       (b) Voting by Recently Separated Uniformed Services 
     Voters.--Each State shall permit each recently separated 
     uniformed services voter to vote in any election for which a 
     voter registration application has been accepted and 
     processed under subsection (a) if that voter--
       (1) has registered to vote under such subsection; and
       (2) is eligible to vote in that election under State law.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``State'' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or 
     a territory or possession of the United States.
       (2) The term ``recently separated uniformed services 
     voter'' means any individual that was a uniformed services 
     voter (as defined in section 571(b)) on the date that is 60 
     days before the date on which the individual seeks to vote 
     and who--
       (A) presents to the election official Department of Defense 
     form 214 evidencing their former status as such a voter, or 
     any other official proof of such status;
       (B) is no longer such a voter; and
       (C) is otherwise qualified to vote.

     SEC. 580. GOVERNORS' REPORTS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL 
                   VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which a State receives a legislative recommendation, the 
     State shall submit a report on the status of the 
     implementation of that recommendation to the Presidential 
     designee and to each Member of Congress that represents that 
     State.
       (b) Period of Applicability.--This section applies with 
     respect to legislative recommendations received by States 
     during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     Act and ending three years after such date.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``legislative recommendation'' means a 
     recommendation of the Presidential designee suggesting a 
     modification in the laws of a State for the purpose of 
     maximizing the access to the polls of absent uniformed 
     services voters and overseas voters, including each 
     recommendation made under section 104 of the Uniformed and 
     Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-3).
       (2) The term ``Presidential designee'' means the head of 
     the executive department designated under section 101 of the 
     Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1973ff).

  Mr. WARNER. I ask to be a cosponsor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, would you add the following cosponsors: 
Senator Warner, Senator Allen, Senator Hagel, Senator Cleland, and 
Senator Bill Nelson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. In 1864, in the midst of a civil war, the United States 
of America held an election. In 1944, in the midst of a world war, the 
United States of America held an election. And in 2002, and in 2004, no 
matter what military actions we are involved in for the current war on 
terrorism, the United States of America will hold elections. It is a 
fundamental part of our system, of our democracy. Our claim to being 
the world's foremost champion of ``liberty and justice for all'' 
depends on the regular, free, and pure exercise of citizen's voting 
rights. And now that we are deploying troops overseas as the beginning 
of this campaign, it is our duty to correct the flaws in the absentee 
military voting system that became so glaringly obvious during the last 
election. To that end I introduced S. 381, which after much helpful 
input from the co-sponsors has been modified into what is before us 
today. Let me briefly describe this amendment so we can move forward. 
This amendment prohibits States from disqualifying our men and women in 
the military from voting based on their ballot's lack of postmark, 
address, notarized witness signature, or a reasonably similar 
signature. The current language in the bill only offers military voters 
a ``meaningful opportunity to exercise voting rights.'' This does not 
ensure that our fighting men and women will be able to vote. Our 
amendment will instead move us toward that goal. The amendment also 
facilitates voting for men and women in the services who are separated 
before an election and because of residency requirements previously 
faced problems voting. There is a provision for electronic voting, 
strongly endorsed by Senator Bill Nelson, that sets up a demo for that 
purpose. There is a requirement for a report that will be filed with 
the Department of Defense by the States, reporting to them on how the 
States are addressing existing problems with their absentee military 
voting requirements, so our military men and women will have an 
opportunity to vote.

  That is basically the amendment. I hope we can move forward with it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I wish to compliment our colleague. This amendment was 
worked on on both sides. I believe that is included in the Record.
  Mr. ALLARD. It is important to include that in the Record. I thank 
the Senator for that reminder. It was worked on diligently by both 
sides. There is mutual support to move forward. I thank the Senator for 
his help and for the support of Senator Levin.

[[Page S10047]]

  Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. ALLARD. The Senator from Florida as well as Senator Dodd worked 
on this amendment. I appreciate their input.
  Mr. WARNER. In our early discussions today, the Senator from Florida 
worked some constructive changes. The Rules Committee has overall 
jurisdiction of voting in elections. Senator Dodd, the ranking member 
of the Rules Committee, collaborated on this issue, and it was badly 
needed. We suffered, as a nation, when we had the problems in Florida. 
I am not suggesting guilt anywhere, but there was a lot of confusion 
with the unexpected situation. There was great controversy over the men 
and women in the Armed Forces, particularly those beyond our shores 
serving in posts overseas, as to their ballots, when they were finally 
received in that State--and indeed we found other States had problems, 
so it was not exclusively a problem for Florida.
  This amendment will go a long way toward clarification.
  Mr. ALLARD. The Senator from Virginia has a lot of constituents from 
his State who have dedicated their lives to protecting the citizens of 
this country, and I have a lot of citizens in Colorado who have 
dedicated their lives to serving in the military and protecting and 
securing the interests of the United States. This is a moral issue. We 
need to make sure they have an opportunity to vote and do not lose that 
right.
  I thank the manager of the bill for his effort in working on this 
compromise.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Allard, Senator Warner, and 
others who worked so hard on this amendment. We made some very 
important progress in the bill that came from committee on assuring 
voting rights for men and women in the Armed Forces and those who leave 
the Armed Forces, for a short period of time after their departure.
  Senator Allard has worked hard and has suggested some additional ways 
in which we can give that assurance that every eligible voter serving 
in our military does have a meaningful opportunity to vote and that 
properly cast ballots will be counted. I commend him.
  Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, Senator Dodd, and Senator Max Cleland 
worked so hard. I ask unanimous consent someone who has also worked 
extremely hard on this issue and made wonderful contributions, Senator 
Landrieu of Louisiana, be added as a cosponsor to this modified 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. In addition, Mr. President, I express my thanks to Senator 
Allard. This is a complicated issue, and it is important we hear from a 
number of sources, including secretaries of state of the various 
States, between now and the time we go to conference. We will be 
seeking to get their input on this language. We have not had a chance 
to do that. There may need to be some additional work.
  In the meantime, I support the amendment and hope we will adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard.
  The amendment (No. 1755), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement 
adopted a few minutes ago, no further amendments are in order.
  Senator Torricelli, Senator Biden, and I have expressed a strong 
interest in an issue that cannot be addressed on the floor through 
amendment and, as it turns out, may not need to be offered through an 
amendment. I want to take a moment to speak to that before we come to 
the vote. Before doing so, I again compliment Senator Levin, the 
Chairman of the committee, and the ranking Republican, Senator Warner, 
helping us to navigate through some difficult waters as we come to the 
close of debate on this bill.

  The issue that Senator Torricelli and Senator Biden and I expressed 
concern about involves the Department of Defense. The Department of 
Defense, it turns out, is the only consumer of a military grade 
propellant which is manufactured through a joint venture between two 
companies, General Dynamics Ordnance Tactical Systems and Alliant 
Techsystems.
  Previously, nitrocellulose, which is used to make this propellant had 
been provided to General Dynamics by two sources: Alliant Techsystems, 
and Expro, Inc. Green Tree Chemical Technologies, which it turns out 
has operations in the State of the Presiding Officer and is 
headquartered in the State of Delaware, provided Expro with base 
components used to manufacture nitrocellulose. Since the joint venture 
with Alliant Technologies, General Dynamics terminated their contract 
with Expro, Inc.
  Concerns have been expressed by Green Tree Technologies that with the 
current joint venture we would end up with a sole source provider for 
nitrocellulose. This propellant is used to make, among other things, 
weapons; and if there is only one provider of nitrocellulose we may put 
ourselves in some jeopardy as a nation if we should lose that one 
source.
  There are further concerns that have been raised with respect to 
possible antitrust violations. For this reason, the Federal Trade 
Commission has opened an investigation concerning the joint venture 
between General Dynamics and Alliant Techsystems. Since the Department 
of Defense is the only purchaser of military-grade nitrocellulose, they 
have the determining role in whether or not the FTC moves forward with 
their review.
  Senator Torricelli prepared an amendment. It is not going to be 
offered, but it is an amendment that says we need the Department of 
Defense, specifically the Army, to signal to the FTC that they have an 
understanding of the concerns over the possible antitrust issues and 
concerns over permitting this joint venture to go forward, limiting 
ourselves to one source for nitrocellulose.
  The amendment encourages the Department of Defense to express its 
view of the Federal Trade Commission investigation within 30 days of 
enactment. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense will 
formally indicate their view of the FTC investigation in the coming 
week.
  What we had sought to accomplish through amendment appears to have 
been accomplished without the adoption of this amendment, which I 
believe is good news, not just for Green Tree Technologies, but I think 
it is good news for the Department of Defense and ultimately for the 
taxpayers of this country. With sign off from the Department of 
Defense, the FTC is free to move forward and to make whatever rulings 
or decisions they see fit.
  While the amendment will not be offered, I want to say to Senator 
Torricelli, thank you very much for raising this issue and providing 
the leadership here in the Senate for the committee to make sure we 
address these matters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am sorry I did not have an opportunity to 
hear all of Senator Carper's words, but I think I understand enough to 
know what he has indicated, that apparently there has been now a 
statement from the DOD to the FTC on this matter. If so, that was the 
purpose of the Torricelli amendment which was supported, I believe, by 
the Senator from Delaware and one other Senator.

  Mr. CARPER. And Senator Biden.
  Mr. LEVIN. Senator Biden as well. If that information for whatever 
reason turns out not to be accurate, Senator Torricelli, Senator 
Carper, Senator Biden, and others have my assurance that I will be 
putting tremendous weight on the Department of Defense between now and 
conference to be certain those views are expressed, whatever those 
views are. It is not up to me, at least, to express an opinion as to 
the substance of the matter. I do not know enough about it. But they 
have apparently now expressed those views. If

[[Page S10048]]

they have not, I will do everything within my power to make certain 
they do between now and the time this bill comes back from conference.
  I thank Senator Torricelli and Senator Carper for their position on 
this matter now.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I also add the Chairman and I had to 
make a decision to move on the question of germaneness. I do it on my 
side; the chairman was prepared to do it on his side. There was clearly 
a question of germaneness.
  We have a number of Senators--another one just appeared. We had a 
list of over 100 amendments. We have been waiting. We stayed here until 
late last night and tried to consider them. I regret if there was a 
miscommunication. As captain of the ship, I take responsibility. But in 
good conscience, I have claimed many times and stated at lunch today 
among my colleagues that we were moving to final passage. As far as I 
knew, no amendments were going to be brought up.
  I regret profusely, I say to my friend, and I yield the floor if he 
wants to make a few comments.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Very briefly, again to Senator Warner, I understand the 
difficult position he and Senator Levin found themselves in with 
respect to germaneness. I thank Senator Levin very much for the 
assurances he has given us. We look forward to working with the Senator 
to a satisfactory conclusion.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I want to state for the record why I voted 
in support of the request from President Bush for an authorization of a 
Base Realignment and Closure Commission in fiscal year 2003.
  I support a BRAC round in 2003 for three reasons: First, I am 
confident that with an objective analysis of their military value, 
Virginia bases will score well compared to other installations 
throughout the Nation. I am sensitive to the fact that BRAC is an 
emotional issue. As unemotional as we would like to make it, we cannot 
get completely away from the emotion that is involved with closing 
installations and potentially uprooting people's lives. While I am 
sensitive to the emotions involved, I am confident that Virginia will 
come out well.
  Virginia bases have, in past years, demonstrated their military value 
and will do so again this time. As Governor of Virginia, I, in 1994, 
established the Virginia Office of Base Retention and Defense 
Adjustment. We coordinated an effective State effort to assess the 
attributes of our military facilities to protect Virginia interests in 
the 1995 BRAC rounds. Indeed, after the 1995 BRAC, some 4,000 jobs were 
returned to Virginia that were lost in the 1993 BRAC round.
  Finally, Fort Pickett was on the 1995 BRAC list until we negotiated a 
transfer to the Virginia National Guard to serve as Headquarters of the 
Commonwealth's Department of Military Affairs. So our bases are not 
only operationally important to their own services but they are 
interwoven in a web of joint-ness in which our military puts great 
value. We are operating at peak capacity in Virginia. We are efficient 
and we are ready to serve our national interests and meet the 
challenges of a BRAC round.
  Second, the Department of Defense has indicated that a BRAC is needed 
on the merits. They have indicated there is a 25 percent excess 
infrastructure throughout our military installations. The Bush 
administration believes we could save $3.5 billion by consolidating 
operations. We then have a responsibility to work for more efficiency 
so that our resources can be allocated where they are needed most. 
These resources can be used to improve pay for our Soldiers, Sailors, 
Airmen, and Marines. Savings can be used to acquire upgraded, more 
technologically advanced equipment, armaments, and spare parts; all to 
better protect our uniformed personnel. Indeed, these savings can even 
be used to upgrade facilities in which our services are located.
  Finally, during this time of national emergency, we should give due 
deference to the decisions of the President, Secretary of Defense, and 
the Pentagon. The administration has said we, as a nation, need to 
authorize a commission. Secretary Rumsfeld called it ``imperative to 
convert excess capacity into war-fighting ability.'' During a time of 
national emergency and throughout our ``war on terrorism,'' it is 
important to support the National Command Authority in their decisions 
to wage war and structure an efficient war machine. Again, because this 
is a highly emotional issue and affects the lives of people throughout 
the land, Congress must have confidence in the recommendations of the 
administration, Department of Defense, and the commission. I am 
confident of the Secretary's ability to ensure the integrity of the 
BRAC process which is so important to the accurate assessment of our 
future operational needs and force structure.
  Again, I am aware of the concerns that many of my fellow Virginians 
feel as we approach BRAC once again. But I remain committed to 
supporting the Bush administration during this time of national 
emergency. When thinking objectively, everyone understands the urgency 
of utilizing our assets in the most effective manner possible. I am 
confident in the Secretary and commission's ability to conduct an 
objective assessment of the Nation's defense infrastructure needs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1438, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. At the outset, 
I must commend Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin for 
agreeing to a compromise to the committee-reported version of the 
defense authorization bill, by restoring $1.3 billion for the 
President's missile defense proposal, and removing language that would 
have harmed timely deployment of a missile defense system for America. 
I was deeply concerned during committee consideration when the 
restrictive bill language on missile defense was added and the cut in 
the missile defense program occurred, causing committee Republicans to 
vote unanimously against reporting out the bill.
  In my 18 years in Congress, I had never seen a Defense authorization 
bill reported out of committee strictly on party lines. I am very 
proud, however, of the unified efforts and spirit of my colleagues 
since the tragic attacks on September 11, and I am pleased that we are 
working together to enhance our national security at this crucial time 
in our country's history.
  It is tremendously important to me that the committee included 
language in the defense authorization bill and report that would 
authorize payment of retired pay and disability pay for military 
retirees and other eligible veterans--a practice known as ``concurrent 
receipt.'' For the past 10 years, I have offered legislation on this 
issue. This matter is of great significance to many of our country's 
military retirees, because it would reverse existing, unfair 
regulations that strip retirement pay from military retirees who are 
also disabled, and costs them any realistic opportunity for post-
service earnings. I am pleased that the committee, for the first time, 
has included language that describes this offset as unfair to disabled 
career service members.
  My friends, we must do more to restore retirement pay for those 
military retirees who are disabled. I have stated before in this 
chamber, and I am compelled to reiterate now--retirement pay and 
disability pay are distinct types of pay. Retirement pay is for service 
rendered through 20 years of military service. Disability pay is for 
physical or mental pain or suffering that occurs during and as a result 
of military service. In this case, members with decades of military 
service receive the same compensation as similarly disabled members who 
served only a few years; this practice fails to recognize their 
extended, clearly more demanding careers of service to our country. 
This is patently unfair, and I will continue to work diligently to 
correct this inequity.
  In the legislation we are considering today, there are several 
provisions that will significantly improve the lives of active duty 
members, reservists, military retirees, veterans, and their families. 
It will come as no surprise, however, that I would like to emphasize 
that this year's Defense authorization bill contains nearly $1 billion 
in pork--unrequested add-ons to the defense budget that deprive our 
military of vital funding for priority issues. While this year's total 
is far less than in previous years, it is still $1 billion too

[[Page S10049]]

much. Given the grave circumstances facing our nation today, we need to 
demonstrate to all Americans that we can do better.
  Over the past six years, Congress has increased the Presidents' 
defense budgets by nearly $60 billion in order to address the military 
services' most important unfunded priorities. Still, I think it is 
worth repeating, until the message sinks, in, that the military needs 
less money spent on pork, and more money spent wisely to redress the 
serious readiness and modernization problems caused by a decade of 
declining defense budgets.
  Every year as we work on defense authorization legislation, however, 
certain items are funded that are not on the Service chiefs' unfunded 
requirements list and, frankly, whose merits are questionable. For 
example, I have noticed in the fiscal year 2002 bill a total increase 
of nearly $55 million for advanced automotive technology and related 
fuel cell technology research--it sounds like the Motor City will be 
pleased, but what about the Service Chiefs? The auto industry also must 
be pleased with funding for the National Automotive Center's SmarTruck 
Army program. In a Washington Post investigative report last year, it 
was revealed that the SmarTruck, which was envisioned as a modified 
Ford F-350 pick up, has developed into a vehicle that looks like it 
should be in the next James Bond movie--all paid for with American 
taxpayers' hard-earned money.

  I am also concerned that despite the President's clear budget request 
for the procurement of 2 C-130J aircraft for the Air Force, the 
committee voted by the narrowest margin to add $99 million for an 
additional, unrequested C-130J for the Little Rock Air Force Base. DoD 
and GAO have regularly criticized the C-130J program for serious cost 
overruns and development delays; moreover, there is a significant 
surplus of this platform in the Air Force inventory--called ``an 
embarrassment of riches'' by the Air Force Chief of Staff. This 
continued procurement clearly makes the contractor happy,but what about 
the Service Chiefs? For the $99 million cost of 1 C-130J, our Navy 
could have procured 2 additional F/A-18 E/Fs, to respond directly to 
the critical need of replacing aging Navy aircraft inventory--an 
inventory whose airplanes average 18 years old. In fact, the CNO, 
Admiral Vernon E. Clark, USN, testified before the committee this year 
that he needs to procure 180 jet aircraft per year just to sustain the 
1997 Quadrennial Defense Review level, considerably more than the 48 F/
A-18 E/Fs provided in our bill.
  Just as discouraging, given its pork barrel nature, is a provision 
that would delay the B-1B Lancer bomber force restructuring or 
downsizing at a cost of $165 million to U.S. taxpayers. This provision 
has literally made it illegal for the Secretary of Defense to reduce, 
retire, dismantle, transfer, or reassign the Air National Guard B-1B 
Lancer bomber force by 33 aircraft until the following reports have 
been prepared: The National Security Review, the Quadrennial Defense 
Review, the Revised Nuclear Posture Review, the Secretary of Defense 
Report on the B-1B Lancer Bomber, the Bomber Force Structure Report, 
and a Comptroller General Report on the B-1B Lancer Bomber I have never 
witnessed a more absurd illustration of congressional micro-management, 
and at such a great cost; the service chiefs will be unable to make 
wise use of this $165 million in fiscal year 2002 and the taxpayers' 
money will again be spend imprudently.
  I would like to mention one further example of wasteful spending. For 
the last several years, Congress has added money for cultural and 
historic preservation activities, which is funded through a program 
called the Legacy Resource Management Program, fancy terminology for 
pork. The fiscal year 2002 defense authorization bill will add $8 
million to this program, principally for recovery and preservation of 
the C.S.C. Virginia, which ran aground near Craney Island near the 
James and Elizabeth Rivers and was set on fire after being abandoned in 
May 1862. Now, my friends, can't we agree that there are much more 
pressing needs, such as improving military readiness and providing 
quality-of-life benefits to our service men and women, than raising 
this Civil War ironclad?
  I also hope that we can re-focus our attention on reforming the 
bureaucracy of the Pentagon. With the exception of minor changes, our 
defense establishment looks just as if did 50 years ago. We must 
continue to incorporate practices from the private sector, like 
restructuring, reforming, creating efficiencies, and streamlining to 
eliminate duplication and capitalize on cost savings.
  More effort must be made to reduce the growth trend of headquarters' 
staff and to decentralize the Pentagon's morass of bureaucratic 
fiefdoms. Although nearly every military analyst shares these views, 
this bill instead moves significantly in the direction of increasing 
the size of headquarters staff, thereby eliminating any incentive for 
the Pentagon to change its way of doing business with its bloated 
organization and outdated practices.
  In addition, I appreciate that the Administration and the majority of 
my colleagues supported one round of Base Realignment and Closure in 
2003, but more must be done to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative 
military contracts and military installations. Every U.S. military 
leader, civilian and uniformed, has testified about the critical need 
for further BRAC rounds. We can redirect at least $6 billion per year 
by eliminating excess defense infrastructure. There is another $2 
billion per year that we can put to better purposes by privatizing or 
consolidating support and maintenance functions, and an additional $5 
billion that can be saved each year by eliminating ``Buy America'' 
restrictions that undermine U.S. competitiveness overseas. Despite 
these compelling facts, the defense bill did not address many of these 
critical issues. And, unfortunately, it includes several provisions 
that move expressly in the opposite direction. Again, I am pleased that 
many of my colleagues voted to support Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and 
General Henry H. Shelton, USA, and approve another round of BRAC by a 
53 to 47 rollcall vote.

  In addition, sections in this bill designed to preserve depots, and 
to funnel work in their direction irrespective of cost, are examples of 
the old philosophy of protecting home-town jobs at the expense of 
greater efficiencies. And calling plants and depots ``Centers of 
Excellence'' does not, Mr. President, constitute an appropriate 
approach to depot maintenance and manufacturing activities. 
Consequently, neither the Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence 
nor the Center of Excellence in Service Contracting provide adequate 
cloaks for the kind of protectionist and parochial budgeting endemic in 
the legislating process. Similarly, whether the Center of Academic 
Excellence in Information Assurance Education through the information 
assurance scholarship program is worthy of the $5 million earmarked in 
the budget is certainly not academic, but clearly debatable.
  Last year the Defense appropriations bill included a provision 
statutorily renaming National Guard armories as ``Readiness Centers,'' 
a particularly Orwellian use of language. By legally relabeling 
``depot-level activities'' as ``operations at Centers of Industrial and 
Technical Excellence,'' we further institutionalize this dubious 
practice, the implications of which are to deny the American public the 
most cost-effective use of their tax dollars. When will it end?
  In closing, I would like to reiterate my strong commitment to 
continuing to work for enactment of meaningful improvements for active 
duty and Reserve service members. They risk their lives to defend our 
shores and preserve democracy, and we can not thank them enough for 
their service. But, we can pay them more, improve the benefits for 
their families, and support the Reserve Components in a similar manner 
as the active forces. Our service members past, present, and future 
need these improvements.
  We owe so much more to the honorable men and women in uniform who 
defend our country. They are our greatest resource, and I feel they are 
woefully under-represented. At this time of national sorrow, 
resoluteness, when we in Congress have witnessed so many moving 
demonstrations of American patriotism, is there any greater duty facing 
us than to work in unity in full support of our service men and women? 
We must pledge to do our best on their behalf.

[[Page S10050]]

  Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that a list of items added 
to the Defense authorization bill by Congress be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 NON-PRIORITY
                                ADDS-ONS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Missile procurement: HMDA/SSS.............................    40.0
Navy Aircraft procurement: Navy JPATS (Add 10 Navy JPATS)......    44.6
Air Force Aircraft procurement: C-130J.........................    99.0
Air Force Research and Development, Test and Evaluation:
  Fly-by-Light UCAV............................................     4.0
  F-15 IFF (Air Force Reserve components)......................     8.4
Army Research and Development, Test and Evaluation:
  FADEC (Full Authority Digital Electronic Control for Helos)..     8.0
  LOLA (Liquid or Light end Air Boost Pump for Helos)..........     2.0
Navy Research and Development, Test and Evaluation:
  JASSM........................................................     8.1
  Laser Welding and Cutting....................................     4.3
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Defense:
  Laser Addictive Manufacturing Initiative.....................     4.0
  M291 Decontamination Kits....................................     3.4
Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
  University and Industry Research Centers (lightweight             0.75
   composite mats).............................................
  Advanced Materials Processing Research in Nanomaterials......     4.0
  CKEM Miniaturized Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU)............     2.0
  Single Alloy Tungsten Penetrator.............................     5.0
  Actuated Coolers for Portable Military Applications..........     2.0
  Ground Vehicle Batteries.....................................     1.5
  C3 Tech and Commercial Wireless Reliability Tested...........     1.0
  Geosciences and Atmospheric Research.........................     3.0
  Personal Warfighter Navigation-MEMS..........................     5.0
  Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology............     5.0
  Mobile Parts Hospital Technology (MPHT) Program..............     8.0
  Networked STEP-Enabled Production............................     5.0
  Plasma Energy Pyrolysis Systems (PEPS).......................     3.0
  Managing Army Technology Environmental Enhancement Program...     1.0
  Information Operations Training (Functional Area 30).........     1.0
Navy Research, Operations, Test and Evaluation:
  Southeast Atlantic Coastal Ocean Observing System............     8.0
  Marine Mammal Low Frequency Sound Research...................     1.0
  Fusion of Hyperspectral and Panchromatic Data................     5.0
  Advanced Personal Communicator...............................     3.0
  Bio-sensor Nanotechnology....................................     4.0
  Integrated Bioenviromental Hazards Research Program..........     3.0
  Modeling, Simulation and Training Immersion Facility.........     2.0
  High Brightness Election Source Program......................     2.5
  High Performance Wave Form Generator (Electronic Warfare)....     3.0
  Nanoscale Devices............................................     1.0
  Nanoscience and Technology...................................     3.0
  Wide Bandgap Semiconductor Research Initiative...............     2.5
  Ship Service Fuel Cell Technology Verification and Training       5.0
   Program.....................................................
  Nanoparticles for Neutralization of Facility Threats (Weapon)     2.0
  Urban Operations Environment Lab.............................     4.0
  ITC Human Resource Enterprise Strategy.......................     5.0
Air Force Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
  Environmentally Sound Corrosion Coatings.....................     1.5
  Metals Affordability Initiative..............................     5.0
  Titanium Matrix Composites...................................     7.5
  UV Free Electron Laser.......................................     2.5
  Information Protection and Authentication....................     3.0
  Advanced Aluminum Aerostructures.............................     5.0
  Cyber Security Research......................................     5.0
Defense-wide Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
  National Nanotechnology Initiative...........................     5.0
  Bioinformatics Program.......................................     1.5
  Fabrication of 3D Microelectronics Structures................     2.0
  Nanomaterials for Frequency Tunable Devices..................     3.0
  0.25/0.18 Micrometer Radiation Hardening Electronics Process.     3.0
  Device Pre-Detonation Technologies...........................     2.0
  Electrostatic Decontamination System.........................     8.0
  Standoff Detection of Explosives.............................     5.0
  Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle...............................    11.0
  UXO Environmental Security Remediation.......................     5.0
  Fluorescence Based Chemical and biological point detectors...     2.0
Counter Drug Activities: National Guard Support................    40.0
Operations & Maintenance:
  Army: Live Fire Range Targets................................    11.9
  Navy:
    Shipyard Apprentice Program................................     4.0
    Corrosion Prevention (Pacific).............................     2.0
  Air Force: Civil Air Patrol..................................     4.5
  Defense Wide:
    Kahololawe.................................................    35.0
    Cultural and Historic Activities (Raising Civil War Ships).     8.0
MILCON:
  Planning and design, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho................     0.87
  PAX River Aircraft prototype facility........................     1.45
  Naval War College National Research Center, Newport RI.......     1.79
  Engineering Control and Surveillacne System (ECSS)...........     1.6
  Tactical Communications ONBD Trainer.........................     4.0
  C-17 Maint. Trainer/Sim......................................    21.1
  AEGIS ORTS...................................................     6.0
  COTS Sonar for MCM...........................................     5.0
  NULKA Anti-ship Missile Decoy System.........................    14.0
  Future Ship Systems Technical Demonstrations.................     5.0
  Modular Advanced Composite Hull Form.........................     4.0
  Ocean Modeling for MCM.......................................     2.0
  Advance SSN Systems Development..............................     1.9
  Power Node Control Center (PNCC).............................     3.0
  Improved SSN Antenna UHF Technology Improvement..............     3.0
  Supply Chain Best Practices..................................     6.0
  Modeling and Simulation Initiatives..........................     7.0
  DDG-51 Composite Twisted Rudder..............................     3.0
  Sub Composite Sail...........................................     2.0
  AEGIS Common Ground and Decision Upgrade.....................     5.0
  Multi-million Maritime A/C...................................    53.8
Army, Other Procurement: Secure Enroute Comms.--Flying LAN.....    13.1
Air Force, Aircraft Procurement: Defense Airborne                   3.0
 Reconnaissance Program (U-2 SYERS Spares).....................
Air Force, Other Procurement:
  Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle............................     3.8
  Hydra--70 Rockets............................................    20.0
Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
  Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles............................     6.0
  LIDAR Sensors................................................     5.0
  Enhanced Scramjet Mixing.....................................     2.5
Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation: Re-entry           2.0
 Systems Application Program (RSAP)............................
Air Force Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
  Hand-Held Holographic Radar Gun for the B-2..................     2.9
  Dragon (U-2) JMIP SYERS Polarimetric Sensor Upgrade..........     4.0
  Space Surveillance Modernization--Camera Augmentation........     8.0
Defense-wide Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
  Accelerate Navy UCAV.........................................     9.0
  Thermionic Technology........................................     8.0
  Magdelina Ridge Observatory..................................     9.0
  Software Defined Radio.......................................     5.0
  Aerostat for CMD.............................................     3.8
  SMDC Advanced Research Center................................     8.0
  Space and Missile Defense Battlelab..........................    11.0
  Excalibur/Scorpius...........................................    15.0
  Water-Scale Planarization....................................     7.5
  Bottom Anti-Reflective Coatings..............................     2.5
  Privateer C3I................................................     2.8
  Broadcast-Request Imagery Technology Development (BRITE).....     3.0
  Defense Systems Evaluation...................................     1.5
  Intelligence Spatial Technology for Smart Map................     1.0
  Big Crow.....................................................     5.0
Army Operation and Maintenance: Reserve Land Forces Readiness-      5.0
 Information Operations Sustainment............................
Navy Operation and Maintenance: NAVOCEANO SURF Eagle...........     4.0
Air Force Operation and Maintenance: Replace/Refurbish Air          3.0
 Handlers at Keesler AFB Medical Center, MS....................
Defense-wide Operation and Maintenance:
  Commercial Imagery Initiative................................    10.0
  Environmental Restoration for Former Defense Sites in Alaska     40.0
   and other places............................................
Air National Guard Operation and Maintenance...................   164.8
                                                                --------
      Total pork (in billions of dollars)......................     1.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment to the fiscal 
year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act.
  This body is understandably focused right now on the issues of 
terrorism and homeland defense. It is entirely appropriate. With the 
imminent release of the Quadrennial Defense Review, however, we should 
not lose sight of the broader picture of U.S. foreign policy and 
national security for the decades ahead. While we can and will wage the 
war against international terrorism that is our duty, we cannot afford 
to ignore other future national security concerns that will most 
assuredly require the United States to maintain a large and robust 
conventional military capability.
  Chief among our concerns to U.S. national security and alliance 
relations remains the threat to Taiwan, and to U.S. interests in the 
Asia Pacific of an emerging China. My intent here is not to beat the 
drums of war, for the events of September 11 have already heightened 
our emotions and awareness of the dangers that confront us in the 21st 
century. It would be irresponsible of us, however, to ignore Chinese 
military modernization and its implications for U.S. national security. 
That is why I believe it imperative that the United States be more 
aware of the nature of China's modernization programs. An integral part 
of those efforts is China's acquisition of advanced technologies, 
including dual-use technologies.
  My amendment is simple. It requires the Secretary of Defense to 
provide an assessment of China's efforts at acquiring certain military-
related technologies, how its military strategy relates to its 
technology requirements, and the impact those technology requirements 
and that military strategy have on our ability to protect our interests 
in the Pacific. The amendment would also require the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to develop a 
list of technologies that, for purposes of national security, should be 
denied the People's Republic of China.
  This amendment is entirely consistent with Congress' overwhelming 
support for such initiatives as the creation at the National Defense 
University of a Center for the Study of the Chinese Military, and with 
the emphasis we have place in force structure discussions on the future 
challenge of China's growing military strength. It is a commonsense 
amendment that I hope will have bipartisan support.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in reviewing S. 1438, I came across a 
provision that would have disastrous consequences, no matter what its 
original intentions might have been.
  I am talking about section 1062, making it unlawful for individuals 
to possess any ``significant military equipment'' ever owned by the 
Department of Defense that is not demilitarized and giving the Attorney 
General the authority to seize such items. ``Significant military 
equipment'' can mean a wide variety of goods; for example, it can 
include military vehicles, aircraft, ammunition, firearms and parts. 
``Demilitarization'' can mean a number of things, too, including 
cutting or destruction.
  The Department of Defense already can, and does, demilitarize some 
military equipment before surplusing it. I am not advocating a change 
in that current authority.
  However, section 1062 of S. 1438 goes well beyond this current 
authority. By making possession of such equipment illegal, it would 
create tens of thousands of lawbreakers overnight, veterans, 
collectors, sportspeople, even museums that have been legally 
purchasing surplus equipment from the government for decades. Worse, 
this section provides for the confiscation and destruction of items 
that are now private property.

[[Page S10051]]

  Consider the chaos and injustice that would result from enactment of 
this provision. Veterans service organizations across the country who 
have acquired military firearms to use for ceremonial purposes, they 
would be criminals. Americans who learned to shoot and acquired a 
firearm through the government's own Division of Civilian Marksmanship 
program would find themselves being served with a warrant by the same 
government for the same firearm. Museum displays or airshows featuring 
military vehicles or crafts would be threatened. A firearm containing a 
military surplus replacement part would now be subject to confiscation 
and destruction or begin rendered inoperable. In my own state, a 
collector of military Jeeps would risk losing his investment and his 
collection through no fault of his own.
  This provision is breathtaking in its reach and unfairness, capturing 
millions of items and their law-abiding owners. This is why an even 
less-onerous provision in the last DOD Authorization bill was dropped 
during the House-Senate conference on that bill. That same conclusion 
must be reached by the conferees on S. 1438; this provision must be 
dropped in order to prevent certain harm.


            Private Insurance Products of BRAC Installations

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is well known that 
concerns about future liability have been a significant impediment to 
the remediation and reuse of military installations closed through the 
BRAC process. Private insurance products have proven an effective tool 
for addressing the liability concerns of local governments, contractors 
and developers of BRAC installations. With these products in hand, 
local governments, contractors, and developers of BRAC installations 
have been willing to accept the early transfer of contaminated DOD 
sites, and they have been willing to accept fixed price arrangements 
with DOD to complete the cleanup of sites. These arrangements encourage 
the better coordination of remediation and reuse, accelerating both, 
they save the Federal Government significant money in the process. 
Would the distinguished managers of the bill agree that the military 
services should consider the use of private insurance products as a 
method for expediting the remediation and reuse of BRAc installations, 
when appropriate cost savings can be achieved?
  Mr. LEVIN. I do believe the services should consider such insurance 
products.
  Mr. WARNER. I agree
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to address the subject of our 
Nation's security needs in the context of the Defense authorization 
bill presently before the Senate.
  I believe we must provide the best possible training, equipment, and 
preparation for our military forces, so they can effectively carry out 
whatever peacekeeping, humanitarian, war-fighting, or other missions 
they are given. They deserve the targeted pay raises of 5-10 percent 
and deferred maintenance for base housing included in this bill. For 
many years running, those in our armed forces have been suffering from 
a declining quality of life, despite rising Pentagon budgets. The 
pressing needs of our dedicated men and women in uniform, and those of 
their families, must be addressed as they mobilize for duty in response 
to the attacks of September 11th. This bill does largely address those 
needs, and I will vote for it today.
  Even so, I have a number of concerns about the bill, especially about 
its missile defense provisions. The initial committee language would 
have cut total funding for missile defense programs from $8.3 billion 
to $7 billion. In addition, it would have required that President Bush 
return to Congress with a specific request for funds for any missile 
defense tests that would violate the ABM Treaty, with congressional 
approval then required to spend those funds. I am disappointed that 
this language was removed.
  I oppose the plan to deploy a national missile defense shield for 
many reasons. The crucial question is whether a missile shield will 
make the United States more or less secure. After studying the matter 
carefully, I have concluded that deploying a missile shield is likely 
to make us less secure, and that we would be better off using these 
funds to finance key anti-terrorism initiatives.
  The new funding language in the bill allows the President to choose 
between missile defense research and development and combating 
terrorism. I believe that fighting terrorism should take priority over 
missile defense, and should receive most or all of the new funding. I 
further believe that spending to combat terrorism is more important 
than digging silos at Fort Greely, AK. Crews there have already begun 
construction of a 135-acre missile field and are planning to begin 
building silos in the Spring of 2002. Russian officials have said they 
would view construction of the Fort Greely missile silos as a violation 
of the ABM Treaty.
  Moreover, Moscow has said it would react to U.S. treaty withdrawal by 
abandoning all arms and nonproliferation treaties with Washington and 
might respond to the missile shield by putting multiple nuclear 
warheads on some of its missiles. Is it worth jeopardizing the system 
of stable nuclear deterrence that has worked for almost 40 years to 
build a very costly system that we don't know will work? I believe it 
is urgent that we strongly support the renewed efforts of Senator Levin 
and others to require the President to seek congressional approval 
before spending funds for missile tests that would breach the ABM 
Treaty.
  I believe in maintaining a strong national defense. We face a number 
of credible threats in the world today, including terrorism and the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We must make sure we 
carefully identify the threats we face and tailor our defense spending 
to meet them. We could do a better job of that than this bill does, and 
I hope that as we move to conference, the committee will make every 
effort to transfer funds from relatively low-priority programs to those 
designed to meet the urgent and immediate anti-terrorism and defense 
needs of our forces.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to express my support for this bill. 
On balance, I believe it will greatly benefit our national defense and 
our country. Importantly, we have taken steps to increase pay and 
benefits for our men and women in uniform and reverse the neglect of 
our Armed Forces over the past decade. For this alone, the legislation 
is an important priority.
  Let me take a moment to highlight a few of the bill's other 
provisions that have special significance.
  First is the amendment I supported concerning the waiver authority 
for the 50/50 rule which governs outsourcing of maintenance depot work. 
The amendment moves waiver authority to the Secretary of Defense from 
the service secretaries. It also requires the Secretary to explain how 
he will meet the requirements if he requests a waiver. This is vitally 
important in order to maintain our depot infrastructure which is a 
crucial national asset.
  Also of great interest to our veterans is a provision in the bill 
that addresses the concurrent receipt problem. For too long, we have 
penalized our disabled military retirees by forcing them to give up 
their retirement in order to receive disability pay. Senator Reid's 
amendment fixes this by allowing our military retirees to receive both 
their retirement pay and their disability pay. The sacrifice of 
disabled veterans should not be diminished by this unfair penalty, and 
I am happy to have cosponsored Senator Reid's amendment which rectifies 
this inequity.
  I am also pleased that S. 1438 includes another provision which would 
address a gross inequity in the law. Currently, a retirement-eligible 
service member who dies in the line of duty is not considered vested in 
the military retirement program. The bill we are passing today will 
allow for the posthumous retirement of the member and thus provide 
additional benefits to the surviving spouse and children.
  The bill also includes an additional $5 million for consequence 
management training involving weapons of mass destruction. This will 
make use of the unique training capabilities that exist at Dugway 
Proving Ground in Utah. I think we will all agree this is very timely 
given the terrorist threats our nation is facing.
  I am committed to ensuring adequate resources are available to train 
units, civil support teams and other teams and individuals in combating 
terrorism. To that end, I support the bill's

[[Page S10052]]

provision to require the Secretary of Defense to report back on the 
capabilities of defense installations, such as Fort Leonard Wood and 
Dugway Proving Ground, to train first responders.
  Along with the positive aspects of the bill, there are still 
provisions with which I disagree. First and foremost of these is the 
authorization for a round of base closures in 2003. This is simply not 
the moment to spend inordinate amounts of time and federal tax dollars 
preparing for base closings. The Nation's military bases and the 
military establishment need to be focused on the war effort. I hope 
that this unwise language will be dropped by the conferees.
  Additionally, I oppose the provision concerning the Federal Prison 
Industries. Any change to Federal Prison Industries should be part of a 
comprehensive overhaul rather than piecemeal changes in an unrelated 
bill. The ability to put prisoners to work greatly contributes to their 
rehabilitation. Without a market for the goods, an important tool is 
eliminated. Again, I am hopeful this provision will be dropped in 
conference.
  I was very disappointed, that the bill did not include the Service 
Members Protection Act. By prohibiting the Government from cooperating 
in any way with the International Criminal Court, this legislation 
would protect our service members from unjust and arbitrary 
prosecutions for carrying out policies of the United States Government. 
I will continue to work with Senator Helms, the author of the 
legislation, to secure its passage.
  Before closing, I also want to discuss Senator Domenici's amendment 
to make spending for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund 
mandatory. I am heartened the amendment will be included in the bill we 
are about to pass. I strongly support this amendment and commend 
Senator Domenici on a job well done.
  Over the past months, Senator Domenici and I have worked together to 
make needed improvements to the RECA program. We have been joined in 
this effort by Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senators Bingaman, Reid, 
Campbell, Wellstone and Johnson.
  I feel safe in speaking for all of us when I express the shock and 
outrage we felt upon learning that the RECA trust fund was empty and 
that our constituents were receiving IOUs for the compensation they 
deserved. We vowed to our constituents that we would work day and night 
to ensure that funding for RECA would be guaranteed, and when this 
amendment is enacted, that promise will be fulfilled for the next 
decade.
  As my colleagues are aware, earlier this year, I introduced 
legislation, S. 898, which includes language similar to the Domenici 
amendment. This language would also make spending for RECA mandatory, 
so that the appropriators would automatically fund the program each 
year. It will guarantee that all eligible individuals would receive 
their compensation in a timely manner.
  Despite all of our efforts, despite the RECA claimants' good faith, 
and despite the hard work of Justice Department officials administering 
the program, the Trust Fund became depleted in March of 2000. This 
situation was simply unacceptable. RECA claimants began receiving 
``IOU'' letters from the Federal Government in lieu of checks until we 
approved this year's supplemental appropriations bill, which covered 
the past IOUs and all claims approved as of September 30, 2001. 
However, many new claims will be approved in the coming years and, 
therefore, it is imperative that spending for this program become 
mandatory.
  And while these mandatory funds will provide a substantial amount of 
money to the RECA trust fund from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 
2011, it is important to know that this will not completely solve our 
constituents' concerns, we will still need more Federal money to 
provide compensation to all RECA victims. Let me assure these 
individuals, especially my fellow Utahns, that I will continue to fight 
this battle until all individuals are compensated by the Federal 
Government.
  On a whole, this is a very good bill crafted by very good lawmakers. 
It begins to provide the Defense Department with adequate resources 
after 10 years of erosion. However, this is only the first installment; 
there is yet much to be done. I hope to work with my colleagues in the 
days and months ahead to ensure that we strengthen our defense posture 
as quickly and as effectively as possible.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, under normal circumstances, it is likely 
that I would have opposed this bill. Under normal circumstances, I may 
have offered amendments to realign the Pentagon's lingering cold war 
mentality with the realities of the post-cold war world. Under normal 
circumstances, there would have been a more comprehensive debate on the 
proposed national missile defense system.
  But as we all know, these are not normal times. The tragedies that 
began to unfold in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania on 
September 11, and the bold strike against terrorism that this country 
and our men and women in uniform are about to launch, demand a unified 
Congress and a unified nation. For those reasons, I will vote in favor 
of this bill.
  The events of the past three weeks have crystalized support for our 
Armed Forces and have made it very clear that we should ensure that 
they have the resources necessary for the daunting task that lies 
ahead. But this strong sense of unity does not require Congress to 
abdicate its responsibility to review closely the funding requests of 
the President, and it does not prohibit discussions about the direction 
of federal spending, including defense spending.
  Each year that I have been a member of this body, I have expressed my 
concern about the priorities of the Pentagon and about the process by 
which we consider the Department of Defense authorization and 
appropriations bills. I am troubled that the Department of Defense does 
not receive the same scrutiny as other parts of our Federal budget. 
This time of unprecedented national crisis underscores the need for the 
Congress and the administration to take a hard look at the Pentagon's 
budget to ensure that scarce taxpayer dollars are targeted to those 
programs that are necessary to defend our country in the post-cold war 
world and to ensure that our Armed Forces have the resources they need 
for the battles ahead.
  I look forward to reviewing carefully the recently released 
Quadrennial Defense Review, a document which I believe should have been 
submitted in conjunction with the fiscal year 2002 defense budget 
request. At a time when the Department of Defense has rightly 
undertaken a comprehensive review of our military and its missions, it 
is troubling that we will pass yet another defense bill that is largely 
rooted in the long-ended cold war. I commend the Secretary of Defense 
for acknowledging the impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks on 
our future defense strategy, and urge him to continue to analyze of the 
role of our Armed Forces in combating terrorism and other challenges of 
the post-cold war world.
  This bill is not perfect. To be sure, there are some good things in 
it. I am pleased that the committee has reduced the President's 
procurement request for the troubled V-22 Osprey from 12 aircraft to 
nine. I remain concerned, however, that those nine aircraft, and the 
Ospreys that have already been built and are currently being built, 
will require costly and extensive retrofitting following the ongoing 
review of the program. Since it remains unclear whether many of the 
problems with this aircraft can be fixed, and since the Department of 
Defense's decision on whether to move forward with this program remains 
a long way off, I am pleased that the committee has included language 
in its report requiring the Department of Defense to study alternatives 
to this aircraft.
  We owe it to our men and women in uniform to provide them with safe, 
effective equipment. Their safety should be the principle that guides 
the important decision as to whether to proceed with this program. We 
should not move forward until we know for certain that this aircraft is 
safe and that the design flaws addressed in numerous reports have been 
corrected.
  We also owe it to our military personnel and their families to 
provide them with decent facilities and housing. For that reason, I 
strongly support the provision of this bill that authorizes another 
round of base closures. We should continue to reassess our base 
structure to ensure that we are maximizing the use of our defense 
facilities.

[[Page S10053]]

 By closing bases that are no longer needed, we can help to ensure that 
our military personnel and their families are not being forced to live 
and work in hazardous conditions. The decision to move forward with 
another round of base closures is an example of the hard decisions that 
this body will have to make as we face the realities of the Federal 
budget.
  I am also concerned that this bill again focuses on procurement of 
costly weapons systems at a time when we should be redirecting more 
funding to readiness and to quality of life programs for our men and 
women in uniform and their families. I regret that this bill authorizes 
the conversion of four Trident I submarines to carry conventional 
weapons when the Defense Department requested the conversion of two 
submarines and the retirement of two submarines. I also regret that we 
continue to procure cold war-era weapons such as the Trident II 
submarine-launched ballistic missile and that we continue to operate 
the Navy's Extremely Low Frequency communications system.
  This is a time for the administration, the Congress, and the country 
to stand together in the face of the horrific attacks on September 11. 
We must do everything we can to support our military personnel as they 
prepare to combat the forces of evil who perpetrated these vicious 
crimes and those who offer them financing, shelter, and support. While 
this bill is far from perfect, I will vote in favor of it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are about to vote in 2 or 3 minutes; am 
I not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I would like at this time again to thank all colleagues 
for their assistance in getting this very important piece of 
legislation up and carefully considered over a period of several days.
  I thank the staffs--on my senior staff, Les Brownlee, who hopefully 
will be moving on to other assignments here in the near future, and 
David Lyles, his counterpart, and others. I am most grateful. Senator 
Levin and I have been on this committee 23 years. I guess this is our 
23rd bill. We have had tremendous cooperation from colleagues, staff, 
and otherwise.
  This morning it was quite clear there was unanimity on both sides of 
the aisle to proceed with this bill.
  I thank my distinguished chairman. It is a pleasure to work with him. 
We had some hard decisions to make and I think we made them basically 
together. We eliminated from the bill many provisions which the 
chairman felt very strongly about regarding the missile defense funding 
language. But it was done, and done in a spirit to get this bill up and 
passed in the Senate, so now we go to the House and conference and 
hopefully we will send up to the President a very fine bill on behalf 
of the men and women of the Armed Forces.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank Senator Warner, his staff, and all the Members of 
the Armed Services Committee for working in such a spirit of unity.
  Our committee always is able to come together on national security 
matters. It has always been a joy to work on the Armed Services 
Committee because that committee works in such a bipartisan spirit.
  There are differences from time to time, but those differences are 
resolved in ways which contribute to the security of this Nation. Now 
that we are in an emergency situation, more than ever it is essential 
that this committee help lead the way, in a way that does not avoid 
debate on issues but, where we were unable to resolve issues, that they 
be deferred. There are some issues that have been deferred to a later 
date for reasons I expressed at great length yesterday. The Presiding 
Officer had an opportunity to listen to that.
  We have preserved our position on that. It is an important position, 
and we will raise that if and when the circumstances are appropriate. 
But for the time being, what is important is that this Senate now has a 
chance to express with one unified voice support for the men and women 
in the military, to make sure they have everything they need; that they 
have the resources, training, the equipment; that they have the pay; 
that they have the housing.
  We have done everything we can, working with the administration, to 
speak with one strong and unified voice that the men and women in the 
military should be able to count on us in normal times and surely they 
ought to be able to count on us in these emergency times. I believe 
very firmly this bill does exactly that.
  It could not have been accomplished, again, without the assistance of 
our staffs.
  They are extraordinary. Again, Senator Warner, as always, has worked 
very closely to make sure we could act together. For that I am 
grateful. I think the Nation is in his debt.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have nothing but accolades for the 
chairman and for the distinguished Senator from Virginia. This was a 
tough bill to put together. This is not the first time that it was 
tough and we got it done. We have had some where we didn't get it done. 
We had some that didn't reach conference until some events which 
weren't planned broke and it gave the bill momentum.
  I am not here to complain about their efforts, their diligent work. 
But I am a little concerned about the fact that I had some very good 
amendments pending. There is a very serious misunderstanding because it 
seems to me that my staff was working with staff on a number of these 
amendments.
  I was preparing to pull some of the amendments in a negotiation 
process. I want to state two of them that would have been very 
important to have. It has cosponsors, such as Senator Murkowski, 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, Senator Hollings, 
Senator Landrieu, and Senator Thurmond.
  It has to do with trying to make sure the United States in its 
workings with Russia on plutonium disposition programs, which I happen 
to have something to do with--$200 million was appropriated to start 
this program in an urgent supplemental 2 years ago. You all know we 
have been having some very difficult problems carrying that 
nonproliferation agreement to fruition. It was supposed to be for 
America getting rid of some of its plutonium and Russia getting rid of 
some of theirs in a kind of collateral way. And we were putting up $200 
million to get it going.
  The administration has decided to change the program by cutting two 
or three pieces of the program but offered no plan.
  All this says is when you have a plan, send it up, and we will 
consider it. In the meantime, we don't think you should pick a piece 
out of the program without telling us how you are going to keep it 
intact.
  I think anybody around here would have accepted that, or at least 
would have thought it was something very serious, unless they do not 
care about the program. There are some who do not think the plutonium 
disposition program is very good. But they don't have the luxury of 
deciding that it is not good. It is the law of the land right now. It 
is hard and difficult to get it done.
  An example of another one: Senator Bingaman, Senator Lugar, and 
Senator Hagel. This is on the coordination of nonproliferation programs 
and assistance thereto.
  There is no question on the part of those experts around who looked 
at this issue that we have to coordinate these programs. We have come 
to the word ``coordination'' after this terrorist attack as it applies 
to a lot of programs. We must coordinate better between the FBI and 
their information system, the CIA and theirs, and DOE and theirs. We 
finally decided to get something coordinated.

  Frankly, on the nonproliferation programs, we are desperately in need 
of coordination. God forbid that something happens and we will say, 
Where was the coordination? At least we can say we have been trying for 
a long time to get coordination. We didn't get it in this amendment 
because for some reason somebody here had a misunderstanding with us--
neither of these two

[[Page S10054]]

Senators--or they just didn't think we ought to be doing this kind of 
thing on this bill.
  In a sense, the cloture may very well have closed these off, but in 
the middle of negotiations we thought we should probably not have 
thought that. We probably should not have. Unless it gets done, we 
shouldn't think that in negotiations.
  Having said that, I want to put these two amendments in by way of 
some thought that will go into what I was talking about. I will choose 
to take the remainder of my amendments and put them in now so that 
somebody at some point will be able to look and see if their amendments 
were reasonably good amendments. I believe with the exception of one or 
two, which I was prepared to change or withdraw, they are very good 
amendments. Ultimately, they are needed and should be paid for.
  I will submit the package for perusal by those who might want to take 
a look to see if we could have made the bill a bit better, and at least 
be given some reasonable consideration.
  I thank the Senators. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might for 1 minute, I think the 
Senator from New Mexico has some very constructive suggestions. I am 
familiar with them. I spoke just this morning with Senator Lugar about 
a letter which he wrote to the Secretary of Defense, which is the 
subject matter of one of these amendments. I would have signed the 
letter with him. Yesterday I was engaged here. I hope in the context of 
the conference and otherwise we can address these important matters.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It will be in the Record.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield, 
let me also say, as someone who supports those amendments, that I will 
be working very hard in conference to see if we can find some way that 
is permitted in conference to get some of those issues resolved. I 
happen to be one who strongly supports those amendments. I thank him.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Michigan has attended a number of 
meetings where these issues were discussed. They are really serious 
issues. They will be coming along in a very good way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I congratulate our two managers for the 
outstanding job they have done in getting us to this point. It was not 
easy. I am grateful to my chairman and to our ranking member for the 
excellent job they did in maneuvering and orchestrating the effort to 
this point. I expect we will have a very good vote, thanks in large 
measure to their leadership.
  After this vote, it is my intention to move to the Vietnam trade 
bill. There may be a request to have a vote on the motion to proceed. 
It would be my desire to have the vote, if it is required, immediately 
following the vote on the Defense authorization bill. I urge Members to 
stay until we can clarify whether or not a second vote is required. If 
it is not required, the vote on the Defense authorization bill will be 
the final vote for the day.
  We will be on the Vietnam trade bill either way--either on the motion 
to proceed, which I don't expect, or on the bill itself.
  As my colleagues I am sure know, there is a 20-hour time limit. It is 
my hope and my plea that we don't feel the need to spend all 20 hours 
on this bill. It is an important piece of legislation. I don't minimize 
it. But we have a lot of work to do in what is a short workweek once 
again. We will take up the bill. I am hopeful we can have a good debate 
tonight and then vote on it tomorrow, and hopefully early in the day.
  I ask my colleagues to stay on the floor until we know for sure 
whether there is a second vote. I urge my colleagues as well to come 
and debate this bill so we can move it along and, hopefully, vote on 
its final passage sometime tomorrow.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, could I add my thanks to the majority 
leader for his very strong and determined leadership to bring this bill 
to a close. I must say it could not have happened without the 
determination of the majority leader to finally just simply file 
cloture. That is what it came to. We were not able to bring this to 
closure without that cloture motion.
  The majority leader's leadership has been absolutely superb and 
essential. That is going to permit us to have a strong vote and a 
unified, bipartisan voice in support of our troops. Both the majority 
leader and the Republican leader at an earlier time had sought to limit 
amendments to some kind of procedure. I thank both the majority and 
Republican leaders for that effort. They did not succeed in achieving 
that, but the next step will be taken. The majority leader took that 
action. That is the true mark of leadership, and the Nation is very 
much in his debt.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the chairman for his comments.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in thanking the Republican and 
Democrat leadership for their assistance in getting us to this point. 
Senator Lott and Senator Nickles also were on the floor last night 
until 8 o'clock, as was Senator Reid. We thank them.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Thurmond), is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Thurmond
       
  The bill (S. 1438) was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for the Senate to proceed en bloc to the consideration of the following 
calendar items: Calendar No. 156, S. 1417; Calendar No. 157, S. 1418; 
and Calendar No. 158, S. 1419; that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken, en bloc; that the following divisions of S. 1438, as passed 
the Senate, be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 1419; Division B, S. 
1418; and Division C, S. 1417; that the bills be read a third time, 
passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; 
and that the consideration of these items appear separately in the 
Record. I further ask unanimous consent that with respect to S. 1438, 
S. 1417, S. 1418, and S. 1419, as passed the

[[Page S10055]]

Senate; that if the Senate receives a message from the House with 
respect to any of these bills, the Senate then proceed to the House 
message; that the Senate disagree to the House amendment or amendments, 
agree to the request for a conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses, or request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses; and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees with the above occurring with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, sometimes seemingly small issues take 
on a great significance in large debates. I raised the prospect of 
objecting to going to conference on this bill because of an issue that 
both in my State and potentially in my country looms very large.
  A week ago, I raised with the committee my concerns that because of a 
merger by General Dynamics and another corporation, the United States 
of America is being left with one producer of smokeless gunpowder. One. 
One plant, one company, one location.
  It is a highly volatile matter. Aside from the questions of what this 
does to the competitiveness for cost for the Pentagon, the waste it may 
produce, there is the danger of loss of production.
  I remind my colleagues this is what fuels the TOW missile, hundreds 
of which are probably now making their way to the Middle East for 
antitank operations; our strategic forces with the Trident, the 
Hellfire missile that is used from aircraft and helicopters, one 
manufacturer.
  It is my understanding the Pentagon is now considering acquiescing to 
an action by the Federal Trade Commission because of concerns about 
what this will do to government costs, monopoly status, safety and 
quality for what is a matter of great significance to our Armed Forces.
  It was my hope and intention to include an amendment in the 
legislation that would have put the Senate on record that indeed the 
Federal Trade Commission should investigate and, if appropriate, take 
the proper action.
  In my judgment, the right action is for the Pentagon to indeed ensure 
there are two suppliers and to divide the contract as we do with so 
many other items that are important for national security.
  Because of the cloture vote, I could not include this amendment in 
the legislation, but it is my understanding the Secretary of Defense 
has now decided on the merits, on his own volition, to accede to the 
Federal Trade Commission.
  I inquire of the chairman of the committee his understanding of this 
action and whatever actions he might be taking in coming days in regard 
to this concern.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from New Jersey for a number of things: 
First, for voting for cloture in a very difficult situation where he 
had an amendment about which he feels so strongly, which I happen to 
support. The amendment was also, of course, cosponsored by Senators 
Carper and Corzine. Even though this amendment would not be in order 
after the cloture vote, the stakes were so great in terms of the 
Nation's security to get this bill passed that we had a strong vote for 
cloture nonetheless. This was true of the Senator from New Jersey and a 
number of other Senators who knew their amendments would not be in 
order if cloture, in fact, were invoked. I thank him for putting that 
need of this Nation so high that even though this amendment which is so 
important then could not be made germane, nonetheless cloture was voted 
for.
  We understand the Defense Department is going to express a view on 
this matter to the Federal Trade Commission, if it has not already done 
so, within the next few days. While I am not in a position to take a 
position on the merits because I do not know enough about the merits, 
and I would not do it anyway, I nonetheless believe it is important 
that the Department of Defense express itself, as the Senator's 
amendment provided for, since the amendment simply said it was the 
sense of the Senate the Department of Defense should express its views 
on the antitrust implications of the joint venture described in 
subsection A to the FTC not later than 30 days after enactment.
  I felt that was a very reasonable approach. It did not weigh in on 
the merits. It simply said this matter was so important the Defense 
Department should express its views.
  The Senator has my assurance that if for any reason the Defense 
Department does not express its views to the FTC before we complete 
conference, or if it has not already done so, I would take whatever 
steps I could to make sure that, in fact, it does so before we bring 
back the conference report to the Senate.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Levin, for his consideration and his support. I 
believe the Secretary of Defense will make a proper communication to 
the Federal Trade Commission. If for any reason he does not, I am very 
grateful the chairman of the committee will express his own views at 
the appropriate time.
  Obviously, if this is not successful in conference with this matter, 
we will return on the appropriations bill. What matters most is not 
simply the Greentree Chemicals and these few hundred people in Parlin, 
NJ, and those who work in Delaware. They matter to me and they matter 
to me enormously. More significantly, at a time when we have seen the 
vulnerability of our country and at a time of national emergency, the 
Nation, for principal defense items, cannot either on this specific 
item or speaking more broadly in national defense generally ever limit 
itself to single suppliers or create choke points in supplying our 
Armed Forces.
  Today I am rising on behalf of a small company in New Jersey, but 
tomorrow it could be somebody in any city in any State in America. The 
principle still stands. We live in an age of terrorism, and even if we 
did not, we live in a time where simple industrial accidents cannot 
impair the ability of our country to supply ourselves or our Armed 
Forces.
  I thank the Secretary of Defense for the action he has promised with 
the Federal Trade Commission, and I am particularly grateful to the 
Senator from Michigan for his own statement of support.
  I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________