Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 169 (Friday, December 7, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 169 (Friday, December 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12586-S12676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2002--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I raise a point of order against the
pending committee substitute amendment. The pending committee
substitute amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I also
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.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the motion to waive the point of order is
before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the time for debating
that

[[Page S12587]]

motion to waive the point of order be divided 50/50; that is, Senator
Stevens and Senator Byrd each control 30 minutes. Additionally, I have
a request for time from Senator Boxer, and I ask unanimous consent that
she be given 5 minutes in addition to the 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Did I understand there will be 1 hour equally divided on
the debate?
Mr. REID. Yes, that is right.
Madam President, I state, through the Chair to the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, that I asked for 5 additional minutes for
Senator Boxer. In fairness, we should give 5 additional minutes to the
other side. So that would be an additional 10 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, as the request is worded, time on quorum
calls, et cetera, would not be counted because the word is ``debate'';
am I correct?
Mr. REID. The Senator is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, my inquiry was made because I want to be
sure we have 1 hour on the debate. It is going to take us a few minutes
to get some chairs, and I do not want that time coming out of the
debate. So there is no ulterior or devious motive behind my having
asked that question.
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.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Senator Reid and my colleagues
for giving me this 5 minutes in support of Senator Byrd's motion.
We are living through a very difficult time in our history. This
particular campaign we are in is unlike any other we have faced. There
are people in our own country and perhaps in as many as 80 countries
who are dedicated to harming our people. As has been noted, we have had
more casualties in this campaign on the homefront, in the homeland,
than we have actually had in the theater of war.
We have a crisis to which we must respond. With his wisdom gained in
almost 50 years in the Congress, Senator Byrd is leading us in a
direction we should all follow. I am deeply distressed that the other
side of the aisle does not seem to want to follow Senator Byrd's
leadership.
I have been in the Congress for 20 years, Senator Byrd for 49 years.
The President of the United States has served in office, all told, 7
years as a Governor and a year as President. Our President has said it
is important to be humble. I call on him to be humble and to listen to
the words of a man who understands what the role of the Congress should
be in this time of terror, Senator Robert Byrd.
We are facing threats that we have never faced before. There is not
any debate in this body on that. We are facing the threat of smallpox.
Anyone who has seen the presentation called ``Dark Winter,'' anyone who
has spoken to physicians, knows this is a disease that will kill one
out of three people it strikes. This is a weapon of a terrorist. Will
it ever strike? We pray to God, no. Could it strike? Yes. In what form?
Will it be someone spraying this deadly disease at a mall? Or will it
be a number of people getting on a plane with the disease? We don't
know. Maybe it will never happen. And we pray it will never happen. But
we know we only have 15 million doses of the vaccine. We are very
hopeful it can be diluted to provide up to 77 million doses. But the
fact is, we need to move quickly.
I know our Secretary of Health and Human Services is moving to
procure those vaccines. But we also need to buy antibiotics in case we
get more anthrax cases. We need to find cures for diseases such as
smallpox, Ebola virus. I have met with companies in California and
other places that are working diligently to find cures for smallpox,
for Ebola viruses, and other deadly viruses. We need the funding for
that. Senator Byrd has done that.
We all worked hard on an aviation security bill and the President
signed that bill, but there is much more to be done. Just listen to
Norman Mineta. He will tell you. We have to have more of the machines
that check for bombs in cargo holds. The FAA has not even ordered more
machines. I have talked to the companies. They can produce 50 a month,
and Envision, one of the companies, has not gotten a phone call. There
is not the money. We need more air marshals. We are getting some; we
don't have near enough. We need the funding for that.
I speak because on this one there is a hole in my heart. We lost 39
Californians. Every hijacked plane was heading for California. Those
long-haul flights need air marshals. These flights had the heavy fuel
loads and the light passenger loads. Those were the targets of the
terrorists.
We need more security at our nuclear plant facilities. We must have
more security there. That costs money. You don't do that on the cheap.
In California, we have two plants at San Onofre located at Camp
Pendleton, two at Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo. They need the
National Guard. They need permanent protection. We know about dirty
bombs and what they can do--if they get their hands on that plutonium.
We need to guard against that happening. Senator Byrd does that.
Our own Homeland Security Director has talked about all of these
issues. Yet we seem to have a partisan battle where there should be no
room for partisanship. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, what are they against? The money for food safety? The money to
fight bioterrorism? The money to give to our law enforcement throughout
the land, working so hard, 12 and 14 hours a day, to ease their pain?
To put more people on the ground? Are they against firefighter
programs? Border security? Airport security? Nuclear plant security?
How about U.S. ports, those vulnerabilities? We know what could happen
if we do not protect our infrastructure.

It is pretty simple to me. Senator Byrd has stepped out. There can be
no one who has reached more across the aisle than Senator Byrd and
Senator Stevens, that is for sure. We saw it a couple of minutes ago.
So I say to my colleagues, let's be bipartisan.
I ask for 30 additional seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Let's be bipartisan when it comes to defending the
homeland, just as we are so bipartisan when it comes to supporting our
President in this fight abroad.
My mother used to say, in the old days: Penny wise and pound foolish.
It is something we always heard from our moms. You make these
investments now.
Last point. The President does not have to spend the money. The way
Senator Byrd has structured it, it is entirely up to him. Why would he
not want to have that insurance in his pocket so if we had another
attack we would not have to immediately be clamoring for another
session of Congress? Let's do the right thing and follow the leadership
of Senator Byrd today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Has the Senator from California completed her statement?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. I will take 3 minutes off our side's time.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the time just be given to the Senator from
North Dakota rather than invade Senator Byrd's time. We are happy to
yield 5 minutes to the Senator without any limitation on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Alaska for his graciousness
with

[[Page S12588]]

respect to the time. Once again, he has demonstrated why he is one of
the most respected Members of this body. He is truly a gentleman.
Madam President, the question before us is whether or not the
additional funds to strengthen homeland defense and to rebuild what has
been destroyed in New York should be approved. The basic question is
whether or not it goes over what is provided for in the budget. There
is no question it is over and above what is in the budget. That is
because America was subjected to a sneak attack on September 11.
Terrorists attacked this country and that has required a response. It
has necessitated increases in spending for national defense. It
requires us to build up our defenses against bioterrorism. It requires
us to strengthen the security at our airports, at our harbors, at our
nuclear facilities. All of that costs money.
Of course, it was not in the original budget agreement. These are
funds over and above what was anticipated because no one could have
anticipated in April a terrorist sneak attack against the United
States. I am chairman of the Budget Committee. I have argued all
throughout the budget process, all throughout the tax process, for us
to respect the integrity of the trust funds of the United States. They
are in danger. They were in jeopardy before the attack on September 11.
Our first priority has to be the defense of this Nation. I think each
and every Member of this Chamber understands that is the first
obligation of each and every Member of this body and of the other body.

The basic argument on the Republican side is we should wait: We
probably are going to have to have these additional expenditures, but
we should wait until next year. Their argument is this adds to the
deficit.
I think we should look at what else is being proposed, what else is
being considered in this Chamber to evaluate the merits of their
argument. The fact is, the Republican stimulus plan that is also being
considered simultaneously with the legislation before us now adds $146
billion more to deficits than the Democratic stimulus plan. The
Democratic plan in 2002, with all that has happened--the attacks on
this country, the additional spending, the economic downturn--will have
a $32 billion deficit in 2002. The Republican plan will generate a
deficit in this fiscal year of $47 billion. In fact, we could
accommodate the entire additional spending to protect this Nation and
to rebuild New York and not have more of a deficit than the Republican
plan for fiscal year 2002.
For 2003, the Democratic plan has a deficit of $3 billion. The
Republican plan has a deficit of $66 billion. That is 22 times as much
of a deficit for the year 2003 than it is in the Democratic plan.
For 2004, the Democratic plan emerges from deficit with a $45 billion
projected surplus, while the Republican plan is still in deficit by $23
billion.
Over the first 3 years of this budget plan, the Republican overall
budget blueprint will create $136 billion of additional deficits, of
additional debt. The Democratic plan will actually have $10 billion of
surplus. So there is a total difference between the two plans--the
Republican stimulus plan over the Democratic stimulus plan--of $146
billion of budget deficits and of additional debt.
What Democrats are saying is we ought to accommodate the $15 billion
that Senator Byrd has identified that is critical to strengthening our
homeland defense and to keeping the promise to rebuild New York. We can
do that. We can do that and still have $130 billion less of a deficit
than the Republican budget plan.
To the extent this is an argument over deficits, there is no argument
because the Democratic plan has far less in deficits--more than $130
billion less--than the Republican plan.
We ought to thank and commend the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Byrd, and the Defense Appropriations Committee
chairman, Senator Inouye, for coming forward with a plan that is
responsible to defend America and to keep the promise to rebuild New
York.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, 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. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes remaining.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, let us pause for a moment, back away, and determine
if we might be able to see the forest and later see the trees.
Remember, Senators, that in this package I have offered, and which
was adopted in the Appropriations Committee, I sought to do three
things:
No. 1, to give the President every penny he asked for for defense. He
requested $21 billion. And there is not a penny cut away.
We have added $7.5 billion for New York, et al, and $7.5 billion for
homeland defense.
We have a package that gives to the President $21 billion for
defense. It provides that New York City and other areas that were
attacked on September 11 would get the $20 billion that the President
promised and to which we committed ourselves. On top of that, there is
$7.5 billion for homeland defense.
I didn't go to New York. I didn't go up there and promise that. But I
saw, and I heard, with my heart and mind responding. We believe we
ought to stand by our promises to New York, New Jersey, et al.
Some have argued that approval of $15 billion for homeland defense
and for New York disaster relief will result in pumping up spending for
years to come. That is not my intent. In fact, I have included a
provision in this bill directing OMB and the Congressional Budget
Office to exclude the $15 billion from baseline calculations of future
spending. This $15 billion supplemental is intended to respond to the
urgent needs and vulnerabilities that have been created by the
terrorist attacks of September 11 and the anthrax attacks. It is not a
permanent increase in spending. It should not be a permanent increase
in spending.
Having laid that to rest, let me read just a few excerpts from news
stories. Let us talk about the homeland defense. Defense of the
homeland is important and in the final analysis even more so than
defense overseas.
The opposition that has raised this point of order is saying we can
wait for defense of the homeland, we have to take care of our men and
women oversees.
I am for doing everything within our power to defend the men and
women whom we send overseas. As a matter of fact, I was the Senator who
stepped forth several years ago during the war in Vietnam when my own
party and my own majority leader at that time were opposed to attacking
the Vietcong enclaves in Cambodia. I took the position that we had men
in Cambodia and we ought to attack those enclaves. I took the position
that we had a duty to do whatever was necessary and that the President
of the United States, Mr. Nixon, had a duty to do whatever was
necessary to protect the men and the women he sends overseas into
battle--whatever is necessary. He had a right to do that. He had a duty
to do it. My own party on that occasion took issue with that idea. They
were opposed to bombing the enclaves in Cambodia, which were attacking
our military men in South Vietnam.
So don't look at me and pretend I am a Senator who is battling for
political reasons. I was not then. I am not now. This amendment is to
protect the people here at home--relatives of those men and women who
are overseas, children of those men and women who are overseas, mothers
and fathers and sisters and brothers of those men and women who are
overseas.

Ask the men and women overseas: How would you vote today? Would you
vote for homeland security? Would you vote to advance the cause, to
give homeland security a jump-start, to protect your people back home
in the USA? And the people back home are not only the relatives of
those men and women who are in Afghanistan; there are also military men
and women here in this country, still. And they, too, might be subject
to injury, to disease,

[[Page S12589]]

to death as a result of terrorist acts over here. How blind can we be?
So there is a division line here saying: Oh, we must do everything
possible for our men and women overseas--and we are doing that; we are
not cutting one penny out of defense abroad--but as to homeland
defense, the Administration says let's wait, let's wait until we
analyze and wait until we get further reports and wait until our
department heads can come forward with proposals. Wait, they say.
Here is a story in The New York Times today in which [Mr.] Ridge
Promises Security Funds ``For States in Next Budget.'' When will that
be? I will read just a bit:

A day after the nation's governors asked Congress for an
immediate $3 billion to fight terrorism, Tom Ridge, director
of homeland security, promised that President Bush's budget
proposal next year would include ``substantial down
payments'' to the states for security.
Mr. Ridge spoke as questions of how much domestic security
should cost after Sept. 11 have proliferated on Capitol Hill
and as states, facing recession and budget shortfalls, are
grappling with how to pay for new responsibilities to help
guard borders, bridges, dams and nuclear power plants. . . .
On Wednesday, the National Governors Association released a
preliminary survey of domestic security costs, estimating
that they would run the states $4 billion in the first year.

So here we are: The States of the Nation are grappling with serious
problems involving their own budgets. They have budget shortfalls. They
are crying out for help. And yet here we have the Director of Homeland
Security saying: Wait--Wait.
We do not have time to wait. We do not have that luxury. A vote
against my waiver of the point of order sends the message that it is
more important to win a political battle than it is to win the war
against terrorism.
Why will they not vote for this package? This package, as it was
written originally, had an emergency designation which would say to the
President: Here is the money. You do not have to spend it. You can
spend it or not spend it, depending upon the circumstances at the time.
Well, the Senate has already stricken from that package the emergency
designation. Now we are at the stage where we are going to vote to
waive the point of order. Those who vote against the waiver send the
message that it is more important to win a political battle than it is
to win the war against terrorism. That is what a vote against the
waiver means.
The President has said he will veto this bill if it has more money
than he requested. Is the Senate going to be blind to the fact--and I
have had Senators say to me: Well, why do we press ahead when the
President has said he will veto? The answer is: If we back away every
time a President threatens a veto, then the Chief Executive of this
Nation will reign supreme. He will become an emperor. No matter what
his political party, he will become an emperor, he will be king.

What would the Framers think of that? How would the Framers look upon
this Senate that cringes when a President says he will veto? I think
they would be dumbfounded to see that the time has come when the
legislative branch will flinch, will cringe when a President issues a
veto threat. Certainly the majority of the people in this broad land of
ours feel that the time is at hand when we need to jump-start homeland
defense so that aid will immediately flow to the people at the local
level: The policemen, the firemen, the paramedics, the people in the
hospitals, the people in the labs, the people in the emergency rooms in
the hospitals.
This is the time. If something happens tomorrow, tonight, next week,
or the week after, the people at the local level need to know that
their paramedics, their firemen, their policemen are going to have
monetary assistance. The Governors will know that. The mayors will know
that. Will our pleas fall upon deaf ears? Unfortunately, politics
reigns supreme in this Capitol. Once again, the people will lose.
An entire Defense bill, representing months of work by Senator
Stevens, Senator Inouye, and others, is going to fall. Why? Because of
political petulance. Ah, the Chief Executive, our people here say, must
win. He has said he will veto. What is one man's judgment against the
judgment of the majority of the people? It is obvious that the
terrorists can strike. We know that. Anthrax taught us that.
I think this is an extremely unwise course to take in time of war.
This is a war. Oh, Administration leaders say, we should not challenge
the President. I say that this is not a challenge to anybody, except to
the consciences of all of us who are sent here by the people of the
United States. Will we let political blinders get in the way of what we
know is right.
We all know it is right to provide protections to the people against
the sinister, deadly attacks on our own shores. And we have seen them
already. The people are crying out for help. Our military needs to know
that games are not being played with defense. Can we not lift our eyes
from Budget Act points of order long enough to do what our country
needs us to do. Apparently not. So, keep your political blinders on.
All that matters is winning for the President. Winning! That is all
that matters.
I wish that, just once, the thick fog of cynicism--and it is so thick
that you can cut it with a knife--could be lifted from this town. I
wish, just once, we could listen to our hearts--pay no attention to
politics, just listen to our hearts and clear our minds of fog and
political partisanship. Let our hearts and clear, rational minds, not
the hotheads--not the hotheads of political gamesmanship--guide our
actions. In this game of political cloak and dagger, the only ones
being stabbed in the back are the American people.
Now, each of us is going to have to stand before the American people
and answer questions. If this point of order prevails, we break our
promise to the people to protect them. We break the promise to the
people of New York City to help them with this tragedy. We continue the
decades of partisan political squabbling that so often occupy us in
this self-consumed, cynical, myopic town.

When I came to the legislative branch, we had two major political
parties. In the year that I came here to the legislative branch, the
Republicans were in control. Joe Martin of Massachusetts, Republican,
was the Speaker of the House of Representatives. John Tabor of New York
was the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the
House. Yes, those men were politicians, but first of all they were
patriots.
And how about those men at Valley Forge? How about those men who
wrote the Constitution, how would they feel? How would those Framers
feel? What would they think if they could hear the arguments, the
pitiful, weak arguments that are being advanced against this package?
How would they feel if they could read in the press of our day what is
being said by those who oppose this package? Wouldn't they say: Let's
work together? Wouldn't they say: We, the Framers, wrote ``we the
people, in order to form a more perfect union.'' How would the Framers
feel about that? We are not forming a more perfect union here in this
Senate. No, we are using a point of order that requires 60 votes to
overcome. We are going to vote the party line and turn our backs and
give the back of our hands to the American people.
We can't be proud of ourselves. Oh, we win the political battle: oh,
yes, we will uphold the hands of our President when he carries out his
veto threat.
Mr. President, I want to help the President. I want to help him keep
his promises to New York. I want to help him keep his promises to the
people of this country regarding homeland defense. We all know he made
such promises. So it will be a political victory for the
Administration. But where does that leave us? Where does that leave the
people of the nation? They are going to have to wait. A supplemental
will not be coming along for a while, and it won't be adopted for a
while. I don't know how long. But we are going to say to the people:
You wait.
Oh, yes, on fast track the President got on the White House phones, I
am told, and called Members of the other body and said: Please, support
your administration; we need fast track.
But, Mr. President, on Homeland defense, the Administration says,
wait, wait, wait.
It seems to me to be a rather arrogant attitude on the part of the
administration. They say: Wait, we will tell you, the Congress, how
much we need. We will let you know when we have

[[Page S12590]]

done these analyses and after the departments have all gotten together
and we have all come to a decision as to what we need, then we will
tell you how much we need.
That is an arrogant attitude, Mr. President, in my opinion. What we
are saying is, we want to help you, but we think the danger is there.
We think we ought to act now. We ought not wait. That is what we are
saying.
I hope all Senators will hear me. Hear me, Senators. Listen to what I
am going to say. Under the Budget Act, legislation cutting taxes or
increasing mandatory spending is supposed to be paid for because of the
tax cut bill signed this summer. We are currently facing a 4-percent
cut in Medicare spending in January. Hear me, Senators! I wish my voice
could ring across the land, that the people could hear me, if they
could have time to contact their Senators. Let me say it again: Because
of the tax cut bill signed this summer, we are currently facing a 4-
percent cut in Medicare spending in January.
A 4-percent cut in Medicare would result in $8.5 billion in cuts for
hospitals, physicians, home health agencies, skilled nursing
facilities, and managed care plans. This isn't going to be easy. This
is not going to be easy. You can wrap the robes of political
partisanship around yourselves, but you won't keep out the chilly winds
that are going to blow right in your face.

A 4-percent cut in Medicare would result in $8.5 billion in cuts for
hospitals, physicians, home health agencies, skilled nursing
facilities, and managed care plans.
Such cuts may force health care providers to cut staff, threaten to
cut the quality of care to our elderly who receive health care through
Medicare, or force them to discontinue to see Medicare patients.
My proposal includes a provision to block--get this now, my proposal
that is in this bill which is about to be brought down--my proposal
includes a provision to block these Medicare cuts. So it is not going
to be easy to explain to those people out there who are your
constituents that it is more important to cast a political vote here
than it is to cast a vote for the people back home.
Wait until those Medicare cuts face you, the Senators who will vote
against this waiver. You will be hiding behind a sixty-vote point of
order. I am not denying any Senator's right to make points of order.
This is a 60-vote point of order. So we can hide behind that. Or can
we? Think about it. There will be a few people, in this country at
least, you will meet on the campaign trail who will have heard what you
are about to do.
Any Member who votes against the motion to waive this 60-vote point
of order is voting to allow the massive $8.5 billion cut in Medicare to
go into effect in January. Explain that one to your constituents.
Explain that one to your conscience. I don't propose to be anybody's
keeper of conscience, but it would certainly be on mine if I voted that
way.
There is no person of any party to whom I would give precedence for
party reasons or preference in any way, over the obvious needs of the
American people to be protected from terrorist attacks, and the needs
of the people to be able to have their hospitals, their physicians,
their home health agencies, their skilled nursing facilities and
managed care plans not be jeopardized by this point of order.

Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I again thank my friend. And we hear that
term used so loosely in this body and on Capitol Hill, ``my friend.''
He is my friend, this man. I admire him. There is something behind the
political facade of this man. He is a man. He is a man, and here is a
man in Danny Inouye. I thank him as we soon will come to a close, I
assume. I may need some more time. The distinguished Senator from
Alaska yesterday gave me as much time as I asked for, and I will be
requesting that time again.
I believe the Senator from Massachusetts wanted me to yield to him at
this point. How much time does the Senator wish?
Mr. KENNEDY. Five minutes, I say to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I only have something near 2 minutes left.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator 15 minutes of our time.
Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator yields me 15 minutes, and I thank
him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today is Pearl Harbor Day. Just a short
time ago, we had an enormously moving moment in the Senate. We do not
have many emotional moments in this institution; certainly few as
important and emotional as we had earlier today when our good friend,
the Senator from Alaska, paid tribute to our beloved friend, genuine
patriot, and hero, Senator Inouye, for his service in World War II.
Americans are thinking about today December 7, a day when America was
caught unprepared in World War II. We came together as a nation, and we
were victorious, with a great deal of courage and a great deal of
bravery, but also a great deal of suffering, certainly, at Pearl
Harbor.
We are also mindful of what happened on September 11 when we saw the
failure of our intelligence system and the failure of our security
systems at our airports--two massive failures. We saw Americans suffer
loss of life, and families who have lost loved ones are feeling it more
now than ever at the holiday season. I am sure everyone in this body
has talked in their States with those families who have lost loved
ones. This all because we were unprepared to deal with the terrorist
attacks: during World War II on December 7 and again this year on
September 11.
The amendment that is offered by the Senator from West Virginia says:
Enough is enough. We are facing a new world, a new time. This Defense
appropriations bill says we will give all the support our service men
and women need who are fighting overseas in Afghanistan and across the
world preserving peace and preserving our liberties. We are prepared to
do that.
But we have been exposed in recent times to another kind of threat
and danger. That threat and danger, even though it cost the lives of
only 5 Americans, has touched those families. But more importantly, it
has put a sense of concern and perhaps even anxiety in the hearts and
souls of all Americans in every part of the Nation. It is the threat of
the unknown, and that is the dangers of bioterrorism. This is a real
problem in a real time.

The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is in response to
that challenge. It is the first opportunity to do something. His
proposal is a modest program compared to what the experts have
recommended. It is a proposal that ought to be supported now.
Yesterday we heard from former Governor Ridge saying next year the
administration is going to propose hundreds of millions of dollars,
perhaps even billions of dollars, for homeland security to help the
Public Health Service, to build the laboratories, support the
personnel, support the hospitals, develop the communications systems,
do what is necessary in early detection, containment, and treatment of
bioterrorism. Why are we waiting for next year when the danger is here
today--Friday--when we will have a chance to vote on this measure?
The sad fact is that every day we delay is another day's head start
for the terrorists. While we debate, they plan. While we defer, they
prepare. Even now the terrorists may be preparing fresh batches of
anthrax for wider and more deadly attacks.
We cannot wait until next year to fulfill our constitutional duty to
protect the American people from this threat. Every day we delay means
that States cannot buy the equipment necessary to upgrade their
laboratories; they cannot buy the computers and fax machines to
communicate the information crucial to identifying and containing an
attack; they cannot hire the personnel they need to do the work. It
means another day in which hospitals cannot purchase the reserve stocks
of antibiotics; cannot add emergency room capacity; and cannot improve
their ability to treat infected patients.
This is the issue. The Byrd amendment responds to this in a
responsible way, in a way that is consistent with

[[Page S12591]]

all those who know the nature of this threat. We know there is a
potential danger of Ebola. We have no possible cure for Ebola. Why are
we waiting to get our best scientists and researchers into the
laboratories to work on this issue?
That is what the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is all
about. It is responsible, it is responsive, it is thoughtful, and it is
an essential step forward in protecting American families across this
country. This amendment deserves the support of all the Members.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership in this
area, as in so many other areas.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. How
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes thirty seconds.
Mr. BYRD. Madam 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. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. The junior Senator from Louisiana wishes to have some time,
I understand. How much time does she desire?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like 3 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
Madam President, I have come to the Chamber to support the Senator
from West Virginia and to associate myself with the remarks that he has
made and the Senator from Massachusetts has made. This is a very
critical time and a very critical consideration.
I was given a most magnificent book yesterday--it is appropriate that
I would have this book in the Senate Chamber today--which says, as the
Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii beautifully called to
our attention this morning, December 7, that 60 years ago our Nation
became one.
On September 11, our Nation became one again. I wish the camera could
pick up the opening of this Time Life book that is on the stands today
as we speak: A firefighter from New York and Mayor Giuliani, one of the
great leaders of this tragedy. The book details in some of the most
graphic, horrific pictures of the Twin Towers that no longer exist, the
devastation of that day, New York, the great symbol of economic freedom
and justice in the world.
The television cameras cannot grasp the significance of the
devastation, but in these still pictures in this book, one can see the
slight wing of the plane as it comes to hit the World Trade Tower, and
then again the next picture of this plane coming from this direction,
planned this way, 20 minutes later, so the world could catch the
terrorists destroy the symbols of power and might of capitalism in the
world because they do not like it, because it lifts millions of people
out of poverty and gives hope where there is despair. They do not like
what it stands for so they destroyed it.
Look at these flames. There is the body of one man burned beyond
recognition. He chose to jump rather than be burned alive. There is
another man crawling out of the window desperately hoping to reach the
bottom from the 83rd floor which, of course, was not going to happen.
I do not know how quickly we forget--all of Manhattan up in smoke;
one of the greatest cities not just in America but in the world in
smoke, in flames. We think this is not going to happen again? It very
well can.
In addition, not only is this an attack and a threat against our
well-being, but it is an attack against our economy. Senator Byrd
brings to us a responsible proposal to not only help make us more
secure at home but create jobs in the spending and investments of these
funds.
Today in the newspaper, anthrax was found again in the Fed's mail,
anthrax found in the Federal Reserve Board of the Washington, DC,
headquarters. This is what the Senator's amendment is trying to fund. I
know there are disagreements about some of the details.
In conclusion, I hope we do not forget Pearl Harbor, I hope we do not
forget September 11, and I hope we come together to find some kind of
way to say, yes, it is important to fund the war in Afghanistan. But it
is as important to contribute to the security of our buildings, our
energy, our health care system at home.
I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his great work and am
proud to support his efforts in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Who yields time?
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, when the terrible terrorist attacks
occurred on September 11, the Congress immediately started to work on
meeting the needs of the people affected directly. On September 18, the
President had signed the bill we passed providing the authority to
spend $40 billion. That $40 billion was to deal with providing Federal,
State, and local preparedness for mitigating and responding to attacks;
providing support to counter, investigate, or prosecute domestic or
international terrorism; providing increased transportation security;
repairing public facilities and transportation systems damaged by the
attacks; and supporting national security.
It provided that those funds could be transferred to any Federal
Government activity to meet the purposes of the act: $10 billion
available to the President immediately, another $10 billion available
to the President 15 days after the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget has submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a proposed allocation and plan for use of the funds for
that department or agency, and $20 billion may be obligated only when
enacted in a subsequent emergency appropriations bill.
That is this bill that is before us now. The House has passed it and
the amendment that is the subject of the point of order is before the
Senate. It is for the $20 billion, but it is also for an additional $15
billion beyond that.
I call attention to the Senate the fact the act that was signed by
the President has these clauses in it:

That not less than one-half of the $40 billion shall be for
disaster recovery activities and assistance related to the
terrorist acts in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on
September 11.

That is from the whole $40 billion.

Provided further, that the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall provide quarterly reports to the
Committees on Appropriations on the use of these funds,
beginning not later than January 2, 2002.

That is when the first quarterly report is available. And here is the
key phrase:

Provided further, that the President shall submit to the
Congress as soon as practicable detailed requests to meet any
further funding requirements for the purposes specified in
this act.

Let me read that again:

Provided further, that the President shall submit to the
Congress as soon as practicable detailed requests to meet any
further funding requirements for the purposes specified in
this act.

I take no joy in being part of the process to bring down the
substitute that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia. As
a matter of fact, as I said before, I spent hours working on some of
the details in this bill. I do not think it is politically motivated at
all. It is a sincere desire to make funds available, but in many ways
those funds are beyond the basic act and that is why they were
designated an emergency $15 billion beyond the act, but they are for
further funding requirements for the purposes specified in the act.
The President has taken the position he should be allowed to follow
this law, he should be allowed to present detailed requests for the
further funding requirements to meet the changed conditions of the
country, in effect, following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

I originally started in the same position the Senator from West
Virginia is in now. As the chairman of the committee, he had the duty
to think through these things. I started out in the same position he
had, but the further I thought about it and dealt with the President's
request, the more I realized it was rationally based and it was what
the Congress intended when

[[Page S12592]]

we passed the original law that provided the $40 billion.
We said the President shall submit. It was a law that demanded the
President submit to the Congress as soon as practicable detailed
requests to meet any further requirements for purposes specified in
this act.
By bringing down this substitute, what we do is allow the President
to proceed under the law we have already enacted. He will present to us
further requests to meet the needs of the Nation as detailed by him
sometime after the first of the year and after that first report that
is going to be filed on January 2 of next year to tell us how this
money he had control over, the first $20 billion, was spent.
We do not know that yet. We have estimates on how it might be spent,
but we do not know how it has been spent. We will know in quarterly
reports starting January 2, and the law presumes we are going to get
another report every quarter on how that money was spent. That is good
management.
While I regret supporting the position taken by the Senator from
Texas as he has made the point of order against the substitute of the
Senator from West Virginia, I think we will be back reviewing the
President's detailed request early next year, and I expect that many of
the requests the Senator from West Virginia has made will be honored by
the Congress and by the President at that time.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 14 minutes. The
Senator from West Virginia has 5 minutes 15 seconds.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from
West Virginia. The yeas and nays will be ordered at the expiration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were ordered on the motion.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska. How much
time do I have now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator now has 19 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we come to the conclusion of this
debate, I draw to the Members' attention what those on the front lines
of this battle have been saying about the need to dramatically increase
our bioterrorism preparedness. It is important. They are the ones who
have to deal with this challenge if we have a bioterrorist attack. They
are the ones whose lives will be at risk. They are the ones who will
detect and identify the threat. They are the ones who have to deal with
it.
From the Association of the Public Health Laboratory: ``Through the
events of the past few months we have learned just how critical our
public health laboratories are to the public health system and to the
nation's well-being,'' said the president, Mary Gilchrist, the
president of the Public Health Laboratory. ``While State and local lab
have been effective so far, they are stretched. To respond adequately
to future threats we must update our labs, staffing and technology and
security.''
The Byrd proposal would add the resources necessary to make us
effective in dealing with this crisis.
From the National Association of County and City Health Officials--
they are the first ones to detect this challenge: ``[the association]
believes that every community deserves the protection of a fully
prepared public health system.''
That is one of the great assets of the Byrd proposal. It will cover
the whole country, not just some areas. The Byrd proposal provides the
``resources needed to build the local public health infrastructure that
the country lacks.'' We urge the ``Congress to recognize the great
urgency and magnitude of this task'' and support the Byrd proposal.
This is the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists: ``A
number of the State organizations, including the Association of
Territorial Health Officials, and the National Governors Association,
have written to the President requesting'' the funds that are included
in the Byrd amendment.

Members could say those organizations want it because they have a
particular interest. The fact is, they have the responsibility. They
know what is needed.
We have statements from the American Medical Association supporting
the need for increased bioterrorism preparedness:

We strongly support [this initiative] that would improve
the public health, the hospital communications, the
laboratory, emergency respond preparedness focusing at the
State and local levels.

American Academy of Family Physicians, the family physicians who will
deal with this crisis:

By bolstering the role [in this instance] of CDC, in
improving both the Federal and laboratory capacity and
surveillance systems, the legislation provides the tools for
early warning and quick response. And by enhancing the
nation's stockpile of vaccines and by supporting the FDA's
food inspection systems, the legislation builds a strong
bioterrorism prevention.

Finally, the Association of American Universities:

As you well know, this research [involving hazardous
pathogens and toxic agents] is a crucial component of an
effort to protect the public from terrorism and disease,
through the development of vaccines, diagnostics, and cures.

This amendment moves us down the road. These are all the front line
organizations. They are the ones that know what the need is. Each and
every one of them rise in total and complete and wholehearted support
for increasing the nation's ability to respond to bioterrorism.
I thank Senator Byrd for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, to the credit of the administration and the
Congress, a scant 3 days after the assault on New York, a $40 billion
emergency supplemental spending package was approved. My colleague, Mr.
Stevens, has called attention to that. At that time we could not fathom
the anthrax-laced letters that were to disrupt the U.S. mail, cause the
Hart Senate Office Building to close, taint letters up and down the
east coast, and cause death and illness to postal workers and several
other citizens who simply were unfortunate enough to open their mail.
At that point we did not know the extent of bin Laden's terror
network in the United States and in 59 other countries. In the early
days after the tragedy, we did not fully understand what the impacts
would be on our Federal law enforcement entity. We were only just
beginning to come to grips with the holes in our border security, the
inadequacies of our customs inspection procedure, the potential for
misuse of our largely unprotected nuclear facilities, food supplies,
water supplies, and networks of communications and transportation. We
had not fully come to grips with our deficit of small pox vaccines or
the stretched-thin capacity of the CDC and local public health
facilities and hospitals. We had no idea of the loss of life and
financial devastation that had actually occurred in New York. We knew
there was a deep hole in Lower Manhattan; that deep hole is still there
today.
It was early at that time and we acted quickly, as we should have and
did, but we did not have the full picture. Since that time we have
learned much. We have learned that there are hundreds of
vulnerabilities here at home. We have learned that bin Laden has
thousands of faces in terrorist cells throughout the world and here at
home. At a time when we are engaged in a war in Afghanistan, at a time
when we are hunting bin Laden and his ilk worldwide, at a time when the
administration has warned that any nation that harbors or funds
terrorists might be subject to a military response from the United
States, at a time when tensions in the Middle East are at powderkeg
levels, I do not believe that a cut in the proposal for Homeland
defense is wise or prudent.
We are in uncharted waters in stormy seas with a potential hurricane
of violence just across the horizon. We know not what may be required
of the brave men and women who wear the uniform of this great Nation
abroad nor on how many fronts, including the homefront, simultaneously.
We may need every dollar of defense and more before it is over, but
defense is defense, whether it is defense in Afghanistan or defense in
New York or California or Alabama or Georgia or West Virginia. Airwars
are effective, up to a point. They are also expensive. We

[[Page S12593]]

must not shortchange our national defense--at home or aboard.
Throughout our short history, Americans have always been able to pull
out of such nosedives through a rallying of our spirit, the American
spirit. Positive leadership--positive leadership by our Government,
positive leadership that is not blinded by political party interests--
is needed. American determination has taken on challenge after
challenge and turned history our way, time after time, because we all
came together.
Consider the Herculean task of building the Panama Canal; President
Kennedy's call to put a man on the Moon, the Presidents' call to end
the long twilight struggle of the Cold War; the phenomenal progress
against cancer and other dread diseases. Americans are at their best
when we actively take on a problem and marshal our energies, unblinded
by political partisanship toward a goal.
But what is missing this time is bipartisanship in Washington. We
talk a lot about it; we don't practice it. The people are united. As
usual, they know what is important. But we do not seem to be able to
pull together in this town, even in this time when the people of the
United States are united. We are facing such a challenge now. Our
people have responded bravely. We are aggressively pursuing terrorists
and a government that sanctions terrorists in Afghanistan. But there is
a need to do more here at home. The Nation needs to actively engage in
a coordinated campaign to protect our people from the scourge of
terrorist attacks on all possible homefronts.
We have been sent a horrifying message from the skies above New York
and Washington, DC. In the evil content of tainted mail, we have seen
this horrifying message. Up and down the east coast of this Nation, we
have seen it.
To call these unbelievable acts a wake-up call is an understatement
in the extreme. We have been roused from our sleep by a tornado of
violence. We dare not risk an anemic response. To be tepid now is to be
foolish. To be timid now is to tempt fate. The first responsibility of
any government is to ensure the safety of the people. And tangential to
that responsibility is to assure their peace of mind.

We cannot now afford the luxury of complacency. We dare not slip into
a sense of false confidence. Every possible effort must be brought to
bear to thwart this new and different kind of enemy, and we have not
yet done enough.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I want to say what I am about to say without giving an
appearance that I am saying it with rancor or that I am attempting to
lecture my colleagues. I am often charged in the press with
``lecturing'' my colleagues.
I think of that great man in Roman history whose name was Helvidius
Priscus. He was a Roman Senator.
The Emperor at that time was the Emperor Vespasian. He and Helvidius
Priscus, the Senator, were very much at odds over a given issue, and
the Roman Senate was about to decide this issue. The Emperor saw
Helvidius Priscus as Priscus was about to enter the Senate. The Emperor
stopped Helvidius Priscus and said: Don't go in to the Senate today.
Helvidius Priscus--ah, there was a man of courage. There was a man
who saw his duty first, a man who saw his duty to the people, his duty
under the Roman Constitution. And he saw through the cynical fog and
kept his eyes on his duty. And he said: O Emperor, you have the power
to make a Senator and to unmake a Senator. But as long as I am a
Senator--and you appointed me--it is my duty to go into the Senate.
Vespasian said: All right, but don't answer any questions.
Helvidius said: If I am not asked any questions, I will keep quiet.
But if I am asked a question, I must answer it.
Vespasian said: Then, if you answer it, you will die.
Helvidius Priscus responded: O Emperor, it is in your power to do
what you will. It is my duty to say and do where my conscience leads
me. If I am asked a question, I will answer it.
The question was asked. Helvidius Priscus answered the question--not
in accordance with the Emperor's will. Helvidius did his duty.
Vespasian kept his promise that he would execute Helvidius. And
Helvidius Priscus died because he stood with his own conscience where
duty lay, rather than with an emperor's demand with which he strongly
disagreed.
I say that today so that the record for all time will be reminded of
a Roman Senator who did his duty as his own conscience directed him,
rather than obey a ruler's command--even though the ruler had appointed
him to the high office of Senator.
Thank God we in this country of ours are not appointed as Senators by
any President. When I was majority leader of the Senate and the
President of the United States was Jimmy Carter, I said: I am the
President's friend, but I am not the President's man. I am the Senate's
man.
I don't hold myself to be a great paragon of anything. But I do
believe in a Senator's constitutional oath. I am not appointed by any
President, whether it is Mr. Carter, whether it is Mr. Clinton. I will
be courteous, I will try to be fair with any President, but no
President will tell me, as a Senator, how to vote.
Now, that ought to be the attitude of every Senator. I have seen
other Senators here, on both sides of the aisle, who have stood by that
duty. But I have seen a change in this body. Where are our heroes?
Where are our Senators of today, Mr. President? Having been a Member of
this Senate, now, 43 years, about to enter my 44th year in the Senate,
my 50th year in the Congress, and in my own 85th year, I must say that
it troubles me, more than anything else, to look about me and see men
and women who are elected by the people of their respective States, to
come here and to represent the people, who would bow the knee before
any President of any party.
We have no king in this country. To those who say, ``Well, he has
threatened a veto, why should we push on?'' that is as much as to say
that any time a President says he will veto a measure, we as Senators
should not press forward with what we believe is right, we should not
do what we think is right, instead, we must listen to that threat of
veto and do what the President tells us to do. That makes an emperor of
a man who is not an emperor.
How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have great respect for every Senator. I
have tremendous respect for Mr. Gramm, the Senator from Texas who made
the point of order. I have the highest respect for Ted Stevens on that
side of the aisle. I have said that many times.
I don't indulge any rancor at all in my heart, nor should any Senator
toward any other Senator. But I must say that I am troubled greatly
when we have come to the point in this Republic of ours when men and
women who are elected and who swear an oath to support and defend the
Constitution while standing at that desk with their hand on the Holy
Bible, let their political partisanship cloud their vision. The
President didn't elect me. I don't say that out of disrespect for him.
He didn't elect me. The people of West Virginia elected me. They
elected me to use my best judgment on great national issues. They did
not elect me to say whatever the President wants me to say, or to allow
any President to tell me how to vote.
It hurts me in my heart to think that men and women fail to see where
their duty lies under the Constitution.
I beg all Senators' forgiveness, but after being here 49 years this
year, I cannot help but say that that troubles me.

When you get what you want in your struggle for pelf,
And the world makes you King for a day,
Then go to the mirror and look at yourself,
And see what that guy has to say.

For it isn't your Father, or Mother, or Wife,
Who judgement upon you must pass.
The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life
Is the guy staring back from the glass.

He's the fellow to please, never mind all the rest,
For he's with you clear up to the end,
And you've passed your most dangerous, most difficult test
If the man in the glass is your friend.

You may be like Jack Horner, and ``chisel'' a plum,

[[Page S12594]]

And think you're a wonderful guy,
But the man in the glass says you're only a bum
If you can't look him straight in the eye.

You can fool the whole world down the pathway of years,
And get pats on the back as you pass,
But your final reward will be heartaches and tears
If you've cheated the man in the glass.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say through you to the distinguished
senior Senator from West Virginia that I can remember the first press
conference we did on homeland security. I stood proudly by you on that
day, and we have worked on this. He has worked on it 110 percent more
than I. But I want the Senator to know that I am going to go home
tonight, tomorrow, or whenever we finish this legislation, and I will
be able to look in that glass because I know I did the right thing by
standing next to the Senator from West Virginia on this legislation.
It is the right thing to do. It is the important thing to do. I have
been around a few years. I have seen it whittled away, and they are
going to try to take this from you. The reason I feel so badly about it
is I don't think the country is going to be as safe for my family and
the people of the State of Nevada if this amendment is taken down. It
is a good piece of legislation.
I wish to publicly express my appreciation to my friend from West
Virginia for allowing me to stand by him on this legislation.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question occurs
on the motion to waive section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 357 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--50

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are
50.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The substitute exceeds the
allocation of the subcommittee in violation of subsection 302(f) of the
Budget Act. The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the President repeat for the benefit
of all of us, those of us who couldn't very well hear what was being
said, would the Chair repeat what he just said.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute exceeds the allocation to the
subcommittee in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget
Act. The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate has spoken on the point of order.
I ask the leadership--and I will yield to the Senator from Nevada
without losing my right to the floor--if we could have a period of time
during which Senators may speak, perhaps as in morning business--
misstating the true purpose of morning business, but that is understood
by all--so that I could meet off the floor with my own leadership,
hopefully for a brief time, after which I would hope that I could meet
with my own leadership, Senators Daschle and Reid, together with my
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and with the
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, in other
words, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Stevens, and that in the meantime, Senators
can continue speaking or whatever the leadership would like to be
doing. I would say that we would need probably an hour and a half,
maybe a little longer, to consider the matter as it faces us now. I
wonder if the leadership wishes to respond to that.

Mr. REID. I say to my friend from West Virginia, I wonder if it would
be appropriate that we proceed now, if the Senator will agree, to a
period for morning business for 1 hour, and then we will come back and
revisit the situation.
Mr. McCAIN. I object. I reserve the right to object. We have been on
this bill now for a long period of time. There are a lot of us who want
to talk about the bill, a lot of us who have a lot of amendments. It is
time to move forward with the process.
I object to going into morning business. I am glad to have discussion
of the legislation. I intend to speak on it at some length, and I
intend to propose an amendment or amendments and begin their
consideration. Those of us who strongly object to this legislation and
the porkbarrel spending--it is the most egregious I have ever seen--
should very soon have the right to begin amending to restore some kind
of sanity and fiscal discipline to this process. So I object to going
into morning business.
I will seek recognition both for addressing this legislation and for
amendments. I hope there are other colleagues of mine on both sides of
the aisle who share this concern.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, who has the floor, the Senator from Nevada
or the Senator from West Virginia?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wyden). The Senator from West Virginia has
reserved his right to the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to no man when it comes to putting
the defense of this Nation ahead of all other things. I have no problem
with the Senate proceeding--I expected it to at some point--with the
Defense bill. I expected Senators to have an opportunity to offer their
amendments. But I also think at the moment, this matter that we have
thought so much about, worked hard to develop some approach; namely,
homeland defense--we are at a point where we think this is the matter
that is most important before the Senate.
I did not hold up this Defense appropriations bill to this point. The
House did that, but I have the right--I can hold the floor also. I want
to reach a sensible, commonsense conclusion to this, and I am willing
to sit down with our counterparts and do so. I make no threats. The
Senator is not impressed by threats. Neither am I. I am not wanting to
hold up the bill ad infinitum, but it only came to us a few days ago.
Our committee has responded magnificently.
The Senator can say what he wishes and do what he wishes, but there
are others in here who are just as firm in our patriotism for this
country as is the Senator from Arizona. If he wants to talk about pork,
we will talk about pork at an appropriate time. I hear that theme song
over and over and over, and I see items in the newspapers that are not
accurate when they talk about pork. They are not accurate today, but
this is no time to go into that. There is something more important.
If the Senator wants to object, he can object. If he thinks that will
gain time, let him see.
Mr. President, 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.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded for the purpose of talking about Pearl
Harbor Day.
Mr. REID. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue
with the call of the roll.

[[Page S12595]]

The assistant legislative clerk continued the call of the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the next
60 minutes no amendments be in order to the bill; that Senator Cleland
now be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes, followed by Senator
McCain for 45 minutes, followed by Senator Wellstone for 10 minutes,
and at the end of that time the majority leader or his designee be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes at the end of that
to make this a 65-minute request.
Mr. INOUYE. I am happy to add the additional 5 minutes for Mrs.
Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 1785
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sorry to say that whether or not we
resolve our differences over spending that exceeds limits set by the
Budget Act, the Department of Defense appropriations bill will still
fail to meet its most important obligation. In provisions too numerous
to mention, this bill time and time again chooses to fund porkbarrel
projects with little, if any, relationship to national defense at a
time of scarce resources, budget deficits, and underfunded urgent
defense priorities.
America is at war, a war that has united Americans behind a common
goal of defeating international terrorism. Our service men and women
are once again separated from their families, risking their lives,
working extraordinarily long hours under the most difficult conditions,
to accomplish the ambitious but necessary tasks their country has set
for them.
The weapons we have given them, for all their impressive effects, are
in many cases neither in quantity nor quality the best our Government
can provide.
For instance, stockpiles of the precision guided munitions that we
have relied on so heavily to bring air power to bear so effectively on
difficult, often moving targets, with the least collateral damage
possible, are dangerously depleted after only nine weeks of war in
Afghanistan. This is just one area of critical importance to our
success in this war that underscores just how carefully we should be
allocating scarce resources to our national defense.
Yet despite the realities of war and the responsibilities they impose
on Congress as much as the President, the Senate Appropriations
Committee has not seen fit to change in any degree its usual blatant
use of defense dollars for projects that may or may not serve some
worthy purpose, but that certainly impair our national defense by
depriving legitimate defense needs of adequate funding.
Even in the middle of a war, a war of monumental consequences and
with no end in sight, the Appropriations Committee, still is intent on
using the Department of Defense as an agency for dispensing corporate
welfare. It is a terrible shame and derogation of duty that in a time
of maximum emergency, the Senate would persist in spending money
requested and authorized only for our Armed Forces to satisfy the needs
or the desires of interests that are unrelated to defense and even, in
truth, uninterested in the needs of our military.
In this bill, we find a sweet deal for the Boeing Company that I'm
sure is the envy of corporate lobbyists from one end of K Street to the
other. Attached is a legislative provision to the fiscal year 2002
Department of Defense appropriations bill that would require the Air
Force to lease one hundred 767 aircraft for use as tankers for $20
million apiece each year for the next 10 years.
The cost to taxpayers? More than $2 billion per year, with a total
price tag of $30 billion over 10 years. This leasing plan is five times
more expensive to the taxpayer than an outright purchase, and it
represents more than 20 percent of the Air Force's annual cost of its
top 60 priorities. But the most amazing fact is that this program is
not actually among the Air Force's top 60 priorities nor do new tankers
appear in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Service!
That's right, when the Air Force told Congress in clear terms what
its top priorities were tankers and medical lift capability aircraft
weren't included as critical programs. In fact, within its top 30
programs, the Air Force has asked for several essential items that
would directly support our current war effort: wartime munitions, jet
fighter engine replacement parts, combat support vehicles, bomber and
fighter upgrades and self protection equipment, and combat search and
rescue helicopters for downed pilots.
This leasing program also will require $1.2 billion in military
construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are
too small for the new 767 aircraft. The taxpayers also will be on the
hook for another $30 million per aircraft on the front end to convert
these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the
end of the lease, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for $30
million more, to convert the aircraft back--pushing the total cost of
the Boeing sweetheart deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease. That
is a waste that borders on gross negligence.
But this is just another example of Congress's political meddling and
how outside special interest groups have obstructed the military's
ability to channel resources where they are most needed. I will repeat
what I've said many, many times before--the military needs less money
spent on pork and more spent to redress the serious problems caused by
a decade of declining defense budgets.
This bill includes many more examples where congressional
appropriators show that they have no sense of priority when it comes to
spending the taxpayers' money. The insatiable appetite in Congress for
wasteful spending grows more and more as the total amount of pork added
to appropriations bills this year--an amount totaling nearly $14
billion. And although we are 68 days into the new fiscal year, we still
have four appropriations bills left to complete before we adjourn.
This defense appropriations bill also includes provisions to mandate
domestic source restrictions; these ``Buy America'' provisions directly
harm the United States and our allies. ``Buy America'' protectionist
procurement policies, enacted by Congress to protect pork barrel
projects in each Member's State or district, hurt military readiness,
personnel funding, modernization of military equipment, and cost the
taxpayer $5.5 billion annually. In many instances, we are driving the
military to buy higher-priced, inferior products when we do not allow
foreign competition. ``Buy America'' restrictions undermine DoD ability
to procure the best systems at the least cost and impede greater
interoperability and armaments cooperation with our allies. ``They are
not only less cost-effective, they also constitute bad policy,
particularly at a time when our allies' support in the war on terrorism
is so important.
Secretary Rumsfeld and his predecessor, Bill Cohen, oppose this
protectionist and costly appropriations' policy. However, the
appropriations' staff ignores this expert advice when preparing the
legislative draft of the appropriations bill each year. In the defense
appropriations bill are several examples of ``Buy America'' pork--
prohibitions on procuring anchor and mooring chain components for Navy
warships; main propulsion diesel engines and propellers for a new class
of Navy dry-stores and ammunition supply ships; and, other naval
auxiliary equipment, including pumps for all shipboard services,
propulsion system components such as engines, reduction gears, and
propellers, shipboard cranes and spreaders for shipboard cranes.
If it was not for the great cost to our military and the taxpayer,
drafting ``Buy America'' provisions must be a somewhat amusing project
for staff and the Members of the Appropriations

[[Page S12596]]

Committee. An example of this language follows:

None of the funds in this Act may be available for the
purchase by the Department of Defense (and its departments
and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain 4
inches in diameter and under, unless the anchor and mooring
chair are manufactured in the United States from components
which are substantially manufactured in the United States:
Provided, That for the purpose of this section manufactured
will include cutting, heat treating, quality control, testing
of chain and welding (including the forging and shot blasting
process): Provided further, That for the purpose of this
section substantially all of the components of anchor and
mooring chain shall be considered to be produced or
manufactured in the United States if the aggregate cost of
the components produced or manufactured in the United States
exceeds the aggregate cost of the components produced or
manufactured outside the United States.

That has to be entertaining to some government classes around America.
Also buried in the smoke and mirrors of the appropriations markup is
what appears to be a small provision that has large implications on our
warfighting ability in Afghanistan and around the world. Without debate
or advice and counsel from the Committee on Armed Services, the
appropriators changed the policy on military construction which would
prohibit previous authority given to the President of the United
States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Service Secretaries to shift
military construction money within the MILCON account to more critical
military construction projects in time of war or national
emergency. The reason for this seemingly small change is to protect
added pork in the form of military construction projects in key States,
especially if such projects have historically been added by those
Members who sit on the Military Construction Appropriations
Subcommittee at the expense of projects the Commander in Chief believes
are most needed to support our military overseas.

In the usual fashion, legislative riders that probably would not make
it through the normal legislative process are tacked onto this must-
pass appropriations bill. For example, a provision was added to this
bill to enact legislation to federally recognize native Hawaiians,
similar to the status afforded to American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
I have no objection to the substance of this legislation on its face.
I do object that not a hearing has been held--no consideration, no
debate--on an issue that could obligate the Government of the United
States to billions and billions of dollars in funding, but also
significant obligations as far as land, water, and other vitally needed
national resources are concerned.
How in the world do you justify, on a Defense Appropriations
Committee bill, a change in policy, a far-reaching change in policy
regarding our treatment of native Hawaiians?
In fact, no one would even know what we are passing into law because
only vague references are included. Only careful observers would
recognize what these three lines in this appropriations bill actually
stand for in a 24-page bill. Does the Appropriations Committee have any
respect for the authorizing committees in the Senate?
This bill also clearly tramples on the jurisdiction of the Commerce
Committee by making unauthorized appropriations out of the airport and
airways trust fund, particularly for the Airport Improvement Program.
There are hundreds of millions of dollars in spending out of the trust
fund, perhaps as much as $715 million, that are not explicitly
authorized. Furthermore, $306.5 million of the civil aviation spending
in this bill was not requested by the President. Of the money that was
requested, the President did not ask that it be taken out of the
aviation trust fund.
Finally, the trust fund is supposed to be devoted to the
infrastructure needs of the national aviation system, but this bill
uses the trust fund essential air service, which may be a worthy
program but is not eligible for these moneys.
Earlier this week, the Senate approved the Department of
Transportation appropriations bill. That bill was an egregious
overreach by the appropriators. In redirecting the programmatic
expenditures and directives developed under the law by the authorizing
committee, there were more than $4.1 billion in earmarked projects in
that bill and a statement of managers redirecting funding that should
have gone to the States but instead was used as a slush fund by the
appropriators to earmark their home State projects.
Here we are, only a few days later, and we are once again facing
another appropriations bill that continues the unacceptable
overreaching by the appropriators with respect to authorized
transportation programs. For example, under division B, chapter 10, the
bill provides $100 million for Amtrak for ``emergency expenses to
respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, for necessary
expenses of capital improvement.''
This funding is not authorized, nor has it been requested by the
administration. The Senate-Commerce-Committee-reported S. 1550, the
Rail Security Act of 2001, would authorize funding for Amtrak safety
and security needs, primarily tunnel improvements in New York,
Maryland, and DC. Under S. 1550, however, the funding would only be
released to Amtrak after Amtrak submits a plan to the Secretary of
Transportation for addressing safety and security that is then approved
by the Secretary. The accompanying DOD report language states that the
funding provided for Amtrak:

. . . will be used solely to enhance the safety and security
of the aging Amtrak-owned rail tunnels under the East and
Hudson Rivers.

However, neither the bill nor the report provides any Federal
oversight by the Department of Transportation of the additional
taxpayer dollars that would be provided to Amtrak.
Additionally, the bill provides for $110 million, $10 million of
which was requested by the administration in ``miscellaneous
appropriations'' to the Federal Highway Administration.
By the way, I want to remind my colleagues, this is a Defense
Appropriations Committee bill--to the Federal Highway Administration.
The accompanying report directs that $100 million of these funds be
used for construction of ferries and ferry facilities in New York to
cover for the loss of the PATH transit services between New York and
New Jersey that have not been requested by the administration.
Not only did the administration not request the funding, it is not
even clear if the ferry services being sought are the right solution.
The goal should be to rebuild the PATH system, not replace it with a
less efficient ferry service. While ferry service may be required, it
may be a relatively short-term need and is one that can and is being
addressed with current assets. Further, the bill provides $100 million
for Federal transit administration capital investment grants that were
not requested by the administration. The accompanying report then
earmarks the entire amount for use by transit authorities most impacted
by the September 11 terrorist attack.
Under division C, the DOD appropriations bill provides $12 million
for shipbuilding loan guarantees under title XI of the Merchant Marine
Act of 1936. This is by far the most egregious use of a national
emergency designation as an excuse for porkbarrel spending that I have
ever seen.
The Maritime Administration is today preparing to make one of the
largest single default payments in the history of the Shipbuilding Loan
Guarantee Program, due to the bankruptcy filing of the American Classic
Voyages Company on its loans. MARAD has asked the Treasury for $250
million to pay off loans which have been called under American
Classic's guarantees.
Further, the Department of Transportation Inspector General is
investigating the loan guarantee program as a result of American
Classic's default, the default of the SEAREX program earlier this year
and problems with several other title XI loan guarantee projects that
are having difficulties at this time.
Specifically, the inspector general is looking into the title XI
procedures for submitting reviewing, approving, and monitoring title XI
loan guarantees, and whether merit procedures were adequately effected
and implemented in order to protect the interests of the United States.
Why would we now have an additional $12 million for new loan guarantees
when there are obviously problems with the program, I might add, for a
program the administration has recommended not to fund at all.
While a report accompanying the bill recommends new funding to be
used to

[[Page S12597]]

cover the loans for port security infrastructure and equipment, that is
not allowed under current law. The funding will go into an account that
is designated solely for shipbuilding loan guarantees. I note the bill
provides $11 million in appropriations to the Maritime Administration
for general port security improvements. While I fully support the need
for increased security at our Nation's seaports, and I am a cosponsor
of legislation that would create a new program to provide port security
funding, I cannot support funding for a program in a manner that is not
allowed under the law while we are in a period of deficit spending.
The President has repeatedly said that he will come back to Congress
in the spring with a request for additional funding as needed, and if
legislation to change the law with respect to port security funding is
successful, the funding could be provided at that time. But for now,
providing $12 million for shipbuilding loan guarantees at a time when
the program's current and future operations are under review would be a
serious breach of our responsibilities to the American taxpayer.
Under division E, the so-called technical corrections division, the
appropriators do what they do best, redirect current laws developed by
the authorizers. Amazingly, the appropriators are already seeking to
``correct'' the Transportation appropriations bill approved by the
Senate earlier this week, and it hasn't even been signed into law.
For example, under Section 109, the appropriators take an additional
$29.5 million from the State's funding that was to be distributed
according to the Transportation Equity Act, TEA-21, the multiyear
highway funding legislation of 1998, and to be effective through 2002,
and transfer that $29.5 million to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project to
restore the project's funding that will be reduced as a result of the
enactment of the Transportation appropriations bill. This provision
would now bring the total loss for the State allocation to over $450
million.
The Department of Transportation appropriations bill already has
reduced the State's funding by $423 million, but this bill will ensure
the Wilson Bridge Project is held harmless with respect to the
appropriators' earlier funding redirectives.
Section 111 also amends TEA-21 just as it did so many times in the
Transportation appropriations bill and, in this case, adds additional
directives for the benefit of Alaska. Specifically, Section 111 would
amend the list of high priority project designations by adding to item
1497, which states, ``construct new access route to Ship Creek access
in Anchorage'' and words ``construct capital improvements to intermodal
marine freight and passenger facilities and access thereto.''
Under section 112 it would amend the Department of Transportation
appropriations bill which, as I just mentioned, hasn't even been signed
into law. First, it would add yet another earmark in the Transportation
Community System Preservation Program, a program the appropriators
funded at more than 10 times the authorized level, and earmarked every
cent, and directed $300,000 for the US-61 Woodville widening project in
Mississippi. It then directs $5 million of the Interstate Maintenance
Program for the City of Trenton/Port Quendall, WA, Project.
Haven't these States had enough earmarks already?
I note the bill would direct that $3,170,000 of the funding provided
for the Research and Special Programs Administration be used for
research in special programs, and $226,000 of funds provided for the
pipeline safety program shall remain available until September 30,
2004.
Since when do we appropriate money beyond the fiscal calendar year?
The $273 million for the Coast Guard in the $20 billion supplemental
is a plus-up of $70 million over the $203 million requested by the
Administration. The Administration's request would fund the personnel
costs for reserve personnel brought on active duty, purchase small
boats for port security, and prevent several cutters and aircraft from
being decommissioned. The additional $70 million not requested by the
administration would fund $50 million for entitlements authorized by
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but not provided in the
Transportation appropriations act and $20 million for additional
domestic port security teams.
The $12 million for the Coast Guard in the Byrd homeland defense
supplemental would provide additional funding not requested by the
Administration for the Coast Guard to provide enhanced port security
operations and conduct port vulnerability assessments. The Department
of Transportation currently has a Maritime Direct Action Group that is
studying port security requirements. The administration plans to base
future port security funding requests on this group's recommendations.
This legislation includes language that recommends $8.25 million for
emergency grants to assist public broadcasters in restoring
broadcasting facilities that were destroyed in the collapse of the
World Trade Center. This provision allows public broadcasters to
receive 100 percent of the total amount for cost recovery of their
facilities. Other public broadcasters seeking funding for the
construction of similar facilities will only receive 75 percent of the
total amount, as set forth in section 392(b) of the Communications Act
of 1934. This provision is inconsistent with the act and is selectively
unfair to those who are seeking similar funding.
I look forward to the day when my appearance on the Senate floor for
this purpose are no longer necessary. There is over $2.2 billion in
unrequested defense programs in the defense appropriations bill and
another $2 billion for additional supplemental appropriations not
directly related to defense that have been added by the chairman of the
committee. Consider what that $4.2 billion when added to the savings
gained through additional base closings and more cost-effective
business practices could be used for. The problems of our armed forces,
whether in terms of force structure or modernization, could be more
assuredly addressed and our warfighting ability greatly enhanced. The
public expects more of us.
But for now, unfortunately, they must witness us, blind to our
responsibilities in war, going about our business as usual.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of Appropriations Committee
earmarks be made a part of the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

FY 2002 Defense Appropriations Pork (in millions)

DIVISION A
Operation and Maintenance, Army:
Fort Knox Distance Learning Program...............................3.0
Army Conservation and Ecosystem Management........................5.0
Fort Richardson, Camp Denali Water Systems........................0.6
Rock Island Bridge Repairs.......................................2.75
Memorial Tunnel, Consequence Management..........................19.3
FIRES Programs Data...............................................8.0
Skid Steer Loaders...............................................10.0
USARPAC Transformation Planning..................................10.0
USARPAC Command, Control, and Communications Upgrades.............3.7
Hunter UAV........................................................5.0
Field Pack-up Systems.............................................5.0
Unutilized Plant Capacity........................................25.0
SROTC--Air Battle Captain........................................1.25
Joint Assessment Neurological Examination Equipment...............3.0
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
Naval Sea Cadet Corps.............................................2.0
Shipyard Apprentice Program.......................................4.0
PHNSY SRM........................................................15.0
Warfare Tactics PMRF.............................................24.0
Hydrographic Center of Excellence.................................3.5
UNOLS.............................................................3.0
Center of Excellence for Disaster Management and Humanitarian
Assistance......................................................5.0
Biometrics Support................................................3.0
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
Pacific Server Consolidation.....................................10.0
Grand Forks AFB ramp refurbishment...............................10.0
Wind Energy Fund..................................................0.5
University Partnership for Operational Support....................4.0
Hickam AFB Alternate Fuel Program.................................1.0
SRM Eielson Utilidors............................................10.0
Civil Air Patrol Corporation......................................4.5
PACAF Strategic Airlift planning..................................2.0
Elmendorf AFB transportation infrastructure railroad alignment...12.0
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
Civil Military programs, Innovative Readiness Training...........10.0

[[Page S12598]]

DoDEA, Math Teacher Leadership....................................1.0
DoDEA, Galena IDEA................................................4.0
DoDEA, SRM.......................................................20.0
OEA, Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor.................4.0
OEA, Fitzsimmons Army Hospital....................................7.5
OEA Barrow landfill relocation....................................4.0
OEA, Broadneck peninsula NIKE site................................1.5
OSD, Clara Barton Center..........................................1.5
OSD, Pacific Command Regional initiative..........................7.0
OEA, Adak airfield operations.....................................1.0
OSD, Intelligence fusion study....................................5.0
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
Distributed Learning Project.....................................30.0
ECWCS.............................................................5.0
Camp McCain Simulator Center, trainer upgrades....................4.7
Fort Harrison Communications Infrastructure.......................1.2
Communications Network Equipment................................0.209
Multimedia classroom.............................................0.85
Camp McCain Training Site, roads..................................2.5
Full Time Support, 487 additional technicians....................13.2
Emergency Spill Response and Preparedness Program................0.79
Distance Learning................................................30.0
SRM reallocation.................................................25.0
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard:
Extended Cold Weather Clothing System.............................5.0
Defense Systems Evaluation........................................2.5
Eagle Vision (Air Guard).........................................10.0
Bangor International Airport repairs.............................10.0
Aircraft Procurement, Army:
Oil debris detection and burn-off system..........................5.0
ATIRCM LRIP.......................................................5.0
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army:
BFVS MOD.........................................................14.0
Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles.....................................24.0
Arsenal Support Program Initiative................................5.0
Other Procurement, Army:
Automated Data Processing Equipment..............................14.0
Camouflage: ULCANS................................................8.0
Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner..........................................7.5
AN/TTC Single Shelter Switches w/Associated Support..............38.0
Blackjack Secure Facsimile.......................................10.0
Trunked Radio System..............................................2.0
Modular Command Post..............................................5.0
Laundry Advance Systems (LADS)....................................3.0
Abrams & Bradley Interactive Skills Trainer.......................9.0
SIMNET...........................................................15.0
AFIST.............................................................9.0
Ft. Wainwright MOUT Instrumentation...............................6.5
Target Receiver Injection Module Threat Simulator.................4.0
Tactical Fire Trucks..............................................5.5
IFTE.............................................................15.0
Maintenance Automatic Identification Technology...................6.0
National Guard Distance Learning Courseware.......................8.0
JPATS (16 aircraft)..............................................44.6
Smart Truck.......................................................4.0
Aircraft Procurement, Navy:
ECP-583..........................................................46.0
PACT Trainer......................................................6.0
Direct Support Squadron Readiness Training........................5.0
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy:
SSGN (AP) Program Acceleration..................................193.0
Other Procurement, Navy:
JEDMICS...........................................................5.0
Pacific Missile Range Equipment...................................6.0
IPDE Enhancement..................................................6.0
Pearl Harbor Pilot................................................5.0
AN/BPS-15H Navigation System......................................9.0
Tactical Communication On-Board Training..........................6.5
Air Traffic Control On-Board Trainer..............................4.0
WSN-7B............................................................6.0
Naval Shore Communications.......................................48.7
Missile Procurement, Air Force:
NUDET Detection System.........................................19.066
Other Procurement, Air Force:
CAP COM and ELECT................................................10.4
Pacific AK Range Complex Mount Fairplay...........................7.4
UHF/VHF Radios for Mount Fairplay, Sustina........................3.5
Clear Laser Eye Protection........................................4.0
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
Lithium Ion Battery technology...................................10.0
National Guard and Reserve Equipment:
Navy Reserve Misc. Equipment.....................................15.0
Marine Corp Misc. Equipment......................................10.0
Air Force Reserve Misc. Equipment................................10.0
Army National Guard Misc. Equipment..............................15.0
Air Guard C-130.................................................182.0
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army:
Environmental Quality Technology Dem/Val........................10.36
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities......................20.6
Defense Research Sciences Cold Weather Sensor Performance........1.25
Advanced Materials Processing.....................................4.0
FCS Composites Research...........................................5.0
AAN Multifunctional Materials.....................................2.5
HELSTF Solid State Heat Capacity..................................5.0
Photonics.........................................................5.0
Army COE Acoustics................................................5.0
Cooperative Energetics Initiatives................................5.0
TOW ITAS Cylindrical Battery Replacement..........................3.0
Cylindrical Zinc Air Battery for LWS..............................2.1
Heat Actuated Coolers.............................................2.0
Improved High Rate Alkaline Cells.................................1.3
Low Cost Reusable Alkaline (Manganese-Zinc) Cells.................0.6
Rechargeable Cylindrical Cell System..............................2.0
Waste Minimization and Pollution Research.........................3.0
Molecular and Computational Risk Assessment (MACERAC).............2.0
Center for Geosciences............................................3.0
Cold Regions Military Engineering.................................1.5
University Partnership for Operational Support (UPOS).............4.0
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS).............................3.0
DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility..............................15.0
Starstreak.......................................................16.0
Center for International Rehabilitation...........................2.0
Dermal Phase Meter................................................0.6
Minimally Invasive Surgery Simulator..............................2.0
Minimally Invasive Therapy.......................................10.0
Anthropod-Borne Infectious Disease Control........................3.0
VCT Lung Scan.....................................................4.5
Tissue Engineering Research.......................................5.5
Monocional Anti-body based technology (Heteropolymer System).....3.55
Dye Targeted Laser Fusion.........................................4.0
BESCT Lung Cancer Research Program (MDACC)........................5.0
Joint Diabetes Program...........................................10.0
Center for Prostate Disease Research..............................7.5
Spine Research....................................................2.5
Brain Biology and Machine Initiative..............................3.0
Medical Simulation training initiative...........................0.75
TACOM Hybrid Vehicle..............................................2.0
N-STEP...........................................................2.75
IMPACT............................................................5.0
Composite Body Parts..............................................2.0
Corrosion Prevention and Control Program..........................2.0
Mobile Parts Hospital.............................................8.0
Vehicle Body Armor Support System.................................3.8
Casting Emission Reduction Program...............................8.36
Managing Army Tech. Environmental Enhancement.....................1.0
Visual Cockpit Optimization.......................................6.0
JCALS............................................................12.0
Electronics Commodity Pilot Program...............................1.0
Battle Lab at Ft. Knox............................................5.0
TIME.............................................................10.0
Force Provider Microwave Treatment................................2.0
Mantech Program for Cylindrical Zinc Batteries....................2.6
Continuous Manufacturing Process for Mental Matrix Composites.....3.0
Modular Extendable Rigid Wall Shelter.............................3.0
Combat Vehicle and Automotive technology.........................20.0
Auto research center..............................................3.0
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy:
Southeast Atlantic Coastal Observing System (SEA-COOS)............8.0
Marine Mammal Low Frequency Sound Research........................1.0
Maritime Fire Training/Barbers Point..............................3.0
3-D Printing Metalworking Project.................................3.0
Nanoscale Science and Technology Program..........................3.0
Nanoscale devices.................................................1.0
Advanced waterjet-21 project......................................4.0
Modular advanced composite hull...................................3.0
DDG-51 Composite twisted rudder...................................4.0
High Resolution Digital mammography...............................3.0
Military Dental Research..........................................4.0
Sonarman Easrcom Technology.......................................0.5
Energy and Environmental Training.................................3.0
Precision Strike Navigator........................................2.5
Vector Thrusted Ducted Propeller..................................4.0
Ship Service Fuel Cell Technology Verification & Training Program.4.0
Aluminum Mesh Tank Liner..........................................3.0
AEGIS Operational Readiness Training System (ORTS)................4.0

[[Page S12599]]

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide:
Bug to Drug Identification and CM.................................3.0
American Indian higher education consortium.......................3.5
Business/Tech manuals R&D.........................................4.5
AGILE Port Demonstrations........................................10.0
Arrow Missile Defense Program...................................141.7
Defense Health Program:
Hawaii Federal healthcare network................................18.0
Pacific island health care referral program.......................5.0
Alaska Federal healthcare Network.................................2.5
Brown Tree Snakes.................................................1.0
Tri-Service Nursing Research Program..............................6.0
Graduate School of Nursing........................................2.3
Health Study at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant....................1.0
Coastal Cancer Control............................................5.0
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense:
Mississippi National Guard Counter Drug Program...................2.6
West Virginia Air National Guard Counter Drug Program.............3.5
Regional Counter Drug Training Academy, Meridian, MS..............2.0
Earmarks:
Maritime Technology (MARITECH)....................................5.0
Metals Affordability Initiative...................................5.0
Magnetic Bearing cooling turbin...................................5.0
Roadway Simulator................................................13.5
Aviator's night vision imaging system.............................2.5
HGU-56/P Aircrew Integrated System................................5.0
Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center................5.0
National D-Day Museum.............................................5.0
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission..........................3.0
Clear Radar Upgrade, Clear AFS, Alaska............................8.0
Padgett Thomas Barracks, Charleston, SC..........................15.0
Broadway Armory, Chicago..........................................3.0
Advance Identification, Friend-or-Foe............................35.0
Transportation Multi-Platform Gateway Integration for AWACS......20.0
Emergency Traffic Management.....................................20.7
Washington-Metro Area Transit Authority..........................39.1
Ft. Knox MOUT site upgrades.......................................3.5
Civil Military Programs, Innovative readiness training...........10.0
ASE INFRARED CM ATIRCM LRIP......................................10.0
Tooling and Test Equipment.......................................35.0
Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE).......................15.0
T-AKE class ship (Buy America)
Welded shipboard and anchor chain (Buy America)
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial
Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation lands
Air Force's lease of Boeing 767s
Enactment of S. 746
2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah

Total Pork in Division A (FY 2002 Defense Approps) = $2.144 Billion.

DIVISION B
Commerce related earmarks:
DoT Office of Intelligence and Security...........................1.5
Airports and Airways Trust Fund, payment to air carriers.........57.0
Coast Guard, operating and expenses ($203 m was requested).....273.35
DoT Office of the Inspector General...............................2.0
National Transportation and Safety Board........................0.836
FAA Operations..................................................300.0
FAA Facilities and Equipment....................................108.5
FAA Research, Engineering, and Development.......................12.0
Federal Highway Administration misc approps ($10 m was requested110.0
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation...100.0
Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants........100.0
Restoration of Broadcasting Facilities...........................8.25

DIVISION C
National Institute of Standards and Technology.....................30.0
Federal Trade Commission...........................................20.0
Maritime Administration............................................11.0
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program........................12.0
Coast Guard, operating expenses....................................12.0
FAA research, engineering, and development.........................38.0
FAA Grants-in-AID for Airports....................................200.0

DIVISION E
Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project....................................29.542
Research and Special Programs Administration......................3.170
Pipeline Safety Program..........................................22.786
Provisions relating to Alaska in the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century..................................................
US-61 Woodville widening project in Mississippi.....................0.3
Interstate Maintenance Program for the city of Trenton/Port
Quendall, WA......................................................5.0
Total Earmarks in Divisions B, C, and E = $1.457 Billion

Total = $3.6 Billion
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a lot of these I don't understand. A lot
of them no one understands, and yet the money is disbursed.
I am a little bit embarrassed to note there are two additional
unrequested porkbarrel projects at Camp McCain in Mississippi: Camp
McCain Simulator Center, trainer upgrades; and the Camp McCain Training
Site, roads.
I also am happy to see Camp McCain functioning with efficiency in
defending our Nation. But I am curious why they couldn't have requested
this funding.
Several at least warrant inquiry:
Rock Island Bridge Repairs; Memorial Tunnel, Consequence Management;
Pacific Server Consolidation, $10 million; Wind Energy Fund; $500,000,
Elmendorf Air Force Base transportation infrastructure; Clara Barton
Center, $1.5 million; Multimedia Classroom, $850,000; Distance
Learning, $30 million; Bangor International Airport repairs--I don't
believe Bangor International Airport is a military base--that is $10
million; oil debris detection and burn-off system, $5 million; Aluminum
Mesh Tank Liner, $7.1 million.
All of these may be worthwhile projects. The Department of Defense
did not find them worthwhile enough to request them.
National Guard Distance Learning Courseware, $8 million; Smart
Truck--that has always been one of my favorites--$4 million.
The old brown tree snake is in here; Spine Research, $20.5 million;
Heat Actuator Coolers, $2 million; Starstreak whatever that is--$16
million; 3-D Printing Metalworking Project, $3 million.
None of these that I mention was requested nor given any
consideration in the authorizing process.
Auto Research Center, $3 million; Bug to Bug Identification and CM--
Bug to Bug--that is only $3 million; Hawaii Federal health care
network, $18 million; Brown Tree Snakes, $1 million; Coastal Cancer
Control, $5 million; Pacific Island Health Care Referral Program, $5
million.
There are many, and for some of them we still haven't been able to
figure out exactly what they mean.
One of them is the Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation lands; leasing of the
Boeing 767s. Enactment of S. 746 means more money for the 2002 Winter
Olympics in Salt Lake City, UT.
Then there are huge amounts of money for Commerce, and others,
including, as I mentioned, $29 million for the Woodrow Wilson project;
$22 million for the Pipeline Safety Program; U.S. 61 Woodville widening
project; Interstate Maintenance Program for the City of Trenton-Port
Quendall, WA.
It is quite remarkable.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield for a question.
Mr. GRAMM. I want to be sure I have it straight about this Boeing
aircraft thing. Am I to understand that there is a provision in the
bill that would have us lease 100 Boeing aircraft, paying $11 billion
per year for the lease, and the Air Force did not ask for these
aircraft? Is that right?
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is right; only he may have left out another
aspect of it. We have to spend an additional $1.2 billion in military
construction to build new hangars for these aircraft because existing
hangars for our existing fleet, which does need upgrading--and they
have requested repair and upgrading of our existing fleet--is also an
additional cost.
I would like to mention to my friend from Texas that once the 10
years is over, Boeing gets the aircraft back.
Mr. GRAMM. I know the Senator is a very senior member of the Armed
Services Committee. Is there any evidence anywhere that the Air Force
said it wanted these planes?
Mr. McCAIN. I have looked at the Air Force's 6-year program top
priorities and their top 60 priorities. These are not in their top 60
priorities, nor in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Air
Force.
I would like to remind my friend that not long ago a major decision
was

[[Page S12600]]

made in a competition between Lockheed Martin and Boeing for the
procurement of a new fighter aircraft. Lockheed Martin won that
competition.
Also, as the Senator from Texas knows, there have been many
cancellations for orders from Boeing for new airliners because of the
economy.
If it is the judgment of the Senator from Texas and the majority of
this body and the administration that Boeing Aircraft --which, by the
way, has facilities in 40 States throughout America--needs to be bailed
out, then I say OK. Maybe we could write them a check for $10 billion.
Maybe it is a matter of national security. But to do it this way and
take 20 percent of the entire budget for new projects from the Air
Force is remarkable.
I know the Senator doesn't agree with me, but this is living,
breathing testimony for the need for campaign finance reform.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me pose another question, if I may. The Air Force
doesn't want these planes. We are going to spend $10 billion plus
another $1 billion to build hangars, and then we are going to give the
planes back. Does the $10 billion sound to you like an inflated price
to lease these airplanes for 10 years?

Mr. McCAIN. Well, according to the people we talk to, it is actually
about $10 billion more. I want to point out there is a provision in
this bill that does not allow competition. In other words, if Airbus
wanted to offer to lease their airplanes to the U.S. Air Force, they
would be prohibited from doing so. So not only is it earmarked for at
least $20 billion, we could purchase these aircraft outright for
approximately one-third of the cost of what we are going to incur
through this cockamamie leasing program.
Mr. GRAMM. And we have them for only 10 years.
Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
Mr. GRAMM. Where does the price come from? Do you have any idea where
the price came from?
Mr. McCAIN. I have no idea. But I also point out to the Senator from
Texas, these tankers have long lives--20, 30, 40 years--because we
continuously maintain them and upgrade them. So after 10 years, Boeing
would get these airplanes back. And it is really remarkable, it costs
taxpayers $2 billion a year for a total pricetag of $20 billion over 10
years.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me ask a question. Maybe there is a shortage of tanker
capacity now with the war in Afghanistan. Can we get these planes
immediately? Do you know how long it is before the first one would be
delivered?
Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding it would take 6 years to acquire
these 100 aircraft.
Mr. GRAMM. So we don't get anything for 6 years.
Mr. McCAIN. I am sure we could get a few of them right away. I have
to tell the Senator from Texas, I do not think I have ever seen
anything quite like this before. When we are talking about $20 billion,
that, even in these days, is not chump change.
Mr. GRAMM. Well, I just want to say to the Senator from Arizona, I am
sure it pains many people to hear the Senator from Arizona go through
and list all the things in all these appropriations bills that nobody
requested that are being funded, but I think it gives some insight into
how big the level of waste is in this process and how out of control
spending is. I thank the Senator for bringing it to light.
I would also say that about this Boeing proposal I do not think I
have ever seen a proposal that makes less sense economically--and it is
a big statement to say as Senator McCain and I have been here together
for 22 years. Lease something for 10 years, and pay a higher price than
you could buy it for, with no negotiation of price--I guess Boeing and
whoever wrote this amendment came up with a price--and no competition.
The Air Force does not want the plane, and we do not get a plane for
6 years under the procurement proposal. I am not aware there has ever
been a worse proposal in the 22 years we have served together. If so, I
have never seen it. I mean, that is a big statement.
Some people may think that is an overstatement--and maybe we are
prone toward it--but I do not think, in the 22 years I have been here,
I have ever seen anything to equal this Boeing lease agreement.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Texas.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the
prioritized list submitted by the Air Force.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining
Priority and description shortfall Cumulative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Space Lift Range Viability.................. 53.9 53.9
2 BOS/Base Maintenance Contracts.............. 182.1 236.0
3 Wartime Reserve Munitions Replenishment..... 362.0 598.0
4 Readiness Spares............................ 46.5 644.5
5 Depot Maintenance........................... 113.7 758.2
6 Comm Readiness I............................ 224.2 982.4
7 Link-16/Digital Data Link................... 232.8 1,215.2
8 Civil Airspace Access (GANS/GATM)........... 50.9 1,268.1
9 ICBM Batteries.............................. 4.2 1,270.3
10 Time Critical Targeting.................... 291.0 1,561.3
11 Real Property Maintenance 1 (1.2% PRV)..... 520.0 2,081.3
12 Military Personnel......................... 71.6 2,152.9
13 Peacekeeper (PK) Retirement (Pending 12.2 2,165.1
Congressional Approval)......................
14 Supports Future C-17 Multi-year............ 180.9 2,346.0
15 Target Drones (Aerial Targets)............. 6.2 2,352.2
16 Combat Support Vehicles.................... 51.2 2,403.4
17 Comm Readiness II.......................... 325.9 2,729.3
18 Bomber Upgrades............................ 730.7 3,456.0
19 Fighter Upgrades........................... 640.9 4,100.9
20 JPATS Disconnect........................... 5.8 4,106.7
21 BRAC....................................... 22.0 4,128.7
22 Aging Aircraft Enablers.................... 30.0 4,158.7
23 T&E Maintenance and Repair (M&R)........... 45.0 4,203.7
24 Real Property Maintenance II (1.6% PRV).... 679.6 4,883.3
25 F-16 SEAD.................................. 331.3 5,214.6
26 Contractual Commitments.................... 123.6 5,338.2
27 Munitions Swap Out/Cargo Movement.......... 127.0 5,465.2
28 Classified................................. 89.8 5,555.0
29 Comm Readiness III......................... 130.6 5,685.6
30 Military Family Housing Investment......... 138.0 5,823.6
31 Real Property Maintenance III (2.0% PRV)... 746.0 6,569.6
32 Fighter/Bomber Self Protection............. 45.0 6,614.6
33 ISR Upgrades............................... 127.0 6,741.6
34 Combat Search and Rescue................... 128.7 6,870.3
35 Ground Training Munitions.................. 19.0 6,889.3
36 Antiterrorism/Force Protection II.......... 24.6 6,913.9
37 ICBM Sustainment Shortfall................. 56.0 7,014.8
38 Full Combat Mission Training............... 44.9 6,958.8
39 Weapon System Sims......................... 44.1 7,058.9
40 AEF Combat Support......................... 27.3 7,086.2
41 Theater Missile Defense.................... 24.7 7,110.9
42 EAF NBC Training & Equipment............... 56.2 7,167.1
43 Science & Technology....................... 104.4 7,271.5
44 Space Surveillance/Control................. 8.1 7,279.6
45 Recruiting & Retention..................... 27.5 7,307.1
46 Space Ops Training-Simulator............... 85.0 7,392.1
47 C-130J..................................... 81.0 7,473.1
48 Missile Defense Enablers................... 150.0 7,623.1
49 MILSATCOM Shortfall........................ 37.6 7,660.7
50 GPS Anti-jam User Equipment................ 25.8 7,686.5
51 Nuclear Detonation Detection Sustainment... 12.0 7,698.5
52 DoD/Intel Community Space Coop............. 8.0 7,706.5
53 NORAD/USSPACE Warfighting Support.......... 11.5 7,718.0
54 Space Maneuver Vehicle (SMV) Ops Demo...... 31.0 7,749.0
55 USAFA Logistics Support.................... 8.3 7,757.3
56 Space Warfare Center (SWC) Shortfalls...... 16.5 7,773.8
57 Carryover.................................. 275.8 8,049.6
58 MILCON..................................... 1,029.7 9,079.3
59 AFRC....................................... 52.0 9,131.3
-------------------------
9,131.3 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. McCAIN. If you look at No. 1 through No. 59 on the list of
priority items, there is no request for Boeing 767s. I agree with the
Senator from Texas, I have never seen anything quite like it. You would
think that just the size of this leasing--the $20 billion deal, plus
the $1.5 billion for the construction of the hangars, et cetera, not to
mention the cost of reengineering the airplanes, which the taxpayers
will pay for, and the deengineering of the airplanes--you would have
thought at least there would have been a hearing--a hearing, some kind
of a hearing in the Armed Services Committee when you are talking about
this kind of an amount of money. But instead, we had to thumb through
the appropriations bill, and all of a sudden it came upon us.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield for a
quick comment?
Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. KYL. I just say to the Senator, in the time I have served with my
colleague from Arizona, he has never flagged in his effort to save
taxpayer money, and he looks for the kind of pork projects that he has
identified over the years in all of the different bills. The bill
before us happens to relate to defense.
I am sure it does not give any pleasure to my colleague from Arizona,
anymore than it does any of the rest of us, to be talking about these
things with regard to the Defense Department while there is a war on.
But I recall comments yesterday from the Secretary of Defense who was
briefing us on the war effort, and in a great fit of patriotism, one of
my colleagues said to him: So, Mr. Secretary, we want you to know we
are all for you. We are for the troops. What else can we do to help
you?
His immediate response was: Well, we could start with base closures
and stop funding things that I have not asked for and start funding
things I have requested. That is what you could really do to help.
And the pretty universal reaction among our colleagues was: Well,
other than that, what could we do to help you?

[[Page S12601]]

So my point, Mr. President, is to compliment my colleague from
Arizona. He has been fighting this battle for a long time. It does not
give us any pleasure to point these things out, but it is critical, if
we are really serious about supporting the troops we put in harm's way,
that we try to focus on the priorities we need the most and not fill
the bill up with special projects for people who have special status in
the Congress.
So I compliment my colleague for the work he is doing. I hope later
we will have an opportunity to offer amendments to deal with some of
this.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Arizona, who has been steadfast.
But I would ask for the consideration of my colleague from Texas and
my colleague from Arizona, and all others who are concerned about this.
Perhaps it might not be a bad idea if we proposed a substitute, that we
sheared all of the pork off it and proposed a substitute that was just
the fundamental requests of the administration and all those projects
that have gone through the normal authorizing and appropriations
process. I think that would be a very interesting vote.
I say to my colleagues that maybe we ought to try that, since none of
these other things seem to be working--maybe just the bill that
contains the requested and authorized and within the budgetary
restrictions of the budget process.
Mr. GRAMM. Let me be sure I understand. You are saying you have all
these programs in here that nobody ever asked for: these planes the Air
Force does not want, paying more to lease them than we could buy them
and what you are proposing----
Mr. McCAIN. If I may interrupt, billions of dollars that have nothing
whatsoever to do with defense.
Mr. GRAMM. The proposal you are talking about is to take all those
out and then ask the military, if they had a chance to spend the money,
what would they spend it for?
Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.
Mr. GRAMM. Well, it seems to me you could do that by striking all of
these add-ons and basically asking the Defense Department to submit a
list, and then give Congress the ability to say yes or no; and if we
said yes, you would release the money. I think that might be an
interesting way to go about it. I commend that to my colleague.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Texas.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized to speak
for up to 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Texas to
delay for just a moment so we might seek a unanimous-consent agreement?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will, Mr. President.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Texas.
I am just wondering if we can have in place an agreement that the
Senator from Texas would speak, and then the Senator from Minnesota
would proceed, and then I would like to have the chance to respond to
the remarks of the Senators from Arizona and Texas with respect to this
lease agreement, because there is another side of this story that has
not been told that I think would be important for our colleagues to
hear.
I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of myself and the Senator from
Washington, that I be granted 10 minutes for myself, 10 minutes for the
Senator from Washington, and that the Senator from Iowa--you would like
how much time? Five minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following the
Senator from Texas and the Senator from Minnesota, I be recognized for
10 minutes, the Senator from Washington be recognized for 10 minutes,
and the Senator from Iowa be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator
Wellstone has 10 minutes under the order previously entered to speak. I
would ask that he be given that right as soon as the Senator from Texas
completes her remarks.
Mr. CONRAD. That is part of our request.
Mr. REID. I would also say, just so the Members here have some idea
what is going on, we are going to be in a parliamentary situation, as
soon as this morning business talk is completed, to begin the offering
of amendments.
There are a number of people who have expressed a desire to offer
amendments. Just to get this started someplace, the Senator from
Minnesota would be recognized to offer his amendment following the
statement of the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but
I would like to clarify, we have now added 25 minutes beyond the
original unanimous consent. And my question, before this unanimous
consent goes forward, is, Would we be encroaching on the ability to get
directly to the bill so that we can start the amendment process by
adding this many extra minutes?
Mr. REID. I respond to the Senator from Texas, the answer is yes. The
Senator from Arizona has made a number of statements to which somebody
has to respond. Whether they do it now or at some later time, they will
be responded to. I thought this would be an appropriate time to get
into this. As soon as it is completed, we will get into the amendment
process. There are other Senators--not too many--who have expressed a
desire to offer amendments. The first would be the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would just ask if we could assure that if we have
the capability to go directly to the bill, that that take precedence,
and then all of us have the ability to speak in some shortened way to
assure we can get onto the bill and start this amendment process. It
would seem that we would have plenty of time to be able to debate once
we are on the bill; is that correct?
Mr. REID. The answer is, if the Senator would allow us to have this
consent agreement entered, I think it would expedite things a great
deal. We could get to the substance of the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consent request?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I don't understand the
unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Arizona, the Senator from Texas
will speak for 5 minutes; the Senator from North Dakota, 10 minutes;
the Senator from Washington, 10 minutes; the Senator from Iowa, 5
minutes. That would be following the Senator from Minnesota, who
already has 10 minutes. Then he would offer his amendment when the
morning business time is completed.
Mr. McCAIN. Further reserving the right to object, does the Senator
then plan on voting on that amendment?
Mr. REID. We can do that. Whatever Senators Daschle and Lott decide.
We could either vote on that or someone else could offer an amendment
and vote in a stacked fashion. Whatever the leadership decides.
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, might I inquire what that
amendment is seeking to amend?
Mr. REID. I don't know. Do you mean what part of the bill?
Mr. KYL. We have the House bill before us at this point.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Arizona, what we thought would
expedite matters also, Senators Inouye and Stevens and Byrd are working
on a substitute. We have an agreement here that we put in so people
will just offer amendments. At such time as that substitute is entered,
they would apply. If somebody objects to that, we will just wait around
until the substitute is done. We thought we could save time by doing
that.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would object. It seems to me we could talk
about the amendment. It is then a mere formality, once we know what it
is we are amending, to simply lay down the amendments.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Arizona, we don't need permission
to offer amendments. We can offer them. It doesn't take unanimous
consent to offer amendments.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I understand. What I am objecting to here is
an order in which there would be a specific amendment that would be
preferred to any others at the time there is a substitute offered.

[[Page S12602]]

Mr. REID. I appreciate that. Whoever gets the floor can offer an
amendment. If the Senator would rather play jump ball, that is fine.
The only part of the unanimous consent agreement I delete is the fact
that Senator Wellstone would be the first to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Texas is now recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are
beginning to get down to the serious business of passing the Defense
appropriations bill. I hope we will be able to do that, perhaps next
week. I don't know what the timetable will be. I don't want to stop the
amendment process because there are legitimate differences.
The bottom line is, the Defense appropriations bill must be passed,
and it must be passed in a form that the President can sign it.
The President has shown the leadership. He has told the Senate what
his parameters are. He has made his budget submission to Congress so we
know what the President's priorities are. And further, he has said he
is going to keep the agreement that he made with the Democratic leaders
in the House and Senate about the upper limit of that bill. I think it
is incumbent on us to work within that framework to pass a bill that
the President can sign.
This is a bill that will add $26 billion more to defense spending
than we passed last year. Today we are operating on last year's budget
because the fiscal year ran out on October 1. So we are operating under
a smaller budget in a time of great need in our military. It is our
responsibility to pass a bill after our legitimate differences have
been ironed out so our military will have the added $26 billion to
fight this war. That is the bottom line.
I appreciate the differences. They are legitimate. But it is time for
us to get onto the bill, discuss those differences, and have a game
plan for when the bill can be finished.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Murray of Washington, Senator Grassley of Iowa, and myself be permitted
to go in front of Senator Wellstone. He himself has proposed this, so I
know it is OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to answer some of the charges
made by the Senator from Arizona with respect to this lease agreement
between the Air Force and Boeing to acquire 100 Boeing 767s to replace
100 of the aging KC-135 tanker aircraft for the U.S. Air Force.
The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas have suggested
that this is a matter of the appropriators requiring the Air Force to
acquire planes that are not a priority for the U.S. Air Force. That is
wrong. That is not even close to being right.
I know something about this, not because I am an appropriator, I am
not. I know something about it because, as chairman of the Budget
Committee, we saw in the appropriations bill a proposed lease agreement
that we did not regard as a true lease. So I became involved in this
effort and learned a good deal about what is being discussed.
First, the Air Force is not required to lease planes from Boeing or
anyone else. The statement of the Senator from Arizona that the Air
Force is being required to lease planes from Boeing or anywhere else is
simply not true.
I direct my colleagues to the language that is before us:

The Secretary of the Air Force may, from funds provided in
this act or any future appropriations act, establish a
multiyear pilot program for leasing general purpose aircraft
for tanker purposes.

That is what this is about. This is no requirement. This is an
authorization so that if the head of the Air Force determines it is in
the national interest to do so, they can acquire planes through the
leasing process.
As I became involved in this matter, General Jumper, who is the head
of the U.S. Air Force, called me personally on three occasions to say
how urgently needed these planes are.
The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas have suggested
the Air Force does not want these planes. The head of the Air Force,
General Jumper, called me on three occasions saying these planes are
desperately needed and asked me not to stop the acquisition through
lease of these aircraft. General Jumper made this case to me.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I will not yield at this point.
Mr. McCAIN. I did not think so.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me complete my remarks and then I will be happy to
yield to the Senator from Arizona. I say to the Senator from Arizona, I
hope he will stay and listen because the Senator from Arizona provided
a good deal----
Mr. McCAIN. You do not want to answer a question and have a dialog.
You will not do it.
Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator, this is on my time. The Senator
provided a good deal of misinformation to our colleagues. It is
unfortunate he does not want to hear the other side of the story.
General Jumper, who is the head of the Air Force, said to me the Air
Force currently has 500 KC-135 tanker aircraft. The average age is 43
years; 100 of the 500 planes are in the depot for repair at any one
time. Some have been in the depot for repair as long as 600 days.
The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas said this is not
a priority for the Air Force. I do not think they are right when the
head of the Air Force calls me and says it is an absolute priority.
They are talking about past history. They are talking about before the
attack on this country that occurred on September 11.

General Jumper said to me: Senator, the attack has changed
everything. We now have to fly air cover over 26 American cities. We
are providing the air bridge for half a world away to Afghanistan.
These planes are being flown at an OPTEMPO that requires us to replace
them sooner than was anticipated.
This is the head of the Air Force, and the Senator from Arizona and
the Senator from Texas say it is not an Air Force priority? They better
call the Air Force and ask them what their priorities are, and they
better talk about the priorities that exist now, not the priorities
that existed before this country was attacked.
The lease agreement that was proposed between the Air Force and
Boeing did not meet our test for lease agreement. That is why I became
involved. It is the only reason I know anything about this. As a
result, I convened a meeting on November 1 with the Air Force, the head
of the Congressional Budget Office, the top management of the Office of
Management and Budget, Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and the
Senators from Washington to hear from OMB and CBO on their objections
to this agreement. CBO and OMB said they would score this lease
agreement not as a lease but as a purchase costing $22 billion. We then
worked with the Congressional Budget Office to structure a true lease
agreement.
The Senator from Arizona says to our colleagues this would cost five
times as much as a direct acquisition. That is absolute sheer nonsense.
The fact is, to acquire these planes would cost $22 billion. To lease
the planes costs $20 billion. In the math that I learned in North
Dakota, $20 billion is less than $22 billion. Where the Senator from
Arizona ever came up with the wild claim that this costs five times as
much as an acquisition is beyond me because it is absolutely not
accurate.
When we come out on the floor, it seems to me we have some obligation
to report accurately to our colleagues. I do not hold it against
anybody to come out here and offer an amendment on any matter, but
there is some obligation to be accurate in reporting to our colleagues.
The only reason I got involved in this is because we saw a lease
agreement that was truly not, according to the Congressional Budget
Office and Office of Management and Budget, a lease. That is the reason
I have learned what I have learned. But for the Senator from Arizona to
come out here and assert the Air Force does not want these planes is
not true. For him to assert that it is not a priority is not true. It
may have been the case before the war occurred, but it is not the case
now.

[[Page S12603]]

The simple fact is, the head of the Air Force himself has called me
directly on three occasions to talk about this specific issue and to
ask me not to block the acquisition of these planes, which I was
prepared to do until they entered into what is, in fact, a lease
agreement, a lease agreement that costs less than acquiring these
planes directly.
As I have indicated, the head of the Air Force said to me, these
planes are urgently needed in the national security interest of the
United States of America. That is what General Jumper said to me on
repeated occasions. I hope when we vote on this matter, we vote based
on facts.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. It is my understanding I have 10 minutes under the time
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas be
allowed 3 minutes, and the Senator from Washington be allowed 2 minutes
following my remarks, before the Senator from Iowa, on the same topic
we are now discussing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. What does the Chair mean without objection? The Chair
did not ask if there was any objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Washington restate the
unanimous-consent request.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas
have 3 minutes, and the Senator from Washington 2 minutes, before the
Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I hope it is after because I informed the Senator from
Kansas I wanted to be out of here by 2:30 p.m.
Mr. ROBERTS. She only had 10 minutes to begin with.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I am sorry. If it is out of the 10 minutes of the
Senator from Washington, that is OK.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the remarks of the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Kansas have 3
minutes, and the Senator from Washington State have 2 minutes on the
topic of the 767s.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the Senator
from North Dakota, the Budget Committee chair, for his strong remarks
following the comments from the Senator from Arizona on the lease
provisions of the 767s that are in the Defense bill before us.
I am extremely concerned for our country, for our military and, of
course, for my own home State. In my home State, we have Fairchild Air
Force Base which is home to the 92nd Air Refueling Wing. There are
approximately 60 air refueling tankers that are based at that base
outside of Spokane, WA.
I have been to Fairchild. I have visited personally with the
families. I know the difficult missions these crews handle for each one
of us every day, and I have the utmost respect for what they do.
I should also mention, in September some of these crews and these
tankers were deployed in our military effort. So when the Air Force
tells me, and they have told us, and tells Congress, and they have told
Congress, that replacing the old KC-135 tankers is critical, I know it
is important and my constituents know it is important. My State is home
to Boeing, which would build the tanker replacements.
My friend from Arizona suggests the Senate should reject this
proposal simply because it would benefit the manufacturer of the
planes. Well, that argument ignores the facts. These tankers are the
oldest planes in our fleet. They cost a fortune to maintain and they
are often down for repairs. Since September 11, we rely on them more
than before. We are going to have to replace these aging tankers
anyway, and if we do it now, we will save at least $5.9 billion in
maintenance and upgrades on these antiquated tankers. This is something
the Air Force has been concerned about for years.
It is clear we need to take immediate action to upgrade our
overburdened tanker fleet, but do not take my word for it. Listen to
what the Secretary of the Air Force, James Roche, wrote to me: The KC-
135 fleet is the backbone of our Nation's global reach, but with an
average age of over 41 years, coupled with the increasing expense
required to maintain them, it is readily apparent we must start
replacing these critical assets.
He ends: I strongly endorse beginning to upgrade this critical
warfighting capability with the new Boeing 767 tanker aircraft.
That is from the Air Force Secretary, James Roche.
Will this help the people of my State? Absolutely. Because of the
layoffs at Boeing since September 11 and the slowdown of our economy,
my State now has the highest unemployment of any State in this Nation.
The people I represent are hurting, and I am going to do everything I
can to help them.
This is not just about my State. Every State involved in aircraft
production will benefit. Even the home State of my friend from Arizona
would stand to gain if this program moves forward. It is in our
national interest to keep our only commercial aircraft manufacturer
healthy in tough times, to keep that capacity, and to keep that skill
set.
The Air Force has identified this as a critical need. Our ability to
project force, to protect our shores, and to pursue terrorists in
Afghanistan and around the world depends on our fighter aircraft and
bombers being able to stay in the air for long periods of time, and
that is only possible through in-flight refueling.
Right now in the Afghanistan campaign, we rely on air refueling
tankers known as KC-135s. In fact, since September 11, our use of these
tankers is up significantly. We rely on these tankers to refuel our
fighters over Afghanistan. We rely on them to refuel our B-2 and B-52
bombers on long-range missions. We rely on them to refuel the planes
that view our troops in the region. Right now, in the skies over this
Capitol Building and cities across America, we are relying on them to
refuel the planes that are flying combat air patrols for homeland
security.
There are very real problems with our existing fleet of tankers. They
are old. The KC-135s were first delivered in 1957. On average, they are
41 years old, and we are paying for it. They have been around longer
than most of the people who are flying them. These tankers are too
expensive to maintain. A 41-year-old aircraft runs on parts that are
not commercially available. Corrosion is a significant problem. In
fact, KC-135s spend 400 days in major depot maintenance every 5 years.
This is an essential program. We will save $5.9 billion in upgrade
and maintenance costs. By moving forward with this program, we can save
$5.9 billion. These numbers come not from me but from the U.S. Air
Force.
This is a longstanding need, and it is made even more urgent by 9-11.
I want to be clear. This is a serious need that was identified by the
U.S. Air Force long before September 11. It is not a new idea, but
given the ongoing war and the new challenges we face with homeland
security, it is clear we need to speed up the procurement process
because relying on these planes is what we are doing after September
11. We have worked hard for these provisions.
I commend the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, who
are managing this bill, who have worked long and hard hours to come
together with an agreement on the critical replacement of these KC-135s
with the new tankers. I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Domenici, the
chair, and ranking member of our Budget Committee, who have worked long
and hard also. I recognize my colleague from Washington, Senator
Cantwell, who, too, has spent many hours sitting in Senators' offices
explaining to them the need both from the Air Force and from our home
State.

This is a critical program. It is the right way to do it. We have
worked out a consensus among everyone who moves this program forward
and, most importantly, it is for the men and women who serve us in the
Air Force.
When I go home when this session is over, and I go to one of our Air
Force bases in my home State of Washington, I want to be able to look
in the eyes of those young men and women we are sending a continent
away to defend and protect all of us and say we have done

[[Page S12604]]

everything we can to make sure they are safe when they are in the air.
That is what this provision does.
When the Senator from Arizona offers his amendment, I hope my
colleagues remember the men and women who are serving this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

ECONOMIC STIMULUS

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to give a status report on the
negotiations of the economic stimulus. I report to the Senate as the
lone Republican Senate negotiator.
Yesterday's Roll Call quotes numerous Democratic Senators as saying
Senate Democrats won't agree to any stimulus deal unless the package
has the support of two-thirds of the Democratic caucus. I ask unanimous
consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Roll Call December 6, 2001]

Democrats Set Stimulus Hurdle; Senators Require Supermajority

(By Paul Kane)

Setting a high threshold for negotiating an economic-
stimulus package, Senate Democrats have decided they will not
accept any deal unless roughly two-thirds of their caucus
agrees to support the final product.
Before agreeing to begin bipartisan, bicameral negotiations
on a final stimulus plan, Majority Leader Thomas Daschle
(S.D.) told his caucus last week that Democratic Senators in
the House-Senate conference would not agree to a stimulus
deal if there was significant opposition from within
Democratic ranks.
``They're not going to agree to anything unless a
significant majority of the caucus agrees with it,'' said
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee
and a Finance Committee member. ``It's got to be a
significant majority, two-thirds of the caucus.''
Other Democratic Senators confirmed that the high bar for a
stimulus deal was set around a two-thirds majority, although
some said Daschle left wiggle room in case he feels the deal
is good and he doesn't have precisely that much support.
``I don't think it's a hard-and-fast number,'' said Sen.
John Breaux (D-La.), a senior Finance member.
Breaux said he remained hopeful that a deal could be
reached that would gain enough Democratic support for a final
package, but added, ``It's going to be tough.''
Asked about the threshold for reaching a deal, Sen. Jim
Jeffords (I-Vt.) said, ``It's a high one.''
Negotiations continued yesterday among six key lawmakers
trying to hammer out a stimulus deal: Senate Finance Chairman
Max Baucus (D-Mont.); Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va) and
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member on Finance; House
Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.); House
Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas); and Rep. Charlie Rangel
(D-N.Y.), ranking member on Ways and Means.
Although some progress was reported on those talks, Senate
Republicans worried that the Democrats were setting an
impossible bar for reaching a deal and openly questioned
whether Baucus' caucus colleagues trust the Montana Senator,
who helped Grassley write a $1.3 trillion tax cut last
spring.
``I would hope we would not put [in place] this artificial
threshold that is almost impossible to achieve,'' said Sen.
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a key moderate on Finance. ``Why do
that? To set up failure? I hope not.''
Snowe said the narrow margin in the Senate gave neither
side the right to predetermine how many votes would come from
their caucus, but rather mandated that negotiators shoot for
a deal that cobbles together 51 votes, or 60 if needed to
break a filibuster. ``That is the essential marker here,''
she said.
An aide to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
indirectly suggested that Daschle and Democrats simply don't
trust Baucus. ``Senator Lott has said this before and he'll
say it again: He has every confidence in Senator Grassley's
ability to negotiate a real economic security package on
behalf of Senate Republicans,'' said Ron Bonjean, Lott's
spokesman.
Baucus drew the ire of many Democrats when he and Grassley
co-wrote the Senate tax package, most of which became law. On
final passage, the bill was supported by just 12 Democrats.
In the process, Baucus received numerous tongue lashings from
colleagues at Democratic caucus meetings, including one
exchange in which Daschle told Baucus he did not have ``the
authority'' to negotiate a deal with Grassley.
Conrad acknowledged that requiring a caucus supermajority
for the stimulus deal was ``unusual'', but said the
circumstances in this negotiation--not the party's faith in
Baucus--necessitated setting the high threshold. Conrad
recalled Senate Democrats setting similar bars for approval
of year-end budget deals in the early 1990s, including the
1990 compromise struck with the first Bush administration.
``We've not had an ending to a session quite like this
one,'' Conrad said, noting that the Sept. 11 attacks, anthrax
letters and a worsening recession have contributed to leaving
Congress months behind in finishing up its business. ``It's
important that the caucus be behind any deal. We're not going
to sign up to anything unless a substantial majority agree.''
Conrad noted that it was both Daschle and Baucus who made
the pledge to the caucus that a two-thirds majority would be
required for a deal--a promise made at a caucus meeting held
last Thursday to discuss the stimulus negotiations.
Jeffords, who caucuses with Democrats, said the feeling was
that the stimulus plan was so crucial that everyone agreed a
wide consensus was needed, not that the Senators needed any
check on Baucus. ``Max is doing a good job. I haven't heard
anybody complaining.''
Aides to Baucus agreed that the caucus is unified in this
approach, noting that his plan to expand unemployment and
health care benefits and reduce some business taxes had
unanimous support in the body.
``We're hopeful that the package we negotiate is one that
reflects the solid core principles we've been talking about
since the beginning of this debate,'' said Michael Siegel,
Baucus' spokesman.
Other Democrats contended that the bigger problem with
negotiations is trying to forge a compromise with the House
Republican plan, which is primarily titled toward business
taxes. Digging in for a fight, Senate Democrats from both
wings of the caucus said they would rather kill the stimulus
plan than give away too large a corporate tax break.
``The better alternative may be no bill at all,'' said Sen.
Robert Torricelli (N.J.), one of the 12 Democrats to support
the tax-cut bill in the spring. ``I would rather see that
money stay in the treasury.''
``I would rather see no stimulus than that,'' said Sen.
Dick Durbin (Ill.), an assistant floor leader to Daschle.
Durbin said it was increasingly doubtful that a stimulus
plan would pass, considering there are just two weeks left
before the Christmas break. He noted it took a week to lay
the ground rules for the conference and determine who would
take part.
``Do the math. We took a week to set the table and say who
would sit where,'' he said.
Not a negotiator himself, Daschle has set up a system to
monitor the talks, including Breaux, a key moderate, in
postconference meetings in his office with Baucus,
Rockefeller and possibly Rangel.
Before substantive talks began this week, Rockefeller
signaled that he intended to take a very hard line on the
package. ``I'm not much of a compromiser,'' he said.
But Baucus believes that moves by Thomas this week to offer
unemployment extensions were a sign of compromises to come,
Siegel said. ``It's clear that we're making progress.''
The entire Democratic caucus, however, will be the final
jury on that outcome. ``It was a commitment people wanted to
hear,'' Torricelli said of the two-thirds majority decision.

Mr. GRASSLEY. As a preliminary comment, I want everyone to know
something loud and clear. We are all here to do the peoples' business.
My Republican caucus is here to do the peoples' business. We are in an
extraordinary time. Our Nation is at war. Our Commander in Chief,
President Bush, is occupied with the war effort. Our responsibilities
to the people that sent us here are always high, but, extraordinarily
high in this time of war. This is not a time to play political games
with the people's business. In my view, we have a high duty to deliver
a legislative product to the President on economic stimulus and aid to
dislocated workers. I have committed all of my energy to get to the
goal line on a package. I believe my chairman, Senator Baucus, also
sincerely wants a stimulus package that the President can sign. When
you look at the record, however, I am doubtful the Senate Democratic
leadership really wants a package.
The President took the lead by proposing economic stimulus measures
and a package of aid to dislocated workers. Chairman Greenspan gave us
a green light on this effort about 2 months ago. The House passed a
bill that the Senate Democrats, with some justification, viewed as
partisan. The Senate Democratic leadership then responded with its own
partisan bill, shut out all Republicans, and rammed it through the
Finance Committee on a party-line vote. That partisan stimulus package
dead-ended here on the Senate floor. We were stuck on in a partisan rut
for awhile.
After much negotiation, the House and Senate leadership on both sides
agreed to an extraordinary procedure. It is what I would call a ``quasi
conference.'' This agreement contemplates a conference agreement even
though the Senate did not pass a bill on the subject matter. This
agreement was a major concession by the House to Senator Daschle's
insistence that Democrats have only one negotiation. Keep

[[Page S12605]]

in mind Senator Daschle insisted on one negotiation with a partisan
product that has not passed the Senate because it was designed to be
partisan. Republicans accommodated the Senate Democratic leadership.
After that agreement was reached, I felt some optimism. It seemed that
all sides realized it is our job to get this legislative product to the
President. My optimism was a bit premature.
Now, there has been a lot of speculation about whether the Senate
Democratic leadership really wants a stimulus deal. Some say that,
inspired by Democratic interest groups and strategists, the Senate
Democratic leadership has concluded that it is better to have an issue.
The speculation is that, armed with polling data, the Senate Democratic
leadership has decided on a strategy of covertly killing a stimulus
package, while maintaining a public profile of support. If the economy
doesn't recover, better to save the issue to use against the President
and the other side for the fall 2002 elections. If the economy does
recover, from a political standpoint, what is lost. Better to wait and
see, the speculation runs, than to give any more tax relief at this
time.
Mr. President, such a strategy, if it is the case, is particularly
disappointing in wartime. It is a cynical strategy. If true, it short
changes American workers and struggling business for an anticipated
political shot. It makes economy recovery and aid to dislocated workers
secondary to a partisan political objective. I ask, is that how we
ought to be operating in wartime? Though I have heard and read this
speculation, I had hoped that it was not true.
So, let's say I was a bit shocked when I read the Roll Call article
yesterday. After reading the article, I concluded Democratic leaders
are traveling back in time. They are regressing, not progressing. They
are regressing to earlier contentions that the stimulus package had to
be a Democratic product or nothing at all. I thought we had moved past
that and on to negotiations to build a bipartisan stimulus package.
Instead, it appears the Democratic leaders don't want any real
compromise. First, they have engineered a nearly impossible threshold.
Second, they are conducting what appear to be required consultations
between the Democratic negotiators and the rest of the Democratic
caucus. If they are trying to prevent a stimulus deal, this is the way
to do it.
It is important to remember the Senate is split nearly down the
middle. There are 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and one Independent.
Yet the litmus test set up by the Democratic leadership ignores the
Senate's makeup. By its terms, this litmus test is designed to limit
any agreement to a Democrats-only deal. Because it ignores the reality
of an evenly split Senate, this litmus test guarantees failure. If the
Democratic leaders really mean what they say, that they want a stimulus
bill, I ask them to remove the partisan litmus test.
Any litmus test ought to go to the substance of the package.
Let's get back to the substance. We're not that far apart. Let's not
hold the stimulus package and the aid to dislocated workers hostage to
an arbitrary and destructive test like the two-thirds rule. I have been
flexible on Republican priorities. It is time for the Democratic
leadership to show some flexibility on Democratic priorities. The first
sign of flexibility will be to remove a barrier, the two-thirds rule,
that guarantees failure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTS. Let me ask first, I thought I was granted 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 3 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I actually thought it was 4; I was not quite sure. If it
is 3, then my 3 minutes would be protected, as I understand it. If the
distinguished Senator from Arizona would like to precede me, I am
perfectly happy.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized. I had time
remaining on the time previously granted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I listened with interest to the
comments, and I am sure there will be future comments, but these are
the following facts on the airplane. One, on the acquisition of the
767, there is no formal request for it. Two, I had a conversation with
the Secretary of Defense yesterday. He did not know about this. There
has been no request from the administration, a formal request. Of
course the Air Force would like it. We are talking about numbers. We
can argue about how much it costs, but at the end of 10 years the
planes go back to Boeing. At the end of 10 years, the planes go back to
Boeing.
How in the world can you justify such a thing? The average age of the
tankers is 42 years. I am sure these tankers would be eligible for at
least 20 or 30 years of service.
Have some competition. Why isn't anyone else allowed to bid on this
airplane? It is solely a bailout for the Boeing aircraft company. It is
not in President Bush's defense request for the fiscal year. September
11 did not rearrange the priorities so it is a top 60 priorities. Of
course, the Air Force will accept a gift. I am sure they would be glad
to have it. They have other priorities they stated in testimony before
the Armed Services Committee.
I cannot understand why at least there shouldn't be a hearing on a
$20 billion acquisition, which at the end of 10 years, after the
reengineering and the $1.2 billion for a hangar, gives it all back to
the Boeing aircraft company when we should keep tankers, and have been
keeping them, for as long as 20 or 30 years. Remarkable.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator
from Washington and the Senator from Alaska. I will address the three
issues of concern raised by the Senator from Arizona.
First, with regard to the fact that the Secretary of Defense,
according to the Senator from Arizona, knows absolutely nothing about
it, it seems to me when the Secretary of the Air Force and General
Jumper have been paying personal calls not only to the Senator from
North Dakota but to me, as well, and I have a letter here from the
Secretary of the Air Force that says: ``I appreciate your interest in
jump-starting the replacement program for our venerable KC-135 tanker
fleet. These critical aircraft,'' and he goes into the fact this is
absolutely essential to the expeditionary force of the United States,
especially in Kosovo and Afghanistan--he says: I strongly endorse
beginning to upgrade this critical war-fighting capability with new
Boeing 767 aircraft; I very much appreciate your support; your interest
and support are crucial; he indicates this whole effort is absolutely
crucial--I cannot imagine that the Secretary of the Air Force, both he
and General Jumper would be taking action and recommending this in an
open letter to Congress without the knowledge of the Secretary of
Defense. If that is the case, we have a real communication problem.
I would like to say that in terms of the cost, the estimate by the
Air Force, they save $3 billion. As to leasing or buying, we don't have
money to buy them now, but we sure have the mission. That is like
telling everybody in America: I am sorry, you can't lease a car.
At the end of the 10 years, I am aware that Boeing could take back
the airplanes, and I am aware of the fact that then the Air Force or
the Department of Defense could actually purchase this aircraft at a
much lesser price.
Why will the Air Force say that the cost savings will be $3 billion?
Look at maintenance. Look at the depot maintenance today. Fifteen
percent of our flights are tied up in depot maintenance. If Boeing does
this, then that is cut to something like 30 days every 8 years. So we
are saving money there.
In regard to competition with reference to Airbus and Boeing, I don't
know where Airbus would do the maintenance. Boeing has a tremendous
record with over 2,000 aircraft now serving nationwide.
If we want to preserve the expeditionary capability that we must have
in this new asymmetrical war in this new era in which we are fighting,
it seems to me this represents a cost saving. It also represents
something the Air Force wants, and it represents a way we can really
upgrade their aircraft.
I do not know how much time I have, but I think I made my point.

[[Page S12606]]

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. Yes. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Kansas indicated he has a letter from
the Secretary of the Air Force specifically requesting these planes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Secretary of the Air Force,

Washington, DC, October 9, 2001.
Hon. Norman Dicks,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Dicks: I appreciate your interest in jump-starting
the replacement program for our venerable KC-135 tanker
fleet. These critical aircraft, which are the backbone of our
nation's Global Reach capability, have an average age of over
41 years and are becoming more and more expensive to
maintain. Due to the effects of age, these aircraft are
spending over 300 days on average in depot maintenance, which
affects our ability to respond to the many global demands on
our force.
I strongly endorse beginning to upgrade this critical
warfighting capability with new Boeing 767 aircraft. If
Congress provides the needed supporting language, we could
initiate this program through an operating lease with an
option to purchase the aircraft in the future. This leasing
approach will allow more rapid retirement and replacement of
the KC-135Es. However, if the Congress determines this
approach is not advisable, completing the upgrade through the
purchase of new 767 airframes beginning in FY 02 will be in
the best interest of the Air Force. To implement this
transition, we intend to work with the USD(AT&L) and the OSD
Comptroller to amend the FY 03 budget currently being vetted
through the Department.
From the warfighter's perspective, this initiative could
provide the opportunity to expand our tanker vision from air
refueling and limited airlift to include other key mission
areas. We intend to consider elements of command and control,
as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) for the KC-X--in other words, a smart tanker. This
initiative will further enhance our efforts to expedite
development and fielding of a Joint Stars Radar Technology
Improvement Program on a 767 multi-mission command and
control aircraft platform which we are hopeful the Congress
will also expedite in the FY 02 Appropriations Act.
I very much appreciate your support in the FY 02
Appropriations Act as we work to upgrade our overburdened
tanker and ISR fleets. Your interest and support are crucial
as we move forward with this critical recapitalization
effort.
Sincerely,
James Roche.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Arizona asserts that we are forcing
these planes on the Air Force. Was the Senator from Kansas ever
contacted by General Jumper or the Air Force and asked to support
providing these planes to the Air Force?
Mr. ROBERTS. That is absolutely correct. I had that conversation with
the Air Force. As a matter of fact, the people who really initiated
this discussion with me were actually members of the Air Force.
The Senator from Arizona has asked me to point out that this letter I
am reading from the Secretary addressed to Congressman Norman Dicks did
not represent a formal request. But in the meetings with the Air Force
and in writing to individual Members of Congress, which Mr. Dicks
provided the members of the Armed Services Committee in the House, I
think it speaks very clearly that the Air Force does want this program
and does want the leasing program to start.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Kansas has
expired.
The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I, too, rise with my colleague, the
Senator from Washington, who has done an outstanding job on the
Appropriations Committee to steer this issue through the process which
is both sound policy and very important for the State of Washington.
I also thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Inouye, and the
ranking member for understanding the complexity of this problem.
What is at hand is a bipartisan effort where the committee has
recognized the glaring Achilles' heel in our Nation's military
preparedness. They developed a creative solution. We currently have an
air fleet that is older than most of the pilots who fly them. With 546
air tankers in the fleet, the average age is 36 years, and the oldest
plane is over 45. These planes were initially designed to have a 25-
year lifespan. They are showing extreme wear and tear.
My colleague from Kansas entered into the Record a letter that shows
the military, while being open and flexible, thought this idea was a
sound way to provide tankers. Obviously, the amount of wear and tear on
the aging tanker fleet is causing a lot of problems and increased
maintenance costs. Indeed, the Air Force is projecting a 42-percent
increase--over $3 billion--in the next 30 years for maintenance in this
area.
Compounding the problem is the decreased availability in a time of
increased demand. We are also not just facing issues overseas, as
mentioned by my colleague from Washington, but also a new mission on
the homeland front in our Nation's security--defending our Nation's
airspace. That requires the use of these crucial tankers. Without
effective tanker force, our air superiority is wrecked.
This is a creative solution at a time when the need is great. I urge
my colleagues to support this great bipartisan and common effort.
Mr. REID. Madam President, is there any time left in morning
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only the time of the Senator from Minnesota,
and 2 minutes 54 seconds for the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say again on this issue that the Air
Force has not made a formal request for this aircraft, No. 1. I am sure
they would love to have it. It is not a bad deal.
The most important point is, the Senator from North Dakota has some
numbers which make it less expensive to lease than to buy. I accept the
numbers from the Senator from North Dakota, although I still disagree.
There is a huge difference. You buy the airplanes, and you have them
forever. There is no 10-year lease.
What would happen after 10 years? We would have to renew the lease or
we would have to buy new airplanes. We are talking about a 10-year
lease at practically the same amount of money it would take to buy
them. That to me is absolute insanity.
The U.S. Air Force has 60 priorities which they submit to Congress
every year. September 11 couldn't have changed that priority list very
much, since it will be 2004 or 2005 before the first one of those
aircraft is delivered.
This is a bailout for Boeing Aircraft--nothing more, nothing less.
And there should at least be some competition. There should be a fair
scrutiny of this issue. There should be hearings in the Senate Armed
Services Committee when we are talking about $20 billion or $30 billion
of the taxpayer moneys to be spent.
That is really the reason and the compelling argument why this system
has to be repaired, which is so broken that at the 11th hour we put $20
billion or $30 billion worth of the taxpayers' money on an aircraft
with a major policy decision, without a single hearing and without a
single input from the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I am
proud to serve.
This is the wrong thing to do. And, clearly, we are going to spend
$20 billion-plus over a 10-year period and 10 years from now have
nothing to show for it. We could buy the airplanes. The average age for
these tankers, regrettably, is 42 years. We could have them for another
30 years if we bought them.
Instead, we are going to lease them for 10 years at practically the
same price it would cost to buy them with no competition, no hearings,
no scrutiny--no nothing but a request from the Secretary of the Air
Force, to Norman Dicks.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of my friend from Minnesota, I
yield his 10 minutes.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the fact
that a substitute has not been offered, that if any amendment is agreed
to prior to the consideration of the substitute amendment, it be in
order for these amendments to be inserted in the appropriate place in
the substitute amendment upon its completion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, am I
correct that would mean that Members could offer amendments to, say,
any

[[Page S12607]]

portion of the Defense bill as reported by the committee?
Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right.
Mr. STEVENS. I will not object. I wish I could find a way, though, to
now start putting some time limit on these amendments.
Mr. REID. If we could get this entered, I think the process would
begin quickly.
Mr. STEVENS. I know of no parliamentary way right now that we can
impose a time limit. I would like a time limit, if we are going to
finish these amendments tonight.
Mr. REID. I will work with the Senator from Alaska to see what we can
accomplish.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I don't understand.
Mr. REID. I would be happy to read the unanimous consent request.
This has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent,
notwithstanding the fact that a substitute amendment has not been
offered, if any amendment is agreed to prior to the consideration of
the substitute amendment, it be in order for these amendments to be
inserted in the appropriate place in the substitute amendment upon its
completion.
Mr. McCAIN. If I might ask the distinguished Senator from Nevada,
does this mean amendments will be offered at this time with votes?
Mr. REID. Yes. This is an effort, while the staff is working on the
substitute, for people who have had longstanding desires to offer
amendments; they would be able to do so.
Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Nevada anticipate the amendments
and bill will be voted on today?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding
that if a person wants to strike, say, a provision--say the tanker
provision from section A of the substitute--that amendment could be
offered now, debated now, and voted on now. When the substitute is
filed, it would be so amended; is that correct?

Mr. REID. To my understanding, the Senator is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2325

Mr. REID. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senators Wellstone, Gregg, Dayton, Durbin, Leahy, Biden, Carper, and
Reid of Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Wellstone, for
himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Biden, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment
numbered 2325.

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To treat certain National Guard duty as military service
under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940)

At the appropriate place, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Section 101(1) of the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50 U.S.C. App. 511(1)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``and all'' and inserting ``all''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and
all members of the National Guard on duty described in the
following sentence''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
the following: ``, and, in the case of a member of the
National Guard, shall include training or other duty
authorized by section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code,
at the request of the President, for or in support of an
operation during a war or national emergency declared by the
President or Congress''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the whip for offering the amendment.
Let me say to colleagues, I want to move forward. I am in your
company. We have worked hard on this amendment. I think we have a lot
of strong bipartisan support. I think it is definitely, as they say,
the right thing to do. I thank all of my sponsors: my colleague from
Minnesota, Senator Dayton, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, Senator
Durbin, Senator Biden, Senator Leahy, and Senator Carper. And I believe
there will be others.
This amendment amends the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act to
expand the protections of that act to National Guard personnel who are
today protecting our Nation's airports and other vulnerable public
facilities. Specifically, this amendment would provide civic relief to
National Guard personnel mobilized by State Governors at the request of
the President, in support of Operation Noble Eagle and potential future
operations.
This amendment has the support of the Military Coalition, which is a
consortium of 33 nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans
organizations, representing more than 5.5 million current and former
members of the seven uniformed services, plus their families and
survivors, as well as the support of the Minnesota National Guard.
The operative language here is, we are trying to provide this civic
relief and protection for the Guard who are called out at the request
of the President--this is the key language of the amendment,
colleagues--for and in support of an operation during a war or national
emergency declared by the President or the Congress.
This Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, which I think was
passed in 1940, is important legislation which helps provide help to
people who have taken on financial burdens without knowing they would
be called up to serve in the military.
Today those people are men and women in our National Guard. They are
called up to protect our Nation's airports--you see them out there--
nuclear facilities, and a good number of them are going to be going to
the northern border to protect us at the border.
Men and women of the National Guard serve the Nation and our States
as a unique organization among all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.
The Guard is America's community-based defense force located in more
than 2,700 cities and towns throughout the Nation. Some 60 of these
units are in my home State, Senator Dayton's home State, Minnesota.
Let me talk about what is at issue. When our men and women serve our
country, they may have built up financial obligations of one kind or
another--such as a mortgage on their homes, debts related to buying
cars, charge account debts from buying things with credit, you name it.
What the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civic Relief Act does--and what this
would do as applied to our Guard--is not wipe out any of these debts or
financial obligations by people who are faced with being called up on
active duty, but it does give them certain protections.
This is one of them. First of all, on the consumer debt--which is now
6 percent that goes to all other men and women who are now in the
service protecting our country--there is a 6-percent ceiling that is
charged.
Second, this is important because these members of the Guard, they
are like us; they bought things on credit, and they have had the jobs
that allowed them to pay off their debt, but now what has happened is
they are out there at our airports or nuclear facilities--soon they
will be on the northern border patrol--and they have taken pay cuts to
protect our public facilities. But they do not have the same amount of
income now, and they cannot necessarily cashflow, certainly, exorbitant
interest rates. This just gives them the civic protection.

In other words, if they have been called out to duty by the
President--and the President has called the Guard out to duty, but he
has done it through the Governors--this just says, when the President
says: ``We need the Guard, it is a national emergency, we are at war,''
and the Guard is called up through the Governors, they get the same
protection that goes to any other Guard members or any other members of
our Armed Forces who are out there protecting us.
Also, they will get protection from being evicted from their homes.
And they will get protection from being foreclosed on. They will get
protection against the cancellation of life insurance.
The problem is, unfortunately, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil
Relief Act right now only applies to National Guard personnel mobilized
directly by the President of the United States, and

[[Page S12608]]

it does not protect those men and women who are mobilized by our
Governors at the request of the President, as is the case with many of
the Guard right now.
This distinction, colleagues, is inequitable. Those mobilized by a
Governor at the request of the President face the same financial
problems as those mobilized by the President directly. It is only right
that they receive the same protections.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune, on Sunday, November 25, had a long
story on the financial impact on Minnesota Guard members; but this
applies to Guard members in every one of our States. I ask unanimous
consent that the Star Tribune article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Star Tribune, Nov. 25, 2001]

(By Sarah McKenzie)

Washington, DC.--When National Guard Cpl. Paul Dellwo was
called up to patrol the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport, he traded in his police officer salary for a smaller
$1,600 monthly paycheck.
Dellwo, 30, said he's committed to his post, but now he's
earning about $1,000 less each month than he did as an
officer with a Twin Cities area police force that does not
continue paying those called to active duty.
``Within the next month or so it will be become extremely
tight,'' said Dellwo, who has credit card, tuition and
mortgage payments to make.
He's got plenty of company. Capt. Charles Kemper, who
oversees the Guard at the Twin Cities airport, said some
Guard members are ``so financially strapped'' that he has
considered taking a half-dozen of them off of active duty.
On behalf of members of his unit, Kemper sought grants from
the Red Cross. He also has called banks and lenders to urge
them to defer payment deadlines or reduce interest rates
until the soldiers have completed their deployments. About a
third of them have agreed to do so, Kemper said.
The issue has captured the attention of Minnesota Sens.
Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton, who are promoting a bill that
would provide financial protection for Guard members who are
activated.
Among other things, the law would prohibit lenders from
charging more than 6 percent interest on existing loans, and
it would make it illegal to evict Guard members from rental
or mortgaged property. Any civil action pending against the
soldiers, such as divorces, custody disputes or foreclosure,
would be delayed until the end of the deployment, under the
bill.
Members of the Guard ``are left without protection against
financial ruin,'' said Wellstone, who plans to meet with
Guard members Monday at the Twin Cities airport to talk about
their economic troubles.
Minnesota's senators are not the only members of Congress
who are interested in the issue. In the House, Rep. Gil
Gutknecht, R-Minn., has written letters to the House
Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services committees urging
legislators to extend the same benefits.

exemption questioned

The legislation takes issue with a current federal law,
known as the Sailors' and Soldiers' Relief Act. National
Guard members are covered under the law only if they are
activated by the president. But those protecting the nation's
airports were called up by governors, after President Bush
made the request in late September.
The exemption troubles many of the 176 Guard members
patrolling the state's airports, even though some are faring
well or better now than they did with their civilian jobs.
``There's a wide spectrum,'' Kemper said.
Kemper said his employer, Guidant Corp., a medical devices
company in Arden Hills, has agreed to pay the difference in
his salaries. As captain, he makes about $4,200 a month in
base pay, but as an engineer at Guidant he makes more than
$5,200 a month, he said.
Others are trying to figure out how to get by with less.
As an Internet sales manager working on commission for an
automotive company, Craig Ford pulled in as much as $15,000
during a good month.
Now, Ford, 29, of the West St. Paul Guard unit, earns
$2,600 a month as a specialist with the Army National Guard.
The gap in pay is wide for Ford, who is married and has two
children, 5-month-old Mira and 2-year-old Dawson. But he said
he recognized there could be financial hardships when he
volunteered for the Guard on Sept. 29.
``I wouldn't have signed up if my family couldn't have
handled it,'' he said.

salary differences

Plymouth-based Employers Association Inc., which provides
management services to more than 1,700 businesses in the
state, recently conducted a survey showing most Minnesota
employers have policies to not pay Guard reservists called
into active duty.
But bigger companies were more apt to pay the difference
between the company's and the Guard's salaries. Of the 300
companies surveyed that have more than 500 employees, about
half reported paying the difference. Of the smaller
companies, about 30 percent reported paying the difference.
``Most employers want to do the right thing, but it's
tougher for the smaller employers,'' said Christine Rhiel, a
human resources generalist with the Employers Association.
Maj. Gary Olson, a Minnesota National Guard spokesman, said
it would be unreasonable to expect all employers to pay the
difference. The Guard members know they'll probably face
financial hardships when called on for duty, but they should
be provided some relief, he said.
``When these individuals are called . . . they should not
be economically destroyed. There should be at least some
protection for credit and interest payments provided to those
individuals,'' Olson said.
The pay for the Guard starts at $1,300 a month for a
private with little experience and increases based on rank
and years of service, Olson said. Those activated in October
will be deployed at least through March, he said.
``It's very tough,'' said Platoon Sgt. Jason Hosch, 25, of
the West St. Paul Guard unit, who is stationed at the Twin
Cities airport. ``How do these soldiers adapt to not being
able to pay their mortgage payments?''
Hosch, who is single, said he's faring well with a $36,000
yearly salary, but he sympathizes with older Guard members
who have more bills to pay and children to care for.
In addition to his base salary, Dellwo receives some
housing assistance toward his $1,000 monthly mortgage
payment. He said he stands to save $200 to $300 a month on
his mortgage payment if he's covered under the Sailors' and
Soldiers' Relief Act.
Despite the hardship, Dellwo said he's committed to his
mission.
``I started this deployment, and I'm going to finish this
deployment,'' he said.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add
Senator Schumer as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I would like to briefly summarize a
couple stories of those who are in the Guard:
Cpl. Paul Dellwo is a local police officer. As he was patrolling MPS
Airport, he was making $1,600 a month. As a police officer, he was
making approximately $2,600 a month. On this $1,600 a month he still
has to make the same credit card, tuition and mortgage payments. At the
end of November he thought he had only a month or two before his
finances really became tight.
Craig Ford works as an internet sales manager who works on commission
for an automotive company. He said that during a good month he could
earn $15,000. Now, as a specialist with the guard, he earns $2,600 a
month. Ford is married and has two children, a 5-month-old and a 2-
year-old.
Mr. Ford speaks for all the troops that I met when he said he
understood there would be financial hardships when he volunterred--he
is more than willing to put up with the hardships but he would sure
appreciate a little help. I heard this time and time again when I met
with the Guard on Nov. 26: Specialist Justin Johnson--a salesman at
Best Buy Company--estimates that he is losing about a third of his
income during his deployment. Craig Forbes, a car salesman, estimates
that he is losing half his monthly income during his deployment at the
airport. And Major Gary Olson, Public Affairs Officer for the MN
National Guard, told me that several others have had to be relieved of
their deployment due to financial hardship. He also said several people
have come in wanting to serve but realized they simply could not do it
and provide for their families adequately. All these Guardsmen made the
same point--look, I love my country and I'm pleased to serve but can we
get a little financial protection?
I could go on. This is the point. Many of these Guard members are
from working families. If they are lucky enough to be working for some
of the larger companies, those companies say: Serve your country. It is
a national emergency. They pay full salary. But many work for
businesses that cannot afford to, so they are losing $700, $800, $900,
$1,000 a month.
It is just not right. Again, it is the same emergency. The President
has said so. He has called up the Guard, but we did it through our
Governors. This just fixes this problem and makes sure they get the
same civic relief. That is all this says.
It is a protection from them being foreclosed on, not for debts they
build up now while serving our country for an emergency, but whatever
debts they had built up before. So it is some relief

[[Page S12609]]

from being foreclosed on or from being evicted or protection from a
life insurance policy being canceled.
These young people work very hard in their civilian lives. Some of
them work in retail where their commissions during the holiday season
are the difference between their family having a good year and their
family just getting by. But now they are not working for commissions--
they are not dealing with customers in a busy electronics store--they
are toting an M16 and standing guard.
Some of the Guard work construction and, in Minnesota, you work
construction until there is too much snow or it is too cold. This year
it hasn't snowed much and it has been unseasonably warm. But instead of
building houses, making good wages, these men and women are in the
airports--protecting us while we travel during the holiday season.
These stories are but a few trees in a large forest. Just about every
soldier or airmen I spoke to, from enlisted rank to officer, told the
same story. They are proud to wear their uniform. They are proud of
their service to their country, but they worried about their families.
They are worried that the financial blow they are taking now will take
years to work off. They are worried that they are not providing the way
they should for their children. None of them asked for anything. But
every one of them told me that they sure would appreciate whatever help
we could offer.
The Minnesota Guard did a survey and showed it to me when I last
visited. It showed that most Members of the Guard are losing between
$700 and $1000 a month. This is real money to retail sales people, to
construction workers, to auto mechanics and to police officers. This is
real money that cannot be made up easily.
Today over 15,000 National Guard are serving in a full-time status
nationwide--some of them six to seven days per week. They have been
mobilized to protect everything from airports to the Golden Gate
Bridge. Some are involved in clean-up efforts at the World Trade Center
and Pentagon. And we must be aware that National Guard units may be
asked to do more in the coming months. This important change to the
SSCRA will provide them the civil relief they rightly deserve.
Addressing these issues now will ease the burden placed upon these
patriots and their families now and in the future. These young people
are not asking for much. Extending these protections is an important
way to say that we value their service and that will not forget them or
their families commitment to the United States.
Let me give you the genesis of this amendment. This is why I thank
all of my colleagues, some of whom are on the floor. I know Senator
Biden wants just 2 minutes, and then Senator Dayton wants to speak. He
has been working with me all the way, and Senator Gregg, and others.
I just say this: The genesis of this amendment is that I have been
going out to airports--I am sure many of you have had the same
experience--and I just thank people. I was doing that for a while, I
say to my colleague from Delaware, and finally one of the Guard members
said: Thank you, Paul, but if you really want to help us, this is the
problem for us. We are on guard duty. This is a national emergency. We
are at wartime. It is national security. We are out here--by the way,
they are going to be at our airport until the end of March, at least--
yet we do not have the same protection. The President called us up, but
through the Governors, and we do not have the same protection this way
that other members have. Please give us this civic relief.
It would help us. I hope there will be 100 votes for this. I have
worked my heart out on this amendment because I just think it is
important we help people. I hope this will have unanimous support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be brief. The Senator from Minnesota
is the major player in this effort. The Senator from Delaware is not.
This is, in a sense, a real Minnesota tradition of progressive
politics. The two guys who jumped out on this first and responded
immediately were the two Senators from Minnesota. I have experienced
the same exact thing in the State of Delaware as I go around and see
the guardsmen.
One of the reasons the distinction was made in the past between
whether a President called up the Guard or a Governor called up the
Guard was the nature of the incident for which the Guard had to be
called up in those circumstances. When the President called up the
Guard, it was usually--not always--relating to a national defense
issue. When Governors called up the Guard, it was for hurricanes and
floods and very worthy and worthwhile and important things to our
constituents.
Let's make it real clear: This is not a hurricane. This is not a
flood. This is not a natural disaster. This is an unnatural disaster
called a war. The reason my guardsmen in Delaware were called up and
all of our guardsmen are called up now is for a war. This is a war.
Here we are on December 7, 60 years after Pearl Harbor, and where are
we? We are once again faced with what we were faced with then. This is
the first time since then American soil has been struck. What is the
most likely place where the next terrible tragedy will occur if our
enemies have their way? In America. The reason the Guard is on the
border, at the airports, and throughout our communities is as if there
were a foreign army marching on us. That is what this is about.
The Soldiers' and Sailors Act was designed to take that into effect.

I compliment both my colleagues. I am flattered they let me be one of
the cosponsors. They deserve a great deal of credit for calling this to
our attention. I will be surprised if they don't get 100 votes. I
compliment them for their foresight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am very proud to rise in support of the
amendment of my distinguished colleague, Senator Wellstone. I salute my
good friend and colleague who has been in the forefront of these issues
on behalf of the men and women of the National Guard not only in
Minnesota but across the country, and our military personnel. Senator
Wellstone deserves the full credit for his leadership in initiating
this important amendment.
It grew out of visits and conversations which he and I have had
together and which he and I have had separately with the National Guard
men and women who are patrolling the major Minnesota airport in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area. It is extraordinary to see them hour after
hour, early in the day, late at night, standing there protecting all
the rest of us, their fellow citizens, and assuring our safety as we
fly our Nation's skies.
As Senator Wellstone has pointed out, and the distinguished Senator
from Delaware, Senator Biden, this is an unusual circumstance. It
occurred because the President, very properly, wanted to respect the
doctrine of posse comitatus and, therefore, since the Guard men and
women were engaged in a patrolling function at our domestic airports,
he asked the Governors to call them out rather than doing so directly
himself.
As a result, as the Senator from Minnesota has said, they suffer
these additional financial perils. These men and women are not just
serving our country during these critical months, they are doing so at
serious financial consequence to themselves and their families. For
most of these National Guard men and women, the salary they receive for
their Guard duty is but a fraction of what they are receiving in their
civilian employment. Yet this amendment doesn't address that inequity,
and they are not asking right now for us to do so.
All they are asking, and what this amendment does in a very important
way, thanks to the leadership of Senator Wellstone, is give them
equality or parity with their associates who are called up under other
circumstances. It prevents these additional financial penalties from
being imposed upon them and their families during this service and at
no additional cost to the American taxpayer. It is for those reasons
that, joining with my colleague Senator Wellstone, I can't imagine why
anybody would want to oppose this amendment.
With that, I thank the others who have made this a bipartisan
amendment and yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have two colleagues on the floor, one
of

[[Page S12610]]

whom is Senator Gregg, a cosponsor of the amendment. I thank my
colleague from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Gregg from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Wellstone's
amendment, of which I am an original cosponsor. Senator Wellstone has
identified a problem which just cries out to be examined and answered.
National Guard personnel are really extraordinary people who serve us
as citizen soldiers. They give up their daily lives, they put
tremendous stress on their families to serve us, and it's truly
inappropriate that they should not be treated with the deference and
the fair treatment that they would get if they were called up under a
different circumstance
What Senator Wellstone is doing here is correcting what was an
obvious loophole in the understanding of how the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act of 1940 would work and is applying that Act to our
National Guard men and women who are called up as a result of a
national emergency declared by the President but who happen to be
called up by Governors, and so it is an extremely appropriate action.
It's certainly something that should be done at this time and should be
done quickly so that those folks who are guarding our airport, our
borders, and may well be in harm's way, but are certainly giving up
their private lives in order to make our lives safer through their
public service should receive fair treatment from our Government.
During World War I, the Congress passed a law to help people who were
called to serve in the military, people who had debts or financial
obligations such as home mortgages, car loans, and bank loans. A
similar law is in effect today, ``The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil
Relief Act of 1940, as amended.'' Although not included in the title of
the law, the safeguards of the law also apply to personnel in the Air
Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Provisions of the law protect a
service member, who is called-up to serve in the military, from being
evicted from rental property or from mortgaged property, protect
against cancellation of life insurance, and protect against lose of
home because of overdue taxes, if the service member's ability to make
payments is materially affected by military service. Further provisions
of the law require that interest of no more than 6 percent a year can
be charged by a lender on a debt which a person on active duty in
military service incurred before he or she went on active duty.
The law does not cancel out the debt or financial obligations of
those called up for active duty. What it does do is give them certain
special rights and legal protections. The purpose of granting the
special rights and protections, as stated in the law, is to help people
who have been called up for active duty ``to devote their entire energy
to the defense needs of the Nation.''
In the normal case of a National Guard call-up by the President,
members of the National Guard get this civil relief. But in the case of
a National Guard call-up by a Governor, at the request of the
President, members of the National Guard do not get this civil relief.
The members of our National Guard now protecting our airports therefore
do not get this relief, because the President thought it best to have
the Governors call-up the Guard.
New Hampshire National Guard personnel are today assisting in
providing protection at airports in New Hampshire, at the Manchester
Airport, the Lebanon Airport, and the Pease International Tradeport
Airport. The New Hampshire National Guard has a long and rich history.
Colonial New Hampshire Governor John Cutt organized the New Hampshire
militia in 1680. This militia served in all of the Colonial Wars. New
Hampshire troops included Roger's Rangers, famed for their guerrilla
tactics, and forerunners of today's U.S. Army Rangers, presently
serving in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. In December 1774, a
group of patriots under the command of Captain Thomas Pickering, of
Portsmouth, attacked and captured Fort William and Mary at Newcastle,
NH. The ``shot heard round the world'' was not fired at Lexington, MA,
until the following April. During the Civil War, New Hampshire
furnished 17 infantry regiments, 1 cavalry regiment, 1 heavy artillery
regiment, and 1 light artillery battery to the Union cause. The 5th New
Hampshire Volunteers, led by Colonel Edward E. Cross, suffered the
highest casualties of any Northern infantry regiment, having fought
valiantly at Seven Pines, Malvern Hill, Antietam, Fredericksburg,
Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg. And now other equally patriotic
members of the New Hampshire Guard have been called up by the Governor,
at the request of President Bush, to help protect airports, as part of
our country's war on terrorism.

I assume members of the National Guards of my fellow Senators' States
have also been called up by their respective Governors for airport
protection duties. So this is not just a New Hampshire issue or a
Minnesota issue. This is your issue also. When National Guard troops
are called to active duty, whether by the President or by a Governor at
the request of the President in response to war or national emergency
declared by the Congress, they must essentially put their personal
lives on hold.
The intent of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act is to
provide financial security and peace of mind to the men and women of
our country who are unexpectedly called to serve their Nation in times
of crisis. The law certainly should not be allowed to favor those
called up by the President and exclude those called up by State
Governors, at the request of the President. The National Guard
personnel now helping to keep our airports safe deserve the same
protections extended to National Guard troops fighting for our Nation
all over the world.
This amendment will allow the men and women who our Governors have
called on, at the request of the President for an operation during a
war or national emergency declared by the President or Congress, to
focus on their task at hand without worrying about previous financial
obligations. Fellow Senators, I ask you to support this amendment to
correct a serious inequity involving National Guard men and women of
our various States, including most likely your own States, who have
been called to active duty for critical domestic operations such as
protecting our Nation's airports.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Wellstone, Gregg, and
Dayton and those who have initiated this effort for giving me an
opportunity to be cosponsor. I thank them for this amendment and for
giving us a chance to express our gratitude to the men and women in the
National Guard across America who are serving our country so well. They
make extraordinary sacrifices, put their lives on the line and serve
their country.
This amendment gives them the recognition and reward they need. We
can do more. I believe we will. But this amendment is an excellent
first start to say to these men and women: We know you are serving our
country. You deserve our praise, our prayers, and the recognition and
help of this amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of
support from the Minnesota National Guard and the Military Coalition
and other documents be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Military Coalition,

Alexandria, VA, December 6, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Military Coalition, a consortium of
33 nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans
organizations, representing more than 5.5 million current and
former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their
families and survivors, would like to bring to your attention
a serious inequity for National Guard members who have been
called to active duty for Operation Noble Eagle in Title 32
status.
National Guard soldiers and airmen called to active duty
under Title 32 do not have the protection of the Soldiers and
Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA). National Guard and Reserve
members called to active duty under Operation Enduring
Freedom in Title 10 status do have that protection.
The SSCRA was passed by Congress to provide protection for
individuals called to active duty in any of the military
services. The SSCRA suspends certain civil obligations to

[[Page S12611]]

enable service members to devote full attention to duty. The
SSCRA protects the individual and his family from
foreclosures, evictions, and installment contracts for the
purchase of real or personal property if the service member's
ability to make payments is ``materially affected'' by the
military service. The SSCRA entitles a person called to
active duty to reinstatement of any health insurance that was
in effect on the day before such service commenced, and was
terminated during the period of service. It also protects the
service member against termination of private life insurance
policies during the term of active service.
The Military Coalition believes that all members of the
National Guard performing active duty service for a national
emergency or war at the call of the President should be
entitled to protection under SSCRA. Please support S. 1680
and its changes to the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act
that will give National Guard members that protection.
Sincerely,
The Military Coalition.
____

The Military Coalition,

Alexandria, VA, December 6, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: The Military Coalition, a consortium
of 33 nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans
organizations, representing more than 5.5 million current and
former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their
families and survivors, would like to bring to your attention
a serious inequity for National Guard members who have been
called to active duty for Operation Noble Eagle in Title 32
status.
National Guard soldiers and airmen called to active duty
under Title 32 do not have the protection of the Soldiers and
Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA). National Guard and Reserve
members called to active duty under Operation Enduring
Freedom in Title 10 status do have that protection.
The SSCRA was passed by Congress to provide protection for
individuals called to active duty in any of the military
services. The SSCRA suspends certain civil obligations to
enable service members to devote full attention to duty. The
SSCRA protects the individual and his family from
foreclosures, evictions, and installment contracts for the
purchase of real or personal property if the service member's
ability to make payments is ``materially affected'' by the
military service. The SSCRA entitles a person called to
active duty to reinstatement of any health insurance that was
in effect on the day before such service commenced, and was
terminated during the period of service. It also protects the
service member against termination of private life insurance
policies during the term of active service.
The Military Coalition believes that all members of the
National Guard performing active duty service for a national
emergency or war at the call of the President should be
entitled to protection under the SSCRA. Please support S.
1680 and its changes to the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief
Act that will give National Guard members that protection.
Sincerely,
The Military Coalition.
____

The Military Coalition,

Alexandria, VA, December 6, 2001.
Hon. John D. Rockefeller,
Chairman, Veterans' Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Military Coalition, a consortium of
33 nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans
organizations, representing more than 5.5 million current and
former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their
families and survivors, would like to bring to your attention
a serious inequity for National Guard members who have been
called to active duty for Operation Noble Eagle in Title 32
status.
National Guard soldiers and airmen called to active duty
under Title 32 do not have the protection of the Soldiers and
Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), National Guard and Reserve
members called to active duty under Operation Enduring
Freedom in Title 10 status do have that protection.
The SSCRA was passed by Congress to provide protection for
individuals called to active duty in any of the military
services. The SSCRA suspends certain civil obligations to
enable service members to devote full attention to duty. The
SSCRA protects the individual and his family from
foreclosures, evictions, and installment contracts for the
purchase of real or personal property if the service member's
ability to make payments is ``materially affected'' by the
military service. The SSCRA entitles a person called to
active duty to reinstatement of any health insurance that was
in effect on the day before such service commenced, and was
terminated during the period of service. It also protects the
service member against termination of private life insurance
policies during the term of active service.
The Military Coalition believes that all members of the
National Guard performing active duty service for a national
emergency or war at the call of the President should be
entitled to protection under the SSCRA. Please support S.
1680 and its changes to the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief
Act that will give National Guard members that protection.
Sincerely,
The Military Coalition.
____

The Military Coalition,

Alexandria, VA, December 6, 2001.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: The Military Coalition, a consortium
of 33 nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans
organizations, representing more than 5.5 million current and
former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their
families and survivors, would like to bring to your attention
a serious inequity for National Guard members who have been
called to active duty for Operation Noble Eagle in Title 32
status.
National Guard soldiers and airmen called to active duty
under Title 32 do not have the protection of the Soldiers and
Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA). National Guard and Reserve
members called to active duty under Operation Enduring
Freedom in Title 10 status do have that protection.
The SSCRA was passed by Congress to provide protection for
individuals called to active duty in any of the military
services. The SSCRA suspends certain civil obligations to
enable service members to devote full attention to duty. The
SSCRA protects the individual and his family from
foreclosures, evictions, and installment contracts for the
purchase of real or personal property if the service member's
ability to make payments is ``materially affected'' by the
military service. The SSCRA entitles a person called to
active duty to reinstatement of any health insurance that was
in effect on the day before such service commenced, and was
terminated during the period of service. It also protects the
service member against termination of private life insurance
policies during the term of active service.
The Military Coalition believes that all members of the
National Guard performing active duty service for a national
emergency or war at the call of the President should be
entitled to protection under the SSCRA. Please support S.
1680 and its changes to the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief
Act that will give National Guard members that protection.
Sincerely,
The Military Coalition.
____

Members of the Military Coalition

Air Force Association.
Air Force Sergeants Association.
Army Aviation Assn. of America.
Assn. of Military Surgeons of the United States.
Assn. of the US Army.
Commissioned Officers Assn. of the US Public Health
Service, Inc.
CWO & WO Assn. US Coast Guard.
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S.
Fleet Reserve Assn.
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
Veterans' Widows International Network, Inc.
Marine Corps League.
Marine Corps Reserve Officers Assn.
Military Order of the Purple Heart.
National Order of Battlefield Commissions.
Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn.
Naval Reserve Assn.
Nat'l Military Family Assn.
Non Commissioned Officers Assn. of the United States of
America.
Reserve Officers Assn.
National Guard Assn. of the U.S.
The Military Chaplains Assn. of the USA.
The Retired Enlisted Assn.
The Retired Officers Assn.
United Armed Forces Assn.
USCG Chief Petty Officers Assn.
U.S. Army Warrant Officers Assn.
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.
____

Department of Military Affairs, State of Minnesota,
Office of the Adjutant General,
St. Paul, MN, November 1, 2001.
Hon. Paul D. Wellstone,
U.S. Senator,
St. Paul, MN.
Dear Senator Wellstone: I am writing to request your
support for expanding the protections of the Soldiers' and
Sailors' Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) to include National Guard
personnel serving their country under the authority of Title
32 of the United States Code.
As you know, the SSCRA provides a spectrum of important
protections for men and women called to active federal
military service. The SSCRA recognizes the reality that a
call to military service can negatively impact one's ability
to meet certain civil obligations. Unfortunately, the SSCRA
only applies to military duty performed under the authority
of Title 10 of the United States Code. It does not protect
the soldiers and airmen performing duty under Title 32.
This distinction between service under Title 10 and Title
32 is inequitable and nonsensical. Service performed under
Title 32 is still military service and it is still valuable
and important to the national defense. The men and women
called away from home to serve their country under Title 32
face the same problems as those called under Title 10. It is
only right that they receive the same protections.
The recent activations of National Guard personnel to
support airport security nationwide illustrate the importance
of the military service under Title 32. Your support for
expanding the SSCRA to protect persons serving under Title 32
will be an important part of correcting the current inequity.

[[Page S12612]]

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
If I can provide any additional information, please contact
me.
Sincerely,

Eugene R. Andreotti,

Major General, Minnesota Air National
Guard, The Adjutant General.
____

Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States of America,
Alexandria, VA, December 5, 2001.
Hon. Paul David Wellstone,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: The Enlisted Association of the
National Guard of the United States (EANGUS) would like to
thank you for introducing S. 1680, which would amend the
Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA) to
include members of the National Guard called to active duty
under Title 32.
The SSCRA was passed by Congress to provide protection for
individuals called to active duty in any of the military
services. The SSCRA suspends certain civil obligations to
enable service members to devote full attention to duty. The
SSCRA protects the individual and his family from
foreclosures, evictions, and installment contracts for the
purchase of real or personal property if the service member's
ability to make payments is ``materially affected'' by the
military service. The SSCRA entitles a person called to
active duty to reinstatement of any health insurance that was
in effect on the day before such service commenced, and was
terminated during the period of service. It also protects the
service member against termination of private life insurance
policies during the term of active service.
Currently, the SSCRA only covers members of the National
Guard called to active duty under Title 10 (federal active
duty). Guardsmen and Reservists called to active service for
Operation Enduring Freedom were called under Title 10 and
therefore are entitled to all federal benefits including
protection under SSCRA; however, the majority of National
Guard members called to active service for Operation Noble
Eagle are being called up under title 32 and, although they
receive some federal benefits, they do not qualify for
protection under the SSCRA.
EANGUS believes that all members of the National Guard
performing active duty service should be entitled to
protection under the SSCRA. A National Guardsmen called to
active duty status whether Title 10 or Title 32 deserve the
same protection from foreclosure or eviction. While they are
trying to do their best to insure that our airports are
secure, our water supply remains safe, and our nuclear power
plants will not be turned into weapons of mass destruction,
they should not have to worry about whether or not their
families will keep a roof over their heads or that bill
collectors will be hounding them for payment because their
military pay was processed late (which occurred in New York
and Virginia). It is a shame that a member of the National
Guard would have to go to their local Red Cross to receive
help in paying their mortgages as well as their
transportation costs.
The Army and Air National Guard are the United State's
first line of defense against all enemies foreign or
domestic. The men and women of the National Guard have
volunteered to serve their country. They serve proudly and
willingly. Your support in amending the SSCRA of 1940 to
include Title 32 will send a very strong signal of support to
our service members who will be going into harms way. It will
alleviate some areas of concern to them; they will be less
distracted and more secure knowing that their families will
be protected while they are protecting us.
If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at (703)
519-3846.
Working for America's Best!
MSG Michael P. Cline (Ret) ARNG,
Executive Director.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I take this opportunity to thank General Andreotti,
the leader of our Guard in Minnesota, for his very strong support and
his wisdom.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend for introducing this
amendment, which closes a troubling loophole in our military personnel
system.
Currently, members of the National Guard called up under Federal
title 32 status are not eligible for the protections of the Soldiers
and Sailors Civil Relief Act. The act ensures that a servicemember can
protect their house, life insurance, and health insurance while on
active duty. It ensures a smooth transition back and forth between
active service and civilian life, and it essentially underpins the
entire military personnel system. We cannot defend the country without
the National Guard, and we cannot attract qualified people to the Guard
without the relief act.
The act has not applied to Guard members called up under title 32
status because most activations over the past fifty years have been
under title 10, active military duty. However, September 11 tipped the
balance in the other direction. Title 32 provides more flexibility to
achieve missions in the United States and guarantees local control. As
a result, thousands of Guard members have been called up across the
country to secure our airports, railroads, bridges, and borders under
this status.
This amendment extends the relief act to these proud citizen-
soldiers. They must have these protections so they can focus on their
mission. For them, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to advise the Senate that the
subcommittee is prepared to accept the amendment. It is a fine
amendment, very patriotic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2325) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Helms from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to deliver my remarks seated at my desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2336

(To protect United States military personnel and other elected and
appointed officials of the United States Government against criminal
prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United
States is not party)

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment which I ask to be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], for himself,
Mr. Miller, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Murkowski,
Mr. Bond, Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Frist, proposes an
amendment numbered 2336.

Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Did the Senator ask the reading be dispensed with? I could
not hear.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has sought that consent. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')

Amendment No. 2337 To Amendment No. 2336

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Dodd, proposes
an amendment numbered 2337 to amendment No. 2336.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the first word in the pending amendment an
insert in lieu thereof the following:
``Sec. . (a) Findings.--The Rome Statute establishing an
International Criminal Court will not enter into force for
several years:
(2) The Congress has great confidence in President Bush's
ability to effectively protect U.S. interests and the
interests of American citizens and service members as it
relates to the International Criminal Court; and
(3) The Congress believes that Slobodan Milosovic, Saddam
Hussein or any other individual who commits crimes against
humanity should be brought to justice and that the President
should have sufficient flexibility to accomplish that goal,
including the ability to cooperate with foreign tribunals and
other international legal entities that may be established
for that purpose on a case by case basis.
(b) Report.--The President shall report to Congress on any
additional legislative actions necessary to advance and
protect U.S. interests as it relates to the establishment of
the International Criminal Court or the prosecution of crimes
against humanity.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I
suggest the absence of a quorum temporarily.

[[Page S12613]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded in order for me to speak for 2 minutes
on an earlier discussion about the tanker fleet.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot qualify.
Mr. HELMS. Reserving the right to object, I have no objection if it
is understood that I shall be recognized immediately following the two
amendments.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue
the call of the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of
order for a period of 2 minutes regarding the issue of tanker
replacements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the question I have, is there any order in
effect as to who gets the floor when the quorum is called off?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Helms is entitled to the floor.
Mr. REID. That is my understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. And Senator Brownback seeks recognition.
Mr. BROWNBACK. For 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, Senator Brownback is
recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will not be long. I wish to speak
about the leasing of 100 aircraft tankers, many of which will be
remodeled in the State of Kansas. I have great respect for the Senator
from Arizona and the issue he is raising about the lack of review, but
I also wish to be very specific about what is taking place.
The current tanker fleet is 40 years old, some of it 45 years old.
That is my age. Some days I feel very old. A lot of these tankers are
spending a great deal of time in depot. They are spending up to 60
percent of their time being repaired. If we do not go through this
lease arrangement, we are not going to have the tanker fleet to conduct
our current long-range bombing missions.
While I have great respect as to how this has come up--the lack of
hearings--the fact is we cannot conduct campaigns, such as we are in
Afghanistan, unless we do something like this.
I also think this lease arrangement is going to allow us to do
something we could not do if we were on a straight purchase basis. It
is something we need to do now.
For those reasons, I want to be clear on my support, even though I
have great admiration for the Senator from Arizona and the legitimate
issues he is bringing up. We simply cannot do this any other way. This
will get us 100 aircraft that we need to replace some that are 40 to 45
years old. This legislation will get this going now while we have the
operational capacity to build them. Because of the lack of construction
that is taking place at Boeing and the rest of its fleet construction,
we are going to be laying people off. Instead of laying them off, we
can put them to work.

It has come up in a questionable fashion. For that I have respect for
those who are challenging this provision. Still, these are
extraordinary times. If we do this, we can get something of value at a
time when we can construct the aircraft. And it can be scored such that
we can afford to pay for this at this point in time.
For all those reasons, I think this is a legitimate and a proper
thing for us to do. I add my voice to that.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the previous order will be
obtained, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.

AMENDMENT NO. 2336

Mr. HELMS. I do thank the Chair. Mr. President, there is a little bit
of manipulation going on, but let me emphasize the President of the
United States is in favor of the underlying amendment, to which a
second-degree amendment proposes to gut the amendment I have just
offered.
If we are going to play this sort of game around here, that is fine.
I can play it, too, and I have been around a little while, and I know
how to do it.
The International Criminal Court will be empowered if and when just
13 more countries ratify the so-called Rome Treaty. Forty-seven have
ratified it as of this past Friday, November 30.
It has been a privilege to work with the distinguished Senator from
Georgia, Mr. Miller, in crafting this amendment to protect American
soldiers and officials from illegal prosecutions by that Court. In
addition to Senator Miller and me, Senator Lott, Senator Warner,
Senator Hagel, Senator Hatch, Senator Shelby, Senator Frist, and
Senator Murkowski joined in introducing the American Service Members
Protection Act on May 9 of this year. The pending amendment is the
result of our converting that act into an amendment to the pending
Defense appropriations bill.
As I said at the outset, there are going to be attempts to defeat
this pending amendment despite the support of the President of the
United States, despite the support of all manner of organizations,
including veterans and members of the armed services.
I feel a bit of resentment. What they are doing is well within the
rules. We will see how the Senate stacks up on this little bit of play.
Without this amendment, the Rome Treaty can expose U.S. soldiers and
civilian officials to the risk of prosecutions separate and apart from
the laws of the United States of America. Therefore, they could very
well be battling international bureaucrats and prosecutors instead of
terrorists such as those who on September 11 committed mass murder
against thousands of innocent American citizens in New York City and at
the Pentagon, not far from here.

The pending amendment ensures that neither the International Criminal
Court nor overzealous prosecutors and judges will ever be able to
prosecute and persecute American military personnel.
At this time, along with the mobilization to fight terrorists, there
is unanimous support in Congress for giving the President the tools he
needs to wage the war against terrorism.
Accordingly, the distinguished chairman, Henry Hyde, of the House
International Relations Committee, and I have negotiated with the Bush
administration some needed refinements to the American Servicemembers'
Protection Act that is now pending for consideration by this Senate.
This amendment then is a sort of revised version of the original bill
to give the President flexibility and authority to delegate provisions
in the legislation that he needs in this time of national emergency to
protect our service men and women.
I have in hand two letters dated September 25, 2001, and November 8,
2001, respectively, from Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative
Affairs Paul V. Kelly indicating that the administration does support
the language of the pending amendment.
Instead of placing these letters in the Record, I want to read them.
The first one, Paul V. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of Legislative
Affairs of the U.S. Department of State:

Dear Senator Helms: This letter advises that the
administration supports the revised text of the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), dated September 10,
2001, proposed by you, Mr. Hyde and Mr. DeLay.
We commit to support enactment of the revised bill in its
current form based upon the agreed changes without further
amendment and to oppose alternative legislative proposals.
We understand that in the House the ASPA legislation will
be attached to the State Department authorization bill or
other appropriate legislation.

The Senate has a responsibility to enact an insurance policy for our
men

[[Page S12614]]

and women serving at home and overseas. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
and Secretary of State Powell agree it is essential to protect all of
them from a permanent kangaroo court where the United States has no
veto.

Precisely, this amendment does the following: It will prohibit U.S.
cooperation with the court, including use of taxpayer funding or
sharing of classified information. Two, it will restrict U.S.
involvement in peacekeeping missions unless the United Nations
specifically exempts U.S. troops from prosecution by the International
Criminal Court. Three, it limits U.S. aid to allies unless they also
sign accords to shield U.S. troops on their soil from being turned over
to this kangaroo court. And four, it authorizes the President of the
United States to take necessary action to rescue any U.S. soldiers or
service people who may be improperly handed over to that court.
When former President Clinton signed the Rome Treaty on December 31,
2000, he stated he would not send the treaty to the Senate for
ratification and recommended that President Bush not transmit it to the
Senate either, given the remaining flaws in the court. Moreover, I
understand my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, said this about
the Rome Treaty on September 26, and I quote the distinguished Senator
from Connecticut:

If for some reason miraculously the proposal were brought
to this Senate chamber this afternoon, and I were asked to
vote on it as is, I would vote against it because it is a
flawed agreement.

Many Americans may not realize that the Rome Treaty, so-called, can
apply to Americans even if the Senate has declined to ratify the
treaty. This international legal precedent lacks any basis in U.S. law.
So I reiterate, the pending amendment will shield Americans from this
international court, and that is why 28 uniformed services and veterans
organizations representing more than 5\1/2\ million active and veteran
military personnel and their families support the pending amendment.
I have a copy of a letter dated November 19 of this year signed by
the directors of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and at the Reserve
Officers Association and associations representing every one of the
services. They favor this amendment. I will take time right now to read
this letter into the Record. I started to insert it, but I think it is
important for me to read it.

Dear Senator Helms: The Military Coalition, a consortium of
nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans'
organizations representing more than 5.5 million current and
former members of the seven uniformed services, plus their
families and survivors, strongly supports the amended version
of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act.

Mr. President, that is the pending Senate amendment.

The Coalition understands that the administration also
supports this legislation.

I have already covered that. Then the letter continues:

This bill would seek to protect American servicemembers
from criminal prosecution by an International Criminal Court
to which the United States is not a party.
TMC [that is the military coalition] believes the United
States must ensure military personnel (plus Federal officials
and employees) are protected when it orders them to
participate in operations or other prescribed duties in
foreign countries. Any effort to the contrary by internal or
external entities should be thwarted. Our Nation cannot
continue to dispatch its uniformed and official personnel,
who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the
United States, to international assignments without
guaranteeing them their rights under that magnificent
document. Sincerely.

It is signed by the officers of the association.
President Bush and his national security team support this amendment.
There is a great need to approve this amendment now and not wait until
some vague future date next year or even later. Obviously, I support
and urge support for this amendment to protect these service and
civilian leaders from unaccountable kangaroo courts.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank Senator Miller for the great work he has done, and
I yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice of support to this
amendment by Senator Helms.
I would like to thank the distinguished senior Senator from North
Carolina for his leadership and dedication in crafting this important
legislation. I am proud to cosponsor it with him. He has worked hard
with the Bush administration to write a bill that meets the President's
approval, and I commend him for doing so. Senator Helms outlined the
details on what this legislation is intended to do, so I will just make
some brief comments on why I believe it is so important.
As Senator Helms stated, this legislation is designed to protect
American troops and officials from the potential of illegitimate and
politicized prosecutions under the auspices of an International
Criminal Court. When just 13 more nations ratify the Rome Treaty, the
International Criminal Court will be empowered, and Americans could be
subject to its prosecutorial authority. This could happen even though
the United States has not ratified the treaty.
We ask a lot of our military. They are at risk right now in
Afghanistan. They are stretched to the limit, and are engaged in
missions around the globe that include peacekeeping and humanitarian
efforts.
In the conduct of these missions, we must provide them the tools to
succeed. Exposing our troops to ICC prosecutions is tantamount to not
adequately equipping them for the mission. Rules of engagement for many
military missions are complex enough--our military doesn't need to be
further burdened by the specter of the ICC when making critical deadly
force decisions.
I have heard some of the arguments against this legislation. Some
think it demonstrates U.S. arrogance and a unilateralist attitude.
Others believe it somehow compromises our commitment to the promotion
of human rights and the prosecution of war crimes. I appreciate those
concerns, but in my opinion, the well-being and protection of our
military trumps those arguments every time.
We should be concerned over world perception in terms of our
commitment to addressing war crimes, genocide, and other human rights
issues. However, I don't believe any reasonable government could accuse
us of not being the world's leader in all of these areas. The
suggestion that the United States is not supportive of human rights
because we refuse to ratify a questionable treaty just doesn't compute.
Some would advocate that we should ratify this treaty and try to fix
its deficiencies after the ICC is created. That is laughable to me. How
many of us would sign a contract for anything before negotiating the
details? It makes more sense to have this proposed legislation as an
insurance policy and then negotiate, rather than negotiate without it
and potentially place our people at risk.
I remind my distinguished colleagues of the concern we all had when
the Chinese held our EP-3 crew for 11 days. And they were only
detained--not prosecuted. Now image American service members being
subjected an unfair ICC prosecution without U.S. consent. This cold
happen to some those brave troops that are eating dust and risking
their lives in Afghanistan to protect America. I would never want to
look a family member in the eye and know that I did not do everything
possible to prevent such a prosecution because of concern over world
perception, or offending their governments. This legislation seeks to
provide that much-deserved protection.
I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. As
responsible lawmakers, we are obligated to provide them this
legislative protection.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague, a matter of some interest has
arisen. I received a call from the Secretary of the Army. If I could
have 2 minutes, I think colleagues would be interested.
Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Secretary of the Army just called me.
Yesterday, I put in an amendment to the pending matter before the
Senate with regard to the desire on behalf of

[[Page S12615]]

the Congress of the United States to see that Captain Charles ``Chic''
Burlingame, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, be buried in his
own grave site at Arlington National Cemetery. In recognition of the
growing interest in the Congress, I was assisted on this by so many. My
distinguished colleagues, Senator Allen, Senator McCain, and Senator
Inouye very graciously put this amendment into the managers' package.
Senator Stevens and others, Senator Cleland, and the Senator from
Louisiana are all involved.
This matter has now been reviewed by the White House and by the
Secretary of the Army. The Secretary of the Army has indicated to me
that he will, under the regulations, exercise his authority to enable
this very courageous and distinguished American and Navy veteran to be
buried in his own grave, and at such time in the future to further have
his wife interred with him.
I thank all who worked on this. There have been many in the Chamber,
along with my colleagues in the House, Frank Wolf, Tom Davis, and
others, and also the Secretary of the Army has worked very carefully on
it. I went over and visited the Secretary of the Army a short time ago,
having been in conference with the two brothers of this individual. It
is a team effort by the administration and the Congress. The Secretary
is hopeful that the Congress will enact the legislation filed yesterday
because it would be an important part of the decisionmaking process. I
indicated to him I believe the Senate would, in due course, act on it.
I am in contact with colleagues in the House to have a companion
bill acted on.

I thank all concerned. We wish the widow and his family and his two
brothers who worked so hard on this the very best. So the funeral now
can go forward and he will have his own grave site. I thank the
distinguished Presiding Officer and my colleague for allowing me to
make this statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut
allowing me to stand up and speak for a brief moment before he
responds. He has an amendment.
I say to my friend from Georgia and my friend from North Carolina,
whom I respect immensely, this is an idea whose time has not come. Here
we are with a 28-page amendment before the Senate that we have not
read, that is occurring at the very moment, as my friend from Georgia
says, when American special forces are eating dust in Afghanistan, at a
time when we were relying upon the cooperation of an alliance and a
NATO and non-NATO forces that have agreed to support us in that
effort, at a time when we are holding a coalition together, along with
many Members who have supported this International Criminal Court, and
we are going to try to change their minds about how we should amend the
language of the Criminal Court to make it a reasonable thing we could
in fact theoretically be a part of, to come along and tell them: By the
way, if you already have signed onto this Court, but unless you
decide--as one piece of the amendment requires--that unless you agree
ahead of time that you would never under any circumstances abide by
this Court as it relates to the transfer of an American person accused
of a crime, we are in effect dissing you: We ain't going to work with
you anymore.

It seems to me a pretty bad moment to be making that claim at this
time. As my friend from Georgia pointed out, we want some options. We
have plenty of time between now and the next several months to do what
we are supposed to do. This was referred to the Foreign Relations
Committee. It was introduced and referred to the committee by my
distinguished colleague, the ranking member, former chairman, Senator
Helms, when he was chairman. He held no hearings on it this year after
it was introduced. Since it has been in my committee--some version of
this, not the same thing--there has been no request for me to hold
hearings on this legislation.
Here we are on a Friday afternoon about to pass--I hope--a
significant bill, and a 27-page amendment is dropped on our desk that
is the most far-reaching and consequential extension of an argument
against this Court that I have ever heard. It may make sense.
Theoretically, it can make sense. But if you are ever going to pick a
moment not to do this, it would be at this very moment when we have
just--I have been a major party to this--literally broken the arms of
the Serbs to make sure they send Milosevic to a criminal court. We have
broken the legs of everyone we can--figuratively speaking--
diplomatically to get Saddam Hussein before a criminal court, an
international court. We have asked them to all step up to the plate and
try to bring to trial terrorists and people we are after--the bin
Ladens--whom we don't want to try in this country.
It seems to me to come along, and say, but, by the way, if you have
signed onto any of this stuff that we don't like, we are not only going
to see to it that we don't cooperate with you, but we are limiting our
relationship with you, as I read this--that is a pretty big deal.
I wonder how Mr. Blair is thinking, that at this moment when we are
putting pressure, or Mr. Schroeder, who risked his entire government
with a vote of no confidence--he survived by I think two votes, and I
will have the Record correct me if I am wrong about the number of
votes--but barely survived in order to commit German forces to fight
next to American special forces on the ground--who strongly supports
this, and say, by the way, you are our enemy if you signed onto this
Court. Give me a break.
Let us have regular order, as they say around here. We have plenty of
time. I promise you I will hold hearings on this. But don't ask us to
digest 27 pages of the most far-reaching application of an objection--
by the way, in the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill we
already passed legislation of the distinguished Senator from Idaho
barring cooperation with this Court. It still takes 13 more nations to
sign on before the Court comes into effect. We have time. Let us do
this in an orderly way.
I commit to you that at the earliest moment--if you want to pick a
date, I will give a date--I will come back during recess and hold
hearings. Let us get some serious people in here giving serious input.
Just possibly, you people have missed something. Just possibly, you
have inadvertently made a mistake in how broad this is, which may harm
American troops. I do not know that it does. But I have been around
here long enough to know that my mother's expression is a correct one:
Often the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have no doubt
about the intentions. But I have some concern that you may have paved
the road to hell a little bit for the very American personnel we are
trying to save.

I really ask you in a more sober moment, even before we get on to the
debate--I don't want to discourage my friend from Connecticut either--
to sort of stand down here. I promise you I will set hearings. I will
hold the hearings. I will not attempt in any way to delay reporting out
legislation on this subject. Let us do this in the normal legislative
way.
I thank my colleagues. I appreciate their intent. I know there is not
a single Senator who doesn't share this concern. The last thing we want
is an American tried before a kangaroo court.
I respectfully suggest that we are sending some sort of silly signals
right now to the world. We are asking the world to join us. We are
asking the world to participate with us. We are asking the world to try
bad guys who have committed crimes against humanity, and yet we are
setting up military tribunals and blanket, broad, broad pieces of
legislation such as this that we really haven't had hearings on,
haven't thought through, haven't debated, and haven't refined.
I do not know that I am against this. Russell Long once said to me
after I said to him, ``But, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure about this
piece of legislation,'' ``Joe, let me tell you something. Around this
place, when in doubt, vote no.''
I am in doubt. I don't know how you cannot be in doubt. This is 27
pages long, and we are going to do this in the next 15 minutes. I think
it is a mistake.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I strongly urge the authors of this
amendment to

[[Page S12616]]

consider the offer just made by the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee.
The Senator from Delaware pointed out, putting aside for a second
whether or not you would disagree with the provisions in this amendment
of 28 pages, that this is a proposal that has never really been debated
or considered by committee. Something as far reaching as this is
something this body, regardless of where one may stand ultimately on
the question of an international criminal court, needs to be prudent in
considering. None of us in this body ever wants to see our American men
and women in uniform be placed in jeopardy anywhere. I do not know that
anyone can tell you with any certainty whether or not that would be the
case if this amendment were adopted.
Sometimes when we get in the middle of a debate and start arguing
these things, emotions get carried away and it gets harder. I would
like to pause for a moment. If both sides agreed to wait a bit and
consider this issue at a later date, I certainly would withdraw my
amendment. I have a simple amendment which just asks the President to
report to the Congress any additional legislative action he would deem
necessary for us to deal with this issue that the Senator from North
Carolina has placed before us. I do not know how my colleagues feel
about that. But I urge them to consider debating this later. We can
then debate this in a proper fashion rather than do it here this
afternoon.
I will note the absence of a quorum and take a minute to see if there
is any possibility--does my colleague from Idaho wish to respond?
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I cannot speak
for Senator Helms. I think all of us understand--whether by the
lateness of the hour or the length of the amendment--that the ITC, with
13 remaining nations, does not blink nor cause it to react to any
extensive hearings that may have been held by the Senator from
Delaware.
Action on the part of this Congress and our President to ultimately
protect our own citizens and men and women in uniform and the
protection of our sovereignty and our constitutional rights is really
the question here. None of us should be frightened by a fear that
somehow bin Laden or Milosevic would not be appropriately treated.
We have now had the Judiciary Committee hold hearings for the last 2
days on a military tribunal. Our President has already spoken as to how
they might deal with terrorists once captured.
Mr. DODD. If I might reclaim my time.
Mr. CRAIG. What I am saying is, hearings should have been held some
time ago. It is a critical issue that the last President put before
this body, in essence, by signing the treaty. Yet it has not been done.
My guess is, this is a critical debate and the appropriate amendment to
deal with it.
Mr. DODD. I reclaim my time. I guess the answer is no. We are going
to have to go through this process, which I regret deeply because I do
not believe the Senator from Idaho or the Senator from North Carolina
or the Senator from Connecticut could say to you, Mr. President, with
any certainty, what we are about to adopt here is in the best interest
of our country or our individual men and women in uniform.
Let me tell you what this amendment does, as I read it. This
amendment would prohibit the United States from aiding in the
prosecution of war criminals before the International Criminal Court,
even if the criminal may have perpetrated crimes against America. We
are prohibited by this amendment to participate in any prosecution.
Second, it would limit U.S. participation in peacekeeping operations
unless we get an ironclad commitment from the ICC that under no
circumstances would U.S. persons be subjected to the jurisdiction of
the Court.
Furthermore, this amendment would prohibit us from assisting any
country that is party to the ICC. We provide assistance to countries
all across the globe. Are we really, at this juncture, on a Friday
afternoon, now going to bar all future assistance to countries that may
participate in the formation of a court?
As I said, back in September when this matter was first raised by the
Senator from North Carolina, if the Treaty of Rome were put before this
body, I would not vote for it. This body is not prepared to ratify that
treaty. My concern is that if Senator Helms' amendment passes, this
treaty may go forward and we will have no say in the process. As my
colleagues have pointed out, 13 other nations may sign on to it. If
they do, then all of the matters we pass here may be for little or any
good at all. In fact, the very concerns that my colleague from Georgia,
and others, have raised may, in fact, occur as a result of our
nonparticipation in the drafting of this treaty.
I think the United States should remain engaged in trying to fashion
this Court in a way that would protect our men and women in uniform.
That way at least we maximize the possibility that this Court is going
to do what we would like it to do.
I find it somewhat ironic that today is December 7, and 60 years ago
today Pearl Harbor was attacked, as we all know. We listened to the
eloquent remarks of our colleague from Hawaii earlier today. Four years
later, the United States, at our urging, established a criminal court
in a place called Nuremberg, with the cooperation of our allies, to
prosecute those who had prosecuted the war. And we did it not just in
Europe but also in the Pacific with a separate set of trials.
In a sense, what this amendment would do is prohibit a future
Nuremberg.
I do not think, on this day of all days, considering, if you will,
the role that we played in the post-World War II period of trying to
build institutions where the rule of law prevailed, that the Senate,
the body charged in the legislative branch with dealing with the
international relations issues of our country, would adopt an amendment
that says we are not going to participate in any kind of an
international criminal court.
I find it stunning that we can do that. I have offered a second-
degree amendment which very simply would say that the Rome statute
establishing the International Criminal Court would not enter into
force, and that Congress has confidence in President Bush's ability to
protect U.S. interests.

The last thing it calls for is that the President shall report to the
Congress on any additional legislative actions necessary to advance and
protect U.S. interests as it relates to the establishment of the
International Criminal Court.
The Senator from Delaware has already pointed out, that we are trying
to build transnational support for dealing with terrorism. The
President has told us terrorists and their terrorist cells may exist in
60 countries. We are going to need a remarkable level of cooperation if
we are going to successfully prosecute, capture, and try these
individuals.
We have already seen some of the difficulties related to the
cooperation we are seeking to bring terrorists to justice. What is
going to be the reaction of the international community if we adopt
this amendment at the very hour we are reaching out our hands saying:
Will you join with us as we seek to prosecute those who perpetrated the
crimes on September 11? When we are telling those countries we are not
going to participate in any peacekeeping operations, we are not going
to provide any aid to any countries that participate or sign on to this
treaty?
This is what we should be doing: We should maintain a policy of fully
supporting the due process rights of all U.S. citizens before foreign
tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. We should
continue to participate in negotiations of the Preparatory Commission
for the International Criminal Court as an observer. At an assembly of
states and parties, that is how you are going to effect the change--by
being at the table, not by walking away from it.
This is the United States of America. We are not some Third World
country. We claim to be a leader in the world to do what we can to
ensure the rules of procedure are in evidence and that elements of
crime adopted by the International Criminal Court conform to the U.S.
standards of due process formally adopted by the assembly.
How is that going to occur if we adopt this amendment? We ought to
seek a definition of the crime of aggression under the Rome statute
that

[[Page S12617]]

is consistent with international law and fully respects the right of
self-defense of the United States and its allies.
We ought to be there to ensure that U.S. interests are protected in
negotiations over the remaining elements of the International Criminal
Court to provide appropriate diplomatic legal assistance to U.S.
citizens, especially the U.S. representatives and their dependents who
face prosecution without full due process in any forum.
That is what we ought to be doing. That is the role of a great
nation. That is the role of the United States. That is what we did in
the post-World War II period. We did not back away. We did not take an
18th or 19th century approach to the world. We engaged the world.
In fact, I remember--my colleagues may not know all of the history--
but the choice of Nuremberg was not accidental. The choice could have
been elsewhere. But Robert Jackson, who led the U.S. delegation
prosecutorial team, selected Nuremberg because it was at Nuremberg that
the Nazis wrote the laws that gave them the fake justification, if you
will, to engage in the butchering that they brought on the world. It
was at Nuremberg, Germany, where that happened.
So Robert Jackson said: Why don't we go back to that very place and
show the world that in civilized societies the rule of law prevails?
There were people who argued forcefully that there should have been
summary executions of the defendants at Nuremberg. Just execute them.
That was the argument. Line them up against a wall and shoot them.
Believe me, there were a lot of people who could make a strong claim
that should have been the process. Millions of people lost their lives
at the hands of those butchers.
But wiser voices prevailed. They said: No, no. We are not going to
allow the world to see us act, in a sense, little differently than
those who committed the crimes. We are going to provide them with a
tribunal, an international criminal court. The argument that was raised
against it was not illegitimate. It was ex post facto. We established
it after the fact, but I think most agree today that the Nuremberg
tribunal was conducted fairly, that those who were brought before that
criminal court were given an opportunity to present their cases, and
were tried fairly. Most were convicted, most were executed; some
actually were exonerated; some got lesser sentences.
The point I am making is, today could there be another Nuremberg?
Could we participate in a Nuremberg? Would we be advocating it? If we
adopt this amendment, does that put us on the side of the Robert
Jacksons in 1945, or does it put us on the side of retrenching and
pulling back and not engaging?
I honestly believe the Rome Treaty is flawed--terribly flawed--but I
also believe my country ought not walk away from its responsibilities.
We may be about to adopt an amendment, in my view, that takes us in the
opposite direction.
I am terribly disappointed we are even debating this amendment under
these circumstances, a 28-page amendment involving all sorts of
intricate matters that could complicate the role of our government at
this very hour, putting us in a position of walking away from
International Criminal Court. That is a dreadful mistake of historic
proportions.
What a tragedy, as we begin the 21st century, that this great Senate,
given those who preceded us, those who fought for a Marshall plan,
those who fought for the establishment of the United Nations, those who
fought for the establishment of the Court at The Hague, those who
fought to establish rules on human rights, those whose very seats we
sit in, we would pass an amendment contrary to their legacies. What a
legacy for us. We are involved in the greatest challenge that America
has faced since the conflict of World War II, and we may be about to
adopt an amendment that would set back all of the efforts that were
made in the post-World War II period. I am ashamed, in a sense, that we
are about to adopt language which would put our country in that
position.
At the appropriate time, I will ask my colleagues at least to
consider my second-degree amendment which would allow for the President
and others to report back what we might do and how we might address
this issue, how we might affect the assembly that meets to establish
the International Criminal Court, and how we can have some positive
effect on what rules and regulations are going to be established there.
That is what I would hope we would do. For those reasons, I urge the
rejection of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from
North Carolina, and support for my amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before my colleague from Connecticut leaves
the floor, let me suggest to him in all sincerity that he has no reason
to be ashamed, no reason to be ashamed of engaging in this debate, or
in talking, as he has so proudly, about the legacy of Nuremberg and our
Nation's leadership there. Nuremberg was a unique and terrible case and
we addressed that issue as we should, and we did it in a most
appropriate fashion. On other occasions, our Nation has engaged in
international tribunals for specific purposes. But there is a very real
difference today between that which we debate in the ICC and a
Nuremberg example.
Nuremberg was a case in point to address the dramatic crisis coming
out of and during World War II and those who perpetuated those
horrendous acts. It was a temporary tribunal. What we debate today is a
permanent tribunal, one that stays in constant existence, one that has
an international prosecutor, and one that chooses to operate under a
set of laws that is constant. Not that we would ever again engage in a
tribunal to deal with a Milosevic. We have. We will. And we should. Nor
would we ever again engage in tribunals that would deal with terrorists
who would bring acts against this country or other nations of the
world. We have. We will.
It is not that we are shucking from international leadership to
suggest that we will not adhere to an international perpetuated body
that takes away the sovereignty of our citizens and our men and women
in uniform and our protections under the Constitution; that we should
walk away from, that we should be proud to walk away from.
That is exactly what the Senator from North Carolina is proposing
with his amendment. We have dealt with this issue at length. There is a
great deal more that we should probably talk about, and the time is
limited this evening.

The Senator from Connecticut talked about failing to assist
countries. That provision was taken out of the bill of the Senator from
North Carolina. If it were still in there and if it still qualified
under the rules of the Senate, if you go on, it says we could waive
that exception, that we could waive that prohibition on a selective
basis. Does that sound like a weak Third World nation running from its
international responsibility or does that sound like a world leader
having the right to pick or choose for its citizens under its
Constitution and not the rule of the United Nations? That is what we
are talking about. That is fundamentally the issue.
We all know the history of this. Even when President Clinton signed
this treaty in the final hours of his administration, his own words
were:

Significant flaws exist in this document.

Therefore, he did not send it to the Senate for ratification because
he knew that it had great problems and some of those problems are the
kinds of problems that the Senator from North Carolina is attempting to
address. Rather it is whether or not we are fundamentally committed to
the sovereign rule of the domestic law of our country under the U.S.
Constitution as opposed to global justice under U.N. auspices. I don't
know how to put it much clearer than that, for there can only be one
answer, my guess is, for the majority of my colleagues. That means the
United States must stand firmly against the concept and the reality of
an ICC.
No matter what we debate here today and no matter what action we
take, if 13 more nations ratify this under U.N. rule, this is the law
of the world, so to speak. Therefore, whether we try to shield our own
from it, it is possible still that a rogue international prosecutor,
using the ICC, could bring some

[[Page S12618]]

of our men and women in uniform or any citizen of the United States
over 18 years of age under its jurisdiction.
This also means that trying to fix the treaty's flaws is in itself a
great problem. Instead of mistakenly trying to fix the Rome treaty's
flaws, the United States must recognize that the ICC is a fundamental
threat to American sovereignty and civil liberty and that no deal, nor
any deal, nor any compromise in that concept and under that reality is
possible.
We will engage internationally. We have and we will constantly do so.
We are world leaders and we are proud of that. We also understand the
awesome responsibility that goes with it. But to suggest that we hand
this authority over to the United Nations and to suggest that they
would use it in perpetuum, in a constant and uniform manner, we saw one
of those rogue assemblies occur in Africa recently, and we had to walk
away from it. We had to denounce it because of its outspoken racist
arguments. It was something of which we could not be a part.
Is this to suggest that something similar to this could not happen or
would not happen in the future with this kind of a body if we don't
have the right to selectively choose to create, for the purpose and the
intent at the time, an international tribunal that ought to be
assembled for the purpose of dealing with an unjust act to humanity
around the world? That is the issue about which we are talking. That is
exactly the issue that the Senator from North Carolina is attempting to
address.
Have we addressed this before? Yes. Have I been to the floor before
to speak about it? Yes. Did we address it? Most clearly, we did. In the
Commerce, State, and Justice appropriations bill this year, we
prohibited the use of funds for the ICC or for its preparatory
commission. That is the law of the land, as we speak. We passed it. We
provided that protection this year in this Senate. It is important that
we recognize that we have already made those kinds of observations.
It said very clearly: None of these funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this act shall be available for cooperation with or
assistance or for other support to the International Criminal Court or
preparatory commission.
I don't think we could get much clearer. Use of the State
Department's funds for cooperation with the ICC or the preparatory
commission is prohibited. That is clear. It was necessary to do. We
spoke out as we should have on that issue.
Let me talk about one other very important aspect because the Senator
from Connecticut appropriately addressed the circumstances of today and
how that all fits.
I do not think by our acting this evening in support of the amendment
of the Senator from North Carolina we are, in fact, turning our back on
the bad actors of the world, the bin Ladens or the Milosevics or the
Saddam Husseins. Not at all. We are speaking to the direct opposite. We
are speaking to the right of an American citizen and the American men
and women in uniform and their protection under our law.
When the time comes--and it may well--to address the problems created
by the gentlemen I have just mentioned, this country will stand up and
ask the world to stand with it for the purpose of dealing with those
kinds of international outlaws.
As we develop our relationships around the world and the new
coalitions that our Secretary of State is trying to form at this moment
with Arab nations in search of terrorist groups, the renunciation of
this Court has nothing to do with that. Those are case-by-case, nation-
by-nation relationships.
What the rest of the world knows is that we are a nation of law and
we protect the right of our citizens under that law within the
Constitution. To speak out now for that purpose instead of handing it
over to--or to arguably do so, an international body, I think speaks
quite the opposite; that somehow we have softened, adjusted, or
changed.
No, I do not think that is what we ought to be about. More
importantly, I think that a loud, clear statement tonight to protect
our men and women in uniform--and I wish we could go further to say all
Americans--is a right and appropriate thing. Our men and our women are
in the deserts and the sands of Afghanistan as we speak. As the year
plays out and as we move into the next year and the next in our pursuit
of international terrorism, they may be somewhere else around the world
because we are a world leader, and we want and hope the world will
follow us in our pursuit of international terrorists.
If that day comes, beyond the military tribunals that our President
has already shaped, that we need an international forum in which to
address this issue, that is the day we assemble it, that is the day we
bring the United Nations and the rest of the world with us. But not
now, nor ever, should we arbitrarily give away the right of the
citizen, wherever he or she may be around the world, to have the
protection under our Constitution and under our law of that
constitutional right that a native-born American or a naturalized
American citizen has. That is the fundamental debate.
The Senator from Connecticut and I really do not have many
differences. We agree fundamentally on all of those things. I do not
believe it is a negative statement to the world that we stand tall and
demonstrate our leadership for our citizens and our people under our
Constitution.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to address this issue in the context
of today's events. Two things in particular strike me about this
debate, and I want to make it clear at the beginning that I support
Senator Helms and what he is trying to do to protect the men and women
in our military whom we put in harm's way to fight for peace and
security from terrorism in faraway places. Before the war on terrorism
is concluded, we are likely to find them fighting in farflung reaches
of the globe against the scourge of terrorism.
What we are concerned about is the possibility that they would fall
into the hands of an enemy that would put them on trial under trumped-
up charges, with very little in the way of rights before an
International Criminal Court or under its jurisdiction.
Is this an unreasonable fear? I note some of the countries that have
signed up to the ICC, some real bastions of civil rights and civil
liberties: Algeria, Cambodia, Haiti, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria,
Yemen. Those would be great places to be tried in if you were in the
American military and you had been fighting some tin-horn dictator who
got ahold of you and decided to put you on trial.
To me the interesting juxtaposition in the debate that has been going
on in this country for the last 2 or 3 weeks--and we witnessed some of
it yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee in which many
liberals in the United States are very concerned about the civil rights
of terrorists or people who are accused of terrorism and are raising
all manner of questions about the possibility that military commissions
established by the United States in furtherance of our war against
terrorism will somehow, possibly, maybe, deny some right to a
terrorist.
That is a matter of great concern to them. They have taken space in
op-ed pages of newspapers, editorial pages of the newspapers, hours of
conversation as talking heads on these television programs and, indeed,
even some questions raised by Members in the Congress about what the
United States proposes to do in establishing military commissions and
how that might deprive a terrorist or a person accused of terrorism of
some civil rights. Their concern for the rights of these people is
touching.
I have found it a little bit out of priority or out of sync with
priorities. It seems the first priority of those of us who are sworn to
protect our constituents, our American citizens, ought to be to ensure
their protection. But it was interesting that almost all of the
questions from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, both in
the hearing with Attorney General Ashcroft and the head of the Criminal
Division, Michael Chertoff, were not focused on ways in which we could
give the Justice Department or Defense Department greater tools in the
war on terrorism to protect Americans. Almost all of the questions were
focused

[[Page S12619]]

on whether maybe we were going a little too far in the creation of
military commissions and maybe we ought to be more concerned about the
rights of the terrorists who were going to be tried in these military
commissions. It is an interesting proposition, to be sure.
We can have that debate. It would be a lot better to have it when we
are not at war, but at least some legitimate questions were raised. I
certainly take nothing from my colleagues who wanted to get to the
bottom of what is being done. But I find it ironic on that day,
yesterday, we can be debating with great concern over the rights of
terrorists in a military commission, in a trial following some kind of
military action, and yet seem to be a lot less concerned about the
plight of American military personnel who might find themselves put on
trial in a foreign country under an International Criminal Court
procedure.

The United States is not a party to this, and given the kind of
countries that have set it up, I think it will be a long time before we
will be a party because they do not have the same kind of concept of
justice we do, they are not willing to abide by the same kind of rules
the United States will create for those we put on trial. Rest assured,
people we try will very much get a fair and full trial. It will
probably be a lot like the courts martial we provide for our own
military personnel.
What we are concerned about here is not just sovereignty, the right
of the United States to protect its interests. We are also concerned
about two other things. We are concerned about protecting our young men
and women whom we put in harm's way, in the first instance, to try to
protect peace and security for people and do not want to jeopardize
this, in the second instance, should they fall into the wrong hands and
be put on trial.
Also, paradoxically, I am concerned about the ability of the United
States to sustain future operations of the kinds that were engaged in
Afghanistan today and hopefully will be engaged in other places around
the globe if there is a concern not that we will suffer casualties. We
become very casualty averse these days. It is a wonderful thing not to
have the same kind of casualties we used to in war, and we are getting
used to that.
I hope we would not hesitate to send in troops to fight for security
from terrorism, for peace, for freedom in places we think that is
important because of the threat that should our military personnel fall
into the wrong hands they are going to be tried by people we believe
have no right trying them, under procedures that would not sustain
muster by the United States. That is why we have not signed on to the
ICC.
As has been noted before, President Clinton was very concerned about
the inability to protect our service people under the ICC jurisdiction.
Running away from the world? My colleague from Connecticut and I have
the same view of the role of the United States being willing to reach
out to the oppressed of the world when that also advances the interests
of the United States, and we have never hesitated from spilling our
blood and spending our treasure on behalf of others when we have
believed that was the right and moral and just thing to do, and we have
done it. We have never shirked our duty.
Every one of us in this body supported the resolution to authorize
the President to once again send our young men and women into combat,
if necessary, to protect the rights of people abroad, as well as,
hopefully providing, for a safer world for Americans at home.
We will not shirk from our duties by failing to participate in a
flawed treaty signed by the likes of Sudan and Iran and Iraq and Haiti
and Cambodia and countries such as that. That is not my idea of
statesmanship, of rushing to join with these groups of people and sign
on to something that, as President Clinton has said, is fatally flawed.
No. We exercise leadership by saying: We are not going to play that
game. It is fraudulent. You all create these international regimes to
make yourselves look good, to make it look like you are for right,
truth, and justice. We know you are not, and we are not going to play
that game. When you get serious about negotiating the rights and
protections that we demand of our men and women in the military when we
send them abroad, then we will get serious and talk to you about this.
Until then, no. The United States will act in its own interest first
protecting its sovereignty and its own citizens.
We are not the leader of the world for nothing. We have gotten there
because we have been willing to do this: not to be a follower but to be
a leader. To be a leader sometimes is to say to other nations such as
the ones I have read off, we are not going to follow you. We do not
think your motives are clear. We think you have it all wrong, and until
you are willing to listen to us about what is necessary to protect the
rights of everyone, not just Americans but certainly Americans
included, we are not going to play your game.
I resent the notion that failing to join up with the likes of that
group of countries is somehow abdicating our responsibility. I think
the President of the United States has it right. He campaigned on a
theme and he has been working on a theme that we are going to do what
we believe is in the best interest of the United States, consistent
with the interests of other people around the world.
The first thing we are going to do is we are going to protect
ourselves from a weapon of mass destruction delivered by a missile from
a rogue nation. Missile defense, if you do not like it, tough. We are
going to protect the American citizens from that kind of a threat.
Another thing we are going to do is we are going to reduce the number
of nuclear warheads in our arsenal, and we do not have to sign a treaty
with anybody to do it. If it is in our best interest, we are going to
do it.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Bush get together
and they agree this is a smart thing for both countries to do. I
suspect President Putin will end up doing the same thing for the
benefit of his country. You do not have to join up in all kinds of
multilateral regimes around the world in order to accomplish good
things, and sometimes it is not smart to do this. It is better to hold
back and provide leadership by demonstrating that you are prepared to
do it in a different way, and the way some of these countries have
thought about doing it is not the right way.
I support the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, the
purpose of which is to protect our military personnel from an improper,
imperfect system that we all recognize we have to try to improve if we
are ever going to be a part of it. Until that date comes, to ensure
that they are not put in harm's way--and the provisions of this
amendment will make it much more likely, it seems to me. Yes, it will
get people's attention, and I think it will make it much more likely
they will sit down and negotiate responsibly with the United States so
that perhaps someday we can have a multilateral regime called an
international criminal court.
Until we get to the point where our rights are respected, the country
that has provided more rights for more people in the history of the
world than any other country, until that date comes, we need to adopt
the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, at this point I do not desire to prolong the
proceedings, but so many strange statements are being made that have no
relationship with accuracy that I have to correct some of them.
Before I do that, let me say I do not have two better friends in this
body than Senator Biden, who is now chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee--and I cannot remember who was the former chairman--and the
father of Grace, that little sweet thing in Connecticut. That is a
wonderful picture he sent, and I bear him no ill will, but I wish I was
on their side on this because they are so eloquent and, if I may say
so, they are so loud.
In any case, the statement they made that we have not had any
hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee, that is strange. On
Wednesday, June 14 of last year, 2000, 3:30 p.m., Dirksen Building,
419, the Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on the
International Criminal Court protecting American servicemen and
officials from the threat of international prosecution. The witnesses
included the Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger,

[[Page S12620]]

former Secretary of Defense, and chief executive officer of Forbes,
Incorporated. Then there is a distinguished professor, Dr. Jeremy B.
Rabkin, from the Department of Government, Cornell University, and Ruth
Wedgwood, professor of law at Yale University. That was a good hearing.
I was there.
Then on Tuesday, July 20 of 1999, we had an Ambassador-at-large for
War Crimes Issues, the Honorable David A. Scheffer, and this was a
closed door hearing so that he could speak candidly and not be put on
record.
Then on Thursday, July 23, 1998, in the Dirksen Building, the Foreign
Relations Committee heard panel 1, the Honorable David Scheffer,
Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues, and panel 2, the Honorable
John Bolton--most Senators have heard of John--Lee Casey, attorney from
Hunton & Williams, Washington, DC, and Michael P. Scharf, professor of
law, Boston, MA.
The point is, the President of the United States wants this
amendment. He does not want a second-degree amendment to it. He wants
this amendment. We have worked it out with the President, and I think
he is entitled to have some consideration on this without a whole lot
of gobbledegook that is meaningless and, in some cases, not even close
to the truth.
I do not mind being opposed, but I hope we can lower our voices. I
had to turn my hearing aid down because the sound was ringing in my
ears. Can we not address this in a rational sort of way?
Frankly, I have my doubts about some of these judges of other
countries with which we do business. I will not identify the country
because it is a personal matter, but there is the wife of an ambassador
to the United States from one of our finest allies whose husband
kidnapped their two little boys and took them to his home in a foreign
country. You can't even get the courts of that foreign country to do
anything about it--even giving the wife of this Ambassador to the
United States a hearing.

This is the kind of thing we run into. I don't want our servicemen
subjected to any kind of inhibitions not to their benefit.
If anybody with a second-degree amendment can present credentials
that they have the support for their second-degree amendment from
veterans organizations, veterans publications, veterans
representations, representing 5.5 million servicemen in this country,
let the Senators present their credentials and I will be impressed.
But, no, they don't agree with me on this International Criminal
Court. They have not done anything to move it along in the Foreign
Affairs Committee despite my exhortations. And I understand that. The
legislative process works that way, and I don't get my feelings hurt if
I don't get my way on things. But I will be here until midnight before
I submit to the suggestion that this amendment ought not be approved by
the Senate.
I hope we can move along without so much waste of time, but I would
hope that any Senator who wants to attack this amendment will tell why
he is disagreeing with the President of the United States. I want him
to present his credentials as to the support from servicemen and
service organizations representing 5.5 million people. If they can
present the credentials, I will back up and not push the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
amendment. In my view, the International Criminal Court, as established
under the Rome statute of 1998, represents a unique opportunity to
bring justice to the international community and to help in the fight
against future war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity.
That is an important mission.
The Rome statute is the result of 5 years of negotiations by more
than 100 countries. The United States was an active leader in these
negotiations. Frankly, after years of support for the process, leading
to the Court's formation, it is unwise to turn our backs on it now. If
properly implemented, the ICC would go a long way toward preventing
catastrophes such as those we recently witnessed in Bosnia, East Timor,
and Rwanda. The ICC is not going to prevent all future human rights
violations but it can deter those who would commit genocide, punish
those who do, and offer justice instead of revenge and contribute to a
process of peace and reconciliation.
Now, there are Senators who have asserted today that the
International Criminal Court is part of the United Nations. It is a
common mistake. For the record, the Court will be independent from the
United Nations and governed and funded by its own assembly of state
parties. Jurisdiction, judicial decisionmaking, and legal authority
will be given only to this independent Court, not to the United
Nations.
What is more, some of my colleagues in the Senate have opposed the
Rome statute because they fear that the ICC will expose American
service men and women abroad to frivolous prosecution. But American
negotiators, led by Ambassador David Scheffer, have achieved remarkable
progress during the treaty negotiations to effectively address these
concerns. Any prosecution before the ICC would take place only if the
domestic judicial system were unwilling or unwilling to make a good-
faith inquiry into allegations of war crimes. I cannot emphasize this
point strongly enough.

This amendment would restrict the role of the United States in future
peacekeeping missions unless the United Nations exempts U.S. troops
from the Court. It would also prohibit U.S. aid and input into the
Court and block U.S. aid to allies unless they agree to shield American
troops on their soil from ICC prosecution.
The timing of this amendment could not be worse. As the world unites
to combat terrorism, we should be active partners in encouraging an end
to impunity for human rights violators, not skeptical detractors. We
need a place where perpetrators of human rights abuses are held
accountable. In passing the Helms amendment, I fear we will be sending
a horrible message to the international community. It is as if we
cannot even be involved in the negotiations, sitting down at the table
and helping to shape what could be such an important institution.
The Court will be established whether we like it or not. The
authority of the future Court derives from the 120 votes garnered in
Rome, the signatures subsequently of 137 nations and ratifications of
47 states. All members of NATO, the European Union and most in Latin
America have signed or ratified. Recently the United Kingdom and
Switzerland became the 42nd and 43rd countries to ratify, and Hungary
became the 47th nation to do so.
Given these realities, we should oppose this amendment, hastening
instead to assure the Court is a good one, inculcating the American
values of democracy, rules of law, and an end to impunity. The United
States should remain engaged while protecting American citizens and
military people from politicized prosecution by the International
Criminal Court or by any other foreign tribunal.
If America turns its back on the negotiations, and the Helms
amendment would make it impossible for us to be involved in the
negotiations, this opportunity to secure international justice will be
lost. Only through engagement, which this amendment makes impossible,
can the United States live up to the truly inescapable promise of
``never again.''
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the debate this afternoon has covered a
good many issues of real importance and concern to the United States
and to the world. However, I suggest that the preferable approach would
be for the United States to participate, to try to make the rules of
the International Criminal Court satisfactory to the national interests
of the United States, and to establish a framework for the rule of law
in the world.
There is no doubt that the United States is going to act in what is
in the United States' national interests. That is a fundamental rule of
how nations behave and should behave. There are real problems which
could be posed by an international criminal court and which are now
present, for example, in the War Crimes Tribunal on Yugoslavia. It is
not well-known that Carla

[[Page S12621]]

del Ponte, the prosecutor at The Hague, considered a criminal
prosecution against General Wesley Clark for targeting civilians and
for being careless in the targeting of military installations which
threaten civilians. That consideration was undertaken by the prosecutor
at The Hague, the War Crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia, on the initiation
of Yugoslavia, backed by Russia.
I had an opportunity last January to talk to prosecutor Carla del
Ponte about that and expressed surprise that someone like General
Clark, who was acting on behalf of NATO and carrying out air strikes
that were authorized by this body, the Senate, could be subject to that
kind of a criminal prosecution for what was essentially an action
authorized by the United States, authorized by the United Nations, and
authorized by NATO. That kind of power in the hands of the prosecutor
is really extraordinary.

As is generally known, I have had some experience as prosecuting
attorney--having been District Attorney for Philadelphia for some 8
years, and having seen the kind of discretionary actions that a
prosecutor can take when it is a matter of interpreting facts.
When we talk about soldiers in the United States who are in harm's
way being subject to criminal prosecution, that certainly is a problem,
and a real problem. However, what we need to do, in my opinion, is work
to structure an international criminal court which makes sense, which
does not subject U.S. soldiers, or General Clark, or perhaps Senators
who vote on a resolution to authorize air strikes, to criminal
prosecution. However, the International Criminal Court, I believe, is
coming. If 13 more nations ratify the International Criminal Court
treaty, it purports to come into existence.
Frankly, I do not think even if it comes into existence it is going
to be able, as a matter of operational practice, to subject General
Clark, U.S. soldiers, or U.S. personnel to prosecution unless somebody
happens to be in a country and is detained somewhere. I think that
would be a most extraordinary and unlikely event. However, we do see
quite a trend in the international rule of law with the court for
Yugoslavia and the court for Rwanda.
It is my hope that we can find a way to see it structured so that it
does not inappropriately subject people to criminal prosecution.
The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina is very detailed. It
prohibits extradition. I do not know if you need another law that
prohibits extradition. If the United States does not have an
extradition treaty with the International Criminal Court, or a body
which represents it, there is no extradition. You have to have a treaty
for that which talks about letters of interrogatory, which I do not
think is highly significant as an evidence-gathering measure. However,
there is a provision here to free members of the Armed Forces of the
United States and other persons who are detained, and a provision which
says, ``The President is authorized to use all means necessary and
appropriate to bring about the release of any person''--and it has a
description. I do not know that we really want to be in a situation
where the United States is going to go to war with the International
Criminal Court, which is somewhat reminiscent of the resolution of the
use of force, which we passed on the terrorism issue.
The International Criminal Court was considered at some length in a
resolution sponsored by the Senator from Connecticut and myself in the
early 1980s, at a time when we were dealing with international drug
trafficking, and we were finding it impossible to get Colombia to turn
over drug traffickers to the United States for prosecution in our
courts.
It was a matter of national pride that Colombia and other Latin
American countries were not about to turn their citizens over to the
United States for trial in our courts. However, had there been an
international court, I think that might have been achieved.
We had a similar problem in the mid-1980s with terrorists when we
could identify the terrorists. At that time, I urged that the United
States take forceful action in international law to go and arrest
terrorists, which we had a right to do as a matter of national self-
defense. We had a right to arrest Osama bin Laden before September 11th
this year based on the indictments which were obtained for murdering
Americans in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993, and for murdering Americans in
the embassies in Africa in 1998. We were on notice that Osama bin Laden
had threatened America with a worldwide jihad, that he was implicated
in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, and other acts of terrorism and
sabotage.

Thomas Friedman wrote an article which appeared in the newspapers
about Osama bin Laden on June 28 that was a facetious memorandum from
bin Laden to the world about how he had scared the United States out of
Jordan and out of the Mideast; and, about his operatives talking on
cellular phones. He was well known.
We had a right at that time to bring him to trial in U.S. courts.
Perhaps if there had been an international criminal court, there would
have been some unity or some coalition with which we could have acted.
There are many desirable uses for an international criminal court. It
has been talked about for a long time.
The Senator from Connecticut talked at length about the Nuremburg
trials, which I will not repeat. When this court arrives with 13 more
ratifications--and I remind the one or two people who might be
listening on C-SPAN II--that the United States was formed under an
arrangement where if nine of the colonies ratified the Constitution, it
was binding on all. We should not be surprised if you have an
instrument establishing a court, which is binding under its terms, if
it is ratified by a specified number.
Again, it is a different situation. You might say that the colonies
had sovereignty. However, under the terms of the Framers of the
Constitution, all 13 would be bound upon nine signatures. National
sovereignty is a very precious item. I am not about to be one to give
it up. I am not about to allow Carla del Ponte to indict Wesley Clark
for what he did in carrying out the resolution passed by the U.S.
Senate.
However, we have an opportunity to influence what that document will
be. I think the Senator from North Carolina serves a very important
purpose in posing the threats to American national interests. The
Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Idaho have spoken about
these matters. However, I do not think the answer is prohibiting U.S.
action, which is what this amendment does.
I think the answer is aggressive participation. If Senator Helms and
Senator Kyl go to these conventions and participate--and Senator Dodd
and I will stay at home--we can influence what these documents will be.
I think it will ultimately be in our national interest, and certainly
in the world's interest, if we had a criminal court so we can try
international drug dealers and international terrorists. It might
provide a forum for bringing to justice Osama bin Laden.
My hope is that we will be participants to see that it is done right
as opposed to prohibiting U.S. action to see that it is done right.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the Helms amendment
regarding U.S. policy concerning the establishment of an International
Criminal Court in the future. The Helms amendment, in my judgement,
goes too far. The amendment offered by Senator Helms would authorize
the use of military force against a friendly country, the Netherlands,
where the court might exist, in order to remove a foreign citizen from
prison, even if the country of which that person is a citizen might not
want that removal.
I supported the alternative amendment offered by Senator Dodd which
would have required the President to report to the Congress on any
additional legislative actions necessary to advance and protect U.S.
interests as it relates to the establishment of an International
Criminal Court.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment
introduced by my dear colleague, Senator Helms. As my friend has noted
today, I have been an original cosponsor of this legislation since he
first introduced this in 2000. I commend my colleague for his
commitment to the policy behind this amendment, for his persistence in
promoting it, and on his efforts--successful, I am happy to note--to
craft a piece of legislation that has the support of the
administration.

[[Page S12622]]

I offer a little bit of background: On July 17, 1998, a United
Nations conference in Rome approved a treaty establishing the
International Criminal Court (ICC). 120 countries voted in favor of the
treaty, seven countries--including the United States and Israel--voted
against the treaty, and 21 abstained. Pursuant to the Rome Treaty, the
court is intended to come into existence when 60 countries ratify the
treaty. Forty-seven countries have ratified as of November 30 of this
year, leaving 13 nations' ratifications necessary for the treaty to
come into force.
If established, the International Criminal Court will have the power
to indict, prosecute, and imprison persons who, anywhere in the world,
are accused by the Court of ``war crimes,'' ``crimes against
humanity,'' and ``genocide.'' The court will have an independent
prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution for his or her
actions. Pursuant to the Rome statute, the ICC will be able to claim
jurisdiction to try and imprison American citizens--including U.S.
military personnel and U.S. Government officials--even if the United
States has not signed or ratified the Rome Treaty.
Arguing that it was necessary to prevent the exclusion of the U.S.
from future negotiations about how the ICC would operate, President
Clinton signed the Rome Treaty on December 31, 2000, which was the
close of the period for signature. Tellingly, he said on December 31
that he would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification and
would recommend that President Bush not transmit it either, given its
remaining flaws. It is reasonable to question exactly what President
Clinton intended by such a deliberately ambiguous act with such clearly
defined consequences for government officials and members of the U.S.
military who would go overseas under future Commanders-in-Chief.
The Senate has gone on record numerous times opposing the ICC. Last
June, the American Service Members Protection Act of 2000 was
introduced, and I was an original cosponsor. This act, now an amendment
to this Defense appropriations bill, addresses our fundamental problem
with the ICC: It represents, in legislation vetted and approved by the
current commander-in-chief, that U.S. forces, which serve around the
world in numerous peacekeeping and other roles, as well as American
political leaders, must remain immune from prosecutions that could
politically driven, prosecutions that could be directed more against
our foreign policy than any possible violations of international law.
This amendment prohibits U.S. cooperation with the court, including
use of taxpayer funding or sharing of classified information. It
restricts U.S. involvement in peacekeeping missions unless the U.N.
specifically exempts U.S. troops from prosecution by the International
Criminal Court. It limits U.S. aid to allies unless they also sign
accords to shield U.S. troops on their soil from being turned over to
the court, and it authorizes the President to take necessary action to
rescue any U.S. soldiers who may be improperly handed over to that
Court. The policy promoted in this amendment is not anti-U.N., and it
is certainly not against U.S. involvement in the world. But it is
impossible to deny that America has a unique role in the world, and a
unique form of self-government. Today, it is this country that leads
the world in a battle against those who would use terrorism against us
and our many allies and friends. While we go forth in this war to
defend our national security, there is no denying that our victories--
and we will be victorious--will be shared by those who hate terrorism
as much as we do.
No country has done more than the United States to prevent and punish
war crimes and crimes against humanity. No country is doing more than
the United States to support multilateral peacekeeping efforts. And
nowhere on earth do people enjoy greater civil liberties and personal
freedom than in the United States.
The American people will never accept the direct assault on their
country's sovereignty represented by the Rome statute. The statute's
notion that Americans may be indicted, seized, tried or imprisoned
pursuant to an agreement which their country has not accepted is an
unprecedented affront to their national sovereignty and a threat to
their individual freedoms. The Rome statute lacks procedural
protections to which all Americans are entitled under the Constitution,
including the right to trial by jury, protection from self-
incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine all
prosecution witnesses. This amendment, so diligently negotiated with
the administration by my friend, Senator Helms, declares to all
Americans that you may all rest assured that the Government will always
be obliged to protect--and if necessary, to rescue-- American soldiers
and civilians from criminal prosecutions staged by United Nations
officials under procedures which deny them their basic, hard-won
constitutional rights.
My comment to the world leaders and do-gooding groups who promote the
ICC is simply this: Do you favor American leadership in international
humanitarian crises? If so, beware: entry into force of the Rome
statute, and establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court,
will jeopardize American leadership because politically-driven
prosecutions are a certainty and American soldiers and public officials
can expect to become political pawns. Americans will not tolerate this.
As President Clinton's own Rome statute negotiator rightly observed,
the notion that Americans are bound by something to which they have not
consented is contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty law.
Unchallenged, the ICC will inhibit the ability of the United States to
use its armed forces to meet alliance obligations and participate in
multinational operations, including humanitarian interventions, to save
civilian lives. The policy of this amendment has been endorsed by a
bipartisan group of former senior U.S. officials, including Henry
Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Brent
Scowcroft, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Casper Weinberger, and James Waals.
It has been said that the Rome statute is some kind of ``litmus
test'' for American seriousness about war crimes and genocide. No
participant in this debate who is worthy of our attention will make
such an accusation, which is as offensive as it is false.
From Pearl Harbor to the Adriatic Sea, American has given its blood
and treasure to stop mass murderers in conflicts we didn't start.
Today, America's best are fighting halfway around the world, attacking
at its core a terrorist infrastructure that reaches to every part of
the world. Tomorrow, we don't know yet where our brave service members
will be, but we know that the fight for terrorism will not end in
Afghanistan, and we know that America's finest will be risking their
lives elsewhere. These brave members of our armed services are giving
enough for this country, for western civilization. Let us not add to
their concerns the possibility that, as they do their noble duty, they
need be concerned about legal threats that do not represent the
Constitution that they have sworn to protect.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by
the senior Senator from North Carolina on the International Criminal
Court.
In addition to being damaging to the cause of international justice,
this amendment could not come at a worse time. The administration is
moving heaven and earth to maintain a coalition against terrorism and
hold accountable those responsible for some of the most heinous acts
ever committed on American soil. As a Congress, we are working to stay
united on foreign policy and support the Administration in this effort.
Over the past several months, Senators from both sides of the aisle
have withheld from offering controversial foreign policy amendments on
topics from missile defense to the embargo against Cuba. It is
unfortunate that the Senator from North Carolina has chosen to offer an
amendment that ignites strong feelings from its supporters and
opponents, alike.
The ICC is a divisive issue between the United States and our closest
allies. Virtually every member of the European Union and NATO has
expressed its strong support for the court. In fact, Great Britain, our
closest ally and full partner in the ongoing military effort against
the Taliban, ratified the Treaty earlier this fall. Morever, the EU
recently sent a letter to Secretary

[[Page S12623]]

Powell opposing ASPA which reads: ``. . . States which support the
court and value their relations with the United States should not have
to make a choice between the two.''
At a time when we should be working to resolve differences with our
friends, the Helms amendment does exactly the opposite by inflaming
these divisions and forcing the United States to adopt an openly
hostile stance against the ICC.
I want to mention just a few of the specific problems with this
amendment. First, the amendment authorizes the use of force to free
officials from not only the United States but also from foreign
countries, if they are indicted and held by the court. Let me repeat
that: This amendment authorizes the use of military force by the United
States, from now until the end of time, to free foreign not only United
States citizens, if they are in the court's custody.
While these nations are important allies, suppose some members of
their militaries or intelligence services commit heinous crimes that
fall within the jurisdiction of the court and are being rightfully
detained? As a Congress do we want to authorize a military invasion of
The Hague, risking the lives of United States military personnel, to
free indicted war criminals? The Helms amendment would cut off military
assistance to a number of nations, including Tajikistan and South
Africa.

What if we wanted to upgrade an aircraft control tower in Tajikistan
to help land United States planes that are carrying United States
troops to Afghanistan? What about providing military assistance to
South Africa to help spearhead a peacekeeping mission in Africa to
which we did not want to commit United States troops?
What about providing C-130 spare parts to a Nation that has ratified
the ICC treaty, but wants to help airlift humanitarian aid to a region
effected by famine? In addition, the amendment makes America a
potential safe haven for war criminals by prohibiting the United States
from turning over indicted war criminals residing on our soil. It would
also place restrictions on United States participation in peacekeeping
missions.
We all want to pass legislation that will enhance the safety and
security of our military personnel. But, this bill increases tensions
with our allies and works against our efforts to maintain a coalition
against terrorism. If anything, this will make our military personnel
less safe.
If the goal of this amendment is to prevent the International
Criminal Court from getting the necessary ratifications to come into
existence, it is almost certain to fail. It would require a head-to-
head confrontation with our European allies and over 80 countries
outside of Europe that have signed, but not yet ratified the treaty,
and require us to be almost 100 percent successful. More importantly,
the United States, to which the whole world looks for leadership on
human rights, should not be engaged in a fruitless effort to undermine
a court that will bring to justice those responsible for committing war
crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Instead, we should be actively engaged with the court to ensure that
it operates in a way that protects the rights of American
servicemembers and promotes our values and interests.
The Senator from North Carolina is the ranking member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, and that is where this amendment belongs.
This is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. I urge my colleagues
to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from
Texas would want to speak--for what period of time?
Mr. GRAMM. I am not sure. I would like to be recognized. I don't
think I am going to speak very long. If you want to set a time limit on
it, I would say 10 minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time
limitation of 60 minutes equally divided between Senators Dodd and
Helms, or their designees, and that part of the Helms 30 minutes--10
minutes--go to the Senator from Texas; that Senator Dodd also have a
complement of time which he would designate; that the two amendments be
considered first-degree amendments, at the conclusion or yielding back
of the time the Senate vote on or in relation to Senator Dodd's
amendment; that upon the disposition of that amendment, the Senate vote
on or in relation to Senator Helms' amendment, and that no other
amendments be in order to either amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Might I just say to my colleague as well, the majority whip
said 60 minutes. We may not need 60 minutes. I do not know how much
time the Senator from North Carolina would like, but I do not imagine
30 minutes will be necessary on our side. So maybe because of the hour,
we may terminate debate a little earlier and yield back time and
actually vote earlier.
Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, originally we got 40 minutes, but
I wanted to make sure you had enough time to respond.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
I know the Senator from Texas wants to be heard.
Mr. GRAMM. The Senator may want to speak first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will take a couple minutes to respond to
just a couple things, if I could.
I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his eloquent comments, and my
colleague from Pennsylvania, who is far more knowledgeable than the
Senator from Connecticut on these matters generally, and has offered
some very wise counsel on how we ought to proceed.
I think having this debate helps. I am not suggesting it does not.
But I am deeply concerned about proceeding with an amendment of some 28
pages now. I do not know if anyone can tell you with any certainty what
it does. I am concerned about what I think it does. It may do more than
I think it does, which would worry me.
I have offered, and will describe shortly, a substitute or
alternative amendment which we will vote on which lays out a framework
by which we might approach this issue of the Rome Treaty in a
constructive way.
I guess it is a matter of choice. If you take the view that under no
circumstances should there be an International Criminal Court, you
should vote for Senator Helms' amendment. I am not arguing there are
those who do not have a point of view that there should be no
International Criminal Court. That is a legitimate point of view.
If your view is there probably should be, but it ought to be set up
in a framework that makes sense, that guarantees the kind of
protections that my colleagues have talked about today, that would
allow for the civilized world to prosecute international thugs, then,
it seems to me, we bear responsibility to help that along and not
retard it here by taking the position of adopting language which makes
it impossible for us to participate in the creation of such an
institution.
That is my point. There are details of it where I see us taking a
giant step backwards today. At the very moment, we are trying to get
people around the globe to understand that our value system, our idea
of justice, is a good system and that we would like to see those values
incorporated in an international court. But it is awfully difficult to
advance the cause of your own values if you are not in the room to make
the case. I do not want to rely on some of the countries that I see on
this list that have ratified this treaty to advance that cause.
Now some I have great faith in. As I pointed out, 139 countries have
signed this. Now I am told some 42 countries have ratified it, every
member of the European Union, 18 of the 19 members of NATO.
My friend from Arizona cited a couple of countries that I know none
of us bear much allegiance to in any sense at all. But it is also
worthwhile to point out to our colleagues that our NATO allies have
signed this. They have troops that go into these conflict areas. Are
they all wrong? Are they all wrong? I do not think so.
Is it all right, this treaty? No. I will repeat again, if that treaty
arrived through that door this afternoon, and we had an up-or-down vote
on it, I

[[Page S12624]]

would vote against it because I think it is flawed. But I do not think
it is so flawed that we cannot improve it and make it work for our
interests.
You cannot play on the international field and walk away from this
issue. I guess that is the line of distinction I would make.
My colleagues know that I have a great sense of pride about my
father. My father served as the Executive Trial Counsel at Nuremberg. I
cannot tell you the times I heard him say: Had there been an
international court in the 1920s and 1930s, just maybe, he said, just
maybe--he never directly predicted with absolute certainty--but just
maybe Adolf Hitler might have been stopped before he caused the
destruction he did in Europe because there was no place to really bring
the issue. And so his advance--this crushing of neighboring countries
and the destruction of human life--went on unabated until the United
States and our allies successfully prosecuted the end of World War II.
But had there been a place, had there been someplace in the world
that we could have brought an Adolf Hitler when he first started, my
father always thought, just maybe--just maybe--we might have saved
millions of lives.
So when my friends today say this court is flawed, and therefore we
are going to enact legislation now that penalizes those who are trying
to make it work, I do not understand the logic of that. I really do
not.
It seems to me, if we are worried about our men and women in uniform,
the idea somehow that this institution, this international court,
flawed as it is, is not going to exist, is terribly naive. And the very
concerns that are being expressed about our men and women in uniform
become more real if this court ends up looking like its opponents claim
it will. There is nothing here that will prohibit that servicemen and
women from being caught in that snare.
At home in the United States, existing law prohibits the extradition
or transfer of U.S. citizens to the International Criminal Court. That
is already the law of the land. So if you are in the United States, you
cannot be extradited under existing law.
But the idea that somehow because we adopt this amendment--which
causes us to step away from all this, walk away from our involvement--
that it is going to somehow give greater protection to that private or
corporal or sergeant out there in some God-forsaken land defending our
interests is naive. In fact, we put that individual at greater risk
because we are not in the room trying to shape what this court looks
like.
If, in fact, someone does get apprehended, and they end up in a
kangaroo court, we will be responsible, in a way, because we walked
away from the responsibility of trying to shape that institution. You
cannot complain about the makeup of the institution if you do not
participate in the creation of it.
We have been offered a chair at that table, and we are walking away.
And when you do, then, it seems to me, you bear some responsibility for
what that institution ultimately adopts, and whether or not it affects
the citizens of your country.
Stay at the table. Try to change it. At the end, you may not be able
to. Then it is their fault. But you cannot walk away from the table,
and then have your people caught, and then say: That is not my
responsibility. That is not a legitimate answer to this question.
So the Senator from Pennsylvania has offered what appears to be sound
advice. That is what our amendment will offer, in a sense.
Very briefly, I will read the amendment to my colleagues. There are
certain findings in the first section. It is very brief. It says:

(1) The Rome Statute establishing an International Criminal
Court will not enter into force for several years:
(2) The Congress has great confidence in President Bush's
ability to effectively protect US interests and the interests
of American citizens and service members as it relates to the
International Criminal Court; and
(3) The Congress believes that Slobodan Milosovic, Saddam
Hussein or any other individual who commits crimes against
humanity should be brought to justice and that the President
should have sufficient flexibility to accomplish that goal,
including the ability to cooperate with foreign tribunals and
other international legal entities that may be established
for that purpose on a case by case basis.

And lastly, it calls for a report:

The President shall report to the Congress on any
additional legislative actions necessary to advance and
protect US interests as it relates to the establishment of
the International Criminal Court or the prosecution of crimes
against humanity.

That, seems to me, to be a more logical way to proceed than some 28-
page amendment that has us cutting off aid, not participating in
peacekeeping, not allowing us to even participate in proceedings when
U.S. citizens or other people have committed crimes against our own
country. Those are things that at least appear to be the case on the
face of the amendment as it is offered by my colleague from North
Carolina.

Lastly--and then I will yield the floor for a moment--I want to read
a letter from Elie Wiesel. I think all of our colleagues know of Elie
Wiesel, the Nobel laureate, distinguished writer, humanitarian, who was
himself a survivor of the Holocaust.
When a similar piece of legislation was being considered by the other
body, Elie Wiesel wrote the following letter:

Dear Ben and Sam--

Chairman and ranking member of the committee in the other body--
I too am concerned with the safety of United States
servicemen abroad. But I am confident that we will be able to
protect them. And so, bringing a war criminal to justice
remains urgent.
Fifty years ago, the United States led the world in the
prosecution of Nazi leaders for the atrocities of World War
II. The triumph of Nuremburg was not only that individuals
were held accountable for their crimes, but that they were
tried in a court of law supported by the community of
nations. Before you today in committee is a bill that would
erase this legacy of US leadership by ensuring that the US
will never again join the community of nations to hold
accountable those who commit war crimes and genocide.
A vote for this legislation would signal US acceptance of
impunity for the world's worst atrocities. For the memory of
the victims of the past genocide and war crimes, I urge you
to use your positions . . . on the International Relations
Committee to see that this legislation is not passed.

It is signed ``Elie Wiesel.''
I will yield the floor at this point and listen to the remainder of
the arguments. I urge my colleagues, when the time comes, to consider
the proposal we will lay before them which allows us to go on record
expressing a concern and a desire to have this Court work better.
If you think there ought to be no court whatsoever, that there is no
legitimate purpose for an international criminal court, I urge you to
vote for the Helms amendment. If you think there is an importance in
the 21st century for a court to exist and that the United States ought
to participate in the shaping of that court, I urge Members to support
the amendment we will offer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if there has been a debate this year that
is about what our values are, this debate is about what our values are.
I have to say, I am kind of taken aback that for the last 3 weeks every
time I have turned on the radio or television, we have had people
talking about how concerned they are about the process whereby the
President would use a system of military justice against brutal
terrorists and murderers who supported those who seized airplanes and
attacked the United States of America, killing our women and children
in our own country.
Somehow there is this great wave of supposed constitutional concern
about trying brutal murderers who are terrorists in military courts.
And yet when Senator Helms and Senator Miller offer an amendment which
guarantees that American soldiers abroad, who are defending our
interests, defending our freedom, risking and giving their lives,
serving our country abroad, that they could be subject to being brought
before an international court where no judge is an American, no
procedure was established by an American Congress, no constitutional
guarantees apply, it seems to me this debate is about as clear cut as
it can be clear cut.
We ought to have an international court to try people like Adolf
Hitler. But when I send my son or you send your son or your daughter
into the military to serve our country, they should not be subject to
being brought

[[Page S12625]]

before an international tribunal. That is the issue, pure and simple.
It can't be more basic than that.
I would have to say that I would find it absolutely impossible to
justify to a mother or father in my State who had sent their child to
Afghanistan to fight and perhaps die for our freedom, if they ended up
before some international court where no judge was an American,
applying procedures that no American Congress ever applied, and denying
their constitutional rights.
There are a lot of debates we can have. One of the things we are
going to have to come to grips with is to what extent these
international tribunals apply to Americans, because we have rights as
Americans under our Constitution, and those rights cannot be delegated
to somebody else, to some other jurisdiction. There is no jurisdiction
on this Earth in a temporal sense that stands above the Constitution of
the United States. No international court, no international body, no
temporal authority stands above the Constitution of the United States.
That is a bigger issue than the issue we are debating here. Senator
Helms and Senator Miller are not today debating whether Americans in
general should fall under the jurisdiction of international courts.
They are talking about a very select group of people who put on the
uniform, who raise their right hand and swear to uphold, protect, and
defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and
yet we are debating whether the Constitution defends them. We ask them
to swear allegiance to the Constitution, put on the uniform, go to
Afghanistan, and then potentially they could stand naked, in terms of
their rights, before an international tribunal and not have
constitutional protections. That is an absurdity.
This amendment is very simple. It says in the clearest possible
terms, so no one could misunderstand: No American serving abroad in the
uniform of this country can be tried before an international tribunal.
If they violate the law, they will be tried under the law and under the
Constitution, either in an American military court or in an American
civil or criminal court. This is not a complicated issue. This is a
very clear issue.

I thank Senator Helms. I thank Senator Miller. This is a decision we
should have made a long time ago.
The idea that somehow we are going to try to work out these rules,
somehow we are going to try to negotiate this--I am not interested in
negotiating the constitutional rights of people who are at this moment
fighting and dying in a foreign country to defend the Constitution.
Their constitutional rights are nonnegotiable. There is no tribunal on
Earth, other than one constituted under the Constitution of the United
States, that would have jurisdiction over my son fighting in a foreign
country defending our freedom. That is just simple and straightforward.
I think Americans would be astounded that there could be any question
about that. The problem is not, is the Court good? Is the Court bad? Is
the Court reasonable? Is the Court unreasonable? Are these good men who
are judges or good women? Are the prosecutors fair? Are the jurors
objective? Those are completely irrelevant. No study of how to improve
the Court is at all relevant in this debate. The question is
jurisdiction, and they have no jurisdiction over anyone who puts on the
uniform of this country and swears to uphold, protect, and defend the
Constitution.
If they are defending the Constitution, I want the Constitution to
defend them. I don't want them tried under any jurisdiction that is not
bound by the Constitution.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second on that point?
Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield. Could I yield on the Senator's time
because mine is limited?
Mr. DODD. Whatever time, we will work it out later.
I say to my colleague, we have status of force agreements around the
world. I am sure my colleague is aware, who served on the Armed
Services Committee, that we have status of force agreements. There are
U.S. servicemen all the time who are tried in local courts in other
countries. We are not breaking ground here. We have known about those
cases. We read about them, tragically, when they occur. We have those
agreements whenever we place troops in various places--Japan being the
most recent example.
I don't mind your argument. But to suggest somehow that men and women
in uniform are never subjected to any jurisdiction of a foreign land
where the courts and the laws may be substantially different than what
we have is not the law of the land is absurd.
I am not interested in seeing laws adopted here that subject our men
and women in uniform to foreign laws, but we do that already, it seems
to me.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if I could regain control of my time, I
thank the Senator for raising this point. Let me make the following
point:
These circumstances occur when first of all, we have negotiated
agreements with these countries whereby service personnel stationed on
a friendly basis in these countries will be subject to local law, they
are defended by American defense attorneys, and they ultimately have
their rights protected through these guarantees.
We are not talking about people in Somalia, and we are not talking
about Americans in Afghanistan.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Has the Senator read a book, which is being made into a
movie, ``Black Hawk Down?''
Mr. GRAMM. I have.
Mr. McCAIN. I recommend it highly. Because of the situation the
American special forces were in, they had to kill thousands. They
killed thousands as they fought their way out. I would not like to see
those Americans before a tribunal composed of Somali Government people.
Mr. GRAMM. If I may conclude--other people want to debate--here is my
point. When we sent American troops to serve in Japan and to serve in
Korea, we negotiated agreements whereby they could be tried for local
offenses by local authorities. But that is a world apart from when we
send marines into Somalia and when we send marines and special forces
into Afghanistan.
That is the issue about which we are talking. We are talking about
the jurisdiction of International Criminal Court set up by a treaty
that we have not ratified, and we are talking about American military
personnel wearing the uniform of this country. All the amendment by
Senator Helms and Senator Miller does is say that American service
personnel cannot be tried before this Court. No judge is an American,
no procedure is set by Americans or negotiated by them. We have not
ratified the treaty. It is imperative we adopt this amendment, and I
have every confidence we will.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Madam President, the point I was trying to make is we
negotiated status agreements with these countries to guarantee and
protect the rights of men and women in uniform. But in an international
criminal court there will be negotiations--and we are walking away--to
protect the very issues my colleague from Texas raises.
By not participating, of course, without being at the table, we are
not there to protect our people.
We are making the assumption that with the adoption of this
amendment, this is going to go away. It does not go away. That is the
point I was making.
Just as we negotiated status arrangements with individual countries
on how our men and women in uniform will be treated so they will not
lose their rights under local civilian courts, what I am suggesting
this afternoon is that we ought to do the very same thing in
negotiating at the table over this International Criminal Court.
In not being there there is a far greater likelihood our men and
women in uniform are going to be subjected to terrible rules. We have
to be there, just as we had to negotiate the status agreements of how
men and women in uniform are treated in Japan. We have seen cases
there, and had we not negotiated agreements, Lord knows what would have
happened to them. We did not say to Japan: You are going to take it or
leave it or we are going to rip the people out of your courts. No. We
sat down and said: This is how it will work.

This is not a debate about who worries about men and women in
uniform.

[[Page S12626]]

It is whether or not we are going to have any kind of an international
court institution in the 21st century. We are asking the world to join
us in apprehending the Osama bin Ladens. We are building a coalition to
work with us and then bring these people to trial.
I have not raised this issue today, but my colleagues keep raising
the issue that military tribunals is somehow part of this debate. I do
not think there is any legal issue at all over whether we can have a
military tribunal. That is beyond question. There ought to be and can
be military tribunals. I can question the wisdom of establishing them
in every case because I think there ought to be a selective use of it.
I happen to believe having public trials demonstrating how we operate
under the rule of law makes more sense, but I do not question the
President's authority at all to establish a military tribunal, if that
is what he decides to do. That is not the issue.
We are going to be asking countries to extradite people, to bring
them here and try them in these tribunals. At this very hour our State
Department is reaching out to get the world to cooperate with us, we
are walking away from the International Criminal Court. Every member of
NATO has signed and ratified this agreement; every member of the
European Union has ratified it, not to mention all of our allies all
over the globe.
For the life of me, I do not understand why we are going to adopt a
28-page amendment which, as I pointed out earlier, makes it so we are
not involved in peacekeeping forces, we cut off aid to countries, we
cannot participate in these courts where even U.S. citizens have been
attacked.
I do not understand why at 5:15 on a Friday night my colleagues want
to adopt a 28-page amendment when we do not understand, in my view, the
full implications of this amendment.
Again, I give my colleagues a chance to vote on an alternative which
asks the President to send a full report to Congress on additional
legislative matters we can take to responsibly protect our service men
and women.
By the way, it is not just service men and women who we should be
protecting. I have great affection for those who wear the uniform, but
citizens who do not work for the Federal Government, do not work for
the State Department, who may be traveling, ought to be protected as
well. My colleagues today are talking about service men and women, and
they deserve a special status, but today U.S. citizens can also be
caught up in this. We travel a lot. How many people travel all over the
globe every day to expand markets so we can employ people in this
country? It seems to me we are not including them at all. The only
people who are included are Government employees. Do not U.S. citizens
also deserve some protection in these courts?
I had hoped this amendment would be withdrawn. I really hoped it
would be, and then we would come back and try to fashion something we
all can embrace. Instead, there seems to be a desire to divide us on
this question.
Again I make the point, if my colleagues really believe there ought
to be no international criminal court, then they ought to support the
amendment of my friend from North Carolina. If my colleagues believe
there is a value in this court, they should reject Senator Helms'
amendment and support mine.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, forgive me for not being able to stand. I
do not know where I put an end to mistaken statements in this debate. I
have corrected several of them this afternoon. It is a good thing
everybody involved in this debate are friends. We will be friends when
we walk out of here. But such statements have been made that there have
not been any hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. There have
been 3 days of hearings.
The statement was made that the Bush administration will be
prohibited from further negotiations of the criminal court and that it
will be deleted from the statute books should the Senate ever verify
the Rome statute. That is simply not so.
I hope for the remainder of this debate we can come pretty close to
factual statements and not resort to a situation--I do wish the
opponents of this amendment will tell how many of our service men and
women support their motion to table the amendment of Senator Miller and
me.
We do not have 5.5 million service people represented by the
organizations that have contacted us on their behalf, who support us
and who, therefore, support the other side. If they have 5.5 million
people, I wish they would trot them out.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, if I could be recognized one more time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Senator Hatch is on his way, and he wishes to speak. So I
want to spend some of our time waiting for him to let him speak.
Mr. DODD. Would the Senator from North Carolina mind if our colleague
from Louisiana spoke on a subject related to a matter before us?
Mr. HELMS. I always like to hear the lady.
Mr. DODD. How long does the Senator from Louisiana wish to speak?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Ten minutes.
Mr. DODD. How much time do we have on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 12 minutes,
and the Senator from North Carolina has 18\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DODD. I am prepared to yield my time back anyway, so I yield 10
minutes to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I ask unanimous
consent that she be allowed to speak on a matter unrelated to the
pending matter before this body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut
and my colleague from North Carolina because this truly is a very
important debate, one of the important aspects of the underlying bill.
But because I had not been able to speak earlier on the underlying
bill, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I wanted to take
a few moments to talk about some of the important components of the
Defense appropriations bill we are considering, particularly on this
very special day which is commemorating the 60th anniversary of Pearl
Harbor, and particularly because of the tremendously challenging
circumstances we face as a nation.
I am aware that in a few minutes we will vote on this particular
amendment. It is really a very important matter we will decide
concerning this International Court, but I want to take a moment to
share with my colleagues, to remind them, of another historical event,
and that was in the month of August of 1814.
One hundred eighty-six years ago, this Senate and most of the public
buildings in Washington were burned to the ground. It was the grimmest
moment for our young Nation. We had won our freedom from England and
now, during the second war of independence, we experienced in some ways
complete humiliation. Adding to this humiliation, it occurred under the
Presidency of James Madison, the father of the Constitution and one of
the greatest minds the United States had ever produced. An observer of
the attack described the scene. He said:

It was a sight so repugnant to my feelings, so
dishonorable, so degrading to the American character and at
the same time so awful it almost palsied my faculties.

That means caused them to tremble.
I think everyone knows exactly today, in hindsight of September 11,
how President Madison felt. When we watched the World Trade Center, the
center of our economic vitality, destroyed, when we could see from some
rooftops in Washington and actually from some of the vistas from this
exact building the fires burning over the Pentagon, I think we can all
know exactly how President Madison and this man who gave us this quote
felt on that day.
Yet we also know, for the second time in our history, this building
again was the target of attack. Although it was not hit, it was a
target, and we might have piled horror upon horror to see this exact
building burn to the ground again.
The War of 1812 was divisive. It divided North and South as well as
the emerging constituency of the West. Yet when our Capitol was burned,
the

[[Page S12627]]

American people knew we could no longer delay and divide. We had to
unite and prevail. We could spare no resource, ignore no strategy,
reject no talent in that effort to preserve the American experiment in
democracy.
We are engaged in a similar struggle today. We must unite and
prevail, and we should spare no resource in doing so. That is why I
have been a strong advocate for the Byrd amendment, and that is why I
am a strong proponent of this underlying Defense bill.
I know at this exact moment the leaders are engaged in a negotiation
that will hopefully help us support a strong Defense bill, one that
funds the men and women in uniform and gives them the supplies,
equipment, technology, research, housing, schools, health care,
weapons, and ammunition they need to fight a war in Afghanistan and to
protect us at home.
There are a number of provisions I support in the underlying bill,
and I also support Senator Byrd's gallant, valiant, courageous, and
visionary efforts to add to that underlying bill some resources for our
homeland defense and homeland security.

In the underlying bill, there are a number of provisions which I
support. First and foremost is the support for the cooperative threat
reduction program. That phrase did not really mean much to anybody
before September 11, ``cooperative threat.'' It was hard for people to
grasp what it was exactly, but now that we know and we can see we have
still enemies willing to use powerful weapons against us to destroy
Americans and our way of life, we understand the cooperative threat
reduction program, which is a partnership with Russia to contain
weapons of mass destruction, most certainly should be funded and most
certainly supported.
Our Capitol, our White House, and our Federal buildings burned in
1814, and we saw them again targets earlier in September. We know our
enemies want to gain access to weapons of mass destruction. We know
they want them. We know they have tried to get them, and we know that
they will try to use them if they gain access to them.
So in the underlying bill that has been carefully crafted by Mr.
Inouye, the Senator from Hawaii, and the Senator from Alaska, with the
support of many on the Democrat and Republican side, we provided $357
million to complement the $300 million in the Department of Energy
funding this year. It represents a $49 million increase over last year.
That is the good news.
The bad news is if we had allowed the Byrd amendment to go forward,
we would have had an additional $256 million investments in the
cooperative threat reduction program, spending more money in an urgent
fashion, in a transparent and accountable fashion, to make sure we get
to those weapons of mass destruction before our enemies do.
We know it is not just nuclear materials. We know there are chemical
weapons, there are biological agents and, again, they have said they
want them. They have said if they get them, they will use them. We know
this building we stand in today is a target of their negative feelings
toward our country and all for which it stands.
So I am very hopeful that in the negotiations we are not leaving on
the table some extra money, so important to the cooperative threat
reduction and as a testimony to the great work done by Senator Lugar
from Indiana and Senator Nunn, the former Senator from Georgia who did
a magnificent job helping this Senate and this Congress come to grips
with the fact that these weapons were out there and that it was not a
foreign aid program for Russia, it was a protection program for the
citizens of the United States of America. I hope that does not fall on
the floor in the scraps of the amendments and the debate.
A second area I endorse is our continued funding of the national
missile defense program. I know this program has its critics, and I
know some of its champions claim it can do more than it can, but I will
say with continued persistence and with dedication and with careful,
deliberate testing, I am convinced that this Nation can develop a
limited missile defense system, perhaps land-based or Navy-based, that
can protect this Nation in the future against threats from Iran and
North Korea or other such nations that have advanced missile
technology.
Again, there is going to be one city in their target, and that target
is going to be Washington, DC. So as a supporter of national missile
defense, I support the $7 billion of investments that we make in this
bill.
I also support the compromise that was deftly crafted and I think
smartly crafted to say that the President, in addition to the $7
billion, can have $1.3 billion to add to missile defense if he sees
fit, but if not, he can also use this money for counterterrorism
efforts. I urge the President to be careful in his deliberations, to be
delicate, to be thoughtful in his deliberations about how to divide
that $1.3 billion. It is a lot of money. It can do a lot of good.
Also, a great deal of the effort could be wasted. We have to make
sure we know not only what the possible threats are but what the
probable threats are, what the likely threats are, and take our
precious treasures and resources that the American people pay in
taxes--as wealthy people, middle-class people, and poor people--that
contribute to the Treasury of this United States and make sure that
money is spent investing in what will help keep them safe from these
weapons of mass destruction and these asymmetrical threats that
terrorists are now using effectively today in the world.
This is a good compromise on the underlying bill. I urge the
President to think about the transformation necessary and spend that
money for counterterrorism efforts. There are any number of good ways
to do that.
Finally, we cannot forget our most effective weapon, whether in 1814
or 2001 or whether it was as Senator Inouye so beautifully said this
morning, 60 years ago when Pearl Harbor was bombed, the American men
and women who serve this country in uniform. It is not just the
generals; it is not just the sophistication of the weapons; it is not
just that our technology is so advanced that our private sector can
respond more quickly. The real genius of our Nation lies in the spirit,
in the humanness of the American men and women in uniform, the 18-year-
olds in the foxholes, the 22-year-old young men and women who serve
this country.
This bill helps to honor that great American truth by funding an
increase in their pay, by providing the health care that we promise, by
making sure that when they are sick there is a veterans hospital for
those who have served admirably. We have also started to focus on
housing.
In conclusion, in the underlying bill we also honor our service men
and women by supporting them in their housing, their schools, and their
hospitals. I cannot think of anything I would want my country to do
more for me if I had to ship off than to know my country was doing what
it could to care for my spouse and my children, knowing if my child got
sick, there was a clinic for them to go to; if my husband was stressed,
there was a phone he could pick up with a friendly voice on the other
end. So if I were in Afghanistan or if I were in India or Somalia, I
could fight with all the courage and strength because I knew my
Government was doing its part for my family back home.
That is what men and women in uniform want. They don't need essential
food. They don't even need a comfortable place to sleep. They want to
know their families are secure.
That is what this bill does. It was done in a bipartisan way, and I
am proud to be part of that effort and hope we can do more in the
future.
Finally, our country has come a very long way since the dark days of
August 1814. Almost 200 years later we face a similar danger. I am
proud we are reacting as we did then, with unity and purpose of
determination. I thank the Senators for their strong work on this bill,
and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I have the list of military organizations
that have endorsed the amendment of Senator Miller and myself. I will
read into the Record the list of those names: the National Guard
Association of the United States, the Air Force Sergeants Association,
the Army Aviation Association of America, the Association of Military
Surgeons of the United States, the Association of U.S.

[[Page S12628]]

Army, the National Military Family Association, the CWO & WO
Association of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Enlisted Association of the
National Guard of the United States, the Fleet Reserve Association, the
Gold Star Wives of America Incorporated, the Jewish War Veterans of the
USA, the Marines Corps League, the Marine Corps Reserve Officers
Association, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Order
of Battlefield Commissions, Naval and Enlisted Reserve Association,
Naval Research Association, the Navy League of the United States, the
Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America,
Reserve Officers Association, the Veterans' Widows International
Network Incorporated, the Military Chaplain Association of the United
States of America, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Retired
Officers Association, the United Armed Forces Association, the U.S.
Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the U.S. Army Warrant
Officers Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States, and I feel obliged to mention one more time that the President
of the United States favors the Helms-Miller amendment.
I yield the floor, and I yield back my time if my colleague will
yield back his.
Mr. DODD. I am happy to do it but will take 30 seconds and I will ask
for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I will not move to table the
amendment of my friend from North Carolina but give it an up-or-down
vote. There will be two separate votes. We may want to abbreviate the
second vote. It could move matters along.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Dodd amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DODD. I am prepared to yield back my time.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Dodd
amendment No. 2337. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 358 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--51

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Jeffords

The amendment (No. 2337) was rejected.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote On Amendment No. 2336

Mr. PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the Helms
amendment No. 2336. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 21, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.]

YEAS--78

Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--21

Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Chafee
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Feingold
Inouye
Kennedy
Leahy
Levin
Murray
Reed
Sarbanes
Specter
Voinovich
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Jeffords

The amendment (No. 2336) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2343

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), for himself, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Burns, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr.
Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 2343.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To expand aviation capacity in the Chicago area)

At the appropriate place, insert the following: ``Provided
further, That before the release of funds under this account
for O'Hare International Airport security improvements, the
Secretary of Transportation shall, in cooperation with the
Federal Aviation Administrator, encourage a locally developed
and executed plan between the State of Illinois, the City of
Chicago, and affected communities for the purpose of
modernizing O'Hare International Airport, including parallel
runways oriented in an east-west direction; constructing a
south suburban airport near Peotone, Illinois; addressing
traffic congestion along the Northwest Corridor, including
western airport access; continuing the operation of Merrill
C. Meigs Field in Chicago; and increasing commercial air
service at Gary-Chicago Airport and Greater Rockford Airport.
If such a plan cannot be developed and executed by said
parties, the Secretary and the FAA Administrator shall work
with Congress to enact a federal solution to address the
aviation capacity crisis in the Chicago area while addressing
quality of life issues around the affected airports.''

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Illinois has the
floor. Will the Senator from Illinois yield to me?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the two Senators from
Illinois--the other Senator was in the Chamber--will agree to a time
limit prior to a vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator
Grassley, myself, Senator Harkin, Senator Dorgan, Senator Inhofe,
Senator Burns, Senator Breaux, Senator Reid, Senator Rockefeller,
Senator Torricelli, and Senator Johnson. It is an amendment relative to
an airport in Illinois which is known by every Member of the Senate and
known across the Nation: O'Hare International Airport. There is not a
Member of the Senate gathered this evening who has not had an
experience with a delay and a problem at O'Hare. Many of them have

[[Page S12629]]

shared those experiences with me as I have discussed this amendment.
Many of the Members of the Senate and the people following this debate
know that the current situation at the airport at O'Hare literally has
a stranglehold on aviation across America.
When there are delays and problems at O'Hare Airport, those problems
affect cities and airports across America. The reason, of course, is
that O'Hare was built in an era when air travel was much different and
airplanes were much different. Airplanes were smaller, there were fewer
flights, and the runways at O'Hare were designed to accommodate that
day in aviation.
That day has changed. It has changed dramatically. For 25 years or
more, there has been an effort underway in Illinois to change O'Hare
and modernize it, to finally put in a runway configuration that is
safer and more efficient, not just for the benefit of my State and
region but for the Nation. Every major airline understands O'Hare's
impact on the rest of the Nation.
Despite this intention of changing O'Hare and making it more
efficient, it never happened. Why? Because in Illinois, as in some 14
other States, the Governor has a voice in the decision about the future
of airports. The Governor of Illinois has to give approval or
disapproval for these airports. We have been unable, for more than two
decades, to get the Governor and the mayor of the city of Chicago,
which has responsibility for O'Hare, to see eye to eye on the future of
the airport. So it has come to a grinding halt time after time after
time.
I am happy to report that has changed. It has changed within the last
several days. The Republican Governor of our State, George Ryan, and
the Democratic mayor of the city of Chicago, Richard Daley, reached a
historic agreement 48 hours ago. Finally, for the first time in more
than two decades they have come together and agreed, not just on the
future of O'Hare to make it safer, to make it more efficient, but also
on aviation in general for our State.
What will happen to Meigs Field, a small but important commuter field
that is on the lakeshore of Chicago, the future of an airport for the
southern suburbs of Chicagoland, a growing area, an area with an
expanding economy? People said those two men would never be able to
come to this agreement but they did, and they did despite a lot of
opposition.
This agreement was not reached in secret or reached in a hurry. It
started with the mayor announcing a comprehensive plan for aviation on
June 29. The Governor of the State of Illinois announced his plan on
October 18, after a series of field hearings around the Chicago area,
and now today they have come together with a mutual agreement. This is
a historic opportunity, not just for Chicago and Illinois but for the
Nation.

The obvious question is, Why do we come today on this bill at this
time to talk about O'Hare International Airport and aviation in
Illinois? The fact is that both the Governor and the mayor agree, and I
concur, that we need to make certain Federal law reflects the fact this
agreement has been reached, an agreement which we believe will have
benefit all across the Nation for many years to come.
Who supports this agreement? Major airlines using O'Hare support it,
and it is important they do because a major part of the expense of
modernizing O'Hare will fall on the shoulders of major airlines that
will have to float the bonds that fund the terminals that serve the
gates that serve the people who will use O'Hare in the future.
The major airlines have come together. So there is no
misunderstanding--and I understand there may be among some Members--
American Airlines, United Airlines, and Midwest Express have publicly
stated their support for this agreement, but they are not the only
ones. In addition, we have the support of the air traffic controllers.
This is support that is important because these men and women know the
issue of safety. They believe this will make for a safer airport and
safer aviation across America. The Airline Pilots Association, they
support this agreement as well, and AOPA which represents private
aircraft owners and operators have endorsed it publicly as well. We
have all the major aviation organizations in support of this plan, and
few in opposition.
I know it will not be easy for us to see this plan become law. We
need to bring together tonight a bipartisan coalition of Members of the
Senate who agree with Senator Grassley and myself that this
modernization of O'Hare is not just important for that airport but for
aviation across America. There are some local issues which I will not
dwell on because they are of importance to those of us from Illinois
but may not be to the rest of the Nation, but thankfully this approach,
this plan, is going to address traffic congestion.
Traffic congestion around O'Hare is called ``ground zero'' in terms
of traffic congestion in our State, and when we come to grips with that
and make a proposal for changes in the traffic around O'Hare, it will
have a positive impact on the thousands of people who use that airport
and who travel near it each and every day.
The mayor and the Governor made certain that as part of this plan
they would also invest the funds for noise mitigation and noise control
in the area surrounding the airport. They have made an unprecedented
and historic commitment to noise mitigation around this airport. That,
in my mind, is essential. That, in my mind, is essential, so the
families and businesses and schools that may be affected by this change
will have some relief.

This decision on O'Hare will have a more positive impact on aviation
than virtually anything else we can do. I don't overstate the case.
Several months ago Newsweek magazine had a cover story about aviation
problems, aviation air traffic problems across America.
I commend Senator John McCain of Arizona because he came with the
Senate Commerce Committee to the city of Chicago for a hearing on this
issue so we could understand in the Senate exactly what this meant. My
colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, has a different view on the airport, and
he was at the hearing. We heard from people in the area, not only
leaders of business, leaders in labor, but people who understood the
impact of this airport congestion at O'Hare on our region and on the
Nation.
Now we have a chance to do something that can make a significant
difference. Common sense dictates we will need to pass in the near
future and this plan envisions a new airport south of Chicago in the
vicinity of Peotone. There has been an agreement to keep the commuter
airport open, Meigs Field--that is important, particularly to private
owners of aircraft--and make the changes at O'Hare that will make it
modern and safer.
I am glad my colleagues from Iowa are here because I give both of
them credit. Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley understand as well as
I do, and many should, that O'Hare's future is linked directly with the
future of smaller airports, and all around the Midwest, as well. The
airports of Iowa and downstate Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana,
and Minnesota, all of these airports, depend on a viable airport at
O'Hare that can receive these flights and transfer passengers to other
destinations. They started this process, and I commend them for being
with me tonight as we debate this historic agreement. Senator Harkin
and Senator Grassley brought to the attention of the Nation the need to
modernize O'Hare. It is their action as a catalyst in this discussion
which brings the Senate to this agreement, which brings us to this
amendment this evening.
I ask my colleagues to join with me this evening in passing this
important amendment which sets the stage for the embodiment and
recognition of the overall agreement in this bill. This is important
for America's economy. It is certainly important for aviation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan piece of
legislation. Members might wonder, if the Governor of Illinois and
mayor of Chicago have reached an agreement on expanding O'Hare Airport,
why have the legislation? The legislation is very important because
this issue has been hanging around for a long time. We want to make
sure that somebody coming down the road doesn't change it.
O'Hare is a very key national and international hub airport. I am not

[[Page S12630]]

from Illinois, but for the people in my State of Iowa, particularly the
major airports of Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, from the standpoint of
the cost of service and the fact that service is not always certain,
plus the fact that several smaller airports in Iowa do not have access
to O'Hare and are very interested in what happens at O'Hare; Iowans are
very concerned about O'Hare. It has to do with the traveling public,
both tourists as well as business, and it also has something to do, in
turn, with the economic development of a State such as mine because air
transportation is so important to economic development.
O'Hare is a key national and international hub airport, especially
for Iowa. When O'Hare sneezes, the rest of the country gets the flu.
Modernization of O'Hare is very important to Iowa's economy. It will
help prevent future congestion problems and delays that plague air
travelers.
It will make air travel more efficient and less frustrating. And it
will be easier and more pleasant for air travelers to come to Iowa.
Without a doubt, more on-time flights will be a big help for business
travel, where time is money.
The plan to modernize O'Hare will also make it a safer airport. We're
all more focused on air safety after September 11. Air travel security
means more than screening passengers and baggage. It means safe take-
offs and landings. Today, the runway configuration at O'Hare is not as
safe as it could be. The new plan will eliminate dangerous cross-
runways. There will be more parallel runways. It will also include more
modern electronic instrumentation.
I appreciate the way the governor and the mayor got together and
worked out a plan. When I first started pressing for a solution to the
O'Hare problem last spring, I knew it wouldn't be an easy process for
anyone. But it's been a very successful process. It won the support of
the airline pilots and air traffic controllers. It produced a
compromise that everyone can be proud of.
Now Congress needs to do its part to ensure the success of this hard
work. That means immediate passage of the Durbin-Grassley legislation.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to make this happen--even
in the short time left--prior to adjournment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I make a general comment. I am not aware
of the details of the amendment offered by our friend from Illinois.
However, I am not aware this is a transportation bill. I thought we
were on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I don't see why
this amendment is on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. It
may be a good amendment. My colleague and friend from Iowa spoke on
behalf of it. I see my other colleague from Iowa is getting ready to
speak. My colleague from Illinois has some reservations about it and is
opposed to it.
I don't know any of the details, to say it should pass or not pass,
except I believe it does not belong on this bill.
It is 6:30 on a Friday night. Some Members have responsibilities and
want to finish this bill. We want to finish all the appropriation
bills. Now, if this was relevant, it should have been in the
Transportation appropriations bill. It should have come out of the
authorizing committee, from the Commerce Committee. This is not a
transportation bill. This is not an air transportation bill. This is
not a bill that came out of the Commerce Committee. This is the Defense
appropriations bill.
I know there are very strong opinions. I was contacted by my
colleague and friend from the House, Congressman Hyde. He strongly
opposes this particular amendment and opposes it being added to the
Department of Defense appropriations bill.
I do not know enough about the legislation. I know it can cost
billions and billions of dollars. So I would like it to have not just a
signoff on behalf of the Governor and mayor but maybe go through the
authorizing committees and the Appropriations Transportation
Subcommittee rather than having it thrown out late at night on a
Friday, thinking maybe we can run this through and authorize billions
of dollars or begin the process to authorize billions on a Department
of Defense bill.
I have the greatest respect in the world for Senator Inouye and
Senator Stevens who will be chairman and ranking member on the
Department of Defense bill, but I doubt they know very much about
Chicago O'Hare Airport. Yet to entrust them and make them deal with
this issue in conference is a mistake.
I urge my colleague and friend from Illinois to withdraw this
amendment, bring it back either as an independent item, as reported out
of the Commerce Committee, using regular order, or to bring it up in an
appropriations bill, through the appropriations process, in committee,
on the Transportation bill, not on the Department of Defense bill.
I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NICKLES. I yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator familiar with the bill before us, H.R.
3238, page 180, and pages following related to the Department of
Transportation?
Mr. NICKLES. I am not familiar with the exact paragraph the Senator
is talking about. I have already heard somebody say this might be a
germaneness paragraph. But I am not trying to raise a technical point
of order. My point is this is not a commerce bill. This is not a
Transportation appropriations bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware that we even had a hearing in the
Commerce Committee in Chicago where representatives of the airport, the
mayor, the Governor and a number of Members of Congress testified that
this is a very big issue in the State of Illinois and in Chicago? But
it is also a very big issue for those of us who have to go through
Chicago O'Hare Airport on many occasions when we are going west to our
homes.
I wonder if the Senator knows that there seems to be an agreement now
between the mayor and the Governor. I have no idea what that agreement
is all about. I don't know the ramifications. I don't have any idea of
the cost to the Federal Government. Here we are on a Defense
appropriations bill. I must say, is the Senator a bit amused that the
Senator from Illinois refers to the transportation pork that has been
put in this bill that has nothing to do with defense and there is a
rationale for putting this on? That is really entertaining. But the
fact is, I think it may be a good agreement. I really don't know. But
the Commerce Committee has the oversight. The committee is called
Commerce, Science and Transportation. That is the name of the
authorizing committee. I wonder if the Senator knows that he could
probably argue that they are disregarding every other committee in this
bill, including the Commerce Committee, on a variety of issues. But
this is a big issue.
You have the other Senator from the State of Illinois who does not
agree at this time to consider it. If it were a piece of legislation
that affected my State, and I didn't want it to go forth at this
particular time, particularly when no one has had a chance to look at
it, I would certainly try to honor the wishes of my colleague.
I am surprised that the Senator from Illinois on the other side of
the aisle is trying to shove this thing through without the agreement
of his colleague from the same State.
I know Senator Kyl would never do that to me. He would never do that
to me.
We have never had a hearing on this--we have certainly addressed the
issue in the Commerce Committee--in fact, even a field hearing. I think
the wishes of the other Senator from your own State ought to be
seriously considered at a time such as this. I know I respect that same
courtesy of my colleague from Arizona.
I wonder if Senator Nickles is aware that this issue is certainly one
which is not deserving consideration at this time on the Department of
Defense appropriations bill.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, a couple of comments:
I appreciate Senator McCain's comments, the former chairman of the
Commerce Committee, which deals with transportation. This also will
potentially cost billions of dollars. We have bills where we wrestle
every year or so on how we are going to allocate airport improvement
funds. That is not

[[Page S12631]]

on the Department of Defense bill. We have bills where we wrestle with
how airport construction money is going to be allocated. Some airports
get a lot, and maybe other airports will get a lot less. Those are
decisions we make. That is fine. I am not an expert on that. That is
not my committee. But it is also not the committee for the Department
of Defense.

I urge my colleagues, I don't think we have to get in a trance, and
say I am for this and not for that. I don't think now is the time to
make that decision. Let us make that decision when we are considering
all airports and when O'Hare is debated and we are wrestling with other
competing airports. We will have airport needs, demands, security, and
a lot of challenges for all airports that we will be considering.
To make one decision now say: Well, we favor basically greatly
expanding Chicago against the will of one of the Senators from
Illinois, and against the will of many of the Congressmen from
Illinois, to do that on a Department of Defense bill is a mistake.
I may well join my colleague from Illinois in support of this project
when I know more about it. But I don't want to know more about it
tonight. I want to finish the Department of Defense appropriations
bill. I don't think we should ask Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens to
be totally knowledgeable about a multibillion-dollar, multiyear project
and try to resolve this issue in conference when they really need to be
working on the Department of Defense bill.
If this is germane, I guess we could probably offer it on the energy
bill that Senator Murkowski has been working on for a long time. Maybe
we should be considering that.
When are we going to show some discipline around here so we can
finish our work?
I urge my colleague to maybe discuss the amendment a little bit
further, and withdraw it, or possibly get a commitment from the
chairman of the authorizing committee to have a hearing and to report a
bill out so the Senate can consider it. I may well cosponsor the bill.
I just do not think it belongs on this bill tonight. We have done
this too many times where we get in the business of: Well, the year is
running late, and I have something that I haven't completed on my
agenda. I want to put it on even if it doesn't belong on the bill.
This does not belong on the Department of Defense appropriations
bill. I urge my colleagues to withdraw the amendment and save all of us
a lot of time. Hopefully, we can consider it when we are better
prepared to consider aviation issues, do it through the appropriate
committees, give it a fair hearing, give everybody a chance to find out
what the impact would be on all the other airports in the country, and
make the appropriate decisions. Maybe it would be a strongly supported
position with which we could all be very comfortable.
I am not comfortable with making multibillion-dollar decisions on
airports tonight on a Department of Defense bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wonder if the Senator from
Oklahoma actually has looked at the amendment at the desk by the
Senator from Illinois. I think he has confused it with a bill that was
introduced earlier. This is an appropriations measure. It has been
checked with the Parliamentarian. It is an appropriate limitation on
the release of funds. This is not a legislative matter; this is an
appropriations matter under our rules.
Since the bill contains appropriations matters for the Department of
Transportation and the FAA, it is entirely germane to this bill that
are impacted by the text.
Furthermore, if my friend from Oklahoma is worried about chewing up a
lot of time, I am certain that my friend from Illinois would agree to a
time limitation on the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we have
a 1-hour time limit right now evenly divided on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMM. I object.
Mr. HARKIN. How about a half hour of time evenly divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMM. I object.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, it is not that the proponents of this side to use
up a lot of time. I think it is a clear-cut case.
My friend from Arizona said we haven't had hearings on it. My friend
from Arizona chaired the hearing in Illinois in Chicago on this very
subject in Illinois. There has been a hearing on it.
We cannot afford to wait any longer. I first started speaking about
the congestion at O'Hare and the need for new runways and changing that
airport in 1991, 10 years ago. A lot of others were talking about it at
that time. Senator Durbin has been on this ever since he was in the
House of Representatives. This is not something new. It has been around
a long time.
If it is true, as has been said, that transportation is the veins and
arteries of our free enterprise system in America, surely O'Hare is the
heart pump. When O'Hare backs up, everything backs up. Airports back up
all over the country. Delivery systems back up all over the country.
What happens at O'Hare affects every community in America.
Quite frankly, the situation at O'Hare is getting to be to the point
where if you have one bad weather pattern in Chicago, and you have
sunshine in the rest of the United States, you might as well have a
hurricane in every city if it is bad in Chicago. It will back up
everything all over America.
I bet that almost every Senator who flies anywhere has had the
experience of sitting on the runway and the weather looks good. The
pilot comes on and says: We can't take off because there is a weather
delay in Chicago. And you are waiting to fly to Minneapolis. That is
what happens at O'Hare today and what is happening in our country.
At O'Hare, there are plenty of runways. But because they are
crisscrossing each other, and because they are too close together, you
cannot have simultaneous takeoffs and landings at a number of different
places. And, in bad weather, you cannot use both parallel runways if
you have adverse weather conditions because they are to close
together. So O'Hare airport needs to be redesigned. They need to have
parallel runways that are wide enough apart to be operated in poor
weather; they need to get rid of the crisscross runways that are there
right now.

There has been some contention in the past between the city of
Chicago and the State about how to proceed on this. Some of us, led by
Senator Durbin, have been pushing them to reach an agreement, to get
together. This is a State and a local matter, but even though it is a
State and local matter, O'Hare affects the entire United States. So we
have been asking them to get together and work it out.
They did. I commend Mayor Daley of the city of Chicago and Governor
Ryan of the State of Illinois for working together to come up with this
agreement. Now that we have this agreement, it is time to move ahead
aggressively to make sure it is implemented and that we move ahead
without any further delay.
That is what the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois does.
It makes sure we move ahead now that we have this agreement between the
State of Illinois and the city of Chicago.
With this agreement, and with the changes that have been agreed to in
this agreement at O'Hare, with new parallel runways, weather delays
will be reduced, it has been reported, by over 90 percent. The economic
impact of less delays at O'Hare on this country will be tremendous. The
economic impact if we do not do it will also be tremendous in the
negative.
At a time when we are looking at getting out of a recession, and
further looking over the horizon for the next 10 years, any delays that
we make at O'Hare means we are going to affect the entire economy of
this country.
That is not an overstatement. That is not just this Senator from Iowa
saying it. You can look at report after report after report on the
transportation system in America and how it affects our economy; and it
all comes right back to O'Hare Airport. That is how important it is.
This agreement that was reached has been in the making for a long
time. It

[[Page S12632]]

was not something that just happened in one day. This has been ongoing
literally for years, and more recently over the last year. But now that
this agreement has been reached, why dawdle, why delay it any longer?
This amendment is not just a win for Chicago, this is not just a
Chicago thing, and it is not just for Illinois. This is good for South
Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska--all the Midwest and the
nation. I can tell you, we have cities in Iowa that need access to
O'Hare: Sioux city, Mason City, Fort Dodge and Burlington. Our airports
with access, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Dubuque need more
reliable service.
The people who live in my State, in order to transit to someplace
else, far to often have a very difficult time getting there because
they have to go through Chicago.
If this change can take place, and we can modify O'Hare as under the
agreement, this opens up O'Hare for our smaller airports in the Midwest
to feed into, so people can travel more freely. It opens up these small
cities for commercial and business travelers so businesses in those
communities can have better access to their markets and their suppliers
in other parts of the country.
This is not just an issue for Chicago and for Illinois and our
nation. I have not mentioned the international aspects of this. There
is a huge international transit that comes in and out of Chicago at
O'Hare. That is also backed up when Chicago has adverse weather, for
example. And certainly, a lot of our people in the Midwest travel
overseas on business, and there are people in other countries coming to
the Midwest for business purposes. They get backed up.

How does that affect us? Well, they may say: Maybe we want to make a
contract with a business. Why do it in the Midwest? We cannot get
afford the possibility of delays because O'Hare is always plugged up.
This is an economic necessity. It is vital to the economy of the
upper Midwest.
So when the Senator from Oklahoma says that somehow we can put it off
and put it off, maybe a lot of his people in Oklahoma do not use
O'Hare.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield for a question without losing my right to the
floor.
Mr. NICKLES. You said I wanted to put it off and put it off. That is
not what I said. I said I would urge my colleague to withdraw the
amendment, have it go through the Commerce Committee, bring it up in
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation; go through the
regular process.
I may well support it. I go through Chicago all the time. I am just
concerned about us reallocating the airport improvement funds on a
Department of Defense bill. I think that is a mistake.
I am not wanting to get into the details of whether or not my
colleague from Illinois is right. I may want to support the project at
some time, but it just does not belong on this bill.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, everybody makes that
argument when there is something they do not like. But the fact is,
this is germane to this bill. There are provisions in this bill that
deal with the FAA and the DOT. And this is vital, I say to my friend
from Oklahoma. So there is no point of order that lies against this. My
friend from Oklahoma knows full well that if we wait and try to do this
through Commerce, or through other committees, it is next year and
beyond. We cannot wait any longer.
When the heart stops beating, the body dies. When O'Hare gets plugged
up, we all die a little bit in this country--every city, especially in
the upper Midwest.
So we have this great agreement. I do not know what the problem is.
This is something that the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois
basically are going to be doing. All we are saying is, we want them to
continue to develop this plan and execute it. That is all we are
saying. We want it to move ahead.
So I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I did not even want to talk this
long. I would be glad to move it along right now. But we do not want to
delay it. We want to get it done.
The amendment before us simply provides that the Secretary of
Transportation work with the FAA to make sure this locally developed
and executed plan in Illinois moves ahead expeditiously.
It is in the interest of Chicago, it is in the interest of Illinois,
it is in the interest of my State of Iowa, the upper Midwest, and this
Nation. We cannot afford to wait any longer. I urge us to move rapidly
on this, adopt it, and move ahead.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me explain why we are here and what
this is all about. We have a bill before us that provides emergency
money for security at O'Hare Airport, emergency money for security to
try to protect people's lives and their safety. That is what is in this
bill.
What is being done here is that funding to preserve life and safety
for people who go through the airport in Chicago is being delayed to
try to force the Secretary of Transportation to ratify a deal on the
Chicago airport. That basically is what this amendment is about.
This is an amendment that refuses to release money for safety to
protect the lives of people who pass through the Chicago airport, to
try to inject the Congress into a decision that ought to be made in
Illinois.
Quite frankly, this amendment potentially could delay safety
improvements and jeopardize lives at the Chicago airport.
This amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this appropriations
bill. It pirates it. It is true that we have a provision in the bill
providing money for safety, but what this amendment does is pirate that
provision by saying you can't spend the safety money until the
Secretary injects himself into this debate going on in Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAMM. I will in a minute. Let me finish my point. This amendment
basically tries to use safety and the life and safety of people who
live in Illinois, who live in Iowa, who live in Texas as a bargaining
chit to play politics with the improvement of an airport plan in
Chicago that has not been approved by people who are making these
decisions in Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAMM. I will in a moment. Let me just complete my point.
My point is this. This is piracy. This is piracy against safety in
not allowing safety improvements to go forward until the Secretary
injects himself into a decision that ought to be made in Illinois. This
has nothing to do with the Defense bill. At 7 o'clock on Friday
evening, when we are trying to finish an appropriations bill, we have
before us a provision that has nothing to do with national defense. It
is a provision that basically would have us sit as the airport board in
Chicago. And it is opposed by one of the two Senators from Illinois.
It also strikes me, understanding rule 28, that this is basically an
effort to put in place in conference something that would be totally
against the rules of the Senate and that is a totally extraneous
provision. By putting this seemingly harmless limitation on spending
safety money--if anybody believes limiting people's ability to improve
safety at Chicago O'Hare is harmless--what we do is create a vehicle
whereby, on the Defense appropriations bill, we could see an approval
of an airport plan in Chicago. I don't think that is our business. I
didn't run to be on the airport board in Chicago; no one else here ran;
certainly no one was elected.
The Senator wanted me to yield. I am happy to yield. But let me pose
a question. Is it your objective in conference to change this language
to approve this deal in Chicago? Is that what you are trying to do?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Texas that my objective here is
to have recognition of the fact that there is an agreement. It is not
to circumvent any Federal law relative to safety or the environment.
Mr. GRAMM. What does that have to do with us?
Mr. DURBIN. It has to do with us in this respect: Illinois is one of
a few States, 15 out of 50, where the Governor has the final word on an
airport. Our Governor has given consent to this

[[Page S12633]]

plan to move forward on the airport, and we are memorializing that
consent in this agreement.
I would like to ask the Senator from Texas, who said that the
language of this amendment somehow--at one point he said--threatens
safety and lives and at another point calls it a harmless limitation,
could I just refer the Senator from Texas to the part that says: The
Secretary of Transportation shall ``encourage a locally developed
plan.'' That is the operative language. That is the only condition.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if I could reclaim my time, as I read the
language in the first sentence, it says: ``Provided further: That
before the release of funds under this account. . . .'' What is the
money under this account? The money under this account is money for
safety at Chicago O'Hare Airport. Is that not what it is for? It seems
to be, it is clear in the bill itself, that is what it is for.

What we are doing is we are setting up a hurdle that the Secretary of
Transportation has to meet before the money can be released.
The Senator is going to say it is not much of a hurdle. All he has to
do is jump into this dispute in Chicago about this airport.
I go back to the point, whether people in Illinois have agreed or
not, what business is it of ours at 7:03 on a Friday night? I don't see
that it is any business of ours.
I think when we do these things, when the two Senators from the same
State don't agree, that we are simply injecting ourselves into a
decision-making process that violates the separation of powers.
I would like to re-pose my question. Does the Senator intend for this
language, if adopted, to be in the conference report, or does he intend
to try to get the conference report changed or ratified or to somehow
give a Federal commitment to this agreement?
Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to respond to the Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Please do.
Mr. DURBIN. This airport, O'Hare, and all the other airports in this
agreement, will be treated no differently than any other airport in
America.
Mr. GRAMM. That is not my question. I will be happy to yield if the
Senator wants to answer my question. Does the Senator intend to change
this language in conference if it is adopted, or can he assure us that
if it were adopted, this language would be the language he would prefer
in the conference report? There is a foul rumor afloat that this simply
makes it possible to get around rule 28 and to have the Federal
Government ratify this agreement in this Defense bill.
Mr. DURBIN. May I respond?
Mr. GRAMM. If you would answer my question, yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to respond by saying to the Senator that I
will attempt in conference to put in place of this language a bill
which was introduced today which memorializes the agreement, provides
no new obligations or authority, but merely memorializes the agreement
between the Governor and the mayor. It does not compromise safety or
the environment. This bill has been introduced.
Mr. GRAMM. Why don't you offer the bill?
Mr. DURBIN. The bill will be offered.
Mr. GRAMM. Why wasn't it offered tonight, if you intend to put in the
conference report?
Mr. DURBIN. As the Senator knows, because he is not only a learned
professor from Texas but because he served in the House, the
parliamentary procedure necessary is a two-step procedure. The first
step is placeholder language. The second step is to offer the
amendment. That is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I will yield the floor, but let me finish
my point. What we have here is an effort to pirate on airport safety
and an effort to use a limit on the ability to spend money for airport
safety to create a vehicle in conference to adopt a bill which has
never been considered and certainly has not been adopted by the
committee of jurisdiction, a bill that would not have been adopted in
either House of Congress, and a bill that is not being offered on the
floor of the Senate tonight. Why is the bill not being offered? The
bill is not being offered because it is subject to an objection under
rule 16 because it is legislation on an appropriations bill.
It seems to me that not only is this pirating safety, not only is
this an issue that has nothing to do with defense, not only is this not
the forum for us to be considering this issue, this is basically a ruse
to pass a bill which is not germane to this bill, which has never been
reported by the Commerce Committee, which has never been voted on in
either House of Congress, and basically do it by getting the camel's
nose under the tent.
We should support our colleague from Illinois who opposes this
amendment. It would be one thing if the two Senators came to the floor
and said: We want the Congress to help us and we want to be the airport
board in Chicago. I think that would be pretty unusual, but if they
were both together and wanted to do this, it would be one thing. But I
think to bring this kind of legislation pirating safety to the floor of
the Senate when the Senators from the same State don't agree and as a
vehicle to make law something never reported by committee, never
considered in either House of Congress, I think is fundamentally wrong.
It ought to be objected to.
I urge my colleagues to let us get on with the Defense bill. It is
one thing to be debating defense issues. It is one thing to be trying
to decide should we rent Boeing aircraft to turn them into tankers.
That is a legitimate issue. It is one thing to offer a substitute,
which I understand our two leaders of the committee want to offer. But
to get into this kind of business at 7:09 on a Friday night I think is
an abuse of our colleagues, and I urge that we not let this happen.
Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the Senator from
Texas----
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I have been listening, wondering why this issue came up. I first
listened to Senator Nickles talking about the procedural matters and
Senator McCain talking about committee jurisdiction. Then I heard my
friend, the Senator from Texas, talk about why is this involved at all
on a Defense appropriations matter.
While the process and committee jurisdiction is very interesting, I
am just wondering why in the heck, regardless of what bill it is on,
the Senate is involved in this issue at all.
There are concerns, and Senator McCain told me: This is going to
affect airport funds in Virginia, this, that, and the other.
I said: Maybe so, but why are we bringing this up?
I remember when I was Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia taking
great exception to the Federal Government coming in and telling us how
to run Reagan National Airport, telling us how many flights we can have
out, how many gates, the perimeter rule, and how we should operate in
our authority that runs Reagan National, as well as Dulles, and how
they ought to operate. I know there are some folks who may be on the
same side as me who had the Federal Government sticking their nose in
the business of the people of Virginia and the Metropolitan Washington
Airport Authority.
I have been reading about arguments over whether O'Hare Airport ought
to be expanded or not or whether it is desirable to have a third
airport. I do not know. I am not taking a side one way or the other. If
the folks in Chicago and Illinois want three airports, two airports,
five airports, or seven airports, to me that is the business of the
people of Illinois and those jurisdictions in which those airports
might be expanded or located.
The Illinois delegation is split on the proposal, which is
interesting in itself, but that is not dispositive to me. We might have
both Senators from Illinois thinking it is great to usurp the rights
and prerogatives of the people of Illinois. To me that would be
something politically foolish to do, but nevertheless, maybe some folks
may not pay attention to it.
This effort is one of expansion and safety of O'Hare, and maybe that
is a

[[Page S12634]]

good idea, but the basic issue to me is whether we are going to allow
Federal preemption of State law that requires apparently State approval
of airport building or expansion.
This is a State law in the State of Illinois. Let them decide it. If
that is a foolish law, if it is too harmful for the expansion of
airports, it is not as if the people in Illinois do not have the right
to vote to change those laws or those representatives to change those
laws if they decided to do so.

Every civilian commercial airport in our country, it seems to me, is
owned and operated by a political subdivision of a State or
multijurisdictional authority. Those are powers that are properly the
prerogatives and in the purview of the people in the States.
The way I see it, should Senator Durbin's maybe well-intentioned
amendment--maybe it is a good idea to build a third airport.
Regardless, if this amendment should be adopted, it would actually
allow the Federal Aviation Administration to usurp the State
government's authority to decide this airport issue at the State level.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALLEN. This is a bad precedent for us to be meddling in these
affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question? Is the Senator
aware of the fact the language involved was prepared by the State of
Illinois, by the Governor of Illinois, with the mayor of Chicago? It is
not a preemption of State authority. Is the Senator aware this is
language prepared by the State of Illinois?
Mr. ALLEN. The point of all this is the people from Illinois can
figure this out themselves. Do they really need us to ratify their
agreements?
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALLEN. Sure.
Mr. DURBIN. Or comment. I say it is not a question of ratification.
The agreement has been reached. The question is acknowledging the
consent has been given by the State. This language comes from the State
of Illinois. As former Governor of Virginia, the Senator can understand
when he sent language in, it was clearly with his approval. That is the
case here. It is not preemptive.
Mr. ALLEN. Having once lived in Deerfield, IL--I was a youngster at
the time. We did not have Illinois State Government. But I did hear
from the other Senator, Senator Fitzgerald, that the legislature has
not agreed to this language.
The point is, in my view, this is not the jurisdiction or the place
for us to decide the issues that are rightly in the purview and are the
prerogative of the people of Illinois and political subdivisions
therein. I may agree with the Senator that maybe the best idea is
expansion of O'Hare Airport, as opposed to the third airport. Again,
that is something that needs to be worked out with the localities and,
for that matter, all branches of the State government in Illinois.
Mr. President, I will support the efforts to defeat this amendment. I
do think the issue of air transportation is important to our Nation,
obviously, but these decisions are best made by the people in the
States, those closest to it. If those laws need amending, let them work
it out with due process at the State level, and do not bring these
fights and decisions to the Senate. We are remote people who do not
know the details and are trying to make a decision.
I think it is best we defer this decision and refer it back to the
jurisdiction and court where it ought to be, and that is in Illinois.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to talk on this issue. I
compliment my colleagues from other States--Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia--
and also the distinguished Senator from Arizona for speaking in favor
of my position on this issue.
The fact is, this is an issue on which there is a sharp difference of
opinion between Senator Durbin and me. That rarely happens on a State
project issue. In fact, more often than not, Senator Durbin and I work
together when it involves a State project. We were just working earlier
today to help save a VA Hospital in the city of Chicago. More often
than not, we are certainly united on civil or project-type issues.
On this issue, we do have a difference of opinion. I oppose what
Senator Durbin is hoping to do. His argument pointed out that the
Illinois delegation is divided. In general, I think Congressman
Lipinski in the House supports Senator Durbin's efforts. Congressman
Hyde and Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., happen to support my side.
Other Members of the Illinois delegation have not necessarily taken a
position. They are not statewide officers and have not had to form an
opinion necessarily or weigh in on this matter.
It is true that the mayor of the city of Chicago, Mayor Daley, as
well as the Governor of the State of Illinois, did reach agreement two
nights ago on an O'Hare expansion plan. I do not support that expansion
plan, however.
Our Governor had long opposed Mayor Daley's efforts to expand O'Hare
Airport. After getting some other provisions, including the continuance
of Meigs Field in Chicago, which incidentally, I support, the Governor
did decide to support Mayor Daley's efforts to expand O'Hare Airport.
The crux of this issue, as I see it--and Senator Durbin has been very
upfront with me--is the language that we will actually be called to
vote on in the Senate. It is this language, and it is, as Senator
Durbin stated, placeholder language. It is innocuous language. It does
not do much. The idea is Senator Durbin, who is going to be on the
conference committee on Defense appropriations, would like to go into
the conference committee and then introduce much lengthier language
that would, in fact, force the reconstruction of O'Hare Airport, the
tearing up and rebuilding of O'Hare Airport. The nub, the crux, of
Senator Durbin's language in that regard is to, indeed, preempt State
law.

At the outset I will introduce into the Record the legislative
language that Senator Durbin shared with me. We spoke on the phone
yesterday. He fully disclosed his plans. He would have placeholder
language tonight. If he made it to conference, he would like to
introduce this language. The Senator cannot tell me if he believes that
language will be any different but he said this is the language he
would like to get in the conference committee report on Defense
appropriations. With a ruling from the Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to enter this language and have it printed in the Record, because I
will later want to walk through this language section by section.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

SECTION 1. NECESSITY OF O'HARE RUNWAY REDESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH SUBURBAN AIRPORT.

(a) The Congress hereby declares that redesign and
reconstruction of Chicago-O'Hare International Airport in
Cook and DuPage Counties, Illinois in accordance with the
runway redesign plan, and the development of a south suburban
airport in the Chicago metropolitan region, are each required
to improve the efficiency of, and relieve congestion in, the
national air transportation system.
(b) The Federal Aviation Administrator shall implement this
Federal policy by facilitating approval, funding,
construction and implementation of--
(1) the runway redesign plan upon receipt of an application
from Chicago for approval of an airport layout plan that
includes the runway redesign plan, and
(2) the south suburban airport upon receipt of an
application from the State or a political subdivision thereof
for approval of an airport layout plan for a south suburban
airport, subject in each case only to application in due
course of Federal laws respecting environmental protection
and environmental analysis including, without limitation, the
National Environmental Policy Act; and the Administrator's
determinations with respect to practicability, safety and,
efficiency, and consistency with Federal Aviation
Administration design criteria.
(c) The State shall not enact or enforce any law respecting
aeronautics that interferes with, or has the effect of
interfering with, implementation of Federal policy with
respect to the runway redesign plan including, without
limitation, sections 38.01, 47 and 48 of the Illinois
Aeronautics Act.
(d) All environmental reviews, analyses, and opinions
related to issuance of permits, licenses, or approvals by
operation of Federal law relating to the runway redesign plan
or the south suburban airport shall be conducted on an
expedited basis. Every Federal agency shall complete
environmental-related reviews on an expedited and coordinated
basis.
(e) If the Administrator determines that construction or
operation of the runway redesign plan would not conform,
within the

[[Page S12635]]

meaning of section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, to an
applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency shall forthwith cause or promulgate a
revision of such implementation plan sufficient for the
runway redesign plan to satisfy the requirements of section
176(c) of the Clean Air Act.
(f) The term ``runway redesign plan'' means (i) six
parallel runways at O'Hare oriented in the east-west
direction with the capability, to the extent determined by
the Administrator to be practicable, safe and efficient, for
four simultaneous independent instrument aircraft arrivals,
and all associated taxiways, navigational facilities,
passenger handling facilities and other related facilities,
and (ii) the closure of existing runways 14L-32R, 14R-32L and
18-36.
(g) The term ``south suburban airport'' means a
supplemental air carrier airport in the vicinity of Peotone,
Illinois.

SEC. 2. PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION.

Approval by the Administrator of an airport layout plan
that includes the runway redesign plan shall provide that any
runway located more than 2500 feet south of existing runway
9R-27L shall not begin construction before January 1, 2011.

SEC. 3. WESTERN PUBLIC ROADWAY ACCESS.

The Administrator shall not consider, and shall reject as
incomplete, an airport layout plan submitted by Chicago that
includes the runway redesign plan, unless it includes public
roadway access through the western boundary of O'Hare to
passenger terminal and parking facilities. Approval of
western public road access shall be subject to the condition
that its cost of construction will be paid from airport
revenues.

SEC. 4. NOISE MITIGATION.

(a) Approval by the Administrator of an airport layout plan
that includes the runway redesign plan shall require Chicago
to offer acoustical treatment of all single-family houses and
schools located within the 65 DNL noise contour for each
construction phase of the runway redesign plan, subject to
Federal Aviation Administration guidelines and specifications
of general applicability. The Administrator shall determine
that Chicago's plan for acoustical treatment is financially
feasible.
(b) (1) Approval by the Administrator of an airport layout
plan that includes the runway redesign plan shall be subject
to the condition that noise impact of aircraft operations at
O'Hare in the calendar year immediately following the year in
which the first new runway is first used, and in each
calendar year thereafter, will be less than the noise impact
in calendar year 2000. The Administrator shall make the
determination required by this Section.
(2) The Administrator shall--
(i) make the determination using, to the extent
practicable, the procedures specified in part 150 of title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations;
(ii) use the same method for 2000 as for each forecast
year;
(iii) determine noise impact solely in terms of the
aggregate number of square miles and the aggregate number of
single-family houses and schools exposed to 65 or greater
decibels using the DNL metric, including for this purpose
only single-family houses and schools in existence on the
last day of calendar year 2000.
(3) The condition described in subsection (a) shall be
enforceable exclusively by the Administrator, using noise
mitigation measures approved or approvable under Part 150
of title 14 the Code of Federal Regulations.

SEC. 5. SOUTH SUBURBAN AIRPORT FEDERAL FUNDING.

The Administrator shall give priority consideration to a
letter of intent application submitted by the State of
Illinois or a political subdivision thereof for the
construction of the south suburban airport. This
consideration shall be given not later than 90 days after a
final record of decision approving the airport layout plan
for the south suburban airport has been issued by the
Administrator.

SEC. 6. FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION.

(a) On July 1, 2004, or as soon thereafter as may be
possible, the Administrator shall construct the runway
redesign plan as a Federal project, provided--
(1) the Administrator finds, after notice and opportunity
for public comment, that a continuous course of construction
of the runway redesign plan has not commenced and is not
reasonably expected to commence by December 1, 2004.
(2) Chicago agrees in writing to construction of the runway
redesign plan as a Federal project by the Administrator,
(3) Chicago enters into an agreement, acceptable to the
Administrator, to protect the interests of the United States
Government with respect to the construction, operation and
maintenance of the runway redesign plan, and,
(4) Chicago provides, without cost to the United States
Government, land easements, rights-of-way, rights of entry
and other interests in land poverty deemed necessary and
sufficient by the Administrator to permit construction of the
runway redesign plan as a Federal project and to protect the
interests of the United States Government in its
construction, operation, maintenance and use.
(b) The Administrator may make an agreement with Chicago
under which Chicago will provide the work described in
subsection (a), for the benefit of the Administrator.
(c) The Administrator is authorized and directed to acquire
in the name of the United States all land, easements, rights-
of-way, rights of entry, or other interests in land or
property necessary for the runway redesign plan under this
Section, subject to such terms and conditions as the
Administrator deems necessary to protect the interests of the
United States.

SEC. 7. MERRILL C. MEIGS FIELD.

(a) Until January 1, 2026, the Administrator shall withhold
all airport grant funds respecting O'Hare Airport, other than
grants respecting national security and safety, unless the
Administrator is reasonably satisfied that the following
conditions have been met--
(1) Merrill C. Meigs Field in Chicago either is being
operated by Chicago as an airport or has been closed for
reasons beyond Chicago's control. If Meigs Field is closed
for reasons beyond Chicago's control, none of the following
conditions in subparagraphs 2 through 5 shall apply,
(2) Chicago is providing at its expense all off-airport
roads and other access, services, equipment and other
personal property that it provided in connection with the
operation of Meigs on and prior to December 1, 2001,
(3) Chicago is operating Meigs Field, at its expense, at
all times as a public airport in good condition and repair
open to all users capable of utilizing the airport, and is
maintaining the airport for such public operations at least
from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days per week whenever
weather conditions permit,
(4) Chicago is providing or causing its agents or
independent contractors to provide all services (including
police and fire protection services) provided or offered at
Meigs on or immediately prior to December 1, 2001, including
such tie-down, terminal, refueling and repair services as
were then provided as rates that reflect actual costs of
providing such goods and services at Meigs Field, provided
that after January 1, 2006 the Administrator shall not
withhold grant funds under this Section to the extent he
determines that withholding of grant funds would create an
unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
(b) The Administrator shall not enforce the conditions
specified in subsection (a) if the State of Illinois enacts a
law on or after January 1, 2006 authorizing the closure of
Meigs Field.
(c) Net operating losses resulting from operation of Meigs,
to the extent consistent with law, are expected to be paid by
the two air carriers at O'Hare that paid the highest amount
of airport fees and charges at O'Hare for the immediately
preceding calendar year. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, Chicago may use airport revenues generated at O'Hare
to fund the operation of Meigs Field.

SEC. 8. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

An order issued by the Administrator in whole or in part
under this Section shall be deemed to be an order issued
under Title 49, United States Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, and
shall be reviewed exclusively in accordance with the
procedures in Section 46110 of Title 49, United States Code.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes.
Mr. INHOFE. I heard the other Senator from Illinois talking about all
of the people and the officials in Illinois who wanted this. I wanted
to give another perspective on this issue.
I was elected in 1986, the same time Denny Hastert, now Speaker of
the House, was elected. All I have heard from Denny Hastert and from my
colleagues on the House side all these years was they wanted to have a
third airport.
I have to admit I prefer the provisions of Senator Durbin's bill. On
a freestanding bill, I am a cosponsor. I think it is a good idea. This
also affects something no one has talked about, and that is Meigs
Field. So I have some selfish reasons I would like to see that, but not
on a Defense appropriations bill. I think it is the wrong place for it,
and I will oppose it, even though I agree with the provisions of the
bill.
I have talked to House Members since 1986, and as near as I can tell
they are split down the middle, so there is no unanimity in the
delegation that I can see.
Mr. FITZGERALD. The Senator from Oklahoma makes a very good point. I
appreciate that point, and I appreciate his efforts to keep Meigs Field
open because I think that is an important asset for the city of
Chicago. I have worked with the Senator on that issue before and would
like to continue working with him in that regard.
I do not believe it is appropriate to have this language on a Defense
appropriations bill. This language has nothing to do with our national
defense. It has nothing to do with protecting our troops in
Afghanistan, and I regret the Senate has to be in session tonight
debating this and, in fact, substituting itself for the Illinois State
Legislature.
I served for 6 years in the Illinois State Senate. Whether we would
amend the Illinois Aeronautics Act is the sort of issue we used to
debate and vote on

[[Page S12636]]

in the Illinois State Senate. It is not by my choosing, I assure my
colleagues, that the Senate is tonight substituting itself for the
Illinois Legislature, which would probably not approve this plan. We
are being asked to preempt the laws of the State of Illinois and
specifically the Illinois Aeronautics Act.
I am going to give some summary remarks at the outset, and then I
will want to walk through a section-by-section analysis of Senator
Durbin's language.
There is no reason for us to be in the Chamber tonight debating this.
There is no reason to ask the Federal Government to step in. The mayor
of the city of Chicago has never requested the State of Illinois for a
permit to do his expansion plan at O'Hare. If he wants to do it, he
should formally request that the State grant him a permit. If the FAA
also grants him a permit, presumably he could go forward and do his
expansion plan.
What we are being asked to do tonight is to gut the State permitting
program, to rip out and make of no effect the Illinois Aeronautics Act.
Of course, we are also being asked to gut State environmental laws that
might protect the environment and the health and safety of the people
around O'Hare Airport.
Nor did the mayor of the city of Chicago ever bring this issue up to
the State legislature. If it were a problem he could not get a permit
from the State of Illinois, clearly he could ask the State legislature
to amend State law. No attempt has been made to go to the State
legislature and ask them to amend State law. Instead, as a first step
they came to the Senate and asked the Senate to come in and rewrite and
preempt State law.

In my judgment, a project such as this should be a bottoms-up
project, not a top down; not people in Washington making these
decisions; I do not think I would be qualified to act on a runway
project in Hawaii or New York or at LaGuardia or JFK or Newark; I would
not know the situation. This is not an appropriate issue for the Senate
to be debating. As Senator Gramm said, we are not an aviation panel.
In addition to gutting the State permit process, the other thing this
language would do is it would gut the analytical framework that we in
Congress, in the Senate and the House, have mandated for approving
airport plans. We have no studies, no reports, no FAA modeling
available. We do not have any idea, other than news reports, of the
cost of tearing up the seven runways at O'Hare and repositioning them.
We have no FAA models of how much new capacity we would get. We do not
have any studies that suggest it would improve or cut down on delays.
We do not know what the future capacity would be. We do not know
whether it is a safe plan.
I have two charts. The first chart is a diagram of the existing
layout at O'Hare Airport where we have seven runways, six of which are
active. O'Hare is the world's busiest airport and, in fact, this year
we have had more operations and enplanements than Atlanta's Hartsfield
Airport. Mayor Daley's plan is to tear up those existing runways and to
reorient them so he would have six parallel runways, six of them
parallel east/west and two running from the northeast to the southwest,
for a total of eight runways.
We are not safety experts in this body. We do not know if that is a
good design. We do not know if that is a cost-effective design. I had
an air traffic controller in my office on Monday of this week saying he
was concerned there could be safety problems. The reason he said he
thought there could be safety problems is because FAA regulations
normally require a 4,300-foot separation between runways. In fact, I
have a brochure from the Federal Aviation Administration that suggests
proper separation between runways is an extremely important issue with
respect to the safety of an airport.
This is the brochure. This is called ``Improving Runway Safety
Through Airfield Configuration.'' It is a little pamphlet put out by
the Federal Aviation Administration. One of the points it makes for
building safe airports is that layouts should be avoided that result in
closely spaced parallel runways.
It says, provide adequate distance between parallel runways so a
landing aircraft can exit the runway, decelerate, and hold short of the
parallel runway without interfering with subsequent operations on
either runway.
The FAA says the standard separation requires 4,300 feet, but it is
my understanding this city of Chicago plan which has not been subjected
to any vetting by any engineering firms or engineering designers,
airport designers, airport layout experts, any Federal or State panel
that those two runways would be 1,300 feet apart.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I would like to speak for a while.
Mr. DURBIN. Very quickly, I would close and give the Senator as much
time as he wants to speak if the Senator and I can agree to a unanimous
consent request to limit the debate on this amendment. I want to give
him whatever time he wants, a few minutes to close, and let the Members
go to consideration of the bill. Will the Senator give me an
indication?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I would object to a unanimous consent agreement on
the time.
Mr. President, we are not in a position to approve a runway design
plan. This is probably the first time Congress has ever been asked to
codify a runway design plan. I am not sure whether it is safe to have
two sets of parallel runways only 1,300 feet apart. That seems pretty
close to me. Maybe it is a good design and maybe it works. The point
is, we don't have the expertise in this body, and we should not get the
framework that we in Congress have set up for approving and subjecting
such proposals to a rigorous analysis.
Another point I make at the outset is that as you read the language
that Senator Durbin would like to get in the conference committee
report, you see that the Federal Government takes a role in this whole
process of building the O'Hare redevelopment plan. The language in the
bill could arguably drain airport improvement funds from every
Senator's airport around the country and put it in at O'Hare, when some
members of the Illinois delegation, including myself, don't even favor
that plan.
I favor the construction of a third airport in the south suburbs.
That is something that the FAA and the city of Chicago and the States
of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana concluded was the right thing to do
back in 1986-1988 when they did the Chicago Airport Capacity Study.
That study concluded that it was not practicable to expand the capacity
of O'Hare Airport and that the appropriate solution for the future was
to build a third airport. It was suggested that the south suburbs of
Chicago would be a good place to start a third airport.
My message to my colleagues from around the country is, if you are
willing to risk airport improvement funds in your own States for your
airports, then you should support Senator Durbin. But if you want to
keep your share of airport improvement funds for your airports and not
send them for an expansion plan that I don't even support in Illinois,
then you should vote with me.
It should also be pointed out at this point that this is a project
that involves blockbuster amounts. In August, the State of Illinois
transportation director suggested that the cost of the total project
would be as much as $13 billion. And the reason it is so costly is
because you are tearing up existing runways that are very deep--one is
one of the longest in the country--and you are repositioning them. Of
course, the mayor of Chicago already has a $4 billion terminal
expansion plan that is on the table, and then included in this language
that Senator Durbin has is a western access road that could cost as
much as $3 billion, depending on where it goes.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator indicate who will pay for the western
access?
Mr. FITZGERALD. That is unclear. I think under certain circumstances
the western access would have to be paid for out of airport improvement
funds because in section 6 of your bill you provide for Federal
construction of the project.

Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator aware the western access would be paid for
by the city of Chicago?
Mr. FITZGERALD. No, and that is certainly not clear from the
language.

[[Page S12637]]

I cite section 1(f) of your language where you define the runway
design plan to include related facilities, which I take to include
related roadway improvements. So I don't know how many Senators want
airport improvement funds drained from their States to go for a road in
the Chicago area which would be part of this overall O'Hare expansion
plan. That road happens to be a good idea if they do it in the right
way. If they do it in the wrong way, it will take up 20 percent of the
business and an industrial park in the city of Elk Grove, the largest
industrial park in the country. Twenty percent of that would be taken
out.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I will yield for one more question.
Mr. DURBIN. I refer the Senator to specific language which says,
approval of western public road access shall be subject to conditioning
that the cost of construction be paid for from airport revenues.
It does not come from airport improvement by the Federal Government.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Where do you have that language?
Mr. DURBIN. Airport improvement funds come from Washington; airport
revenues----
Mr. FITZGERALD. But they would be revenues of O'Hare Airport.
Mr. DURBIN. From the ticket charges.
Mr. FITZGERALD. O'Hare revenues would include whatever revenues they
took in, from any source. You don't say that.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to my colleague, airport improvement funds are from
Washington, from the General Treasury; and the passenger facility
charge is generated by the airport itself. And it specifically says the
western access will be paid for from airport revenues, not from the
Federal Treasury.
I say to the Senator, we can disagree and do disagree, but I want him
to represent this as it is written.
Mr. FITZGERALD. To my colleague from Illinois I say I am sure if I
got an annual report of O'Hare and looked at the income statements,
they would include as airport revenues the funds they receive from
whatever source--from airport improvement funds, from PFCs, from
concessions, or any source that is part of total revenue. I differ on
how this language reads.
As I said earlier, there are safety issues raised by this project,
this proposal. We currently have 25 taxi runway crossings at O'Hare.
That brochure that I held up earlier that the FAA puts out on airport
safety, one point it makes is layouts of airports that require aircraft
and vehicles to cross runways need to be avoided. This goes on to say
that every crossing represents a potential runway incursion. Vehicle
crossings can be eliminated by constructing all-weather perimeter and
service roads. At busy airports with a large volume of vehicles
traveling from one side of the airport to the other, it may be cost
beneficial to construct vehicle roadway tunnels under the runways.
It goes on and emphasizes that the number of crossings, taxiway and
runway crossings affect safety. My understanding is the current layout
at O'Hare Airport has 25 taxiways and runway crossings, but this new
plan would have 43. It is a much more complicated design. Under the
standard set up by the FAA, in their own brochure, there could be an
increased threat of a runway incursion.
The point has been previously made by my colleagues from Arizona and
elsewhere that the language Senator Durbin is offering tonight bypasses
the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate. It is, in my
judgment, a circumvention of the process. The appropriations, the
Defense appropriations bill is not the appropriate vehicle to have a
transportation or an aviation measure. In the Senate, we have the
Commerce Committee that governs transportation and aviation. If there
is any expertise in the Senate staff and among the Senators who have a
lot of experience in aviation, it is in the Senate Commerce Committee,
and in the House it is the House Transportation Committee. The House
has, in fact, told our Commerce Committee staff that they will oppose
this language in conference because they believe this is not going
through the proper channels. There were no hearings in the appropriate
committee.

As I said, why aren't we doing this in the State legislature? If for
some reason they couldn't do it in the State legislature--say they
weren't meeting for the next year and they had to come to the Senate--
you would think the way to do this would be to bring a bill and go
through the appropriate channels, go through the authorizing committee,
and have hearings in the Senate Commerce Committee.
Of course, I was in Chicago with Senator Durbin and Senator McCain
earlier. We had an informational hearing on aviation in Chicago. At
that time, Mayor Daley had decided he was going to come out with a
plan. But the plan that was just agreed to that we are now being asked
to vote on is 48 hours old. It was a backroom deal between two people.
It didn't involve the State legislature. It is not available to the
public. No details are available to the public. We are being asked
right now to enact it into Federal law.
The other thing this language that the city of Chicago is offering
does is take the unprecedented step of saying if this new airport
violates the Clean Air Act, if we are going to violate the EPA laws,
then the EPA must revise their own regulations so that the plan can
fly. Isn't that nice? We are just going to give them in Federal law a
cart blanche to violate the permissible levels of toxic pollutants put
out, and we are going to do that in the Senate. Isn't that a good idea?
My understanding is there are airports around the country that have
had problems because they haven't been able to comply with the Clean
Air Act. But they have to make modifications so they comply with the
Clean Air Act.
I would like O'Hare Airport--whether the current airport or a
redesigned O'Hare--to comply with the Clean Air Act. I wouldn't want
the Clean Air Act modified or weakened or the burden put on some other
industry to make up for the added pollution given out by O'Hare
Airport.
Of course, one of the problems we have in airports such as O'Hare in
a congested urban and suburban surrounding is that you pose a risk of
toxic pollutants to hundreds of thousands of people.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I would prefer to continue and give the Senator
plenty of time to respond at the end of my speech.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, another issue I have been concerned
about and Congressman Jackson and Congressman Hyde have been concerned
about for a very long period of time is that we have two airlines that
have 87 percent of the aviation market at O'Hare. Those airlines are
United and American. I applaud the hard-working employees of those
airlines. I have a great deal of respect for them. They have been
through a very difficult fall.
But one of the issues I am concerned about is that there is not
adequate competition on long-haul flights to Chicago. We have some
competition coming out of Midway Airport, and very good competition
from great airlines, ATA and Southwest. It is difficult to do long-haul
flights because the runways are so short.
I thought it would be preferable to build a third airport because
that would provide new entrants in the Chicago aviation area and an
opportunity to compete with United and American.
A GAO study commissioned by Congress a couple of years ago said
monopoly overcharges at Chicago's O'Hare Airport--additional fees that
consumers of air travel in the Chicago area pay that result from
monopoly conditions at O'Hare--amount to $623 million a year. In fact,
Governor Ryan, when he was campaigning for Governor, put out a policy
paper that cited that GAO report in support of his then position
favoring the third airport.

While I think Senator Durbin's ultimate objective and certainly Mayor
Daley's objective would to be expand capacity at O'Hare, my question is
how construction would proceed. When they are tearing up and rebuilding
O'Hare, my worry would be we would, in fact, have less capacity than we
do right now due to construction.
Anybody in the Chicago area who drives the expressways from the
suburbs to the city or from the city to the suburbs knows what happens
when there is a construction project during

[[Page S12638]]

the summer on the expressways. It causes huge bottlenecks. People's
commutes to work are doubled.
My fear is that, while we are doing this massive tearing up and
rebuilding of O'Hare, the delays we have been enduring for the last few
years at O'Hare and around the country would, in fact, be exacerbated.
In addition, one of the things that the language Senator Durbin will
be offering in the conference committee, if he succeeds in getting this
language adopted tonight, in my judgment--and I think Senator Durbin
will probably dispute it, but I will let him speak for himself--this
language is a backdoor means of killing the third airport at the south
suburban site.
There is a section in the bill that mentions Peotone, but it really
is just lipservice. It says the FAA must consider Peotone. But I think
I will be able to demonstrate as we go on tonight that the specific
terms of the language, because they mandate a reconstruction project at
O'Hare, would have the effect of drying up the justification for going
forward with a third airport.
The State's premise for building the third airport has always been
that there was not going to be an expansion of O'Hare. The Chicago
Airport Capacity Study of 1986 to 1988, in fact, concluded that it
wasn't feasible--I agree with them--to expand the capacity at O'Hare,
which leads me to my discussion of the wisdom of expanding O'Hare as
opposed to going forward with a third airport in the south suburbs.
The bottom line, in my argument, is that we would get more capacity
more quickly at less cost by building a third airport in the south
suburbs than we would by going forward with Mayor Daley's expansion
plan at O'Hare. Of course, going forward with the third airport would
still leave money for everybody else's airports in the country. I don't
think Mayor Daley's plan would.
If I could point to a couple of the advantages, first with respect to
cost. There have been many estimates of the cost. I think we can count
on the O'Hare expansion being at least $13 billion. That was the figure
cited by Kirk Brown, director of the department of transportation of
the State of Illinois in August with respect to Mayor Daley's expansion
plan. That is because there is $6 billion in runway reconstruction that
is being proposed and talked about right now. There is $4 billion for
the World Gateway Terminal Program that is already underway. Then there
is $3 billion in related roadway improvements.
In contrast, the third airport would be on a greenfield site on
24,000 acres in a rural area and would only cost $5 billion to $6
billion, roughly the same amount at Denver International Airport. It is
laid out similarly on a lot of land with a lot of space. It is easier
to build in an open space than it is to go into a congested urban area.
It is easier than going into an existing airport such as O'Hare,
tearing up and moving the runways, and in some cases tearing them up
and moving them over 500 feet. You don't have that waste if you just go
ahead and build the third airport.
Capacity: Mayor Daley's plan would add 700,000 additional flight
operations at O'Hare. It is now at 900,000 operations. An additional
700,000 a year would bring it to 1.6 million operations in a year.
But, in fact, for a third of the cost, the capacity could be 1.6
million operations, much greater for the long-term future of our
country.
Construction of the third airport: By the terms of the legislation,
which Senator Durbin will provide to the conference committee, you can
see they aren't even anticipating getting to the final runway at O'Hare
until 2011. That project is going to go on for more than a decade. It
will go on and on and on, and people will probably, in my judgment, be
delayed during the construction.

In contrast, it is estimated that phase I of the third airport could
be up in 3 to 5 years after we got approval. And a request for approval
has already been started at the FAA. The State has already submitted
that plan. The city of Chicago has not submitted its plan yet to the
FAA.
Community: With respect to O'Hare, you have significant opposition
from communities surrounding O'Hare. The quality of life of hundreds of
thousands of people would be adversely affected by that proposal. Yet
in the south suburbs, you generally have significant community support,
although there is, of course, some local opposition from homeowners;
there is no question about that.
Going back to the competition point, the O'Hare expansion, in one of
the designs of this whole O'Hare expansion, is to goldplate United's
and American's position at O'Hare. At United and American, they do a
good job. I fly them back and forth every week between Washington and
Illinois. But they do enjoy a monopoly position. They have an 87-
percent market share at Chicago O'Hare Airport. The fact is, they have
been opposing O'Hare expansion for years, probably as much as 30 years.
O'Hare first reached capacity in 1969. That is when the FAA had to
cap the number of flights there because the demand for flights started
to exceed capacity. The former Mayor Daley tried to build a third
airport. He tried to build an airport at Lake Michigan, a third
airport. He recognized back in the early 1970s the need for a new
airport.
What this O'Hare expansion would do is, it would lock in American's
and United's dominance of the aviation market in Chicago. That is good
for the shareholders of United and American. But I would say that is
not good for consumers. We benefit by having more choices, by having
competition, by having new entrants come into the airport.
If we had a new airport, we would have new entrants coming into the
Chicago market almost certainly. We have had testimony before the
Senate Commerce Committee that new entrants have a hard time or cannot
get into O'Hare. In fact, a representative of JetBlue testified earlier
this year that they wanted to run flights to Chicago out of New York,
but they could not get into Midway or O'Hare.
We have to confront this issue because passenger travel has gone up
400 percent in this country since deregulation. But the major hub
carriers have blocked every single new airport in the last 20 years
with the exception of Denver. And in Denver's case, they insisted that
Stapleton Airport be shut down so they could not get a maverick carrier
like Southwest in there competing.
So you look around the country now. What Congress has allowed to
happen is we have monopolies by region in aviation. If you go to
Atlanta, Delta has a dominant position. If you go to Minneapolis-St.
Paul, you have Northwest, which has a dominant position. They have also
a dominant position in Memphis and Detroit. If you look at Dallas, in
Senator Gramm's State, you have a dominant position by American
Airlines.
In Chicago, United and American share their dominance. We are blessed
in Chicago because we have a duopoly as opposed to a monopoly; and that
is somewhat better. But the fact of the matter is, consumers around the
country are suffering because they do not have aviation choices in
their communities. And the airlines kind of like this situation. You do
not see Delta making much of an attempt to go into United's and
American's turf in Chicago, and you do not see much of an attempt by
United and American to go and intrude on Delta's dominant position at
Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport. They have kind of carved up the Nation's
aviation market like slices of apple pie.

I would like to focus and turn our attention now to a section-by-
section analysis of the language that Senator Durbin would like to
introduce into the conference committee on the Defense appropriations
bill.
If we start right at the beginning of section (1), it is entitled:
``Necessity Of O'Hare Runway Redesign And Development of South Suburban
Airport.''
Section (1) (a) reads:

The Congress hereby declares that redesign and
reconstruction of Chicago-O'Hare International Airport in
Cook and DuPage Counties, Illinois in accordance with the
runway redesign plan----

And that is later defined----

and the development of a south suburban airport in the
Chicago metropolitan region, are each required to improve the
efficiency of, and relieve congestion in, the national air
transportation system.

I submit that the very first paragraph of Senator Durbin's language

[[Page S12639]]

that he hopes to put into the conference committee report--that there
is no basis for this language. There is not a single report, no
finding, no study, no cost analysis, no cost-benefit analysis to
support the idea that we should both build a massive O'Hare and go
forward with the south suburban airport that I discussed.
As we discussed, the State's premise for the third airport is that
O'Hare would not and could not be expanded. There are studies--there
are reams of studies--going back many years that say we need a third
airport. Those studies are premised on the belief that there is no way
that O'Hare could be feasibly expanded. And so there is justification
for Peotone.
There is no study--nothing--that supports the notion that we need
both a massive new O'Hare and a Peotone.
Now 49 U.S.C., section 47115, subsection (c), says that as a
condition of any discretionary grants a cost-benefit analysis of the
project should be done.
We are mandating a project right now. And apparently we are not going
to do a cost-benefit analysis. Why is Congress, why is the Senate being
asked to gut our mechanism for applying an analytical review process to
improvements and changes at runways and airports around the country?
What are the costs and benefits here? We do not know. This is a
backroom deal that happened about 48 hours ago. In fact, it was less
than 48 hours ago that they reached that backroom deal. And we do not
have any of the details. We do not have any of the internal documents.
We do not have any of the background information that we need. And,
moreover, we are not the ones who should be passing on this backroom
deal.
If there is a runway plan that the city of Chicago has, they should
submit it through the appropriate channels. The other thing that the
FAA's cost-benefit analysis, that Congress has mandated, requires is
that it requires a consideration of alternatives. If an airport is
proposing an expansion plan, the FAA would make them go through a
rigorous analysis of what would be the alternative. What are the costs
and the benefits of an alternative?
Isn't that the sort of analytical approach we should take on these
things? Why are we mandating, codifying in Federal law, and
preordaining the outcome? No one is going to look at whether this plan
makes sense. We are just going to make it a Federal statute. And it
does not matter whether it makes sense.
No one has introduced details of costs. There are no benefits that
have been suggested and no alternatives. There is no such analysis
available for O'Hare. And they have not offered any new analysis on
Peotone.
So, in short, this language that Senator Durbin hopes to put in the
conference committee report guts the analytical framework mandated by
Congress and makes this the only mandated runway construction plan in
the country.
Mr. President, we talked earlier about how the costs would probably
be borne by the airport improvement fund to some extent around the
country. If you go to section 1(b), it says that ``The Federal Aviation
Administrator shall implement this Federal policy by facilitating
approval, funding, construction, and implementation of'' the runway
design plan. So the FAA, its hands are tied. It must facilitate, it
shall--the word is ``shall''--shall facilitate the approval, the
funding, construction, and implementation.
What if the FAA were to decide they didn't want to give this any
discretionary grants? I would think anybody who had bought a bond that
was issued in reliance on this language that the FAA would be compelled
to facilitate the funding might have a claim there. They would be in a
position, the city would be in a position to force the FAA to cough up
money, and it would be forced to cough up perhaps at the expense of
other airports around the country.
We have said this involves blockbuster amounts. This is not a $1
billion project, this is a $2 or a $3 billion project. This is $6
billion for the construction of runways, and then it is $2 to $3
billion for a ring road and even more costs if it goes through a lot of
businesses.
With respect to Peotone in that first paragraph, it says that there
is a necessity for O'Hare runway redesign and development of a south
suburban airport. But it doesn't say what kind of a south suburban
airport. Is this a one-runway south suburban airport or a six-runway
south suburban airport? There have been different proposals in that
regard. The State of Illinois has already submitted a proposal to the
FAA for a starter south suburban airport that would have one runway
initially but could be expanded to six. This language does not say.
With respect to airport financing, it is pretty well gone, certainly
on the Senate Commerce Committee. And I am sure, as most of the
Senators, that these projects are typically paid for with a combination
of general airport revenue bonds that the airlines agree to help retire
over time, and also another element is passenger facility charges, so-
called PFC fees. Of course, one major component is the one I was
discussing before that I would suggest would be depleted for other
airports around the country. That is the airport improvement funds.
Huge amounts of airport improvements funds would be sucked up for
O'Hare, for a controversial plan that the residents, the legislature,
the congressional delegation of Illinois are split on, and many don't
even want it.
Congress should not obligate itself to these huge expenditures in
Senator Durbin's language. It is clear to me that Congress, if it
enacted into law Senator Durbin's language, would be obligating itself
to huge expenditures. But we don't even know what those expenditures
would be because those haven't been introduced or shown to anybody. We
don't know what it would cost. But we would be obligating ourselves.
(Mr. CORZINE assumed the chair.)
Mr. FITZGERALD. I suppose it would not be the first time we have
picked up some unspecified liability, but I know the Presiding Officer
has been a fiscal watchdog for the taxpayers, and he and I worked
together to make sure that the taxpayers were not abused with respect
to the airline bailout bill. We were concerned about the amounts there,
and others in this Chamber were. I would suggest to the Presiding
Officer and all Members of this body that we should be very cautious in
obligating ourselves to unknown costs. We are assuming liabilities that
are not specified in this language.

The airport improvement funds have two components. Two-thirds of AIP
funding is based on a formula which is in turn based on the size of the
airport and the number of enplanements at the airport. If O'Hare is the
busiest airport in the Nation this year, that means that based on the
formula, it is probably getting the most airport improvement money of
any airport in the country.
If its size is doubled, then indeed its share of the airport
improvement funds, formula funds, would in fact be close to double.
That would come out of other airports around the country.
The other third of the airport improvement funds comes from
discretionary grants. I suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that
this language would obligate the FAA to take huge chunks of their
discretionary money and put it into this project at O'Hare that I don't
support, that Congressman Hyde does not support, that Jesse Jackson,
Jr., doesn't support, that the State Senate of Illinois does not
support. All that money would be obligated to come from all of your
projects.
So, again, why not just go forward and build the third airport? The
State committed the proposal for the third airport. We would get more
capacity by building Peotone alone, and we would have money left over
for airport improvements elsewhere in the country.
I would also be concerned for the airports I have in downstate
Illinois. Some of their AIP funds could be sucked up and given to
O'Hare. This project could in fact be done at the expense of some of
the downstate airports in Illinois. We would be doing this all at a
time when we have a complete absence of models, a complete absence of
FAA models, a complete absence of specifics, a complete absence of
studies, a complete absence of detailed financial cost disclosures, and
a complete absence of alternatives.
With respect to the costs, the costs are written. And in fact the
runway design plan that would be mandated here is written and defined
in such a way as to include undefined elements. In fact,

[[Page S12640]]

in section 1(f), it says that the term ``runway design plan'' means six
parallel runways at O'Hare oriented in the east-west direction with the
capability for four simultaneous, independent instrument aircraft
arrivals and all associated taxiways, navigational facilities--what
does that mean?--passenger handling facilities--is that terminals?--and
other related facilities, and on top, the FAA would be mandated to
facilitate this, presumably with funds, and the closure of existing
runways 14L-32R, 14R-32L, and 18-36.
I said earlier that the State was preempted and that really is the
crux of why we are here. You have a plan that cannot get approved by
the State legislature, and therefore we are being asked to substitute
ourselves for the State legislature of Illinois.
I am proud to have served in the Illinois State Senate. Many
distinguished people, including Abraham Lincoln, served in the Illinois
General Assembly. I would suggest to my colleagues that it is not
appropriate for us to be substituting ourselves for the Illinois
General Assembly. If the mayor needs their help in getting this plan
approved, he ought to go submit his plans to the Illinois General
Assembly. But instead, if you look at section 1(c) of Senator Durbin's
language, what the bill attempts to do is preempt State laws. I will
read the language here that is the crux of Senator Durbin's bill:

The State shall not enact or enforce any law respecting
aeronautics that interferes with or has the effect of
interfering with implementation of Federal policy with
respect to the runway redesign plan including, without
limitation, sections 38.01, 47 and 48 of the Illinois
Aeronautics Act.

This clearly preempts the Illinois Aeronautics Act. It preempts
specifically and gives specific mention to the sections of that act
that require a hearing process, a vetting process, a permitting
process. It wipes out the State's permitting process.
I believe this language is broad enough. It does not just say it
wipes out the Illinois Aeronautics Act, although it does mention it
specifically. It says any law respecting aeronautics that interferes
with or has the effect of interfering with the implementation of this
law. So that would wipe out, in my judgment, environmental laws if they
were a roadblock. If Mayor Daley could not comply with State
environmental laws, he would have a Federal mandate to blow those away.
He would not have to comply with the environmental laws of the State of
Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I would rather yield at the end, I say to my
colleague, my good friend from Illinois.
State securities laws could come into play if there are airport bonds
that are issued. If they had the effect of interfering with this, could
they be overridden?
There are other States that are in this position, in fact, that have
some State laws in this area. I have a chart. This chart was actually
prepared for a different bill, H.R. 2107. That was an attempt by
Congressman Lipinski in the House to preempt local and State laws
regarding airport approval processes.
I believe there are a total of 26 States that have some control to
give approval to local airport projects. Of course, Illinois is one of
them, and all these other States--in fact, Mr. President, some of your
neighboring States--Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Missouri, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, New
Mexico, Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi--
they all have some State laws in this regard to regulate airports. In
my judgment, it is a bad precedent for the Federal Government to begin
overriding those laws. Perhaps some of those people in those State
legislatures and some of the local permitting authorities know
something about their local projects and we in Washington should not be
substituting our judgment for their judgment.
I do not think it is a good idea we come in and blow out the laws of
the State of Illinois that have been enacted by people duly elected to
serve and represent their interests. We would be obliterating the say
of the people in the Illinois General Assembly by enacting this
measure.
Again, the mayor could have gone to the legislature to pass this
plan, but he did not want to or he could not, so he came to Congress to
wipe out the State's legislature law. At the heart of this legislation,
more than anything else, is really an attack on the Illinois General
Assembly, if you want my opinion.
If we turn to section 1(e) of the bill, this section indicates there
is a fear on the part of the proponents that the mayor's expansion
proposal will violate national air quality standards. Therefore, what
this language does in section 1(e) of the bill is it will force the
U.S. EPA to rewrite and weaken environmental regulations to keep them
at the same strength by having some other industry in Illinois pay for
it. Either that or it would just cause them to weaken their regulations
altogether.
Section 1(e) reads as follows:

If the Administrator determines that construction or
operation of the runway redesign plan would not conform,
within the meaning of section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, to
an applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental
Protection Agency shall forthwith cause or promulgate a
revision of such implementation plan sufficient for the
runway redesign plan to satisfy the requirements of
section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.

What does that mean? It means if Mayor Daley's runway redesign plan
violates the Clean Air Act, then the EPA must weaken the Clean Air Act
so the plan no longer violates the Clean Air Act, or they must, through
their crediting process, put the burden on some other industry. Not
many industries in Illinois are aware of that.
Right after that, we have section 1(g) that, again, refers to the
``south suburban airport.'' It says:

The term ``south suburban airport'' means a supplemental
air carrier airport in the vicinity of Peotone, Illinois.

Again, there is no definition. Is that a 6-runway or a 10-runway
airport? We do not know. There have been different proposals, so I do
not think this language is necessarily well done.
Section 2 of the bill is on phasing of construction. This bill
suggests that, in fact, the city would be forbidden from beginning
construction of the sixth runway until 2011. What that means is that
prior to 2011, there will not be six parallel runways at O'Hare.
We have seven runways at O'Hare today. Prior to 2011, there will only
be five parallel runways? Will we have less capacity at O'Hare until
the sixth runway is finally built in 2011? It raises interesting
questions. Western roadway access, again--and I had this colloquy with
my colleague from Illinois. He disputes this, but I believe the
language would require that the airport revenues be made available to
pay for western public roadway access and revenues of the airport.
As the Presiding Officer would know, having been the chairman of
Goldman Sachs, one of our country's leading investment banking firms,
the revenues of the airport would include all their revenues, whatever
source derived, whether passenger facility charges or airport
improvement funds. They could apparently use airport improvement funds
to help with the roadway project.

The Administrators shall not consider, and shall reject as
incomplete, an airport layout plan submitted by Chicago that
includes the runway redesign plan, unless it includes public
roadway access through the western boundary of O'Hare to
passenger terminal and parking facilities.

I do believe that roadway access would help with O'Hare. The problem
is right now we have to build another terminal out there on the western
side for it to be truly as valuable as it should be. There is a
question as to where this roadway would go. It would be a massive
roadway. Would it take out several villages, such as Elk Grove and
other villages, in the area?
In fact, Mr. President, we have some maps that show some of the
surrounding communities. We see the problems we get into when we start
a massive plan such as this in a congested urban and suburban area.
That western ring road would be on the western boundary of O'Hare. It
would go from I-90 presumably on the north down somewhere to Irving
Park Road on the south.
I will point out that Elk Grove Village is there. The largest
industrial park in the entire Nation is right about

[[Page S12641]]

here. If this road goes through, it would take out perhaps 20 percent
or more of the largest industrial park in the country. I do not favor
that.
If they wanted to do the western access on airport property, I think
I would favor that, but I would not favor this. Will we give Federal
impetus to something that nobody in this body was intending, perhaps
not even sponsored the language, and that is the destruction of a large
portion of Elk Grove Village, IL?
I know Elk Grove Village, IL, very well. I represented that area when
I was in the State senate. I represented the northwest suburbs. I know
the mayor of Elk Grove is very concerned about losing the tax base in
his village and hundreds of wonderful, strong businesses that use the
industrial park.
There is a large section on noise mitigation, and I will address that
section as well. There seems to be an attempt to address the noise
concerns that would be created by this expansion program, but I think
there is a trick. If we look at section (4)(b)(1), it says:

Approval by the administrator of an airport layout plan
that includes the runway redesign plan shall be subject to
the condition that noise impact of aircraft operations at
O'Hare in the calendar year immediately following the year in
which the first new runway is first used, and in each
calendar year thereafter, will be less than the noise impact
in calendar year 2000. The administrator shall make the
determination required by this section.

The trick is they are comparing today's fleet with a much quieter
fleet in the future. It is not an apples to apples comparison. The
apples to apples comparison would be to take the future fleet at the
current level of operations and to compare that future fleet at the
future level with the current level with the future fleet. So it gets
complicated. What they are doing is clever but misleading.
I say to my constituents who are worried about that issue, there is
not a lot to help them with their concern of the disruption in their
life caused by this massive expansion plan. Of course, this expansion
is in a very congested urban and suburban area with hundreds of
thousands of people living in and around there, most of whom--our
phones have been ringing off the hook--are opposed to this plan, but
the Senate is being asked to approve this plan tonight.
I apologize for that because I do not think this is an appropriate
bill, the Defense appropriations bill, and I regret that we have to be
debating this specific issue tonight.
Section 5 of the bill pays lipservice to the south suburban airport
issue. It says:

The administrator shall give priority consideration to a
letter of intent application submitted by the State of
Illinois or a political subdivision thereof for the
construction of the south suburban airport. This
consideration shall be given not later than 90 days after
final record of decision approving the airport layout plan
for the south suburban airport has been issued by the
administrator.

This has been billed and portrayed in Illinois as legislation that
would actually move the ball forward with respect to the third airport.
I suggest to my colleagues this language, in fact, kills the third
airport in the south suburbs. The reason I say that is any airport
funding for the south suburban airport would be, one, soaked up by the
massive expansion at O'Hare and, two, all this language requires is the
administrator give consideration to a letter of intent submitted by the
State of Illinois.

The FAA is already going to consider the letter of intent submitted
by the FAA. We do not need this language. They are already going to
consider it. Maybe it would speed it up a little bit, but that is about
all. There is no guarantee the third airport would be approved. In
fact, I believe the justification for the third airport would vanish in
light of the massive expansion of O'Hare. Again, the whole premise for
the third airport was it is not feasible to expand O'Hare.
Make no mistake about it, everyone in Illinois should know this
language is a Peotone killer. It is a backdoor way of ensuring the
third south suburban airport will never be built in the State of
Illinois.
There is no justification--no cost-benefit analysis would suggest the
FAA should approve that plan once the massive expansion of O'Hare has
been approved.
The next section, section 6, is a section I think should be of
special concern to every Member in this body from every State in this
country. This is the section that would require the Federal Government
to construct this massive plan at O'Hare, which I have said I do not
want, many Members of Congress in my State do not want, and the State
legislature will not approve. The Senate will be asked to pay for it as
a Federal project. That would be nice if the Chair would, for instance,
give me his airport funds from Newark Airport to pay for this project,
except I do not want this project.
I think every Member in this body should think long and hard whether
they want their airport improvement funds to be sucked up by a massive
O'Hare expansion plan, a $13 billion plan at least, in my judgment,
something that I do not even want in my State, that is very
controversial in my State.
What this language says is:

On July 1, 2004, or as soon thereafter as may be possible,
the administrator shall construct the runway redesign plan as
a Federal project, provided (1) the administrator finds,
after notice and opportunity for public comment, that a
continuous course of construction of the runway redesign plan
has not commenced and is not reasonably expected to commence
by December 1, 2004.

I am not sure whether those are the exact dates they are going to
want, but that is the language Senator Durbin shared with me, and I
appreciate that. He did not spring this language on me. He shared this
with me. I called him yesterday and I asked him to fax the language he
wanted to introduce in the conference committee. I compliment him for
not taking me by surprise and for disclosing his intentions as to the
conference report.
What that means is if there has not been a continuous course of
construction on the runway redesign plan, then the Federal Government,
the FAA, the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administrator, shall
take this project over and shall construct a runway redesign plan as a
Federal project. So all the taxpayers and all the other States would
pay for it.
I love it when the Senate gives money to my State. Our State has not
gotten its fair share of Federal funds over the years. I think we are
doing a lot better. Thanks to the leadership of the Speaker of the
House, who is from Illinois, we are doing better in that regard in
recent years. I enjoy it when my colleagues are generous with money for
my State, but this is a project I do not support. So I ask, please, do
not take money out of your airports and deprive them of revenue to put
into a project in my State that I do not support.
One of the interesting parts of this whole thing is if we go back to
section (1)(c) of Senator Durbin's language, the first thing this bill
really does is it preempts the Illinois Aeronautics Act.
The interesting thing about the bill, it goes on to say the city of
Chicago shall not build the runway redesign plan, and if for some
reason they did not, the Federal Government will step into its place
and do it. But it can delegate those responsibilities, then, back to
the city of Chicago.
Interestingly, under our State law, municipalities such as city of
Chicago don't have any authority except from State law to operate its
airports. That is where the city of Chicago gets its authority to
operate O'Hare. They have it from the Illinois Aeronautics Act. But
this Federal bill would obliterate the Illinois Aeronautics Act. How
would Illinois or Chicago have the authority to even have the airport?
Would O'Hare airport or the city of Chicago become a Federal
reservation? It is not clear. Very unusual language, in my judgment.
I am sure the proponents, especially United and American, have a lot
of employees, a lot of contractors and subcontractors, a lot of people
who do work for them.
They have influential directorships, they are very active and
involved in the community in Chicago. This is a bonanza for them
because it blocks a third airport for generations to come and they
would be assured, in my judgment, of not having any effective
competition in the Chicago market from any other long-haul carriers for
as long as the eye can see, as far as we can see into the future. In my
judgment, this is not in the interests of the general public.

[[Page S12642]]

Once the legislature's granted authority is obliterated by this
Federal legislation, then interestingly the city has no authority to
build. The city would lose its legal authority to contract for an
airport, so this is very curious language. That would point out that is
exactly why we shouldn't be acting in the Senate as though we were the
Illinois State Legislature. You get these problems, unintended
consequences, when you start rewriting the Illinois Aeronautics Act or
preempting it at the Federal level. You get all sorts of unintended
consequences. It is not a good idea, in my judgment, to come in and
rewrite a State act, especially on a Defense appropriations bill at
8:30 in the evening on Friday night when we should be debating defense
amendments.
We have our troops on the ground in Afghanistan. This, clearly, isn't
the appropriate forum to debate the propriety of the Illinois
Aeronautics Act. Let the State legislature take up the Illinois
Aeronautics Act when they get back into session next January.
Then if you go on--and the language is many pages long--if you go to
the end, they do have the provision I support and that is keeping Meigs
Field open in Chicago. I don't know if the President has ever flown in
or out of Meigs Field, but it is a beautiful airport on the Chicago
lakefront. The business community loves that airport. People are able
to fly right into the heart of downtown Chicago. They are right in the
city and can easily get to a meeting. It is a great general aviation
airport. There is a provision that would do something to assist keeping
Meigs Field open. I support that. It was regrettable the city of
Chicago wanted to close Meigs Field.
I always thought that was a mistake. Meigs Field has handled as many
as 50,000 flight operations a year. If it shuts down, you will put
those flights into Midway and O'Hare--a large number of them, anyway--
which will add to congestion at Midway and O'Hare.
I have always felt closing Meigs Field was inconsistent with
alleviating air traffic congestion in the Chicago area. I was
disappointed the city wanted to close it.

This backroom deal we are being asked to codify, which is under 48
hours old, and no specifics or financing or details or studies have
been released to the general public back in Illinois, has been
portrayed in the press as keeping Meigs Field open until January 1 of
the year 2026. It appears to give it another 25 years. But they have a
provision in here that would allow the Illinois General Assembly to
close Meigs Field in 6 years.
Now, is this not odd? On the one hand, they take away, obliterate the
State statute passed by the Illinois General Assembly, passed by all
the State representatives and State senators in Illinois and enacted
into law by the Governor, we are asked to obliterate one act, but on
the other hand, we are writing a law that the State legislature in
Illinois would have to comply with, and that is they can't shut Meigs
Field down prior to January 1, 2006. But after January 1, 2006, Meigs
Field could be shut down by the Illinois Legislature. In fact, it says
in section (7)(4)(b):

The administrator shall not enforce the conditions
specified in subsection (a) if the State of Illinois enacts a
law on or after January 1, 2006, authorizing the closure of
Meigs Field.

So we are at the Federal level granting the State of Illinois the
authority in Federal statute to close Meigs Field. However, we are
taking away the Illinois General Assembly's authority to have anything
to do with O'Hare. It is wildly inconsistent. There is no principle
behind what they are doing. That is what you get with a backroom deal
that is the product of people saying: I will scratch your back if you
scratch mine.
We are being asked to put a secret backroom deal into Federal law.
Now, I get to the final section on judicial review. That is section
8. It says that what this is designed to do, as I read it--and I have
to say I have not yet looked up title 49, United States Code, subtitle
VII, part A, but I have a feeling what this is meant to do is basically
to cut off the right of trial and to deprive anyone who would question
this backroom deal; they would never get their day in court. So this
section 8 curtails the judicial review and says you never get your day
in court. If you want to challenge this deal, that is tough luck. What
happens is you won't get a right of trial in the district court. You
will have to go right to a court of appeals and the FAA will control
all the facts below and you will get 20 minutes in a court of appeals
and that is it.
This is a way of cutting off anybody who may object to this, cutting
off their right to use their legal rights they might have. Those rights
would be curtailed.
Going back to the safety issue, I have great concerns. I am concerned
that two sets of parallel runways in the proposal of the new design at
O'Hare would be too close together. My understanding is--and we only
have what we know from news accounts because no details are released--
there has not ever been a formal plan submitted to the FAA or to the
State, so we don't have all the details. We have maps that have
appeared in newspapers and the like. It is everybody's best guess as to
what is in the backroom deal we are being asked to codify into Federal
law tonight. But it looks, from what I understand of the information
available to me, that these two sets of parallel runways on which they
would like to have simultaneous takeoffs and landings would be only
1,300 feet apart. The FAA regulations require ordinarily, without a
waiver, a 4,300 foot separation between runways.
Now, the problem with that is if a plane is landing in one direction
and another taking off in another direction and a plane turns here, it
could hit a plane coming into another runway. We are not cutting down
the margin of error.
I can understand why they can't make a 4,300 foot separation between
runways on this airport land in Chicago. They don't have enough room.
O'Hare's footprint is only about 7,000 acres. They would try to take
500 homes in the city of Bensenville and displace those people and
bulldoze their homes. They would be moving some roadways. Mr.
President, you and other Senators might be paying for that out of your
airport improvement funds under this language.
But the problem is they are trying to jam too much in here. There are
only 7,000 acres. A newer airport--the third, south suburban airport in
a location known as Peotone in Will County south of Cook County where
Chicago is located--would be on 24,000 acres. There would be plenty of
room to have parallel runways. They would be appropriately spaced.
We also talked about in addition to the runways being too close
together, several of these--I don't know how far the distance is
between 927-L, the arriving runway, and the south 927 runway. I don't
know what that would be. I haven't even seen press accounts of what
that would be. Again, there is no formal plan. All of these seem
awfully close together.
In my judgment, we could be working against ourselves by going
forward with a plan such as that. God forbid. If there ever were a
problem that resulted by packing too many runways in too close, we
would have made a horrible mistake.
Some Members of this body may believe they are capable of passing on
the safety of a runway design plan. But I certainly can tell you that I
don't have that expertise, and I suspect none of us really has the kind
of engineering background and experience that would require. Maybe
somebody here has that expertise, but I don't think so. That is why I
don't think it is appropriate for us to enact into law a runway design
plan. Never before has Congress, to my knowledge, enacted into Federal
law a runway design plan. We allow this to go through a vetting
process. We allow people to study and vet and test, and we get input
from air traffic controllers, from pilots, from experts, and from
engineers. They are the ones who need to come and give us their views
on the propriety of such a layout.
You shouldn't be called upon, Mr. President, as the Senator from New
Jersey, at a quarter to 9 on a Friday night, to decide whether this is
a good runway design plan. Maybe it is, but maybe it isn't. Do you
believe we can guarantee to the people of this country that in fact
this is a safe design plan? I had an air traffic controller in my
office this week who told me he had grave concerns that he thought this
was an unsafe plan.

[[Page S12643]]

In fact, I have a letter, which I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record, dated November 30, 2001, from the facility
representative of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

National Air Traffic Controllers Association,

Chicago O'Hare Tower,

Chicago, Illinois, November 30, 2001.
Hon. Peter Fitzgerald,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Senator Fitzgerald, as requested from your staff, I have
summarized the most obvious concerns that air traffic
controllers at O'Hare have with the new runway plans being
considered by Mayor Daley and Governor Ryan. They are listed
below along with some other comments.
1. The Daley and Ryan plans both have a set of east/west
parallel runways directly north of the terminal and in close
proximity to one another. Because of their proximity to each
other (1200') they cannot be used simultaneously for
arrivals. They can only be used simultaneously if one is used
for departures and the other is used for arrivals, but only
during VFR (visual flight rules), or good weather conditions.
During IFR (instrument flight rules, ceiling below 1000' and
visibility less than 3 miles) these runways cannot be used
simultaneously at all. They basically must be operated as one
runway for safety reasons. The same is true for the set of
parallels directly south of the terminal; they too are only
1200' apart.
2. Both sets of parallel runways closest to the terminals
(the ones referred to above) are all a minimum of 10,000'
long. This creates a runway incursion problem, which is a
very serious safety issue. Because of their length and
position, all aircraft that land or depart O'Hare would be
required to taxi across either one, or in some cases two
runways to get to and from the terminal. This design flaw
exists in both the Daley and the Ryan plan. A runway
incursion is when an aircraft accidentally crosses a runway
when another aircraft is landing or departing. They are
caused by either a mistake or misunderstanding by the pilot
or controller. Runway incursions have skyrocketed over the
past few years and are on the NTSB's most wanted list of
safety issues that need to be addressed. Parallel runway
layouts create the potential for runway incursions; in fact
the FAA publishes a pamphlet for airport designers and
planners that urge them to avoid parallel runway layouts that
force taxiing aircraft to cross active runways. Los Angeles
International Airport has led the nation in runway incursions
for several years. A large part of their incursion problem is
the parallel runway layout; aircraft must taxi across runways
to get to and from the terminals.
3. The major difference in Governor Ryan's counter proposal
is the elimination of the southern most runway. If this
runway were eliminated the capacity of the new airport would
be less than we have now during certain conditions (estimated
at about 40 percent of the time). If you look at Mayor
Daley's plan, it calls for six parallel east-west runways and
two parallel northeast-southwest runways. The northeast-
southwest parallels are left over from the current O'Hare
layout. These two runways simply won't be usable in day-to-
day operations because of the location of them (they are
wedged in between, or pointed at the other parallels). We
would not use these runways except when the wind was very
strong (35 knots or above) which we estimate would be less
than 1 percent of the time. That leaves the six east/west
parallels for use in normal day-to-day operations. This is
the same number of runways available and used at O'Hare
today. If you remove the southern runway (Governor Ryan's
counter proposal), you are leaving us five runways which is
one less than we have now. That means less capacity than
today's O'Hare during certain weather conditions. With good
weather, you may get about the same capacity we have now. If
this is the case, then why build it?
4. The Daley-Ryan plans call for the removal of the NW/SE
parallels (Runways 32L and 32R). This is a concern because
during the winter it is common to have strong winds out of
the northwest with snow, cold temperatures and icy
conditions. During these times, it is critical to have
runways that point as close as possible into the wind.
Headwinds mean slower landing speeds for aircraft, and they
allow for the airplane to decelerate quicker after landing
which is important when landing on an icy runway. Landing
into headwinds makes it much easier for the pilot to control
the aircraft as well. Without these runways, pilots would
have to land on icy conditions during strong cross-wind
conditions. This is a possible safety issue.
These are the four major concerns we have with the Daley-
Ryan runway plans. There are many more minor issues that must
be addressed. Amongst them are taxiway layouts, clear zones
(areas off the ends of each runway required to be clear of
obstructions, ILS critical areas (similar to clear zones, but
for navigation purposes), airspace issues (how arrivals and
departures will be funneled into these runways) and all sorts
of other procedural type issues. These kinds of things all
have to go through various parts of the FAA (flight
standards, airport certification etc.) eventually. These
groups should have been involved with the planning portion
from day one. Air traffic controllers at the tower are well
versed on what works well with the current airport and what
does not. We can provide the best advice on what needs to be
accomplished to increase capacity while maintaining safety.
It is truly amazing that these groups were not consulted in
the planning of a new O'Hare. The current Daley--Ryan runway
plans, if built as publicized, will do little for capacity
and/or will create serious safety issues. This simply cannot
happen. The fear is that the airport will be built, without
our input, and then handed to us with expectations that we
find a way to make it work. When it doesn't, the federal
government (the FAA and the controllers) will be blamed for
safety and delay problems.
Sincerely.
Craig Burzych,
Facility Representative, NATCA--O'Hare Tower.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, this letter raises several concerns. I
have to say that Mr. Burzych and the local chapter of air traffic
controllers support expanding O'Hare. They have made that very clear. I
certainly know they want an expanded, modernized O'Hare. There may be
some need to modernize O'Hare. I am not disputing that. I am just
saying we shouldn't be enacting a runway design plan into law.
In his letter, Mr. Burzych told me he had some concerns about what he
knew of Chicago's O'Hare expansion plan. He said:

The Daley and Ryan plans both have a set of east/west
parallel runways directly north of the terminal and in close
proximity to one another.

That is the set of east/west runways in close proximity to one
another that are just north of the terminal.

Because of their proximity to each other (1200')--

According to Mr. Burzych; I thought it was 1,300 feet--

they cannot be used simultaneously for arrivals.

The idea that we would have parallel runways--I know the intent of
the mayor of Chicago is to expand the capacity at O'Hare, but this
raises the question. The idea of the city was they could have
simultaneous takeoff and landing and they would get more capacity out
of these six active runways than they get out of their current
configuration, which has six active runways as well, but they converge.
There are three sets of parallel runways running east-west, northwest-
southeast, and northeast-southwest. There are six active and one unused
runway now at O'Hare.
The idea has been that by tearing up and rebuilding these runways at
O'Hare, we get with this configuration about the same number of
runways--actually eight, one runway more than we have now--but there
would be greater capacity.
It appears to me that the whole premise of this expansion program is
in question because as this air traffic controller, certainly an expert
in the field, said, because of their proximity to each other, they
cannot be used simultaneously for arrivals. They can only be used
simultaneously as one is used for departures and the other is used for
arrivals, but only during VFR, visual flight rules, or good weather
conditions. During IFR, instrument flight rules--ceilings below 1,000
feet and visibility less than 3 miles--these runways cannot be used
simultaneously; they basically must be operated as one parallel runway
for safety reasons. The same is true for the set of parallels directly
south of the terminal. They, too, are only 1,200 feet apart.
This shows why enacting into law a $13 billion plan at 9 o'clock on a
Friday night as part of the Defense appropriations bill, which has
nothing to do with the subject of aviation--enacting this plan into
Federal law with the intention of increasing capacity at O'Hare, that
whole premise may be wrong. Maybe it is not wrong, but we don't know.
There is no study. There is no basis in the record. There is no record
whatsoever, no FAA model, and not a shred of any evidence that this
backroom deal will in fact accomplish what they are hoping to
accomplish.
Then, if you go on to point No. 2 of this letter, both sets of
parallel runways closest to the terminals--the ones referred to above--
are all a minimum of 10,000 feet long. This creates a runway incursion
problem, which is a very serious safety issue. Because of their length
and position, all aircraft that land or depart O'Hare would be required
to taxi across either one or, in

[[Page S12644]]

some cases, two runways to get to and from a terminal. Design flaw
exists in both the Daley and the Ryan plan. A runway incursion is when
an aircraft accidentally crosses the runway when another aircraft is
landing or departing. They are caused by either a mistake or
misunderstanding by the pilot or controller. Runway incursions have
skyrocketed over the past few years and are on the National
Transportation Safety Board's most-wanted list of safety issues that
need to be addressed.

Parallel runway layouts create the potential for runway
incursions; in fact the FAA publishes a pamphlet for airport
designers. . . .

That is the pamphlet I referred to earlier. The pamphlet is entitled:
``Improving Runway Safety Through Airfield Configuration.'' It mentions
the problems that you can have with closely spaced parallel runways,
which I suggest these are. There are serious safety issues here.

Los Angeles International Airport has led the nation in
runway incursions for several years. A large part of their
incursion problem is the parallel runway layout; aircraft
must taxi across runways to get to and from the terminals.

That is the problem. If a plane is landing or taking off here, it has
to first come out of the gate over here. And to get from the gate over
here, down to this runway to take off, it has to go through at least
two other runways, perhaps three. Each time it goes through one of
those other runways, there is the potential for an incursion.
I noted earlier that the current O'Hare Airport has, I think,
according to the State of Illinois, 25 so-called taxiway runway
crossings. This new plan would greatly increase that number, making it
much harder for air traffic controllers. I believe, on the basis of the
information available to me, that would go from 25 taxiway runway
crossings that they have currently at O'Hare up to 43 under the Daley
plan. We would be nearly doubling the potential for runway incursions
just on the basis of how many new crossings we would have.
I want to be clear, Mr. Burzych and air traffic controllers at O'Hare
do favor expanding at O'Hare. Maybe they are right and I am wrong. But
I do believe they were not consulted in this backroom deal. This
backroom deal that we are being asked to codify in Federal law involved
two people, and that was it. They did not have air traffic controllers
and pilots involved in that deal. We do not even know the details of
that deal that we are being asked to codify in Federal law. But there
were other issues that he raised in his letter to me dated November 30:

The major difference in Governor Ryan's counter proposal is
the elimination of the southern most runway.

The Governor had originally proposed eliminating that runway because
it involves the condemnation of 500 homes and businesses in the city of
Bensenville. He later gave in to the mayor and granted him that sixth
runway. The letter reads:

If this runway were eliminated, the capacity of the new
airport would be less than we now have during certain
conditions (estimated at about 40 percent of the time).

So what he is saying is that this plan, until that runway is in
place, under certain conditions, would have less capacity about 40
percent of the time at O'Hare. We would spend $13 billion for less
capacity at O'Hare--at least until 2011--at least 40 percent of the
time.
That is another reason this is not good government, to try to stick
placeholder language in the Defense appropriations bill while our
country is at war in Afghanistan and we need the Defense appropriations
bill. That is why we should not be acting as an aviation commission for
the State of Illinois.
The letter goes on:

If you look at Mayor Daley's plan, it calls for six
parallel east-west runways and two parallel northeast-
southwest runways. The northeast-southwest parallels are left
over from the current O'Hare layout.
Let me read that again.

If you look at Mayor Daley's plan, it calls for six
parallel east-west runways and two parallel northeast-
southwest runways.

So we have six parallel east-west runways; these are the northeast-
southwest parallels, these two runways.

The northeast-southwest parallels are left over from the
current O'Hare layout.

This, again, is the current O'Hare layout. These two runways would be
preserved in this new plan of the city of Chicago.

These two runways simply won't be usable in day-to-day
operations because of the location of them (they are wedged
in between, or pointed at the other parallels). We would not
use these runways except when the wind was very strong (35
knots or above) which we estimate would be less than 1
percent of the time.

So they leave these runways. Fortunately, I guess, there is not much
expense in leaving these runways. All these other runways would be torn
up from the existing O'Hare Airport. Other runways would be torn up and
moved. In some cases you would be paying nearly $1 billion to dig up a
runway and move it a few hundred feet north or south.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. How long has the Senator from Illinois been involved in
this particular issue?
Mr. FITZGERALD. At least dating back to 1992.
Mr. McCAIN. In 1992. Was that when the Senator was a member of the
State legislature?
Mr. FITZGERALD. When I first got elected as an Illinois State
senator.
Mr. McCAIN. May I ask, just since the Senator is well versed on this
issue, was there a debate on this during the course of his campaign for
the Senate?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Absolutely. This was an issue when I was in the State
senate in every election. Right prior to my going into the State
senate, the city of Chicago at that time did not propose expanding
O'Hare. They proposed a third airport in the south part of Chicago in
the Lake Calumet area. Mayor Daley supported building a third airport
at that time, but the Illinois General Assembly did not approve that
plan because they favored the site in Peotone.
Since that time, because this third airport would not be within his
political jurisdiction, Mayor Daley has fought the south suburban
airport and worked toward just expanding O'Hare. That way, in my
judgment, it would keep all aviation within the city limits of the city
of Chicago.
Mr. McCAIN. Well, is it true that there was a list of proposed
airports and airport expansion that had been formulated by the
Department of Transportation, and then this proposed Peotone Airport
disappeared from that list? Is that correct? Can you illuminate us on
what happened there?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. What happened there was that Governor Edgar, who
was Governor in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was moving forward with
this south suburban airport. When President Clinton took office, at the
request of the mayor, the FAA removed the south suburban airport from
the so-called NPIAS list, the National Plan for Integrated Airport
Systems, for airport improvements. Otherwise, we might have that
airport now.
The Chicago airport capacity study of 1986 to 1988 had said we needed
the south suburban airport by the year 2000. The city of Chicago
blocked that by calling President Clinton and asking him to remove the
Peotone project because it was not within the political jurisdiction of
the city of Chicago from that planning list.
Aviation capacity around the country and in Chicago would be far
greater today if we had that airport up and running. We would not be
having this discussion. So this has, indeed, been going on a very long
time. I believe, as Governor Edgar did believe, and as did Governor
Thompson before him, that we ought to go forward and build that south
suburban airport. It is a major issue for Congressman Jackson.
It is interesting, as a Senator for our whole State, I do not think
it is in our interest to concentrate all our economic development
within one 7,000-acre spot at O'Hare. I have 2.5 million people who
live in the south suburbs of Illinois who have to drive 3, 3\1/2\ hours
to get up to O'Hare to wait in line because it is too congested.
I would like to, in addition to bringing more aviation capacity, have
some economic development in other parts of the State of Illinois
besides 7,000 acres at O'Hare. I understand the city would like to
retain jurisdiction over

[[Page S12645]]

all economic activity in the State of Illinois, but I don't think it is
in the interest of my State. I have been working very hard with
Congressman Jackson to, in fact, bring some economic development to
areas outside there.
Incidentally, in the northwest suburbs where this is located, they
have what they would term too much development. There is so much
traffic and congestion that it is difficult to get into O'Hare. If you
were to double the number of people going into O'Hare Airport, in my
judgment--right now it takes so long to get into O'Hare Airport because
these traffic arteries, the northwest tollway, I-90, the Kennedy
Expressway, are jammed at all hours of the day practically every day of
the week with people going into O'Hare--if we expand O'Hare Airport,
already the busiest airport in the country for a long time, by far the
busiest airport in the world, we are going to make it almost twice as
big.
I don't know where the State of Illinois will get the money to double
the size of the roadways going in there because you can't get in there
now. There is no possible way that it will be feasible to funnel all
the people who would be going into O'Hare under this plan put forward
by the city of Chicago.
Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a couple more questions,
perhaps you can explain the importance of this NPIAS list. Many of our
colleagues who are not on the committee would like to know the
significance of that list and whether you have ever heard of an airport
project being taken off a list of that importance. And my additional
question is, since it seems that one of the arguments against the
Durbin amendment that the Senator from Illinois has is that this is
being done in a fairly precipitous fashion, has the Illinois State
legislature had any input into this? Have they made an agreement? Is
there opposition? Is there support?
Also, what is the situation with our friends on the other side of the
Capitol in the other body? I think all of our colleagues should know,
as the Senator from Texas earlier described--and you did--that this is
really the so-called placeholder that will allow in conference,
basically, a mandate to start funding a multibillion-dollar project.
Although it is wonderful that the mayor and the Governor have been in
agreement--and I think that is a remarkable step forward; all of us
applaud it--aren't there other significant players here, not only in
the State legislature but our colleagues from the other side of the
Capitol as well?
My other question is, why would there be a reason for such haste to
put something such as this on a Defense appropriations bill?
Mr. FITZGERALD. The Senator brings up many good points. One, you
don't have the benefit of the language that they are going to try and
put into a conference committee report. I do have a copy. And I have to
say, Senator Durbin was very straightforward in sharing it with me. But
for all the other Members of this body, it is phantom language, so-
called placeholder language that would be used later to create an
opening in parliamentary rules to slip in the real deal, the real
backroom deal between George Ryan and Mayor Daley.
The point you made is, that deal has not been shared with you. You
have gotten no specifics from Mayor Daley or Governor Ryan.

Interestingly, it is not the Governor who actually has the authority
by himself to just decree that a runway plan be done in Illinois under
State law. There is, in fact, a permitting process. There are hearings,
and these plans are subjected to an adversary proceeding. There is
opportunity for controllers and pilots and other interested parties to
come and testify. There is a whole permitting process.
We are being asked, in codifying the backroom deal made by two
people, just 48 hours ago, to preempt the Illinois Aeronautics Act. We
are being asked to do what the Illinois State Senate should be doing.
They can take a look at the Illinois Aeronautics Act. I had 6 years in
the State Senate. I didn't think when I got to Washington I would be
put in the position of debating the sorts of issues they debate in the
Illinois State Senate.
The NPIAS list is the national plan for integrated airport
improvements around the country. Many airports, most of your small
local airports, are on the NPIAS list, and that makes them eligible for
grants from the airport improvement fund, the AIP fund. It was a very
momentous step when the FAA put the south suburban airport on the NPIAS
list about 10 years ago. That plan was moving forward. The State of
Illinois Department of Transportation, with the strong backing of local
officials and the State, was going forward with the south suburban
airport.
The State legislature had rejected plans for an airport in a
different location that Mayor Daley had favored. So Peotone was on the
NPIAS list. It was eligible for Federal funding, and after it had gone
through the planning process, I believe that it would have gotten
Federal funding.
But when President Clinton took office, that created an opportunity.
The mayor of Chicago obviously was good friends with the President, and
they were able to prevail upon the FAA at that time to simply remove
Peotone from the NPIAS list and take it off. I think it was probably
the only airport, of the 3,000 airports around the country, that has
ever been taken off. At that time the FAA said: Well, there wasn't
local consensus. So they did not know whether they wanted to go
forward. There was local consensus among some, but Mayor Daley, the
mayor of the city of Chicago, opposed it.
I have to tell you, there is no local consensus on this plan, this
backroom deal, this $13 billion deal that will take money from your
States and put it into a plan in my State that I oppose. I oppose it.
The State legislature has never supported this deal.
The reason they are coming to you is because they can't get the
approval of the State legislature. They didn't even try. You are being
asked at 9 o'clock at night, while our country is at war in
Afghanistan, on a Defense appropriations bill, to debate this
transportation issue. Clearly, I do not think this is the appropriate
forum.
I don't think it should be before the Federal Government at all. I
think if the mayor wants that plan at O'Hare, he ought to submit a plan
to the FAA. He has never even done that.
I applaud many of the things the mayor of the city of Chicago has
done. It is a wonderful city. O'Hare is a wonderful airport. It is a
great airport.
I want to make it clear, it will have to be modernized sometime.
There is a problem that bigger jets can't taxi around at O'Hare. The
Boeing 747-400, for example, is so wide that other planes have to get
off taxiways when it is taxying around. I think we need to modernize
O'Hare. I will be supportive of that. I think a $13 billion project to
tear up and rebuild O'Hare is wasteful, however, of the funds that
would be applied.

The bottom line is, there may be good arguments, and there are good
arguments on both sides of this issue. But they should be presented to
the FAA and the State's panel on aviation. The interesting thing is--
the Senator from Arizona would be interested in this--we are preempting
here the Illinois Aeronautics Act which, in fact, is the act that
grants the city of Chicago the right to run an airport. The city of
Chicago doesn't have a right, except one deriving from the State
government, the Illinois Aeronautics Act, to even operate an airport.
We would be asked to obliterate----
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Senator, I wish to go on. I will yield at the end of
the evening.
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Illinois has the floor. I ask for the
regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, from the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I would ask the Senator if it is not true that there is
no legislative approval. The legislature has not been consulted. You
were not consulted on this, as I understand it. I am asking if that is
true. The congressional delegation was not consulted and the local
people have not been consulted. Is it true that only in the last 48
hours this agreement was made, and in only 48 hours we are expected,
without a hearing, without any consultation or advice or information
provided to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and

[[Page S12646]]

Transportation, we are taking on this appropriations bill an issue that
entails billions of dollars of Illinois taxpayers' money and billions
of dollars of national taxpayers' money? Is it true we are going to try
to push this through in order that it can be done on a Defense
appropriations bill, I ask my colleague?

Mr. FITZGERALD. The Senator from Arizona is exactly right. We have
never been shown any details of this plan. No Member of this body has
been shown details of this plan. Senator Durbin may have some details
of which I am not aware. I have not been shown any details. It is a
backroom agreement that was reached at about 9 or 10 o'clock in the
evening two nights ago, Wednesday night.
Maybe the rush to pass this is because they do not want anybody to
know the deals and know the details. Perhaps there is a problem with
the details. I think we ought to be very reluctant to codify into
Federal law a plan obligating the Federal Government to unspecified
expenditures of money in the future without knowing the details when
there are questions of safety and when we do not have the expertise in
this body to do this. None of us has a background in airport
engineering.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Illinois to yield to
the Senator from Nevada for a question without his losing the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I ask my friend from Illinois, we have been talking now for
quite a few hours--I should say you have been talking. I am wondering
if my friend can advise me and the rest of the Senate if he is going to
take some more time tonight.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator allow me to ask another question through
the Chair? I walked by his desk a few times and saw he has a lot of
speaking material. It appears the Senator is going to be speaking for
an extended period of time; is that a fair statement?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, I have many more charts.
(Laughter.)
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Illinois, it is 10 after 9, and as
the Senator knows, we are trying to complete this most important
Defense bill. The fact is, the Senator from Illinois has several more
hours of speaking; is that right, if that is necessary?
Mr. FITZGERALD. If necessary.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I was just trying to
gauge whether or not the Senator was getting tired yet.
(Laughter.)
Mr. FITZGERALD. I am doing OK. Thank you.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield without
losing his right to the floor?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, I yield for a question.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield to this
Senator to call up the package that Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye,
and I have been working on, and present it to the Senate and perhaps
have a vote up or down, with the understanding that upon the conclusion
of that action, the Senator from Illinois would regain the floor?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Senator. I have the greatest respect for
the Senator from West Virginia. I respect him as much as any of my
colleagues, but I must respectfully decline that request. I have to
say, as the Senator from West Virginia will recall, when I first came
to the Senate, I read his book on the history of the Roman Republic. On
my first opportunity to be back in the Illinois State senate and appear
before them, I gave as a gift to every State Senator in Illinois a copy
of your book.
Mr. BYRD. You did?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I gave them the Senator's admonition that the Senate
should never yield too much power to the executive, and that was the
decline of the ancient Roman Republic.
Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will keep that rule in mind. Let's not
give too much power to the executive. If we could present our
amendment, let Senators vote on the amendment----
Mr. FITZGERALD. I am afraid----
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without losing his right to the floor.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I yield for a question only.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Illinois, without losing his right to
the floor, yield to his colleague from Illinois for 10 minutes?
Mr. FITZGERALD. No, I am not in a position to do that. I will yield
temporarily to the Senator from Illinois with the understanding that
when he completes his 10 minutes, automatically the floor reverts to
me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the Senator from Illinois is yielding time to his
colleague from Illinois without losing his right to the floor.

Amendment No. 2343, Withdrawn

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues
from Illinois and Nevada for this opportunity.
When we were preparing for this debate, it was very important to me
we keep it in the context of the bill that was being amended. I cannot
think of more important legislation facing our Nation than the passage
of the Defense appropriations bill at a time when America is at war.
Before I prepared the amendment which is before the Senate, I
received assurances that we would not face a filibuster. I received
assurances that we would not face what we have seen this evening. I was
told there would be an up-or-down vote, and I was prepared to accept
the outcome of that vote. Something has changed. As a result of that
change, the Senate has been here for 3 hours. The most important
appropriations bill we can consider has been stalled and slowed down.
I feel very strongly about this issue, but I also feel very strongly
about our responsibility in the Senate. I am prepared to save this
battle for another day because I do not want to diminish the ability of
this Nation in its war against terrorism or diminish in any way the
resources available to the men and women in uniform. I do not know when
that day will come. I hope it will be soon for the sake of my State
that we will consider this important legislation for our airport, for
our aviation needs in our State.
I express my apologies to the Senate. I never believed for a moment
that we would face a filibuster over this. In fact, I received
assurances otherwise. That is not the case. I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
withdrawn. The Senator from Illinois still has the floor.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for
withdrawing the amendment. I say to him that I do not think I made
clear exactly how I would respond. I did say that I was willing to take
an up-or-down vote, and perhaps we may yet have an up-or-down vote on
this issue before the Senate. I do not believe I made those
representations.
I do appreciate my friendship with Senator Durbin. I hope there are
not many more issues that we disagree with amongst ourselves with
respect to our State.
In many cases, we have been able to have a great impact for the
people of Illinois, and we will continue to do that. We have a
difference of opinion on this issue. It has been tough for both of us
because normally we work together and do not have differences of
opinions on major issues such as this. So I appreciate Senator Durbin's
withdrawal of the amendment, and I look forward to continuing to work
with him on this and other issues in the Senate.
I do think it was important for the Nation and the Senate to be
educated on this issue because aviation in the heartland does affect
all of us, and Senator Durbin is certainly right on that. I believe
this was a very important discussion, both for the citizens of Illinois
and also for the citizens around the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, and I have
worked during the afternoon with our staffs to bring to the Senate an
amendment which would provide for the carrying out of the purposes that
I announced earlier when I presented the

[[Page S12647]]

amendment which was brought down by the failure of the Senate to waive
a point of order.
We have drawn up an amendment which stays within the $40 billion
which was voted by Congress 3 days after the attack.
A point of order was made against the amendment I had offered. I
sought to waive the point of order, and it was the Senate's judgment
the motion to waive not be adopted. Consequently, what is left before
the Senate now is the House bill. So in an effort to move ahead with
something for homeland security and in the attempt to at least try to
do something on all three of our original purposes--namely, fund
adequately defense appropriations, live up to our agreement to New York
as much as we can under the circumstances, and to provide a homeland
defense bill, which while not going as far as we had earlier hoped, at
least does something for the cities and rural areas of this country--
Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, and I are proposing the following
amendment. It is the Byrd/Stevens/Inouye amendment to Defense
appropriations.
We are living within the $40 billion structure we have already voted
on several weeks ago. The amendment allocates $20 billion. It was
according to the law we passed that the Appropriations Committee would
pass upon the final $20 billion of that $40 billion, and this is the
final bill. We are attempting to follow the law in that respect and
provide in this bill how that money should be allocated.
The amendment allocates $20 billion as follows: Defense, $2 billion;
New York, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia,
all coming under the rubric of New York as a designation, $9.5 billion;
homeland defense, $8.5 billion.

When combined with the $20 billion allocated by the President, the
amendment results in the following allocation of the $40 billion
approved: Homeland defense, $10.1 billion; foreign aid allocated by the
President, $1.5 billion.
Highlights of the $20 billion are these: New York and other
communities directly impacted by the September 11 attacks, $9.5
billion, and the examples follow. FEMA disaster relief, which funds
debris removal at the World Trade Center site, repair of public
infrastructure such as the damaged subway, the damaged PATH commuter
train, all government offices, and provides assistance to individuals
for housing, burial expenses, and relocation assistance, receives $5.82
billion.
Secondly, community development block grants, $2 billion to help New
York restore its economy; Amtrak security, $100 million for security in
Amtrak tunnels; mass transit security, funding of $100 million for
improving security in the New York and New Jersey subways; New York-New
Jersey ferry improvements, $100 million; hospital reimbursement, $140
million to reimburse the hospitals in New York that provided critical
care on September 11, and the weeks and months that followed.
Workers compensation job training, $175 million that would help New
York to process workers compensation claims for the victims of the
September 11 attacks. Fifty-eight million dollars is provided for job
training, environmental health, and other programs; Federal facilities,
$200 million for the costs of keeping Federal agencies operating that
were in the World Trade Center, such as the Social Security
Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, the Commodity Futures and
Trading Commission, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the EEOC, the
General Services Administration, and the National Labor Relations
Board.
Emergency highway repairs, $85 million for damaged roads in New York
City; mental health services for children, $10 million that would help
New York schools to provide mental health services to the children of
the victims of the World Trade Center bombing; law enforcement
reimbursement, $220 million for New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia to
reimburse for the costs of law enforcement and fire personnel for costs
incurred on September 11 and the weeks that followed; $68 million to
provide for the crime victims fund; District of Columbia, $200 million
for the District and for Washington Metro for improved security; small
business disaster loans, $150 million; national monument security, $86
million for improved security at national parks and monuments such as
the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, the Smithsonian,
Kennedy Center, and other facilities. For the Department of Defense, $2
billion including funding to repair the Pentagon; bioterrorism/food
safety, $3.1 billion, including $525 million for food security;
provides $1.1 billion for upgrading our State and local public health
and hospital infrastructure.
Recent events have made it clear our State and local public health
departments have been allowed to deteriorate.
The head of the CDC testified only last week that at least $1 billion
is needed immediately to begin to upgrade our State and local health
departments. Our package would provide $165 million for the CDC
capacity improvements. It would provide $205 million for security
improvements and research at the CDC and the NIH. It would provide $593
million for the national pharmaceutical stockpile. It would provide
$512 million to contracts for smallpox vaccine to protect all
Americans. The USDA Office of the Secretary would receive $81 million
for enhanced facility security and operational security at USDA
locations. The Agriculture Research Service would receive $70 million
for enhanced facility security and for research in the areas of food
safety and bioterrorism. The Agriculture Research Service buildings and
facilities would receive $73 million for facility enhancement at Plum
Island, NY, and Ames, IA, which includes funding necessary to complete
construction on a biocontainment facility at the National Animal
Disease Laboratory at Ames, IA.

The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service would
receive $50 million for enhanced facility security at land grant
university research locations and for research into areas of food
safety and bioterrorism. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
buildings and facilities would receive $109 million for enhanced
facility security, for support of border inspections, for pest
detection activities, and for other areas related to biosecurity and
for relocation of the facility at the National Animal Disease
Laboratory.
Next is $15 million provided to the Food Safety Inspection Service
for enhanced operational security and for implementation of the food
safety bioterrorism protection program; $127 million would be provided
to the Food and Drug Administration for food safety and
counterbioterrorism, including support of additional food security
inspections, expedited review of drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tests,
and for enhanced physical and operational security.
As to State and local law enforcement, the amendment would provide
$400 million. The amendment would also provide $290 million for FEMA
firefighters to improve State and local government capacity to respond
to terrorist attacks.
The amendment would provide $600 million to the Postal Service to
provide equipment to cope with biological and chemical threats such as
anthrax.
For Federal Antiterrorism Law Enforcement, the amendment would
provide $1.7 billion to be used as follows: $614 million for the FBI;
$61 million for U.S. Marshals; $100 million for cyber-security; $23
million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for training
new law enforcement personnel; $21 million for the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms; $124 million for overtime and expanded aviation
and border support for the Customs Service; $73 million for the Secret
Service; $273 million for increased Coast Guard surveillance; $95
million for Federal courts security; $84 million for Justice Department
legal activity; $68 million for the crime victims fund; $83 million for
EPA for anthrax cleanup costs and drinking water vulnerability
assessments; $38 million for EPA for bioterrorism response teams and
EPA laboratory security; $20 million for the FEMA Office of National
Preparedness.
Now, for the airport transit security, there would be $530 million,
including $200 million for airport improvement grants; $251 million for
FAA operations

[[Page S12648]]

for cockpit security; $50 million for FAA research to expedite
deployment of new aviation security technology; $23 million for transit
security; $6 million for transportation security.
Now, as to port security improvements, there will be $50 million
which would be broken down as follows: Coast Guard, $12 million;
Maritime Administration, $23 million; and Customs, $15 million.
Finally, for nuclear powerplant, lab, Federal facility improvements,
there would be $775 million. There would be $140 million for energy for
enhanced security at U.S. nuclear weapons plants and laboratories.
There would be $139 million for the Corps of Engineers to provide
enhanced security at 300 critical dams, drinking water reservoirs and
navigation facilities; $30 million for the Bureau of Reclamation for
similar purposes; $36 million for Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
enhance security at commercial nuclear reactors; $50 million for
security at the White House; $31 million for GSA and the Archives to
improve Federal building security; $93 million for NASA for security
upgrades at the Kennedy, Johnson, and other space centers; $256 million
for improved security for the legislative branch.

For nuclear nonproliferation, there would be $226 million for the
safeguarding and acquisition of Russian and former Soviet Union fissile
nuclear materials and to help transition and retrain Russian nuclear
scientists.
Finally, for border security, there would be $709 million of which
$160 million would be for Customs for increased inspectors on the
border and for the construction of border facilities and there would be
$549 million for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
These are the breakdowns of the moneys that would be included in this
amendment if agreed to by the Senate. At some point I will ask
unanimous consent that the substitute be agreed to and considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment, and that no points
of order be waived.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has not made that unanimous consent request
yet, but I do believe I will support that unanimous consent request. I
want the Senate to know that the Senator and Senator Inouye and I have
conferred about the allocation of $20 billion, and while I regret we
reduced defense in this allocation to $20 billion, I point out to the
Senate that this year we have provided $317 billion in the Defense bill
in section (a) of this substitute. We have added the $15.3 billion here
in this allocation of the moneys from the $15.7 from the $40 billion.
There has been a total of over a $42 billion increase in defense
spending from the beginning of this year to now. I do believe there is
sufficient money to carry us through until the President may make a
request.
Again, I point out to the Senate that the law we passed on September
18 does require the President shall submit to the Congress as soon as
practical detailed requests to meet any further funding requirements
for the purposes specified in this act.
I also call the Senate's attention once more, there were five
purposes outlined in the act: First, providing State, Federal-State,
and local preparedness for mitigating and responding to the attacks;
second, providing support to counterinvestigate and prosecute
international terrorism; third, providing increased transportation
security; fourth, repairing public facilities and transportation
systems damaged by attacks; and five, supporting national security.
All these funds may be delivered for any authorized Government
activity to meet those purposes.
This presentation tonight by Senator Byrd meets those requirements.
All of the money is transferred to a Federal system under an authorized
program, and all are within the five stated purposes that the Congress
used in providing the $40 billion in September.
We all differ some in terms of our priorities. In the final analysis,
the priorities for this $20 billion will be decided in conference. I
have assured Senator Byrd that I will cosponsor this substitute and
fight for its approval in the conference. I fully expect there will be
some changes in the conference with the House in terms of the
allocation of this money. I am confident we will be hearing from the
administration in the meantime.
I take the floor to urge the Senate to approve the amendment and to
allow the Senator's request to be granted. He has, in fact, now offered
and asked for a unanimous consent, but we jointly are offering this as
original text to replace the Senate substitute that was reported from
the appropriations committee. It will be open to further amendment, as
I understand, on all parts of the bill.
It is my hope that we would close their section B soon, because I
think this allocation, as I said, will primarily absolutely be done in
the final analysis insofar as the $20 billion in conference. And we
could argue here all night about where the money would go.
We met the President's request to limit that amount to $20 billion. I
think that is where we should stop.
I yield the floor.
Does the Senator from West Virginia wish to renew his request?

Amendment No. 2348

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me for that
purpose, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute be agreed to, that
it be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment,
and that no points of order be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
Inouye, and Mr. Stevens proposes an amendment numbered 2348.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from West Virginia? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2348) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that section 8132
of the pending amendment constitutes legislation on appropriations and
violates rule XVI of the standing rules of the Senate.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if we might be able to temporarily
lay aside this point of order so the Senate could proceed with an
amendment by Mr. Feingold, have the debate on that, and then return to
the point of order by Mr. Gramm.
Mr. STEVENS. Could we get a time agreement on that amendment?
Mr. BYRD. Could we get a time agreement?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Sure.
Mr. McCAIN. I reserve the right to object. I do believe we have an
agreement on a proposal by Senator Gramm. I would like to dispense with
that if the Senator from Alaska is ready and the Senator from West
Virginia is ready to do that.
Mr. REID. If the Senator from Arizona will yield, or whoever has the
floor will yield briefly, we are waiting for another Senator to come to
the Chamber.
Mr. McCAIN. I remove my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. And I certainly thank the
Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 2349

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Wisconsin answer a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator yields for a question.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Alaska asked if the Senator from Wisconsin
would agree to a time limit.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I agree to a 10-minute limit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S12649]]

Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I would just say, of course, that all points of order and
stuff would still be available.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Baucus, and Mr. Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 2349.

Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that Members of Congress shall not receive a cost
of living adjustment in pay during fiscal year 2002)

At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following
sections:

SEC. . COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment
shall be made under section 601(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) (relating to cost of
living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal
year 2002.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. It
would eliminate the $4,900 pay raise scheduled to go into effect in
just a few weeks for Members of Congress. And I am very pleased to be
joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus,
and the senior Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms. Our economy is
in a recession and hundreds of thousands of workers have been laid off.
Many families face enormous financial pressures.
Shortly, we will debate how best to address this problem, and central
for me in that debate is how to produce a short-term economic boost
without undermining our long-term economic and budget position. The
budget surpluses that were projected last spring have proved to be as
illusory as many of us feared. The supplemental spending passed in the
spring, along with the irresponsible tax cut passed this summer left us
on the brink. The economic slowdown pushed us over the edge. So, when
it came time to respond to the horrific events of September 11, we were
forced to return to deficit spending.
We have spent all of the on-budget surplus, and are well into the
surplus that represents Social Security Trust Fund balances. That is
something that has only been done to meet the most critical national
prorities. A $4,900 pay raise for Members is not a critical national
priority.
As I said when I last brought this amendment to the floor, I think
the idea of an automatic congressional pay raise is never appropriate.
It is an unusual thing to have the power to raise our own pay. Few
people have that ability. Most of our constitutents do not have that
power. And that this power is so unusual is good reason for the
Congress to exercise that power openly, and to exercise it subject to
regular procedures that include debate, amendment, and a vote on the
Record.
As I noted during the debate of the Foreign Operations Appropriations
measure, a number of my colleagues have approached me about this pay
raise in the past few weeks, and some have indicated they support the
pay raise. In fact, one of my colleagues said they would offer an
amendment that actually increased the scheduled $4,900 pay raise
because they felt it was too low. I strongly disagree with that
position, but I certainly respect those who hold that position. But
whatever one's position on the pay raise, I do think, the Senate ought
to be on record on the matter if it is to go into effect.
The current pay raise system allows a pay raise without any recorded
vote. Even those who support a pay raise should be willing to insist
that Members go on record on this issue. I think this process of
stealth pay raises has to end, and I have introduced legislation to
stop this practice. But the amendment I offer today does not go that
far. All it does is simply stop the $4,900 pay raise that is scheduled
to go into effect in January.
When I offered this amendment to the Foreign Operations
appropriations bill several weeks ago, a point of order was raised
against it as not being germane to that bill. Let me say here that
unlike that bill, the measure before us today has already raised the
issue of a pay increase in the legislative branch in Section 810 of the
House-passed bill. So this amendment is plainly germane to the bill
before us.
It is possible--in fact, obviously likely--that a Senator may raise a
point of order against this amendment, and maybe some people will try
to hide behind the procedural vote that would result. But make no
mistake, the vote in relation to this amendment will be the vote on the
congressional pay raise.
Just a few weeks ago, Iowa's State employees voted to delay their own
cost-of-living adjustment in order to help that State cope with its
budget problems. Members of the Florida house voted to eliminate the
cost-of-living pay increase they got on July 1 to help meet that
State's budget get through a softening economy, and South Carolina's
Governor Jim Hodges is taking a $4,000 pay cut as part of his efforts
to keep this State's budget in balance.
I hope my colleagues will follow the examples set by Iowa's State
employees, the Florida house, and Governor Hodges. Given all that has
happened, all that will happen, and the sacrifices that will be asked
of all Americans, this isn't time for Congress to accept a $4,900 pay
raise. Let's stop this backdoor pay raise, and then let's enact
legislation to end this practice once and for all.
Right this minute, our Nation is sending the men and women of our
Armed Services into harm's way. I do not think it is the time for
Congress to accept a pay raise. Let's stop this backdoor pay raise, and
then let's enact legislation to end this practice once and for all.
Mr. President, at this point I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. FEINGOLD. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor's time has expired.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as the former chairman and now ranking
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and General
Government, I would like to make a few observations on this amendment
and tell my colleagues at the outset that my comments are not designed
to bring into question the motives of any Senator who votes for the
amendment. But there is an old adage: If the shoe fits, wear it.
We have had to wrestle with some pretty important issues since
September 11. During that time, I think Members of this body have
displayed a great deal of courage. And their constituents certainly
have the right to expect that kind of courage. But that is the way it
should be.
Neither bombs nor fires, terrorists nor wars have been able to shake
our resolve, but the mention of a pay raise somehow makes a lot of
Senators' courage melt like snowballs in summer, and that iron will
begins to make them shake in their boots.
Some Senators may honestly believe we should not receive a pay raise
at any cost. Some, in fact, think we should be working here for
nothing. Some maybe just don't think they are worth the salary. But I
tell you, there is an old saying that has developed over the years, and
I would like to invite our constituents and the press to explore the
actions of a Member who falls into the definition of what has been
called: ``Vote no, but take the dough.'' That phrase is a pretty good
description of politicians who want the money but do not want the heat
of voter displeasure, even though setting our own salaries is a
constitutional requirement.
I have voted a number of times on pay raises--sometimes for,
sometimes against. Every time I voted against them, and they passed, I
donated those

[[Page S12650]]

pay raises to charity. I could not, in good conscience, keep the money
if I would not support it with my vote. I gave a total of five $1,000
scholarships and gave other money to a homeless shelter. At no time
when I voted against it did I keep it. I know there are a number of
other Members who have done the same thing. But those times I thought
the increase was warranted, I voted for it, and I kept it and I
justified it, as many other Members have also done. I think I can
justify it this time, too.
With the tragedies at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center still
fresh in our minds, I would recommend to those who oppose a cost-of-
living increase and, therefore do not want the COLA, to donate it to a
charity involved in the aftermath of September 11, if they really truly
believe they don't deserve it.
If they are that guilt ridden, they can, in fact, simply return it
back to the Federal Treasury. There is no law that prevents them from
doing that.
Every Member has to live with his own conscience and decisions, but
there certainly are Members who fall into that category ``vote no and
take the dough.'' In the past, in fact, some have come to the floor to
emphatically denounce the increase while letting other Members shoulder
the burden to pass the bill and they quietly pocket the money and sneak
off in the night hoping nobody will notice that their outrage does not
jibe with their actions.
We have been here 16 hours--at least I have, since 6 o'clock this
morning--with no end in sight, with important amendments with which we
have yet to deal. This bill simply is the wrong vehicle for this
amendment. It should have been offered on the Treasury-Postal-general
government bill. It was not.
To make matters worse, many of the very people who speak out against
this COLA have asked money to be earmarked in that bill where this
should have been addressed. It is automatic, as all of our Members
know. I would also remind the Members that the Treasury-Postal-general
government bill has all the courthouse construction money, the Federal
courts money, the money to fight the war on drugs, security money for
the Olympics, other things in it that make it a very important bill.
To try to amend this bill, the Department of Defense supplemental,
with a decision for Members after it has already been approved in the
Treasury-general government bill, is not a good policy and opens a
Pandora's box of other amendments that have already been settled in the
other eight bills that have passed both the House and Senate, and
conference committees, too. If the opponents of the COLA don't like it,
they should have offered an amendment to delete it when our bill, the
Treasury-general government bill, was on the floor. They had ample
opportunity when Chairman Dorgan and I were pleading with Members to
come to the floor and offer amendments.
This amendment may be great theater, but one thing is clear, it is
not an automatic ticket to reelection. Self-flagellation never is.
As I have already stated, I don't question the motives of any Member
on how they vote. But I would invite our constituents to look into the
Member's past votes on this issue and see what they did with the money
the last time, if they voted against it. I believe their constituents
would like to know if they were driven by a deeply held belief about
self-worth or if they were in the category of ``vote no and take the
dough.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from
Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the amendment
is not germane.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I raise the defense of germaneness, and
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I would like to amend my point of order. I failed to
mention it was also legislation on an appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the point of order
is that it is legislation on an appropriations bill. The defense of
germaneness has been raised.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I raise the defense of germaneness and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Is the amendment germane? The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), is necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 33, nays 65, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.]

YEAS--33

Allard
Baucus
Brownback
Bunning
Carnahan
Cleland
Collins
Corzine
DeWine
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Grassley
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Johnson
Levin
Lincoln
McCain
Miller
Reid
Roberts
Schumer
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--65

Akaka
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Helms

Jeffords

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 33, the nays are
65. The amendment is not germane, and it falls for that reason.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that section 8132
on page 117 of the substitute amendment be stricken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2352

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have at the desk an amendment numbered
2352 which I call up on behalf of Senator McCain and Senator Gramm.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Reid and Mr.
Gramm, proposes an amendment numbered 2352.

(Purpose: To provide the President the authority to increase national
security and save lives)

Section 8628(f), insert the following:
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this act or any
other provision of law, the President shall have the sole
authority to reprogram, for any other defense purpose, the
funds authorized by this section if he determines that doing
so will increase national security or save lives.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment as written speaks for
itself. I thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from West
Virginia for agreeing to it. This resolves a great concern that many
Members had concerning the issue of the tanker aircraft.
I thank the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield back any remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
numbered 2352.
The amendment (No. 2352) was agreed to.

[[Page S12651]]

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2553

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Mrs.
Carnahan, proposes an amendment numbered 2553.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert:

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS

It is the sense of Congress that the military aircraft
industrial base of the United States be preserved. In order
to ensure this we must retain--
(1) Adequate competition in the design, engineering,
production, sale and support of military aircraft;
(2) Continued innovation in the development and manufacture
of military aircraft;
(3) Actual and future capability of more than one aircraft
company to design, engineer, produce and support military
aircraft.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRIAL BASE.

In order to determine the current and future adequacy of
the military aircraft industrial base a study shall be
conducted. Of the funds made available under the heading
``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' in this Act, up to $1,500,000
may be made available for a comprehensive analysis of and
report on the risks to innovation and cost of limited or no
competition in contracting for military aircraft and related
weapon systems for the Department of Defense, including the
cost of contracting where there is no more than one primary
manufacturer with the capacity to bid for and build military
aircraft and related weapon systems, the impact of any
limited competition in primary contracting on innovation in
the design, development, and construction of military
aircraft and related weapon systems, the impact of limited
competition in primary contracting on the current and future
capacity of manufacturers to design, engineer and build
military aircraft and weapon systems. The Secretary of
Defense shall report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the design of this analysis, and shall
submit a report to these committees no later than 6 months
from the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I again express my sincere thanks to Senator
Inouye and Senator Stevens for the very effective way they brought
together a very important bill in these difficult times.
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the future of our national
security as it pertains to U.S. air superiority--the key to ensuring
victory in modern war, and to propose an amendment requesting a study
of our current and future tactical and military aircraft industrial
base.
The recent Joint Strike Fighter competition was a tough fight between
two well matched and seasoned competitors, Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
The next generation of Air Force, Navy and Marine fighter pilots will
benefit from this fierce competition. But the Defense Department's long
term acquisition strategy has revealed a potential and troubling
weakness in the future health of our tactical and military aircraft
industrial base.
I have long maintained that no matter which company won this
contract, the only way to guarantee our national security over the long
haul is to maintain the robust aircraft industrial base that preserves
innovation and competition which are critical to the development and
success of future tactical and military aircraft programs.
When the Joint Strike Fighter competition was announced, I stated my
strongly held view and supposition that the award would be split so
that the loser of the competition would remain in business.
Maintaining a robust industrial base is not about Boeing or Lockheed
Martin or any one commercial enterprise but what is best for our
Nation. I have said for years that, since the cold war's end, we have
funded and structured our military on a minimum to get by. And that is
wrong. Investing the future of American air superiority, or any other
critical defense program, in one company is a risky proposition. The
weakened industrial base that results adversely impacts the kind of
surge production capability this Nation may need someday to offset
unforeseen attrition in our aircraft force structure.
The Department of Defense has stated that with regards to the Joint
Strike Fighter it will maintain a ``winner-take-all'' strategy. By
their our account the winner will be the only U.S. producer of tactical
fighter aircraft after F-22 and F/A-18 E/F production ceases.
As recently as April of last year, the Honorable Jacques S. Gansler
in a statement provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee on
defense industrial base considerations said:

Today, there exist two or three major (robust and
technologically superior) firms in each critical area of
defense needs. However, with the potential to go even below
that number in the future, we are in danger of losing our
greatest weapon in containing costs and insuring rapid
innovation; namely, competition.

DoD's determination to maintain the ``winner-take-all'' strategy,
even in light of their assessment that we will be left with one
tactical fighter aircraft producer, deserves a thorough and exhaustive
review. A number of broad questions present themselves that must be
answered.
Will the U.S. Government be able to ensure sufficient expertise
exists in the long term so we can preserve a competitive and innovative
industrial base in the design, production, and support of tactical and
military aircraft?
Will the Joint Strike Fighter be the last manned tactical fixed-wing
fighter as asserted by Undersecretary of Defense E.C. Aldridge in a
letter to Senator Levin? And does the ability to bid on unmanned combat
or surveillance aircraft, as asserted by Under Secretary Aldridge,
provide ample opportunity for a tactical aircraft manufacturer to
retain a robust design, production and support team?
Can an aerospace manufacturer reconstitute a tactical and/or military
capability once it is lost, and when the barrier to re-entry become too
high?
Does this Nation's national security interests outweigh the economic
benefits to any one company? And will our national security be affected
if we cannot continue to ensure a high level of innovation and
competitiveness in the development and production of tactical and
military aircraft?
This includes the presence, or lack of, a robust surge capacity in
the event our nation faces high attrition rates with its tactical
aircraft force structure.
The Department of Defense commissioned a RAND study to examine both
near-term and long-term competition options within the Joint Strike
Fighter program. The study concluded that the additional costs of split
production, estimated to range from $.5 to $1 billion, would not be
recouped over the life of the program, currently expected to extend
through the year 2040. But does the nation's national security take
priority when added costs are less than $1 billion over the life of a
40 plus year program (a cost of less than $25 million per year to
preserve more than one source for our fighter aircraft)?
A Wall St. Journal article published on Oct. 18, 2001, discusses the
stinging defeat handed to General Dynamics in their takeover bid of
Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc., when the Justice Department filed an
anti-trust suit in federal district court seeking to block the proposed
acquisition on the grounds it would eliminate competition in the market
for nuclear submarines. The article states:

The critical issue in the review process was whether a
combination of General Dynamics with Newport News would
eliminate competition in the market for naval submarines and
whether the loss of that competition would hurt innovation.

Comments made by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, the Honorable ``Pete'' Aldridge, in a letter
to my distinguished colleague Senator Carl Levin, and at a Press
Conference announcing the JSF winner, make it clear that not only is
DoD going to pursue the winner-take-all strategy

[[Page S12652]]

but that they are taking a ``hands off'' approach to any potential
teaming effort between Lockheed Martin--with its coalition of
manufacturers--and Boeing. This puts the responsibility and weight of
the health of our future industrial base in the hands of a commercial
enterprise, and not the administration or the Congress. This is not a
wise policy and it justifiably applies to all aspects of our critical
needs military industrial base.
Finally, on Oct. 23, 2001, the Department of Justice announced they
were filing suit to block General Dynamics' purchase of Newport News
Shipbuilding. In the body of their press release the Department of
Justice states: Our armed forces need the most innovative and highest
quality products to protect our country. This merger-to-monopoly would
reduce innovation and, ultimately, the quality of the products supplied
to the military, while raising prices to the U.S. military and to U.S.
taxpayers.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill in discussing the
Joint Strike Fighter program on page 117 of the report contains the
following language: The Committee believes that industrial base
concerns can best be addressed AFTER the source selection decision.
While the future industrial base may be a concern, DoD can be partner
in discussion to address these concerns as companies work on viable
teaming or work sharing agreements.
As I have noted, it is clear that DoD will not be a partner in any
teaming arrangements so it is up to the Congress to act. In order to do
so we must acquire a body of data on our tactical aircraft industrial
base. And determine if this base will provide sufficient ``innovation
AND competition'' in the years after only one company remains to build
follow-on aircraft to those currently in production or in development.
My amendment specifically asks that the Secretary of Defense conduct
the study. I will furthermore recommend that Secretary Rumsfeld select
RAND Corporation to perform the study. Why RAND? They are already
familiar with the Joint Strike Fighter program, having conducted the
DoD study that examined the near and long term competition options. The
Department of Defense should have no difficulty working with RAND, and
in providing them the data they need to do a thorough study of the
impact to the industrial base of DoD's acquisition strategy.

In summary, my amendment calls for a study of the costs, risks, and
implications to national security of vesting all our tactical aircraft
expertise in one prime contractor. The simple fact is that we, as a
nation, do not know the risks, costs and implications of this move. We
do know intuitively that the loss of competition and innovation can
have a disastrous impact on the nation's ability to field future state
of the art weapons programs.
The Defense Department has never studied this issue even though they
acknowledge that the continuing shrinkage of our industrial base is
cause for concern. It has never examined the risks or the national
security implications. The DoD study regarding the JSF program looked
exclusively at the financial costs of keeping two production lines to
build Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
That study concluded that there is an additional financial cost
associated with two JSF production lines. But what the study failed to
examine was the national security risks associated with vesting the
future of American air superiority into the hands of a single company.
We must not allow our industrial base to shrink down to one company
in any critical needs area without close examination and an
understanding of the risks and implications. The stakes are too large.
We do not--we cannot--know what the future holds for this country 20,
30 or 40 years hence. We learned on September 11 that there are heavy
penalties for misjudging unforeseen risks. We cannot afford a similar
mistake when it comes to the health of our industrial base and the men
and women responsible for flying into harms way. We cannot go down the
road to one company blindly.
As my amendment clearly states: We must retain adequate competition
in the design, engineering, production, sale and support of military
aircraft; We must retain continued innovation in the development and
manufacture of military aircraft; and We must retain the actual and
future capability of more than ``one'' aircraft company to design,
engineer, produce and support military aircraft.
This study will help to arm us with the knowledge Congress and the
President need to make a wise decision. We need the results of this
study. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment
proposed by my friend and colleague from Missouri. Senator Bond's
legislation requires the Defense Department to report to Congress on
the future of the tactical aircraft industry.
This is an important piece of legislation. It will allow the Pentagon
to examine the long term impact of the largest contract award in world
history on October 26 of this year, the Defense Department awarded the
Joint Strike Fighter contract exclusively to the Lockheed Martin JSF
team. Senator Bond and I are concerned that this decision might put
America's tactical aircraft industry in jeopardy, and set a bad
precedent for other defense contracts. The JSF program is the largest
defense contract in history. It is the only fighter jet contract
planned in the next 30 years.
Up until October 26th, Boeing and Lockheed remained America's only
major contractors in the tactical aircraft industry. Now, if the
Lockheed team performs the entire contract, Boeing would likely be
forced out of the fighter jet business. Competition in the industry
would be eliminated. Future innovation would be stifled. Costs would
rise. Our national security would be put at risk. The preeminent
military power in the world cannot have just one company building
fighter jets. That would be unacceptable to me and many members in our
defense community.
Just 3 years ago, the Defense Department blocked the largest merger
in defense industry history due to concerns that the merger would
stifle innovation and reduce competition in key aspects of defense
production. It cannot now stand idly by and allow the elimination of
competition for fighter jets.
When the Joint Strike Fighter award was announced last month, many of
us in the Missouri delegation made it clear that we believe it is
imperative for Boeing to play a role in the production of this
aircraft. Now we are proposing a study to examine the consequences if
we should fail to secure a major role for Boeing in this important
program.
Senator Bond has posed some pertinent questions today. I hope this
body will support a study that simply seeks to answer these questions.
Above all, we must examine how the U.S. Government will be able to
preserve sufficient expertise in this industry, if Boeing is driven out
of the tactical aircraft business.
When the JSF award was announced, the Defense Department issued a
statement that said that the Pentagon would encourage Lockheed and
Boeing to work together on this program. A Department of Defense press
release stated on October 26 that, and I quote,

The expertise resident in the teams not selected today can
still make a contribution to the JSF effort through revised
industrial teaming arrangements. DOD will encourage teaming
arrangements that make the most efficient use of the
expertise in the industrial base to deliver the `best value'
product.''

I fully agree with this statement. I expect the Department of Defense
to follow through on its commitment to encourage teaming between
Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Boeing should be a major partner in this
project. Boeing and Lockheed Martin executives are currently engaged in
negotiations on this very subject. I believe that Boeing has a strong
case for why it should play a major role in this critical program.
Boeing and its predecessor McDonnell-Douglas have a long history of
delivery top-quality airplanes to militaries around the globe. Its
award-winning management team has built a solid reputation for meeting
production deadlines. Boeing makes some of the most affordable aircraft
in the world. Boeing's workforce has a unique expertise. Boeing remains
the world leader in developing short take-off

[[Page S12653]]

fighters for the Marines. Boeing also produces for the Navy the
foremost jet fighter for aircraft carrier operations.
Lockheed Martin could use Boeing's vast experience in building these
aircraft. Lockheed Martin executives should bear this in mind during
their discussions with Boeing. I believe that the next generation of
tactical jets must be built by an experienced team.
This team should include Boeing Managers, engineers and technicians,
who have helped build the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets as well as the
Marine Corps' AV-8B Harriers. Lockheed should keep in mind the concerns
of the Pentagon, and Democratic and Republican leaders alike.
Lockheed's discussion with Boeing will have some serious long-term
effects. With only major companies in the tactical aircraft industry,
Lockheed's decisions will directly impact the industrial base of the
Nation's fighter business.
Let there be no mistake. My colleagues and I in the Missouri
delegation will not rest until we are assured that Boeing's role in the
tactical aircraft business is secure. Senator Bond and I are united in
our determination to pursue every avenue, in the Armed Services
Committee and the Appropriations Committee, to ensure that the
industrial base of this critical industry is preserved.
Our colleagues in the House, including the Democratic leader, the
majority deputy whip, and the ranking member of the Armed Services
Committee, and committed to this effort. Today, we must take this first
step. We must examine the consequences of the JSF contact award, and
ensure that the future of America's tactical aircrafts remains secure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, Senator Stevens and I commend the Senator
from Missouri for his amendment. We are pleased to accept it. We urge
its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2353) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2354

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk and ask
that it be immediately considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
numbered 2354.

Mr. BOND. 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 as follows:

(Purpose: To require procedures that ensure the fair and equitable
resolution of labor integration issues in transactions for the
combination of air carriers)

At the appropriate place, insert:
Sec. ____. (a) The purpose of this section is to require
procedures that ensure the fair and equitable resolution of
labor integration issues, in order to prevent further
disruption to transactions for the combination of air
carriers, which would potentially aggravate the disruption
caused by the attack on the United States on September 11,
2001.
(b) In this section:
(1) The term ``air carrier'' means an air carrier that
holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49,
United States Code.
(2) The term ``covered employee'' means an employee who--
(A) is not a temporary employee; and
(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the
Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(3) The term ``covered transaction'' means a transaction
that--
(A) is a transaction for the combination of multiple air
carriers into a single air carrier;
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of--
(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined
in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air
carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air
carrier;
(C) became a pending transaction, or was completed, not
earlier than January 1, 2001; and
(D) did not result in the creation of a single air carrier
by September 11, 2001.
(c) If an eligible employee is a covered employee of an air
carrier involved in a covered transaction that leads to the
combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the
Railway Labor Act, the eligible employee may receive
assistance under this title only if the parties to the
transaction--
(1) apply sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective
provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the
Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 CAB 45) to the
covered employees of the air carrier; and
(2) subject to paragraph (1), in a case in which a
collective bargaining agreement provides for the application
of sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions in
the process of seniority integration for the covered
employees, apply the terms of the collective bargaining
agreement to the covered employees, and do not abrogate the
terms of the agreement.
(d) Any aggrieved person (including any labor organization
that represents the person) may bring an action to enforce
this section, or the terms of any award or agreement
resulting from arbitration or a settlement relating to the
requirements of this section. The person may bring the action
in an appropriate Federal district court, determined in
accordance with section 1391 of title 28, United States Code,
without regard to the amount in controversy.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment reflects a bill previously
entered with my colleague, Senator Carnahan, and other Senators. I ask
they be given an opportunity to add themselves as cosponsors to this
amendment.
This arises out of the attacks of September 11. It helps solve a
serious problem in the airline industry. And it provides for fair
treatment of the parties involved. I think this is a reasonable
response.
Mr. President, the attacks of September 11 created severe strains on
our Nation and its economy. The economic harm from those attacks has
been most pronounced in our airline industry, the backbone of our
transportation system.
Congress moved quickly and properly to respond to the crisis facing
the commercial airlines with relief legislation in September. The
fallout of the attacks, however, continues to be felt by the airlines
and airline employees even after the Federal help.
Many will argue that a crisis continues in the airline industry.
All of our major airlines received aid through the industry relief
bill. The Federal help was distributed fairly in proportion to the
carrier's share of the market.
American Airlines received the largest share of that aid based on its
combined size as a result of its acquisitions from TWA.
Unlike the other major carriers and their employees, the American and
TWA employees faced the repercussions of September 11 with the
uncertainty of the fact that their carriers had not completed the
combination of operations envisioned by the AA/TWA transaction.
With the severe disruption of the airline industry caused by the
attacks, the TWA employees in particular faced an uncertain future of
layoffs knowing that there was no process in place to fairly and
reasonably integrate their groups into the much larger American groups.
Indeed, the potential exists for them to suffer disproportionate job
losses because there is no fair process in place.
In support of that principle of fair treatment, I have proposed the
Airline Workers Fairness Act.
This legislation is designed to achieve a simple yet essential
purpose--to provide a neutral and fair process to integrate employee
groups of airlines involved in uncompleted mergers and transactions. It
achieves this goal through:
A third party neutral arbitrator selected by the parties to make a
final and binding decision based on the principles of fairness and
equity.
This is not a new idea, but is the long-established process set forth
by the former Civil Aeronautics Board some thirty years ago.
The notion of a fair and equitable seniority integration before a
neutral arbitrator has been the industry standard for over fifty years
in dozens of different airline mergers and acquisitions.
This bill recognizes that especially in the midst of severe
disruption in the

[[Page S12654]]

airline industry, none of the interested parties have the ability to
determine a fair and equitable resolution.
It puts the decision making out of the realm of passion and self-
interest and into the hands of an experienced and fair-minded
professional arbitrator.
Finally, this bill gives both sides the chance for a fair hearing.
We are not talking about micro-managing airlines or interfering in
private contracts. The procedures this bill establishes are recognized
widely as industry standard for seniority integrations.
They are also needed by employees and their families facing the loss
of a lifetime's work.
Layoffs seem inevitable, but we can ensure that in the midst of the
severe dislocations and upheaval in the lives of these airlines
employees that our fundamental values were preserved, fair treatment
and a fair hearing.
I have heard from all sides on this issue.
Both pilots unions have been on the phone and in my office on
countless occasions. I have also been contacted by the International
Association of Machinists representing both flight attendants and
machinists.
All parties have clearly expressed to me and my staff that they want
this seniority integration to come to a conclusion. It is ultimately
clear, however, that an agreement cannot be reached under the status
quo.
A fair process is desperately needed by thousands of hard working and
dedicated employees and their families who face enormous dislocation
and insecurity.
I ask that we echo the words of our Commander in Chief and our
colleagues in the Congress; in a time of crisis we must not give up our
fundamental values.
The Airlines Workers Fairness Act preserves our fundamental value of
fair treatment during the crisis facing the airline industry.
It says that we will not abandon that value, rather we will recognize
the enormous sacrifices made by the workers in this industry, both now
and in the past. We will give them that simple assurance of fair
treatment in the face of the crisis and sacrifice.
We are not meddling with collective bargaining or union politics * *
* rather, we are simply helping two parties find the parameters to
reach a fair and equitable resolution.
I urge my colleagues to support this important principle to assure
fair and adequate treatment for all airline employees.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, Senator Stevens and I are pleased to
accept this amendment and take it to conference. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If there is no further debate, without objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2354) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Nevada.
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. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, while Senators are working out some matters,
I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for not to exceed 8 minutes on
another matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Congratulating Senator Strom Thurmond on His 99th Birthday

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I did not speak on the day that was the most
famous of all such days, the day of Senator Thurmond's birthday. I was
busy on appropriations matters. I did not want to let this week go by
without my saying just a few words about Senator Thurmond.
It was 99 years ago that Strom Thurmond was born in Edgefield, SC.
Ninety-nine years old. What a feat, 99. Abraham lived to be 175 years
old. Isaac lived to be 180. Jacob lived to be 147, and Joseph lived to
be 110. Moses lived to be 120. Joshua lived to be 110. And Strom
Thurmond has lived now to be 99. What a feat. That makes him old enough
to be my big brother.
Well, when Strom Thurmond was born on December 5, 1902, the Wright
Brothers had not yet made their historic flight at Kitty Hawk. He has
lived to see men walking on the Moon. He has lived to see American
space vessels exploring the far reaches of our galaxy. When he was
born, Theodore Roosevelt was President of the United States. Since
then, we have had 16 more Presidents.
When he was born, the Kaiser still ruled in Germany. Since then, that
country has seen the rise and fall of the Weimar Republic, the rise and
fall of Nazi Germany, a divided Germany, and now a united Germany. When
Strom Thurmond was born, the Czar still ruled in Russia. Since then,
that country has experienced the Russian Revolution of 1917--that was
the year I was born--the Bolshevist government, the Communist
government, the Soviet empire, and now Russia again.
Almost as intriguing has been the extraordinary career of our
remarkable colleague. During the same time period, Senator Thurmond has
been a teacher, an athletic coach, an educational administrator, a
lawyer, a State legislator, and a circuit court judge.
Joseph wore a coat of many colors, but Strom Thurmond has held all of
these offices, these professions, before coming to the U.S. Senate.
He won his first elective office, county superintendent, the same
year that Herbert Hoover won his first elective office, 1928. Strom
Thurmond was a soldier in World War II where he took part in the D-Day
invasion of Normandy. He was a Presidential nominee in 1948. He was
Governor of his beloved State of South Carolina from 1947 to 1951.
He has been a Democrat, Dixiecrat, and a Republican. Most of all, he
has been and is a great American.
All of this would have been more than enough experiences and
achievements in one lifetime for most mortals, but incredibly Strom
Thurmond's greatest days were still ahead of him. In 1954, he won his
first election to the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate. That is
saying something for any man who can win on a write-in seat in the
Senate, making him the only person in history to be elected to the
Senate as a write-in candidate. He pledged to the people of South
Carolina that if they elected him as a write-in candidate, he would
resign and he would run again and win the election the old-time way.
And he did just what he promised he would do. So now he has become the
longest serving Senator in history and the oldest person ever to have
served in the Senate.
It is more than just longevity that has made Strom Thurmond an
extraordinary Senator. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has fought
for a stronger military, to keep our country free, and he has fought
for tougher anti-crime laws to make our streets safer. As President pro
tempore of the Senate, he has brought dignity and style and a southern
refinement to this important position. For these and other
achievements, he has had high schools, State and Federal buildings, as
well as streets and dams and town squares named in his honor.

A few years ago in 1991, the Senate designated room S-238 here in the
U.S. Capitol as the ``Strom Thurmond Room'' in recognition of the
selfless and dedicated service he has provided to our Nation and its
people.
I remember that day, a long time ago, when Strom Thurmond suffered
the loss of his wife. I used to see her sitting in the galleries. I can
see her right now sitting in that first seat. We are not supposed to
call attention to the people in the galleries, but I can remember
having seen her sitting in that very first seat where the gentleman is

[[Page S12655]]

sitting right at this minute and watching the Senate.
I remember the day that that lady passed away. I came to the Senate.
Strom Thurmond was sitting right back here where Senator Joe Lieberman
is sitting tonight. I walked up to him, gripped his hand, and told him
I was sorry. And he was his spartan self. He thanked me and continued
in his service.
On this his 99th birthday, I wish to say what a privilege and an
honor it has been to have served with this remarkable man for all of
these remarkable years, a man whom the good Lord has blessed with this
long lifetime of service to his people. He has always been an
outstanding legislator, a southern gentleman, and foremost, a good
friend.

Count your garden by the flowers,
Never by the leaves that fall;
Count your days by the sunny hours,
Not remembering clouds at all.

Count your nights by stars, not shadows;
Count your life by smiles, not tears;
And on this beautiful December evening, Strom, count your age
by friends, not years.

Happy birthday, Senator. May God always bless you.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Byrd is a man of character, a
man of ability, a man of dedication, and we are all proud of him. Thank
you very much.
(Applause.)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank all the Senators.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, this has been a very hectic day for
everyone. Before the night passed, I wanted to make sure everyone
understood how much we on this side of the aisle appreciate the Senator
from Hawaii. Senator Stevens today gave a very emotional speech
regarding Senator Inouye, and it was not appropriate after that very
emotional presentation was given by Senator Stevens to say anything
about Senator Inouye. I did not want the night to pass without everyone
understanding how we feel about Senator Inouye. In fact, he is one of
the most revered people in the history of the Senate. I do not know of
anyone I have ever heard who has said an unkind word about the Senator
from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye. Just because we were silent earlier today does
not negate the strength of the feeling we have for Senator Inouye. In
the time I have served in the Senate, there is no one I respect or
admire more than the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.
The work he has done on this bill is as exemplary as the work he has
done as a Senator.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Mr. REID. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2355

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration. n
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment
numbered 2355.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funding for necessary expenses of the HUBZone
program authorized under the Small Business Act, and for other
purposes)

At the appropriate place insert:

``Small Business Administration

``disaster loan program account

``Sec. 115. Of the amount made available under this heading
in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002
(Public Law 107-77), for administrative expenses to carry out
the direct loan program, $5,000,000 shall be made available
for necessary expenses of the HUBZone program as authorized
by section 31 of the Small Business Act, as amended (15
U.S.C. 657a), of which, not more than $500,000 may be used
for the maintenance and operation of the Procurement
Marketing and Access Network (PRO-Net). The Administrator of
the Small Business Administration shall make quarterly
reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship of the Senate, and the Committee on
Small Business of the House of Representatives regarding all
actions taken by the Small Business Administration to address
the deficiencies in the HUBZone program, as identified by the
General Accounting Office in report number GAO-02-57 of
October 26, 2001.''.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to close a gap
that was opened as a result of the Commerce-State-Justice
appropriations bill. During the consideration of that bill, the
conference committee deleted funding for a small but important program
known as the Hubzone program. We enacted it in this body in 1997 with
unanimous, bipartisan support to direct Federal contracting dollars to
the Nation's most depressed areas of high poverty and high
unemployment; that is, in the inner cities, in the rural areas, in the
Native American communities, and in the Alaskan Native villages.
We find small firms do not normally want to locate in these areas
because they do not have enough customer traffic to buy their products,
but as a result they cannot find a customer base. In the Hubzone
program, the Government acts as a customer and it buys about $190
billion of goods and services each year.
This amendment does not appropriate new money. It simply restores the
program to be implemented using the recommendations made in a General
Accounting Office report. I ask the support of my colleagues in
adopting this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, the amendment submitted by Senator Bond
has been cleared on our side, and on behalf of Senator Stevens, we
accept that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2355) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Amendment No. 2356

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Corzine,
Senator Biden, Senator Carper, I have an amendment that would assure
the Nation will for the next year have two independent suppliers of
antitank and short-range missiles. Without this, we fear the Nation
will be reduced to a single supply.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], for himself,
Mr. Corzine, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment
numbered 2356.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a production grant of $2,000,000 to Green Tree
Chemcial Technologies in order to sustain the company through fiscal
year 2002)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . The Secretary of the Army shall, using amounts
appropriated by title II of this division under the heading
``Operation and Maintenace, Army'', make a production grant
in the amount of $2,000,000 to Green Tree Chemical
Technologies of Parlin, New Jersey, in order to help sustain
that company through fiscal year 2002.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the managers of the bill have studied the
amendment and we are pleased to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
numbered 2356.

[[Page S12656]]

The amendment (No. 2356) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Rule VI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that I may
absent myself from the Senate for the rest of the evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I have been asked to announce by the
majority leader, after having conferred with the minority leader, that
there will be no more rollcall votes tonight.
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
Mr. REID. We thought we had this cleared. I apologize.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like the Record to note that on a
recorded vote I would have voted against this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record so notes.
The Senator from Hawaii.

Amendments Nos. 2357, 2358, 2359, 2360, 2361, 2362, 2363, 2364, 2365,
and 2366, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of the managers of the bill, I
am pleased to present the following amendments, and I ask unanimous
consent they be considered, voted, and agreed to, en bloc: an amendment
by Senator Nickles concerning the modeling and simulation program; an
amendment by Senator Lott concerning the Armed Forces retirement homes;
an amendment by Senator Kennedy concerning pullover shirts for the
Marine Corps; an amendment by Senator Reid regarding radar
modernization; an amendment by Senator Reid regarding the Clark County
bioterrorism and public health laboratory; an amendment by Senator Reid
regarding the rural low bandwidth medical collaboration system; an
amendment for Senator Warner concerning the critical infrastructure
protection initiative; an amendment for Senator Lincoln concerning the
Battlespace Logistics Readiness and Sustainment Program; an amendment
for Senator Inouye concerning the Counternarcotics and Antiterrorism
Operational Medical Support Program; an amendment for Senator McConnell
directing the Department of Defense to undertake an assessment of the
Chemical Demilitarization Program.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2357 through 2366) were agreed to en bloc, as
follows:

amendment no. 2357

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated in the Act under the
heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air
Force'' up to $4,000,000 may be made available to extend the
modeling and re-engineering program now being performed at
the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center Propulsion
Directorate.
____

amendment no. 2358

(Purpose: To increase by $7,500,000 the amount available for Armed
Forces Retirement Homes)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated by title VI under
the heading ``Other Department of Defense Appropriations'',
$7,500,000 may be available for Armed Forces Retirement
Homes.
____

amendment no. 2359

(Purpose: To set aside Marine Corps operation and maintenance for
completing the fielding of half-zip, pullover, fleece uniform shirts
for all members of the Marine Corps, including the Marine Corps
Reserve)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated by this division
for operation and maintenance, Marine Corps, $2,800,000 may
be used for completing the fielding of half-zip, pullover,
fleece uniform shirts for all members of the Marine Corps,
including the Marine Corps Reserve.
____

amendment no. 2360

(Purpose: To make available from aircraft procurement, Air Force,
$6,000,000 for 10 radars in the Air Force Radar Modernization Program
for C-130H2 aircraft (PE040115) for aircraft of the Nevada Air National
Guard at Reno, Nevada)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force'', $6,000,000 may be available for 10 radars in the Air
Force Radar Modernization Program for C-130H2 aircraft for
aircraft of the Nevada Air National Guard at Reno, Nevada.
____

amendment no. 2361

(Purpose: To make available from research, development, test, and
evaluation, Army, $3,000,000 for Medical Development (PE604771N) for
the Clark County, Nevada, bioterrorism and public health laboratory)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'', $3,000,000 may be made available for
Medical Development for the Clark County, Nevada,
bioterrorism and public health laboratory.
____

amendment no. 2362

(Purpose: To make available from research, development, test, and
evaluation, Air Force, $1,000,000 for Agile Combat Support (PE64617)
for the Rural Low Bandwidth Medical Collaboration System)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Air Force'', $1,000,000 may be made available for
Agile Combat Support for Rural Low Bandwidth Medical
Collaboration System.
____

amendment no. 2363

(Purpose: To set aside funds for the critical infrastructure protection
initiative of the Navy)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated by this division
for operation and maintenance, Navy, $6,000,000 may be made
available for critical infrastructure protection initiative.
____

amendment no. 2364

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the funds provided in this Act the heading,
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'',
$2,000,000 may be made available for Battlespace Logistics
Readiness and Sustainment project in Fayetteville,
Arkansas.''
____

amendment no. 2365

(Purpose: To provide funds for the Counter Narcotics and Terrorism
Operational Medical Support Program)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the funds appropriated by title VI of this
division under the heading ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-
Drug Activities, Defense'', $2,400,000 may be made available
for the Counter Narcotics and Terrorism Operational Medical
Support Program at the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2366

(Purpose: To require an assessment of various alternatives to the
current Army plan for the destruction of chemical weapons)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. ____. (a) Assessment Required.--Not later than March
15, 2002, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report containing an assessment of current
risks under, and various alternatives to, the current Army
plan for the destruction of chemical weapons.
(b) Elements.--The report under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description and assessment of the current risks in
the storage of chemical weapons arising from potential
terrorist attacks.
(2) A description and assessment of the current risks in
the storage of chemical weapons arising from storage of such
weapons after April 2007, the required date for disposal of
such weapons as stated in the Chemical Weapons Convention.
(3) A description and assessment of various options for
eliminating or reducing the risks described in paragraphs (1)
and (2).

[[Page S12657]]

(c) Considerations.--In preparing the report, the Secretary
shall take into account the plan for the disassembly and
neutralization of the agents in chemical weapons as described
in Army engineering studies in 1985 and 1996, the 1991
Department of Defense Safety Contingency Plan, and the 1993
findings of the National Academy of Sciences on disassembly
and neutralization of chemical weapons.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2367 through 2385, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to present, on behalf of the
managers, the second managers' package. I ask unanimous consent that
the Senate proceed to consider, vote on, and agree to en bloc: an
amendment for Senator Kerry concerning operational nuclear test
monitoring; an amendment for Senators Kerry and Kennedy concerning
sensor fused weapons CBU-97; an amendment for Senator Feinstein
concerning the Tactical Support Center Mobile Acoustic Analysis System;
an amendment for Senator Kennedy regarding the Air National Guard for
an information analysis network; an amendment for Senator Kennedy
concerning the DLAMP program; an amendment for Senator Helms concerning
the Display Performance and Environmental Laboratory Project; two
amendments for Senator Helms concerning the Joint Airborne Tactical
Electronic Combat Training Program; an amendment for Senator Inouye
concerning environmental studies in the Philippines; an amendment for
Senator Warner concerning the burial of veterans; an amendment for
Senator Burns concerning the National Business Center; an amendment for
Senator Stevens concerning crewmen's headsets; an amendment for Senator
McConnell concerning low-cost digital modems; an amendment for Senator
Gregg concerning multifunctional composite materials; an amendment for
Senator Shelby concerning the Collaborative Engineering Center of
Excellence and the Cooperative Microsatellite Experiment; an amendment
for Senator Biden concerning metal matrix composites; an amendment for
Senator Specter concerning the Solid Electrolyte Oxygen Separation
Program; an amendment for Senator Grassley that concerns unmatched
disbursements; and an amendment for Senator Voinovich concerning three
dimensional ultrasound imaging.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2367 through 2385) were agreed to en bloc, as
follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2367

(Purpose: To make available $12,500,000 from research, development,
test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, for operational nuclear test
monitoring requirements of the Air Force)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' and available for the Advanced
Technology Development for Arms Control Technology element,
$7,000,000 may be made available for the Nuclear Treaty sub-
element of such element for peer-reviewed seismic research to
support Air Force operational nuclear test monitoring
requirements.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2368

(Purpose: To make available $14,200,000 for procurement for the Air
Force for procurement of Sensor Fused Weapons (CBU-97))

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount available in title III of this
division under the heading ``Procurement of Ammunitions, Air
Force'', $10,000,000 may be available for procurement of
Sensor Fused Weapons (CBU-97).
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2369

(Purpose: To make available from other procurement, Navy, $8,000,000
for procurement of the Tactical Support Center, Mobile Acoustic
Analysis System)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Other Procurement, Navy'',
$8,000,000 may be made available for procurement of the
Tactical Support Center, Mobile Acoustic Analysis System.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2370

(Purpose: To set aside funds for continuation of the Air National Guard
Information Analysis Network (GUARDIAN))

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated by this division
for operation and maintenance, Air National Guard, $4,000,000
may be used for continuation of the Air National Guard
Information Analysis Network (GUARDIAN)).
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2371

(Purpose: To set aside a specified amount of operation and maintenance,
Defense-wide funds for the DLAMP program)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title II for
operation and maintenance, Defense-wide, $55,700,000 may be
available for the Defense Leadership and Management Program.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2372

(Purpose: To provide funding for the Display Performance and
Environment Evaluation Laboratory Project of the Army Research
Laboratory)

At the appropriate place in division A, add the following
new section:
Sec. . Of the funds made available in Title IV of this Act
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'', up to $4,000,000 may be made available
for the Display Performance and Environmental Evaluation
Laboratory Project of the Army Research Laboratory.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2373

(Purpose: To expand the number of U.S. Navy combat aircrews who can
benefit from Airborne Tactical Adversary Electronic Warfare/Electronic
Attack training)

At the appropriate place in division A, add the following
new section:
Sec. . Of the funds made available in Title II of this Act
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', up to
$2,000,000 may be made available for the U.S. Navy to expand
the number of combat aircrews who can benefit from outsourced
Joint Airborne Tactical Electronic Combat Training.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2374

(Purpose: To expand the number of U.S. Air Force combat aircrews who
can benefit from Airborne Tactical Adversary Electronic Warfare/
Electronic Attack training)

At the appropriate place in division A, add the following
new section:
Sec. . Of the funds made available in Title II of this Act
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'',
up to $2,000,000 may be made available for the U.S. Air Force
to expand the number of combat aircrews who can benefit from
outsourced Joint Airborne Tactical Electronic Combat
Training.
____

Amendment No. 2375

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding environmental
contamination and health effects emanating from the former United
States military facilities in the Philippines)

At the appropriate place, insert:

SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINATION IN THE PHILIPPINES.

It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Secretary of State, in cooperation with the
Secretary of Defense, should continue to work with the
Government of the Philippines and with appropriate non-
governmental organizations in the United States and the
Philippines to fully identify and share all relevant
information concerning environmental contamination and health
effects emanating from former United States military
facilities in the Philippines following the departure of the
United States military forces from the Philippines in 1992;
(2) the United States and the Government of the Philippines
should continue to build upon the agreements outlined in the
Joint Statement by the United States and the Republic of the
Philippines on a Framework for Bilateral Cooperation in the
Environment and Public Health, signed on July 27, 2000; and
(3) Congress should encourage an objective non-governmental
study, which would examine environmental contamination and
health effects emanating from former United States military
facilities in the Philippines, following the departure of
United States military forces from the Philippines in 1992.
____

Amendment No. 2376

(Purpose: To authorize the burial in Arlington National Cemetery of any
former Reservist who died in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
and would have been eligible for burial in Arlington National Cemetery
but for age at time of death)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. (a) Authority for Burial of Certain Individuals
at Arlington National Cemetery.--The Secretary of the Army
shall authorize the burial in a separate gravesite at
Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, of any individual
who--
(1) died as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the
United States on September 11, 2001; and
(2) would have been eligible for burial in Arlington
National Cemetery by reason of service in a reserve component
of the Armed Forces but for the fact that such individual was
less than 60 years of age at the time of death.

[[Page S12658]]

(b) Eligibility of Surviving Spouse.--The surviving spouse
of an individual buried in a gravesite in Arlington National
Cemetery under the authority provided under subsection (a)
shall be eligible for burial in the gravesite of the
individual to the same extent as the surviving spouse of any
other individual buried in Arlington National Cemetery is
eligible for burial in the gravesite of such other
individual.
____

amendment no. 2377

(Purpose: To provided for the retention of certain contracting
authorities by the Department of the Interior's National Business
Center)

At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
``Sec. . In fiscal year 2002, the Department of the
Interior National Business Center may continue to enter into
grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions, under
the Defense Conversion, Reinvestment, and Transition
Assistance Act of 1992, and other related legislation.''
____

amendment no. 2378

(Purpose: To set aside funds for the Product Improved Combat Vehicle
Crewman's Headset)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Of the total amount appropriated by this division for other
procurement, Army, $9,000,000 may be available for the
``Product Improved Combat Vehicle Crewman's Headset.''
____

amendment no. 2379

(Purpose: To set aside funds to be used to support development and
testing of new designs of low cost digital modems for wideband common
data link)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. 8135. Of the funds appropriated by this division for
research, development, test and evaluation, Navy, up to
$4,000,000 may be used to support development and testing of
new designs of low cost digital modems for Wideband Common
Data Link.
____

amendment no. 2380

(Purpose: To set aside Army RDT&E funds for research and development of
key enabling technologies for producing low cost, improved performance,
reduced signature, multifunctional composite materials)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by this division for
the Army for research, development, test, and evaluation,
$2,000,000 may be available for research and development of
key enabling technologies (such as filament winding,
braiding, contour weaving, and dry powder resin towpregs
fabrication) for producing low cost, improved performance,
reduced signature, multifunctional composite materials.
____

amendment no. 2381

(Purpose: To set aside Army RDT&E funding for certain programs)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated under title IV
for research, development, test and evaluation, Army,
$2,000,000 may be available for the Collaborative Engineering
Center of Excellence, $3,000,000 may be available for the
Battlefield Ordnance Awareness, and $4,000,000 may be
available for the Cooperative Microsatellite Experiment.
____

amendment no. 2382

(Purpose: To make available from research, development, test, and
evaluation, Army, $5,000,000 to develop high-performance 81mm and 120mm
mortar systems that use metal matrix composites to substantially reduce
the weight of such system)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research, Development. Test and
Evaluation, Army'' that is available for Munitions $5,000,000
may be available to develop high-performance 81mm and 120mm
mortar systems that use metal matrix composites to
substantially reduce the weight of such systems.
____

amendment no. 2383

(Purpose: To set aside Air Force RDT&E funds for human effectiveness
applied research (PE 602202F) for continuing development under the
solid electrolyte oxygen separation program of the Air Force)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated by title IV of
this division for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Air Force, up to $6,000,000 may be used for human
effectiveness applied research for continuing development
under the solid electrolyte oxygen separation program of the
Air Force.
____

amendment no. 2384

(Purpose: To continue to apply in fiscal year 2002 a requirement (in an
appropriations Act for the Department of Defense for a previous fiscal
year) for matching each DOD disbursement in excess of $500,000 to a
particular obligation before the disbursement is made)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Section 8106 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter
under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-111, 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to
apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of
Defense in fiscal year 2002.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is my annual Defense Department
accounting amendment.
I call it my accounting 101 amendment.
I call it accounting 101 because it calls on DOD to apply one of the
most elementary accounting procedures in existence.
It request that DOD match disbursements with obligations before
making payments.
Accountants and bookkeepers have been using this procedure since the
beginning of time. It is an important internal control check. But it is
simple and effective. Most people do it when they reconcile their
monthly credit card bills.
Before a bill is approved for payment, someone has to check to make
sure that the item in question was, in fact, ordered and received; and
it can be located in the warehouse or elsewhere. It is a way of
detecting and deterring theft and fraud. Today, it can be done
electronically with computers.
For unexplained reasons in the past, DOD has not followed this simple
procedure. DOD likes to pay the bill first and at some later date--
maybe a year or two later--try to match the payment with a bill. In the
Pentagon, they call it ``pay and chase.'' In many cases, the bill is
never found.
Pay and chase is one big reason why DOD piled up $50 billion in
unmatched disbursements in the 1990's.
Sloppy bookkeeping leaves DOD's financial resources vulnerable to
fraud and abuse.
Earlier this year, the very distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, raised a series of very
troublesome questions about DOD accounting practices. He did it at a
hearing before the Armed Services Committee on January on Mr.
Rumsfeld's nomination.
Senator Byrd said and I quote: ``The Pentagon's books are in such
utter disarray that no one knows what America's military actually owns
or spends.''
Senator Byrd also said and I quote: ``The Department of Defense's own
auditors say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in
transactions in one year alone.''
The failure to match disbursements with obligations is a big driver
behind the problem identified by Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd's inquiry set off a firestorm at the Pentagon. It became
a catalyst for change. Secretary Rumsfeld and his team are now
committed to reform.
As a former chief executive officer with a large corporation, Mr.
Rumsfeld understands that he must have accurate, up-to-date information
at his fingertips.
He knows that he can't make good decisions with lousy information.
But that's all he gets right now--lousy financial information.
Secretary Rumsfeld knows that financial reform is mandatory.
This year I have had the privilege of working with the very
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd,
to solve this problem.
Our financial reform initiative was accepted by the committee and is
now part of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense authorization bill.
Secretary Rumsfeld's initiatives and the provisions in the Defense
authorization bill are part of a long-term effort.
It may take four years or more before the new systems are up and
running and producing reliable financial information.
The amendment that I offer today is a short-term, stopgap measure. It
will help to maintain pressure and discipline in accounting before the
new systems can kick in to action.
Mr. President, the policy embodied in this amendment has been
incorporated in the last seven appropriations acts--fiscal years 1995
through 2001.
Under current law, Section 8137 of the act for Fiscal Year 2001, the
matching threshold is set at $500,000.00.

[[Page S12659]]

By a unanimous vote taken on June 9, 2000, the Senate agreed to keep
the threshold at the $500,000.00 level.
Both the General Accounting Office and the inspector general believe
that this policy is helping the department avoid ``problem
disbursements'' and other related accounting problems.
Secretary Rumsfeld has made a firm commitment to ``clean up'' the
books and bring some financial management reform to the process at the
Pentagon.
Mr. President, that's half of the battle right there--the will to do
it. And the will is there.
Having that kind of attitude at the top gives me a high level of
confidence. Maybe we can get the job done this time.
Since Secretary Rumsfeld's proposed reforms are still in the
development phase and may be several years down the road, I am
recommending that the matching threshold be maintained at the current
level of $5,000,000.00.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

amendment no. 2385

(Purpose: To set aside Army RDT&E funds for the Three-Dimensional
Ultrasound Imaging Initiative II)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division for the Army for research, development, test, and
evaluation, $5,000,000 may be available for the Three-
Dimensional Ultrasound Imaging Initiative II.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2386 through 2395, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if may I continue with the managers'
package, on behalf of the managers of the bill, I am pleased to offer
the following amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to consider, vote on, and agree to, en bloc: an amendment for
Senator Kerry on solid dye laser technology; an amendment for Senator
Feinstein on Shortstop Electronic Protection System; an amendment for
Senator Feinstein on Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Program; an
amendment for Senator Lugar, Increase Former SU Threat Reduction
(FSUTR); an amendment for Senator Lott, initiative; an amendment for
Senator Lott on military personnel research; an amendment for Senator
Lott on C-130 Roadmap; an amendment for Senator Helms on LOGTECH; an
amendment for Senator Lott on LDH-9; an amendment for Senator Collins
on the Striker advanced lightweight grenade launcher.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2386 through 2395) were agreed to, en bloc, as
follows:

amendment no. 2386

(Purpose: To make available from research, development, test, and
evaluation, Army, $5,000,000 for the Surveillance Denial Solid Dye
Laser Technology program of the Aviation and Missile Research,
Development and Engineering Center of the Army)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount available in title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'' that is available for missile technology,
$5,000,000 may be available for the Surveillance Denial Solid
Dye Laser Technology program of the Aviation and Missile
Research, Development and Engineering Center of the Army.
____

amendment no. 2387

(Purpose: To make available from other procurement, Army, $10,000,000
for procurement of Shortstop Electronic Protection Systems for critical
force protection)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$10,000,000 may be made available for procurement of
Shortstop Electronic Protection Systems for critical force
protection.
____

amendment no. 2388

(Purpose: To make available from research, development, test, and
evaluation, Navy, $20,000,000 for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
program)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy'', $5,000,000 may be made available for the
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance program.
____

amendment no. 2389

(Purpose: To increase by $46,000,000 the amount available for former
Soviet Union threat reduction and to provide an offset)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. . (a) Increase in Amount Available for Former Soviet
Union Threat Reduction.--The amount appropriated by title II
of this division under the heading ``Former Soviet Union
Threat Reduction'' is hereby increased by $46,00,000.
(b) Offset.--The amount appropriated by title II of this
division under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'' is hereby decreased by $46,000,000.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2390

(Purpose: To provide funding for a Processible Rigid-Rod Polymeric
Material Supplier Initiative under title III of the Defense Production
Act of 1950)

On page 223, line 23, insert before the period ``, of
which, $3,000,000 may be used for a Processible Rigid-Rod
Polymeric Material Supplier Initiative under title III of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091 et seq.)
to develop affordable production methods and a domestic
supplier for military and commercial processible rigid-rod
materials''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2391

(Purpose: To increase by $2,000,000 the amount available for Military
Personnel Research (PE61103D))

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated by title IV under
the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION,
DEFENSE WIDE'', $2,000,000 may be made available for Military
Personnel Research.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2392

(Purpose: To express the support of the Senate for the Air Force's
long-range beddown plan for the C-130J fleet)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Provided, That the funds appropriated by this act
for C-130J aircraft shall be used to support the Air Force's
long-range plan called the ``C-130 Roadmap'' to assist in the
planning, budgeting, and beddown of the C-130J fleet. The
``C-130 Roadmap'' gives consideration to the needs of the
service, the condition of the aircraft to be replaced, and
the requirement to properly phase facilities to determine the
best C-130J aircraft beddown sequence.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2393

(Purpose: To provide funding for the U.S. Army Materiel Command's
Logistics and Technology Project (LOGTECH))

At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section:
Sec. . Of the funds made available in Title II of this
Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'',
$2,550,000 may be available for the U.S. Army Materiel
Command's Logistics and Technology Project (LOGTECH).
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2394

(Purpose: To increase by $5,000,000 the amount available for the
planning and design for evolutionary improvements for the next LHD-type
Amphibious Assault Ship (PE603564N))

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated by title IV under
the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION,
NAVY'', $5,000,000 is available for the planning and design
for evolutionary improvements for the next LHD-type
Amphibious Assault Ship.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2395

(Purpose: To set aside $5,000,000 of Procurement, Defense-Wide funds
for low-rate initial production of the Striker advanced lightweight
grenade launcher (ALGL1160444BBB), and $1,000,000 of RDT&E, Navy funds
for the Warfighting Laboratory for delivery and evaluation of prototype
units of the Striker ALGL (PE 0603640M))

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. (a) Of the total amount appropriated by title
III of this division for procurement, Defense-Wide, up to
$5,000,000 may be made available for low-rate initial
production of the Striker advanced lightweight grenade
launcher.
(b) Of the total amount appropriated by title IV of this
division for research, development, test and evaluation,
Navy, up to $1,000,000 may be made available for the
Warfighting Laboratory for delivery and evaluation of
prototype units of the Striker advanced lightweight grenade
launcher.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2396 through 2405, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

[[Page S12660]]

proceed to consider, vote on, and agree to the following amendments on
behalf of the managers, en bloc: an amendment for Senator Collins on
Smart Maps initiative; an amendment for Senator Collins on chemical and
biological agents sensors; an amendment for Senator Landrieu on Army
Nutrition Program; an amendment for Senator Landrieu on Partnership for
Peace; an amendment for Senator Thompson on communicator system for
Army National Guard; an amendment for Senator Dorgan on miniaturized
wireless system; an amendment for Senator Harkin on Consolidated
Interactive Virtual Information Center of the National Guard; an
amendment for Senator Reed on Navy warfighting experimentation and
demonstration for high-speed vessels; another amendment for Senator
Reed on Impact Aid for children with severe disabilities; and an
amendment for Senators Biden and Carper on worker safety demonstration
programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2396 through 2405) were agreed to en bloc, as
follows:

amendment no. 2396

(Purpose: To set aside $4,000,000 of RDT&E, Defense-Wide funds for the
Intelligent Spatial Technologies for Smart Maps Initiative of the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (PE 0305102BQ))

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV of
this division for research, development, test and evaluation,
Defense-Wide, up to $4,000,000 may be made available for the
Intelligent Spatial Technologies for Smart Maps Initiative of
the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
____

amendment no. 2397

(Purpose: To set aside $5,000,000 of research, development, test, and
evaluation, Defense-Wide funds for further development of light weight
sensors of chemical and biological agents using fluorescence-based
detection (PE 0602384BP))

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV of
this division for research, development, test and evaluation,
Defense-Wide, $5,000,000 may be available for further
development of light weight sensors of chemical and
biological agents using fluorescence-based detection.
____

amendment no. 2398

(Purpose: To authorize the availability of $2,500,000 for the Army
Nutrition Project)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'' $2,500,000 may be made available for the
Army Nutrition Project.
____

amendment no. 2399

(Purpose: To authorize the availability of an additional $2,000,000 for
the Partnership for Peach (PFP) Information Management System)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $2,000,000 may be made available
for the Partnership for Peace (PFP) Information Management
System. Any amount made available for the Partnership for
Peace Information Management System under this section is in
addition to other amounts available for the Partnership for
Peace Information Management System under this Act.
____

amendment no. 2400

(Purpose: To make available $4,892,000 for the Communicator Automated
Emergency Notification System of the Army National Guard)

At the end of title VII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$4,892,000 may be used for the Communicator Automated
Emergency Notification System of the Army National Guard.
____

amendment no. 2401

(Purpose: To provide funds for a miniaturized wireless system)

At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:
Sec. . Of the funds provided for Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation in this bill, the Secretary of Defense
may use $10,000,000 to initiate a university-industry program
to utilize advances in 3-dimensional chip scale packaging
(CSP) and high temperature superconducting (HTS) transceiver
performance, to reduce the size, weight, power consumption,
and cost of advanced military wireless communications systems
for covert military and intelligence operations, especially
HUMINT.
____

amendment no. 2402

(Purpose: To make available $5,000,000 for the Consolidated Interactive
Virtual Information Center for the National Guard)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. (a) Funding for National Guard Consolidated
Interactive Virtual Information Center.--Of the amount
appropriated by title II of this division under the heading
``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard,'' $5,000,000
may be available for the Consolidated Interactive Virtual
Information Center for the National Guard.
(b) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under
subsection (a) for the Consolidated Interactive Virtual
Information Center of the National Guard is in addition to
any other amounts available under this Act for the
Consolidated Interactive Virtual Information Center.
____

amendment no. 2403

(Purpose: To make available $1,200,000 for concept development and
composite construction of high speed vessels currently implemented by
the Navy Warfare Development Command)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy'' and available for Navy Space and
Electronic Warfare (SEW) Architecture/Engine, $1,200,000 may
be made available for concept development and composite
construction of high speed vessels currently implemented by
the Navy Warfare Development Command.
____

amendment no. 2404

(Purpose: To set aside operation and maintenance, Defense-Wide funds
for impact aid for children with severe disabilities)

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the total amount appropriated by this
division for operation and maintenance, Defense-Wide,
$5,000,000 may be available for payments under section 363 of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-396;
114 Stat. 1654A-77).
____

Amendment No. 2405

(Purpose: To make funds available to enhance the worker safety
demonstration programs of the military departments)

At the appropriate place in division A, insert the
following:
Sec. ____. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) The military departments have recently initiated worker
safety demonstration programs.
(2) These programs are intended to improve the working
conditions of Department of Defense personnel and save money.
(3) These programs are in the public interest, and the
enhancement of these programs will lead to desirable results
for the military departments.
(b) Funds for Enhancement of Army Program.--Of the amount
appropriated by title II of this division under the heading
``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $3,300,000 may be
available to enhance the Worker Safety Demonstration Program
of the Army.
(c) Funds for Enhancement of Navy Program.--Of the amount
appropriated by title II of this division under the heading
``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $3,300,000 may be
available to enhance the Worker Safety Demonstration Program
of the Navy.
(d) Funds for Enhancement of Air Force Program.--Of the
amount appropriated by title II of this division under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $3,300,000
may be available to enhance the Worker Safety Demonstration
Program of the Air Force.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2406 through 2414, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may proceed further, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to consider, vote on, and agree to, en
bloc: an amendment for Senator Carnahan on Rosecrans Memorial Airport;
an amendment for Senator Nelson of Florida on the Center for Advanced
Power Systems; an amendment for Senator DeWine on collaborative
technology clusters; an amendment for Senator Cleland on Army live fire
ranges; an amendment for Senator Cleland on Aging Aircraft Program; an
amendment for Senator Snowe on Navy Pilot Human Resources Call Center;
an amendment for Senator Snowe on compact kinetic energy missile; an
amendment for Senator Cleland on engineering control and surveillance
systems; and an amendment for Senator Bunning on Navy Medical Research
Center.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S12661]]

The amendments (Nos. 2406 through 2414) were agreed to en bloc, as
follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2406

(Purpose: To set aside Air National Guard operation and maintenance
funds for certain replacement and repair projects for facilities used
by the Air National Guard at Rosecrans Memorial Airport, St. Joseph,
Missouri)

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the total amount appropriated by this
division for operation and maintenance, Air National Guard,
$435,000 may be available (subject to section 2805(c) of
title 10, United States Code) for the replacement of
deteriorating gas lines, mains, valves, and fittings at the
Air National Guard facility at Rosecrans Memorial Airport,
St. Joseph, Missouri, and (subject to section 2811 of title
10, United States Code) for the repair of the roof of the
Aerial Port Facility at that airport.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2407

At the appropriate place in Division A, insert the
following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated in title IV of this
division under the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND
EVALUATION, NAVY'', $7,000,000 may be made available for the
Center for Advanced Power Systems.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2408

(Purpose: To set aside Air Force RDT&E funds to complete the research
and development tasks under the Collaborative Technology Clusters
program of the Air Force Research Laboratory)

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division for the Air Force for research, development, test,
and evaluation, $3,500,000 may be available for the
Collaborative Technology Clusters program.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2409

(Purpose: To make available $7,000,000 for Army live fire ranges)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$7,000,000 may be available for Army live fire ranges.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2410

(Purpose: To make available $3,900,000 for the aging aircraft program
of the Air Force)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title II of this
division under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air
Force'', $3,900,000 may be available for the aging aircraft
program of the Air Force.
____

amendment no. 2411

(Purpose: To set aside Navy operation and maintenance funds for the
Navy Pilot Human Resources Call Center, Cutler, Maine (Civilian
Manpower and Personnel Management, BLN 480))

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the total amount appropriated in title II of
this division for operation and maintenance, Navy, for
civilian manpower and personnel management, $1,500,000 may be
used for the Navy Pilot Human Resources Call Center, Cutler,
Maine.
____

amendment no. 2412

(Purpose: To set aside Army RDT&E funds for Compact Kinetic Energy
Missile Inertial Future Missile Technology Integration (PE 0602303A,
BLN 10))

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the total amount appropriated in title IV of
this division for research, development, test and evaluation,
Army, $5,000,000 may be used for Compact Kinetic Energy
Missile Inertial Future Missile Technology Integration.
____

amendment no. 2413

(Purpose: To make available $1,600,000 for the Navy for Engineering
Control and Surveillance Systems)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Other Procurement, Navy'',
$1,600,000 may be available for the Navy for Engineering
Control and Surveillance Systems.
____

amendment no. 2414

(Purpose: To provide $5,000,000 for a program at the Naval Medical
Research Center (NMRC) to treat victims of radiation exposure
(PE0604771N)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy'', $5,000,000 may made be available for a
program at the Naval Medical Research Center (NMRC) to treat
victims of radiation exposure.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2415 through 2425, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may proceed further, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate proceed to consider, vote on, and agree to, en
bloc: an amendment for Senator Landrieu, Gulf States Initiative; an
amendment for Senator Collins, laser fabricated steel reinforcement for
ship construction; an amendment for Senator Dodd on report on progress
of CTR to India, Pakistan; an amendment for Senator Dodd on the M4
carbine; an amendment for Senator Dodd on the AN/AVR-2A; an amendment
for Senator Dodd on the F-16 batteries; an amendment for Senator Dodd
on the four hushkits for C-9; an amendment for Senator Sarbanes on
Operating Room of the Future; an amendment for Senator Torricelli on
Coalition for Advanced Biomaterials; an amendment for Senator
Torricelli on advanced digital recorders for P-3; and an amendment for
Senator Bingaman on Big Crow, Defense Systems Evaluation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2415 through 2425) were agreed to en bloc, as
follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 2415

(Purpose: To make available $10,000,000 for the Gulf States Initiative)

AMENDMENT NO. 2416

(Purpose: To set aside $4,300,000 of Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy funds for the demonstration and validation of laser
fabricated steel reinforcement for ship construction (PE 0603123N))

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV of
this division for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Navy, $4,000,000 may be available for the
demonstration and validation of laser fabricated steel
reinforcement for ship construction.
____

Amendment No. 2417

(Purpose: To require a report on progress toward implementation of
comprehensive nuclear threat reduction programs to safeguard Pakistani
and Indian missile nuclear stockpiles and technology)

At the appropriate place in the Committee amendment, insert
the following new section:

SEC. ____. REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION OF
COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS
TO SAFEGUARD PAKISTANI AND INDIAN MISSILE
NUCLEAR STOCKPILES AND TECHNOLOGY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since 1991 the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction
initiative with the Russian Federation has sought to address
the threat posed by Soviet-era stockpiles of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons-grade materials being
illicitly acquired by terrorist organizations or rogue
states.
(2) India and Pakistan have acquired or developed
independently nuclear materials, detonation devices,
warheads, and delivery systems as part of their nuclear
weapons programs.
(3) Neither India nor Pakistan is currently a signatory of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty or an active participant in the United
Nations Conference of Disarmament, nor do these countries
voluntarily submit to international inspections of their
nuclear facilities.
(4) Since the commencement of the military campaign against
the Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network in
Afghanistan, Pakistan has taken additional steps to secure
its nuclear assets from theft by members of al-Qaeda or other
terrorists sympathetic to Osama bin Laden or the Taliban.
(5) Self-policing of nuclear materials and sensitive
technologies by Indian and Pakistani authorities without up-
to-date Western technology and expertise in the nuclear
security area is unlikely to prevent determined terrorists or
sympathizers from gaining access to such stockpiles over the
long term.
(6) The United States has a significant national security
interest in cooperating with India and Pakistan in order to
ensure that effective nuclear threat reduction programs and
policies are being pursued by the governments of those two
countries.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
cooperation with the Secretaries of State and Energy, shall
submit a report to Congress describing the steps that have
been taken to develop cooperative threat reduction programs
with India and

[[Page S12662]]

Pakistan. Such report shall include recommendations for
changes in any provision of existing law that is currently an
impediment to the full establishment of such programs, a
timetable for implementation of such programs, and an
estimated five-year budget that will be required to fully
fund such programs.

amendment no. 2418

(Purpose: To make available $5,000,000 for the Marine Corps for M-4
Carbine, Modular Weapon Systems)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Procurement, Marine Corps'',
$5,000,000 may be available for M-4 Carbine, Modular Weapon
Systems.
____

amendment no. 2419

(Purpose: To make available $7,500,000 for the Army for AN/AVR-2A laser
detecting sets)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'',
$7,500,000 may be available for AN/AVR-2A laser detecting
sets.
____

amendment no. 2420

(Purpose: To make available $2,500,000 for the Air Force for Industrial
Preparedness (PE0708011F) for continuing development of the nickel-
metal hydride replacement battery for F-16 aircraft)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research Development, Test and
Evaluation, Air Force'', $2,500,000 may be available for
Industrial Preparedness (PE0708011F) for continuing
development of the nickel-metal hydride replacement battery
for F-16 aircraft.
____

amendment no. 2421

(Purpose: To make available $8,960,000 for the Navy for four Hushkit
noise inhibitors for C-9 aircraft)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title III under
the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $8,960,000 may be
available for the Navy for four Hushkit noise inhibitors for
C-9 aircraft.
____

amendment no. 2422

(Purpose: To make available $5,000,000 for the development of the
Operating Room of the Future, an applied technology test bed at the
University of Maryland Medical Center in collaboration with the
Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center of the Army)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title VI of this
division under the heading ``Defense Health Program'',
$5,000,000 may be available for the Army for the development
of the Operating Room of the Future, an applied technology
test bed at the University of Maryland Medical Center.
____

amendment no. 2423

(Purpose: To make available $5,700,000 for the Army for the Coalition
for Advanced Biomaterials Technologies and Therapies (CABTT) program to
maximize far-forward treatment and for the accelerated return to duty
of combat casualties)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
division under the heading ``Research Development, Testt and
Evaluation, Army'', $5,700,000 may be made available for the
Coalition for Advanced Biomaterials Technologies and
Therapies (CABTT) program to maximize far-forward treatment
and for the accelerated return to duty of combat casualties.
____

amendment no. 2424

(Purpose: To make available $9,800,000 for the Navy for Advanced
Digital Recorders and Digital Recorder Producers for P-3 aircraft)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this
division under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'',
$9,800,000 may be available only for Advanced Digital
Recorders and Digital Recorder Producers for P-3 aircraft.
____

amendment no. 2425

(Purpose: To make funds available for Big Crow (PE605118D))

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. (a) Funding for Certain Programs and Projects.--
From amounts appropriated by this division, amounts may
hereby be made available as follows:
(1) $8,000,000 for Big Crow (PE605118D).

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2426 through 2438, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. And finally, Mr. President----
Mr. STEVENS. No. Two more.
Mr. INOUYE. For the managers of the bill, I ask unanimous consent the
Senate proceed to consider, vote on, and agree to, en bloc: an
amendment for Senator Cochran, domed housing units on the Marshall
Islands; an amendment for Senator Rick Santorum, National Tissue
Engineering Center; an amendment for Senator Santorum, M107 HE 155
millimeter; an amendment for Senator Santorum on Integrated Medical
Information Tech System; an amendment for Senator Santorum on modular
helmet; an amendment for Senator Santorum on information operations; an
amendment for Senator Kennedy on NULKA; an amendment for Senator Harkin
on health protection of workers at Iowa AAP; an amendment for Senator
Shelby on low-cost launch vehicle technology; an amendment for Senator
Bunning on study of the Army trainee barracks; an amendment for Senator
Hutchinson on pilot program for efficient inventory management; an
amendment for Senator McCain, strike Section 902 of Division B for
funding certain military construction projects; and an amendment for
Senator Stabenow on advanced safety tether operations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2426 through 2438) were agreed to en bloc, as
follows:

amendment no. 2426

(Purpose: To provide for the acquisition, installation, and maintenance
of domed housing units on the Marshall Islands)

At the end of title VIII of this division, add the
following:
Sec. 8135. (a) Funding for Domed Housing Units on Marshall
Islands.--From within amounts appropriated by title IV of
this division under the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
AND EVALUATION, ARMY'' the Commanding General of the Army
Space and Missile Defense Command may acquire, and maintain
domed housing units for military personnel on Kwajalein Atoll
and other islands and locations in support of the mission of
the command.
____

amendment no. 2427

(Purpose: To set aside for medical technology, National Tissue
Engineering Center $4,000,000 of the amount provided for Army,
research, development, test and evaluation)

Of the funds made available in title IV of the act under
the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Army'' $4,000,000 may be available for a national tissue
engineering center.
____

amendment no. 2428

(Purpose: To set aside for artillery projectiles, M107, HE, 155mm,
$5,000,000 of the amount provided for Army, Ammunition Procurement)

Of the funds in Title III for Ammunition Procurement, Army,
$5,000,000 may be available for M107, HE, 155mm.
____

amendment no. 2429

(Purpose: To set aside for Agile Combat Support, Integrated Medical
Information Technology System (PE 604617) $1,000,000 of the amount for
Air Force, research, development, test, and evaluation)

Of the funds in Title IV for Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Air Force, $1,000,000 may be available for
Integrated Medical Information Technology System.
____

amendment no. 2430

(Purpose: To set aside for Air Crew Systems Development, Modular Helmet
Development (PE 604264N) $3,000,000 of the amount for the Navy for
research, development, test and evaluation)

Of the funds authorized in Title IV for appropriation for
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, $3,000,000
may be available for modular helmet.
____

amendment no. 2431

(Purpose: To set aside for land forces readiness-information operations
sustainment (PE 19640) $5,000,000 of the amount provided for the Army
Reserve for operations and maintenance)

Of the funds available in Title II for Operation &
Maintenance, Army Reserve, $5,000,000 may be available for
land forces readiness-information operations.
____

amendment no. 2432

(Purpose: To set aside $10,000,000 of other procurement, Navy funds for
the NULKA decoy procurement)

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . Of the total amount appropriated by title III of
this division for other procurement, Navy, $10,000,000 may be
available for the NULKA decoy procurement.

[[Page S12663]]

____
Amendment No. 2433

(Purpose: To facilitate the protection of the health of current and
former workers at Iowa Army Ammunition Plant)

At the end of title VIII of division A, insert the
following:
Sec. ____. (a) * * *.--Section 1078(b) of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-283)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or its contractors
or subcontractors,'' after ``Department of Defense''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``stored, assembled,
disassembled, or maintained'' and inserting ``manufactured,
assembled, or disassembled''.
(b) Determination of Exposures at IAAP.--The Secretary of
Defense shall take appropriate actions to determine the
nature and extent of the exposure of current and former
employees at the Army facility at the Iowa Army Ammunition
Plant, including contractor and subcontractor employees at
the facility, to radioactive or other hazardous substances at
the facility, including possible pathways for the exposure of
such employees to such substances.
(c) Notification of Employees Regarding Exposure.--(1) The
Secretary shall take appropriate actions to--
(A) identify current and former employees at the facility
referred to in subsection (b), including contractor and
subcontractor employees at the facility; and
(B) notify such employees of known or possible exposures to
radioactive or other hazardous substances at the facility.
(2) Notice under paragraph (1)(B) shall include--
(A) information on the discussion of exposures covered by
such notice with health care providers and other appropriate
persons who do not hold a security clearance; and
(B) if necessary, appropriate guidance on contacting health
care providers and officials involved with cleanup of the
facility who hold an appropriate security clearance.
(3) Notice under paragraph (1)(B) shall be by mail or other
appropriate means, as determined by the Secretary.
(d) Deadline for Actions.--The Secretary shall complete the
actions required by subsections (b) and (c) not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report setting forth the
results of the actions undertaken by the Secretary under this
section, including any determinations under subsection (b),
the number of workers identified under subsection (c)(1)(A),
the content of the notice to such workers under subsection
(c)(1)(B), and the status of progress on the provision of the
notice to such workers under subsection (c)(1)(B).
____

Amendment No. 2434

(Purpose: To add funding for Air Force RDT&E for Low Cost Launch
Vehicle Technology)

Amendment No. 2435

(Purpose: To require a Comptroller General study of the physical state
of Initial Entry Trainee housing and barracks of the Armed Services)

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. (a) Study of Physical State of Armed Services
Initial Entry Trainee Housing and Barracks.--The Comptroller
General of the United States shall carry out a study of the
physical state of the Initial Entry Trainee housing and
barracks of the Armed Services.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than nine months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a report on the study carried out under subsection (a). The
report shall set forth the results of the study, and shall
include such other matters relating to the study as the
Comptroller General considers appropriate.
(c) Congressional Defense Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``congressional defense committees''
means--
(1) the Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services of
the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services of
the House of Representatives.
____

Amendment No. 2436

(Purpose: To provide funds for a pilot program for the development of
an efficient inventory management system for the Department of Defense)

On page 326, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

pilot program for efficient inventory management system for the
department of defense

Sec. 8135. (a) Of the total amount appropriated by this
division for operation and maintenance, Defense-Wide,
$1,000,000 may be available for the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a pilot program for the development and operation
of an efficient inventory management system for the
Department of Defense. The pilot program may be designed to
address the problems in the inventory management system of
the Department that were identified by the Comptroller
General of the United States as a result of the General
Accounting Office audit of the inventory management system of
the Department in 1997.
(b) In entering into any contract for purposes of the pilot
program, the Secretary may take into appropriate account
current Department contract goals for small business concerns
owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals.
(c) Not later than one year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary may submit to Congress a report on
the pilot program. The report shall describe the pilot
program, assess the progress of the pilot program, and
contain such recommendations at the Secretary considers
appropriate regarding expansion or extension of the pilot
program.
____

Amendment No. 2437

(Purpose: To provide funds to carry out authorized military
construction projects funds for which are diverted to military
construction projects for the national emergency)

Strike section 902 of division B and insert the following:
Sec. 902. (a) Funding for Certain Military Construction
Projects.--If in exercising the authority in section 2808 of
title 10, United States Code, to carry out military
construction projects not authorized by law, the Secretary of
Defense utilizes, whether in whole or in part, funds
appropriated but not yet obligated for a military
construction project previously authorized by law, the
Secretary may carry out such military construction project
previously authorized by law using amounts appropriated by
the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United
States (Public Law 107-38; 115 Stat. 220), or any other
appropriations Act to provide funds for the recovery from and
response to the terrorist attacks on the United States that
is enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
available for obligation.
____

amendment no. 2438

(Purpose: To make available $2,000,000 for the Advanced Safety Tether
Operation and Reliability/Space Transfer using Electrodynamic
Propulsion (STEP-AIRSEDS) program (PE0602236N))

At the end of title VIII of division A, add the following:
Sec. 8135. (a) Funding for Advanced Safety Tether Operation
and Reliability/Space Transfer using Electrodynamic
Propulsion (STEP-AIRSEDS) Program.--Of the amount
appropriated by title IV of this division under the heading
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Navy'',
$2,000,000 may be allocated to the Advanced Safety Tether
Operation and Reliability/Space Transfer using Electrodynamic
Propulsion (STEP-AIRSEDS) program (PE0602236N) of the Office
of Naval Research/Navy Research Laboratory.

Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2439 through 2459, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of the managers of the bill, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider, vote on, and
agree to the following amendments, en bloc: an amendment for Senator
Stabenow, community service projects; an amendment for Senator Stevens,
NOAA; an amendment for Senator Gregg, date change; an amendment for
Senator Durbin, legislative branch, technical; an amendment for Senator
Specter, intelligent transportation system; an amendment for Senator
Landrieu, dirty bombs; an amendment for Senator Murray, apples; an
amendment for Senator Domenici, waste isolation; an amendment for
Senator Durbin, Nutwood Levee; an amendment for Senator Domenici,
electrical energy systems; an amendment for Senator Harkin, essential
air service; an amendment for Senator Stevens, GSA provision; an
amendment for Senator Stevens, Postal Service product rates; an
amendment for Senator Bond, Smithsonian Institution artifacts; an
amendment for Senator Daschle, Kennedy Center; an amendment for Senator
Stevens, Cook Inlet Housing Authority; an amendment for Senator
Domenici, dam safety; an amendment for Senator Stevens, Alaska Native
contracting; an amendment for Senators Biden and Hollings on the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation;

[[Page S12664]]

and an amendment for Senator Daschle on mining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 2439 through 2459) were agreed to, en bloc, as
follows:

Amendment No. 2439

(Purpose: To establish a program to name national and community service
projects in honor of victims killed as a result of the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001)

On page 201, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 1202. UNITY IN THE SPIRIT OF AMERICA.

(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Unity in
the Spirit of America Act'' or the ``USA Act''.
(b) Projects Honoring Victims of Terrorist Attacks.--The
National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501
et seq.) is amended by inserting before title V the
following:

``TITLE IV--PROJECTS HONORING VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS

``SEC. 401. PROJECTS.

``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `Foundation'
means the Points of Light Foundation funded under section
301, or another nonprofit private organization, that enters
into an agreement with the Corporation to carry out this
section.
``(b) Identification of Projects.--
``(1) Estimated number.--Not later than December 1, 2001,
the Foundation, after obtaining the guidance of the heads of
appropriate Federal agencies, such as the Director of the
Office of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, shall--
``(A) make an estimate of the number of victims killed as a
result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001
(referred to in this section as the `estimated number'); and
``(B) compile a list that specifies, for each individual
that the Foundation determines to be such a victim, the name
of the victim and the State in which the victim resided.
``(2) Identified projects.--The Foundation may identify
approximately the estimated number of community-based
national and community service projects that meet the
requirements of subsection (d). The Foundation shall name
each identified project in honor of a victim described in
subsection (b)(1)(A), after obtaining the permission of an
appropriate member of the victim's family and the entity
carrying out the project.
``(c) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to have a project
named under this section, the entity carrying out the project
shall be a political subdivision of a State, a business, a
nonprofit organization (which may be a religious
organization, such as a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim
organization), an Indian tribe, or an institution of higher
education.
``(d) Projects.--The Foundation shall name, under this
section, projects--
``(1) that advance the goals of unity, and improving the
quality of life in communities; and
``(2) that will be planned, or for which implementation
will begin, within a reasonable period after the date of
enactment of the Unity in Service to America Act, as
determined by the Foundation.
``(e) Website and Database.--The Foundation shall create
and maintain websites and databases, to describe projects
named under this section and serve as appropriate vehicles
for recognizing the projects.''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2440

On page 152, after line 19, insert:
Sec. 204. From within funds available to the State of
Alaska or the Alaska Region of the National Marine Fisheries
Service, an additional $500,000 shall be made available for
the cost of guaranteeing the reduction loan authorized under
section 144(d)(4)(A) of title I, Division B of Public Law
106-554 (114 Stat. 2763A-242) and that subparagraph is
amended to read as follows: ``(4)(A) The fishing capacity
reduction program required under this subsection is
authorized to be financed through a reduction loan of
$100,000,000 under section 1111 and 1112 of title XI of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1279f and 1279g).''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2441

(Purpose: To improve the bill)

On page 205, after line 12, insert the following:
Sec. 104. Section 612 of P.L. 107-77 is amended by striking
``June 30, 2002'' and inserting ``April 1, 2002''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2442

On page 209, after line 25, insert:
Sec. 110. (a) Section 133(a) of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2001, (Public Law 107-68) is amended--
(1) by striking ``90-day'' in paragraph (1) and inserting
``180-day'', and
(2) by striking ``90-days'' in paragraph (2)(C) and
inserting ``180 days''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 107-68).
____

Amendment No. 2443

(Purpose: To expedite the deployment of the intelligent transportation
infrastructure system)

On page 191, after line 12 insert:
Sec. 1001.--Section 5117(b)(3) of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178; 112 Stat. 449;
23 U.S.C. 502 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (D), (F), and (G), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph (C):
``(C) Follow-on deployment.--(i) After an intelligent
transportation infrastructure system deployed in an initial
deployment area pursuant to a contract entered into under the
program under this paragraph has received system acceptance,
the Department of Transportation has the authority to extend
the original contract that was competitively awarded for the
deployment of the system in the follow-on deployment areas
under the contract, using the same asset ownership,
maintenance, fixed price contract, and revenue sharing model,
and the same competitively selected consortium leader, as
were used for the deployment in that initial deployment area
under the program.
``(ii) If any one of the follow-on deployment areas does
not commit, by July 1, 2002, to participate in the deployment
of the system under the contract, then, upon application by
any of the other follow-on deployment areas that have
committed by that date to participate in the deployment of
the system, the Secretary shall supplement the funds made
available for any of the follow-on deployment areas
submitting the applications by using for that purpose the
funds not used for deployment of the system in the
nonparticipating area. Costs paid out of funds provided in
such a supplementation shall not be counted for the purpose
of the limitation on maximum cost set forth in subparagraph
(B).'';
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (D), as redesignated by
paragraph (1), the following new subparagraph (E):
``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) The term `initial deployment area' means a
metropolitan area referred to in the second sentence of
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) The term `follow-on deployment areas' means the
metropolitan areas of Baltimore, Birmingham, Boston, Chicago,
Cleveland, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Denver, Detroit, Houston,
Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/
Northern New Jersey, Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati, Oklahoma
City, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland,
Providence, Salt Lake, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis,
Seattle, Tampa, and Washington, District of Columbia.''; and
(5) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1),
by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' and inserting ``subparagraph
(F)''.
____

amendment no. 2444

(Purpose: To provide that funds available to improve nuclear
nonproliferation and verification research and development shall be
available to research and development with respect to radiological
dispersion devices)

In chapter 5 of division B, under the heading ``National
Nuclear Security Administration'' under the paragraph
``defense nuclear proliferation'', insert after ``nuclear
nonproliferation and verification research and development''
the following: ``(including research and development with
respect to radiological dispersion devices, also known as
`dirty bombs')''.
____

amendment no. 2445

On page 138, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. 101. Section 741(b) of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-76), is amended
by striking ``20,000,000 pounds'' and inserting ``5,000,000
pounds''.
____

amendment no. 2446

(Purpose: Technical modification of authority to improve safety of
transportation routes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant)

On page 165, after 22, insert the following:
Sec. 501. Of the funds provided in this or any Act for
``Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management'' at
the Department of Energy, up to $500,000 may be available to
the Secretary of Energy for safety improvements to roads
along the shipping route to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
site.
____

amendment no. 2447

(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the FY 2002 Energy and
Water Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-66 for Nutwood Levee, IL)

On page 165, after line 22, insert the following:
Sec. 503. Nutwood Levee, Illinois.--The Energy and Water
Development Appropriation Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-66) is
amended under the heading ``Title I, Department of Defense-
Civil, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers-Civil,
Construction, General'' by inserting after ``$3,500,000'' but
before the ``.'' ``: Provided further, That using $400,000 of
the funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, may initiate
construction on the Nutwood Levee, Illinois project''
____

amendment no. 2448

(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, an additional $14,000,000
for the electric energy systems and storage program of the Department
of Energy)

On page 165, after line 22, add the following:

[[Page S12665]]

Sec. 502. Title II of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-66) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 313. (a) Increase in Amount Available for Electric
Energy Systems and Storage Program.--The amount appropriated
by this title under the heading `DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY' under
the heading `ENERGY PROGRAMS' under the paragraph `Energy
Supply' is hereby increased by $14,000,000, with the amount
of the increase to be available under the paragraph for the
electric energy systems and storage program.
``(b) Decrease in Amount Available for Department of Energy
Generally.--The amount appropriated by this title under the
heading `DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY' (other than under the heading
``National Nvd. Security Administration or under the heading
`ENERGY PROGRAMS' under the paragraph `Energy Supply') is
hereby decreased by $14,000,000, with the amount of the
decrease to be distributed among amounts available under the
heading `DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY' in a manner determined by the
Secretary of Energy and approved by the Committees of
Appropriations.''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2449

(Purpose: To assure minimum service levels under the Essential Air
Service Program)

On page 186, line 22, before the period, insert: Provided,
That it is the Sense of the Senate that funds provided under
this paragraph shall be used to provide subsidized service at
a rate of not less than three flights per day for eligible
communities with significant enplanement levels that enjoyed
said rate of service, with or without subsidy, prior to
September 11, 2001.''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2450

On page 196, after line 16, insert:
Sec. 1101. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any other Act may be used after June 30, 2002 for the
operation of any federally owned building if determined to be
appropriate by the Administrator of the General Services
Administration; or to enter into any lease or lease renewal
with any person for office space for a federal agency in any
other building, unless such operation, lease, or lease
renewal is in compliance with a regulation or Executive Order
issued after the date of enactment of this section that
requires redundant and physically separate entry points to
such buildings, and the use of physically diverse local
network facilities, for the provision of telecommunications
services to federal agencies in such buildings.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2451

(Purpose: To set new criteria and rates for delivery of services under
Section 5402 of Title 39)

On page 195, on line 20 before the period, insert:
``Provided, That the Postal Service is authorized to review
rates for product delivery and minimum qualifications for
eligible service providers under section 5402 of title 39,
and to recommend new rates and qualifications to reduce
expenditures without reducing service levels.''
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2452

On page 168, after line 9, insert:
Sec. 601. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution may collect and preserve in the National Museum
of American History artifacts relating to the September 11th
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
(b) Types of Artifacts.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution shall consider
collecting and perserving--
(1) pieces of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon;
(2) still and video images made by private individuals and
the media;
(3) personal narratives of survivors, rescuers, and
government officials; and
(4) other artifacts, recordings, and testimonials that the
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution determines have
lasting historical significance.
(c) There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Smithsonian Institution $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
____

Amendment No. 2453

(Purpose: To increase the number of general trustees of the John F.
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and to designate the Secretary
of State as a trustee)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE
PERFORMING ARTS.

(a) Membership.--Section 2(a) of the John F. Kennedy Center
Act (20 U.S.C. 76h(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``There is hereby'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--There is''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following:
``(2) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of--
``(A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
``(B) the Librarian of Congress;
``(C) the Secretary of State;
``(D) the Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts;
``(E) the Mayor of the District of Columbia;
``(F) the Superintendent of Schools of the District of
Columbia;
``(G) the Director of the National Park Service;
``(H) the Secretary of Education;
``(I) the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution;
``(J)(i) the Speaker and the Minority Leader of the House
of Representatives;
``(ii) the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives; and
``(iii) 3 additional Members of the House of
Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives;
``(K)(i) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the
Senate;
``(ii) the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and
``(iii) 3 additional Members of the Senate appointed by the
President of the Senate; and
``(L) 36 general trustees, who shall be citizens of the
United States, to be appointed in accordance with subsection
(b).''.
(b) Terms of Office for New General Trustees.--Section 2(b)
of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76h(b)) shall
apply to each general trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts whose position is established by the
amendment made by subsection (a)(2) (referred to in this
subsection as a ``new general trustee''), except that the
initial term of office of each new general trustee shall--
(1) commence on the date on which the new general trustee
is appointed by the President; and
(2) terminate on September 1, 2007.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2454

On page 168, after line 9, insert the following:
Sec. 602. (a) General Trustees.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 2 of the John F.
Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76h) is amended in its last
clause by striking out the word ``thirty'' and inserting in
lieu thereof the word ``thirty-six''.
(2) Terms of office for new general trustees.--
(A) Initial terms of office.--
(i) Commencements of initial term.--The initial terms of
office for all new general trustee offices created by this
Act shall commence upon appointment by the President.
(ii) Expirations of initial term.--The initial terms of
office for all new general trustee offices created by this
Act shall continue until September 1, 2007.
(iii) Vacancies and service until the appointment of a
successor.--For all new general trustee offices created by
this Act, subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) of section 2 of the
John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76h) shall apply.
(B) Succeeding terms of office.--Upon the expirations of
the initial terms of office pursuant to Section 1(b)(1) of
this Act, the terms of office for all new general trustee
offices created by this Act shall be governed by subsection
(b) of section 2 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C.
76h).
(b) Ex Officio Trustees.--Subsection (a) of section 2 of
the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76h) is further
amended by inserting in the second sentence ``the Majority
and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives,'' after ``the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution,''.
(c) Housekeeping Amendment.--To conform with the previous
abolition of the United States Information Agency and the
transfer of all functions of the Director of the United
States Information of Agency to the Secretary of State
(sections 1311 and 1312 of Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681-776), subsection (a) of section 2 of the John F. Kennedy
Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76h) is further amended by striking in
the second sentence ``the Director of the United States
Information Agency,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the
Secretary of State,''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 2455

(Purpose: To allow for expenditures of previously appropriated housing
funds)

On page 201, after line 22, insert the following:
Sec. 1201. Within funds previously appropriated as
authorized under the Native American Housing and Self
Determination Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-330, Sec. Sec. 1(a),
110 Stat. 4016) and made available to Cook Inlet Housing
Authority, Cook Inlet Housing Authority may use up to
$9,500,000 of such funds to construct student housing for
Native college students, including an on-site computer lab
and related study facilities, and, notwithstanding any
provision of such Act to the contrary, Cook Inlet Housing
Authority may use a portion of such funds to establish a
reserve fund and to provide for maintenance of the project.''
____

amendment no. 2456

(Purpose: To make a technical correction to the FY 2002 Energy and
Water Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-66 for the Bureau of Reclamation Dam
Safety Program)

On page 165, after line 22, insert the following:

general provision, this chapter

Sec. 501. The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43
U.S.C. 509) is amended as follows:
(1) by inserting in Section 4(c) after ``2000,'' and before
``costs'' the following: ``and the

[[Page S12666]]

additional $32,000,000 further authorized to be appropriated
by amendments to the Act in 2001,''; and
(2) by inserting in Section 5 after ``levels),'' and before
``plus'' the following: ``and, effective October 1, 2001, not
to exceed an additional $32,000,000 (October 1, 2001, price
levels),''.
____

amendment no. 2457

(Purpose: To clarify Federal procurement law for certain qualified
entities)

On page 168, after line 9, insert the following new
section:
Sec. 603. Section 29 of P.L. 92-203, as enacted under
section 4 of P.L. 94-204 (43 U.S.C. 1626), is amended by
adding at the end of subsection (e) the following:
``(4)(A) Congress confirms that Federal procurement
programs for tribes and Alaska Native Corporations are
enacted pursuant to its authority under Article I, Section 8
of the United States Constitution.
``(B) Contracting with an entity defined in subparagraph
(e)(2) of this section or section 3(c) of P.L. 93-262 shall
be credited towards the satisfaction of a contractor's
obligations under section 7 of P.L. 87-305.
``(C) Any entity that satisfies subparagraph (e)(2) of this
section that has been certified under section 8 of P.L. 85-
536 is a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise for the purposes
of P.L. 105-178.''.
____

amendment no. 2458

At the appropriate place in the bill insert:
No appropriated funds or revenues generated by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation may be used to implement
Section 204(c)(2) of P.L. 105-134 until the Congress has
enacted an Amtrak reauthorization Act.
____

Amendment No. 2459

(Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of certain real
property in South Dakota to the State of South Dakota with
indemnification by the United States Government, and for
other purposes)

(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I yield the floor.

naval shipbuilding

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense, a matter of great importance to our national
security--our naval shipbuilding programs. As my colleagues are aware,
both the House and Senate national Defense authorization bills for the
current fiscal year contain provisions supporting continued production
of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, the investment of
research and development in a next generation destroyer or ``DD(X)''
program, and advanced procurement for the LPD 17 program. I am elated
to see that the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations bill for
FY2002 contain similar provisions, but troubled by the action that was
taken in the house, particularly on the DD(X) program.
I appreciate the chairman and ranking Member's support for these
shipbuilding programs and would like to take a few minutes to discuss
the vital need for them. All of these programs are critical to
sustaining a strong forward deployed naval presence, while addressing
the anti-access challenges faced by our men and women who continue to
protect our nation's assets, interests, and freedom.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Maine in
recognizing the critical need for us to acquire and modernize our naval
fleet in order to strengthen our Navy and Marine Corps for the 21st
century. The Senator from Main has been a real advocate for the Navy's
shipbuilding programs and I look forward to this and future discussions
on these very important issues.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished Chairman and would like to
begin with the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, which has been the
backbone of the Navy's surface fleet. The Navy has indicated in its
most recent study of the Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)-class destroyer
industrial base, and in testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, that three DDG-51 destroyers per year is the most economical
rate of procurement. Last year, the National Defense Authorization Act
provided the authority to the Secretary of the Navy to enter into
contracts to procure three vessels in each fiscal year 2002 and 2003.
The FY2002 National Defense Authorization bill includes $2.966 billion
for the procurement of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee added report language
agreeing with the Navy's long standing assessment that the destroyer
industrial base is at risk unless three destroyers are built each year,
or unless the destroyer shipbuilders attain significant other work
beyond their historic level. As such, the FY2002 national Defense
authorization report reiterates that the Secretary of the Navy should
include procurement of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the
FY2003 budget request. I strongly support the inclusion in the fiscal
year 2003 defense budget of a third DDG-51, which would be built at
Bath Iron Works in my home state. The integrity of our shipbuilding
industrial base largely depends upon it. I would ask that chairman and
ranking Member whether they agree with me on this important point.
Mr. STEVENS. I join my colleague in her expressed concern with the
procurement rate of the DDG-51 program. I am particularly sensitive to
recent reports that indicate the DDG-51 procurement rate is projected
to drop below three ships per year after FY2002 for the first time in
the program's history. Such a rate could place this unique, specialized
industrial base at risk to meet future naval requirements. It could, in
fact, jeopardize efforts to sustain an adequately sized surface force
and maintain the continued affordability of the ships required for our
future naval forces. And so I do support the inclusion of a third DDG-
51, to be built by Bath Iron Works, in next year's budget.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, my colleagues are correct in stating that
the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have played, and will
continue to play, a critical role as a vital part of our naval fleet.
The DDG-51 program is a mature and highly successful major acquisition
program providing front-line state-of-the-art combatants for the fleet.
At the same time, we need to make a smooth transition from the DDG-51
to a next generation destroyer. Our committee will continue to support
the DDG-51 program and the transition to building a next generation
destroyer.
Ms. COLLINS. The next generation destroyer, now the DD(X) program, is
the Navy's future and way ahead to transform our naval forces to meet
the challenges of the 21st century. This program, which will emphasize
a common hullform and technology development, will form the foundation
of our future destroyer and cruiser production. The Navy will use the
advanced technology and networking capabilities from the DD(X) in the
development of additional ships in the DD(X) family of ships program.
As Chief of Naval Operations testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, earlier this year, the DD(X) program ``is central to our
[naval] transformation effort . . . and is another step toward the
creation of a more integrated Navy/Marine Corps team.'' It is therefore
critical that the Senate's FY2002 budget level for the DD(X) program be
increased or at least retained in conference.
Mr. STEVENS. I could not agree more with my colleague that while
there is some uncertainty surrounding the restructuring of the DD-21
program, a continued investment and commitment to a next generation
destroyer needs to be sustained to transform the Navy and Marine Corps.
While we are waiting for that program to develop, it makes sound
defense, fiscal, and industrial base policy to sustain an annual three-
ship DDG-51 procurement rate after FY2002, and most immediately, in
FY2003, and I encourage the Navy to do so.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I also would like to briefly speak on the
LPD-17 program, which is a critical ship for the modernization of the
Navy's amphibious force. Each of these ships can carry more than 700
Marines and their equipment to shore to perform their mission. The LPD-
17 program is critical to replace four aging classes of ships and to
significantly increase the operational capabilities of the Marine
Corps.
Mr. STEVENS. I have always been a supporter of the LPD-17 program and
the committee very much appreciates

[[Page S12667]]

the need for the lift capacity of this ship. In 2010, when the last
LPD-17 class ship is scheduled to join the fleet, the amphibious force
will consist of 36 ships or 12, three-ship Amphibious Ready Groups
(ARGs), consisting of one LHA or LHD, one LPD and one LSD. I assure you
that we are committed to seeing this program through production.
Ms. COLLINS. As always, I am impressed by the ranking member's
knowledge and his grasp of the issues, and I appreciate that we are in
agreement as to the value and need for this critical ship. I look
forward to our continued work together in support of this and all of
these shipbuilding programs.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Maine for her continued
commitment to our naval forces ensuring that we build enough ships to
meet the Nation's defense needs. I recognize and am sensitive to the
fact that the Navy needs to sustain an investment of $10 to $12 billion
in the shipbuilding account to maintain a minimum shipbuilding rate of
8-10 ships per year before it will be able to fulfill all the required
missions for our naval forces, and I will work with the Navy and my
colleagues in the Senate to address this issue. I thank my colleague
for her dedication to these issues and I look forward to continuing
these types of discussions on the critical needs of our military
forces.
Ms. COLLINS. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their
forthrightness, their knowledge and their determination to keep America
strong. I also commend them for their continued dedication to our men
and women in uniform and the efforts they have undertaken in this
important appropriations bill to provide them with the compensation,
tools and equipment they need to maintain America's pre-eminence in the
world.

CRUSADER PROGRAM

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am concerned about the funding
reductions to the Crusader program, and the impact that may have on the
procurement of long lead items for the Crusader. The Crusader is an
important new weapon system for the Army and we should not do anything
that could delay this important program during this critical time that
we are now in.
Mr. INOUYE. I assure my friend from Oklahoma that we will do what we
can in the conference to ensure adequate funding for the Crusader.
Mr. STEVENS. I know my friend from Oklahoma has been watching the
Crusader program for some time and is keenly interested in its
progress, as is the Army. I want to add my assurance to that of the
chairman's that we will do all we can in conference to ensure the
Crusader is not delayed by inadequate funding.

DEFENSE PERSONNEL RECORDS IMAGING SYSTEM

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, will the ranking member yield briefly
for the purpose of a colloquy?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee for the purpose of
a colloquy.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I'd like to bring to the attention of
the Senate an important information technology program. The Defense
Personnel Records Imaging System (DPRIS) is the follow-on records
management system needed to process, store, and distribute military
personnel information.
Currently, DPRIS is not ready to move from the Concept Advanced
Demonstration phase to the System Integration phase. In order for the
program to complete developmental activities to mature the system to
the point that it is ready for Low-Rate Initial Production, $2 million
is required for further demonstration/validation work.
Mr. President, the recent call up of thousands of National Guardsmen
and Reservists to respond to the war on terrorism has further taxed an
already overburdened personnel records management system. We need to
get DPRIS completely through R&D, so we can make a smooth transition
from the old system to the new.
I know the chairman and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee understand the importance of this program, and would hope
that they would give this DPRIS funding every consideration during
conference with the House. At a minimum, I hope the chairman and
ranking member will encourage the Department of Defense to either
reprogram funds for this purpose, or to request these funds in a
supplemental appropriations request that is likely to come early next
year.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee raises an
important issue in this IT program. We will do our best to work with
the Senator on this matter during the conference with the House. We
will also work with the Senator and the Department of Defense on this
issue in the future.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member
for their attention to this matter, and appreciate the challenges they
face in crafting the Department of Defense spending bill.

SMART PAY CARD PROGRAM

Mr. BURNS. I rise to ask a point of clarification by the chairman and
ranking member relating to a letter that Senator Baucus and I sent to
the CBO regarding the use of the Smart Pay Card used by Department of
Defense employees, the armed services, and contractors with the
Department of Defense.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield, for the purpose of your question regarding the
Smart Pay Card.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator. At this point, I would ask unanimous
consent that the November 15, 2001 letter from Senator Baucus and me to
CBO Director, Dan Crippen, be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, November 15, 2001.
Mr. Dan L. Crippen, Director,
Congressional Budget Office, Ford House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Crippen: In view of the increased federal
expenditures generated as a result of the September 11
terrorist attacks, we believe that, more than ever, the
federal government should explore new ways of managing
federal outlays by adopting more efficient ways to control
federal spending. In that regard, we are requesting CBO to
score our proposal for improvements to the GSA SmartPay
program, which we believe will provide to the GSA's
management of the SmartPay program a positive material effect
on the fiscal operations of current and future
implementations of SmartPay programs. We would like your
comments on the following proposal.
By way of background, the SmartPay program was established
in 1998 to improve the speed of acquisition and reduce the
cost of payments handling for many classes of purchases and
acquisitions in the federal agencies, offices and
departments. There are approximately 3.5 million active
cards, accounting for approximately $20 billion in annual
purchases. The GSA estimates that the SmartPay card programs
currently save the government approximately $1.2 billion
annually in administrative costs. While these numbers are
impressive, recent congressional hearings convince us that
there have also been tens of millions of dollars of rebate
opportunities lost by the government due to card misuse,
along with millions in additional savings that have not been
realized in the program's implementation thus far.

The proposal

There are four specific areas of proposed savings that we
would like you to examine:
1. Pricing Concession Management: PCM is the measure of
unit pricing reductions enjoyed by the government as a result
of discount agreements with high-use vendors.
a. Roughly 200 retailers nationwide represent 65% of all
Visa and MasterCard credit card purchases today. It is our
belief that analysis of SmartPay use might show analogous
concentrations, and would allow for targeted negotiations
with key vendors who provide significant levels of products
and services to the federal government.
b. There are currently few if any discounts being offered
for SmartPay users that are directly tied to the SmartPay
card as the purchase mechanism.
c. Based on the volume of SmartPay use today, we estimate
that there is over $50 million available in discounts from
volume purchase agreements that could be negotiated if more
detailed analysis were being routinely performed on
government-wide purchases made with SmartPay products.
2. Rebates Management: RM is the aggressive tracking,
invoicing, and collection of all applicable rebates that are
negotiated with SmartPay issuers. RM improvements consist of
collection all existing rebates and future rebates as well as
ensuring that the Issuing Banks are correctly calculating the
rebates.
3. Loss and Abuse Reduction: GSA rebates from SmartPay card
issuers are net of chargeoffs within the program. Currently,
these chargeoffs amount to more than $55 million, and
delinquency rates on T&E cards are between 7-14%.
a. GSA should enable the use of commercially proven
strategies and technologies for reducing, minimizing, or
eliminating the current unacceptable level of fraud or abuse
losses on the card programs, such strategies

[[Page S12668]]

could save a significant portion of the $55 million.
b. Using the best practices employed by card issuers, as
well as those used by corporations for their own card
programs, will provide benefits from both the Issuer and the
User side of SmartPay programs.
4. Increasing SmartPay Administrative Efficiencies:
Outsourcing portions of the management of the SmartPay
program will allow for application of commercially proven
expertise in some areas. It will also serve to expedite
timely approval of card charges and increase risk review and
validation. As a result, existing personnel will be able to
spend less time on the activities required for approving,
processing, monitoring, and validating all of the
administrative functions associated with procurement, payment
and audit processes.
a. Automated Daily Approval and Control: Using an outside
vendor's system to automated many of the paper processes
currently in many SmartPay program implementations would save
significant time for SmartPay administrative personnel in the
various departments and agencies that use the programs.
b. Statement Reconciliation and Payment Approval: Using an
outside vendor to perform statement reconciliations, payment
approval authorization, and exception reporting will lower
fraud as well as the cycle time required to identify
potential fraud or abuse issues.
For additional information on our proposal please contact
Zak Andersen in Senator Baucus's office and Stan Ullman in
Senator Burns's office.
We appreciate your active consideration of this matter, and
we would welcome your office's analysis of this proposal
before the next budget cycle begins early next year.
Sincerely,
Max Baucus,
U.S. Senator.
Conrad Burns,
U.S. Senator.

Mr. BURNS. Before asking my first question, I want to provide a very
brief context for my letter to CBO and the issues I will be raising.
The subject of the letter is whether the federal government can save
even more money than it has been saving with the use of the Smart Pay
Card program. This matter was brought to the attention of Senator
Baucus and myself by Michael B. Walker, a Montanan who has considerable
experience in the credit industry. Mr. Walker, who is CEO of Payment
Programs Management Corporation, believes that there is an opportunity
for the federal government to save hundreds of millions of more dollars
with its use of credit cards issued to federal employees. Senator
Baucus and I wanted to get an independent confirmation of those savings
from the CBO before encouraging Congress to adopt the refinement
outlined in our letter. It is my understanding that CBO will score the
various proposed improvements in our letter before the end of this
year, but the scoring may not arrive in time to affect appropriations
bills for the current fiscal year. Since the largest users of the card
are the employees of DOD, I thought that it would be appropriate to
raise this matter in connection with this bill. Assuming that CBO does
respond with a scoring that the improvements suggested in our letter
will potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars, will the Senator
from Alaska tell me whether he will work with the Department of Defense
to encourage the consideration of any and all potential savings and
benefits suggested in the letter send to CBO by Senator Baucus and
myself?
Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to work with the Senator.
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator. My next question is a follow up
question. Assuming that the armed services are prepared to offer
proposed improvements in the use of federal credit cards, would you
encourage them to work with the General Services Administration, which
is charged with the overall administration of the Smart Pay Card
Program, to get these improvements adopted?
Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to work with the Senator to ensure
every opportunity to meet with the General Services Administration and
discuss this important issue.

NETFIRES--FOGM

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I applaud and share Senator Inouye's
desire to strongly support the Army in its transformation to a lighter,
more deployable, agile, lethal and survivable force, in order to meet
the challenges we have today and certainly expect in the future. This
transformation to an Objective Force is very ambitious in terms of new
capabilities, and I think we should all recognize the significant
technological risks associated with this endeavor.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator for his support as a member of the
subcommittee and for his work on this bill. Army transformation is
ambitious, and, while we are all very supportive of the Army's efforts
to transform, I know we are equally sensitive to the technology
challenges facing the Army.
Mr. SHELBY. While the Objective Force and the Future Combat System
are relatively new terms, many people may not be aware that Army
scientists and engineers have been working on transformation technology
since before the end of the cold war. For example, the Fiber Optic
Guided Missile, FOGM, has been demonstrated with soldiers and has
performed most of the objectives required for the artillery component
of the Future Combat System known as NetFires. FOGM is inherently
immune to radio-frequency jamming, a serious concern for NetFires. It
does not require a not-yet-developed automatic target recognition
capability like NetFires. It is soldier-proven technology already in
service or in development in several other countries. It offers the
potential for significant savings in time and money in getting to low
rate initial production, compared with NetFires. I fully support work
on leap-ahead technology programs like NetFires, but I believe we
should take prudent steps to mitigate against high risk programs by
continuing work on alternative capabilities.
Mr. INOUYE. As we know well, all weapon development programs involve
significant risk. The NetFires--FOGM example is instructive. We will
continue to monitor the Future Combat System program as the required
technologies mature, and the Senator can be sure we will continue to
pay close attention to alternative capability programs.
Mr. SHELBY. I believe the off-the-shelf FOGM can provide an
acceptable alternative to NetFires if circumstances require it. I know
that with Senator Inouye's leadership, we will keep on top of these
critical technology issues. I look forward to our continuing to work
together as we face funding decisions about these important
transformation programs.

PROJECT ALPHA

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a brief colloquy with
the chairman of the subcommittee. We are all too aware of the terrible
terrorist threats we face and of the difficulty in predicting and
assessing these threats. I have been especially concerned about
possible threats to the U.S. food supply and about our lack of
protections and monitoring of our food.
Project Alpha is a proactive approach using advanced technologies,
expert systems, and thinking ``outside the box'' in order to predict,
assess, and analyze terrorist threats. I am proud that Iowa State
University and the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, IA, would
play a key role in this project. I hope the committee will open to the
use of funds in this bill, and I ask for the chairman's support for
implementation of Project Alpha and its National Decision Assessment
Immersion Center, with emphasis on protecting the U.S. food supply.
Mr. INOUYE. I am aware of the potential of Project Alpha and of the
participation of the Maui High Performance Computing Center as another
key partner. You can be sure I will give careful consideration to this
project as we guide this bill through conference.

bioinformatics

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wish to engage my colleague, the
distinguished chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, in a
colloquy.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I will be glad to engage in a discussion
with Senator Clinton.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Hawaii.
I want to discuss the emerging field of Bioinformatics. Bionformatics
has become one of our most important emerging technologies.
Bioinformatics is the use of high-powered computing techniques to
analyze the data generated by the Human Genome Project. Massive
computing power is needed in order to interpret this vast amount of
data. The University at Buffalo is seeking to establish a Center of
Excellence in Bioinformatics. The University at Buffalo is home to the
Center for Computational Research, one of the top ten

[[Page S12669]]

supercomputing sites in the nation. The University at Buffalo would
forge an academic and industrial partnership with renowned academic,
medical, and research institutions, including Binghamton University.
Will the Senator agree that Buffalo's blend of leading academic,
research, industrial, and medical institutions make Buffalo an ideal
location for a Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics?
Mr. INOUYE. I agree with my colleague that Buffalo is an ideal
location for a Center of Excellence in the important emerging field of
bioinformatics.
Mrs. CLINTON. I thank my colleague. I am aware that funds are made
available in both the House version of the Defense appropriations
fiscal year 2002 bill and the bill the Senator has proposed. I ask that
the Senator from Hawaii support as much funding for bioinformatics
programs as possible, within the fiscal constraints we face, as the
Defense spending bill completes conference.
Mr. INOUYE. I assure the Senator we will do all we can.

hybrid electric vehicle technologies

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the fiscal
year 2002 Defense appropriations bill contains funding for Hybrid
Electric Vehicle, HEV, technologies. I am seeking the chairman's
assistance to ensure that the funding in this bill for HEVs will also
be dedicated to the work of applying currently developed and
demonstrated HEV technology to a weapons system.
The U.S. Army High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, HIMARS, program
has an HEV initiative that will put hybrid propulsion on the Family of
Medium Tactical Vehicles, FMTV, platform. As the chairman well knows,
the Army has identified Hybrid Electric Drive as the key technology for
transformation. Hybrid electric propulsion provides greater fuel and
logistics cost savings, increased survivability thorough silent mode
operations, provides improved mobility, and supplies a new capability
to the vehicle systems power management that currently does not exist
within any Army weapons system. This initiative that I am referring to
will jump-start the Army's effort to weaponize an HEV platform with the
HIMARS program. The timing of these funds for this conversion effort of
HIMARS to HEV is critical. Providing the funds now, in fiscal year
2002, would allow the hybrid drive initiative to dovetail with the
current production planned for HIMARS. Missing the opportunity this
year would require untimely changes to the HIMARS production line, and
would be excessively more expensive for the U.S. Army conversion to the
HEV platform.
This significant HEV series technology has already been accomplished
under the Dual Use Science and Technology initiative by the National
Automotive Command under TACOM contract. The contract converted the
FMTV platform into series HEV technology. The contract should be
continued for a timely series HIMARS HEV conversion. It is my
understanding that the FY 2002 MRLS Product Improvement Program line
contains $20 million of which $10 million should be programmed to begin
the timely conversion of the hybrid series FMTV truck to a HIMARS
series hybrid electric vehicle platform. I urge the Chairman to support
this important transformation project.
Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the senior Senator from New York that HEV
technology is vital to the future success of the Army transformation
and believe the Congress should support such technologies. This
initiative of placing series HEV on a current successful weapon
development program leverages the existing technologies and is the
right course of action. I understanding that this modification will
support initiating the timely introduction of series HEV onto a HIMARS
platform. I can assure the senior Senator from New York that this
committee will review this issue during the conference. I understand
that utilizing the existing contract and previous accomplished work may
be the best means to leverage the taxpayers' investment, as well as to
accelerate the HEV weaponization for Army transformation.
Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate the leadership that Senator Inouye is
taking on this issue in light of today's recognized need to accelerate
the Army's transformation and reduction of logistic infrastructure and
skyrocketing costs associated with supporting fuel requirements on
today's battlefields.
Mr. INOUYE. I will ensure that the committee will thoroughly review
this issue during the conference of the Defense appropriations bill.

CRUSADER PROGRAM

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to Senator Stevens that I appreciate
all his hard work on the Defense appropriations bill. I would like to
discuss pending actions on the Crusader Program. Crusader is a critical
transformation system, which is already a generation ahead of the
existing Paladin system. When fielded, Crusader will have unparalleled
rate of fire, range of fire and lethality unmatched by any system in
the world. We must continue to fund this program in its entirety. To do
this we must put $80,972,000 into the Defense appropriations bill.
Again, I thank the Senate and the committee for their hard work.
Mr. STEVENS. I agree with my colleague, Senator Inohfe, and I also
feel that this program warrants full funding under the Defense
appropriations bill. During conference we must restore the funding in
its entirety.
Mr. NICKLES. I share the concerns of Senator Inhofe and I, too,
believe that we need to fully fund the program. The Crusader is meeting
performance tests; it is on schedule and on budget. We must address the
funding requirements in conference.
Mr. INOUYE. The Crusader Program is vital to Army transformation and
should be fully funded to meet the needs of the Army.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I say to Senators Stevens, Inouye, and
Nickles that I appreciate their attention and continued support on this
matter.

consolidated interactive virtual information center

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a brief colloquy with
the chairman of the subcommittee. There is an important project in the
Iowa National Guard to bring unique networking and secure storage
capabilities to bear on distance learning and simulations, including
real-time simulations at multiple sites. The Consolidated Interactive
Virtual Information Center has taken on new immediacy since September
11 along with the National Guard as a whole. It has been used to train
Guard members in protecting our airports and could play a critical role
in homeland defense.
I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has recommended this
project for funding within National Guard distance learning accounts,
but I wanted to clarify the intent. Is it your expectation that the
CIVIC project will receive sufficient funding for a second year of
development, and a level at least equal to last year's?
Mr. INOUYE. I am happy to recognize the value of the CIVIC project.
While there are other worthy distance learning programs, it is
important that sufficient funds be made available to the CIVIC project
for its continued development at a level at least as great as last
year. In addition, as stated in the committee report, I hope this
worthy project will be funded in next year's budget.

transit Capital Investment Grants

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a brief colloquy
with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee
regarding a section which would provide $100,000,000 in badly needed
transit capital investment grants to those transit agencies that were
most severely impacted by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York State and the Port Authority
Trans-Hudson (PATH) commuter rail system as well as transit authorities
in New Jersey would be eligible for the assistance provided under this
provision as these agencies would have to be considered among the most
severely impacted by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from New York is correct.
Mr. SCHUMER. It is also my understanding that the portion of this
provision that precludes any transit agency that receives a direct
Federal payment under any other section of this bill from receiving any
of the $100,000,000 in

[[Page S12670]]

capital investment grants is not intended to apply to the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson commuter rail
system; or the transit authorities in New Jersey.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from New York is correct. That provision is
intended to address the Washington, D.C. Metro System, which receives a
direct federal payment elsewhere in the bill.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, the Senator from West Virginia, for his
clarification on this point and for his leadership on this essential
homeland security package. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

animal research facilities

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, after many visits over the years to the
animal disease facilities at Ames, Iowa, I am all too aware of the very
great need to modernize them, providing the security, safety, and
capability to conduct necessary work that will both protect animal
agriculture and human health as well. The Appropriations Committee
concurred when it approved the amendment proposed by Senator Byrd that
provided very necessary funds for those facilities those at Plum
Island.
We do not know when a major emergency will be upon us for which these
facilities could be crucial. Hopefully, we will have them built when
that time comes. In order to maximize the likelihood that will be the
case, I believe it is clear that the Secretary should do all that she
can to accelerate the design and the construction of the Ames, Iowa
facilities, and the design of facilities at Plum Island.
Clearly, to the extent that it is prudent, the authorities that are
available should be used in the Federal Acquisition Regulations to
accelerate the planning, design of the entire modernization plan, and
the construction of those facilities for which funds are available. I
also expect that the Department will provide appropriate support to
maximize the speed of planning design and construction, moving to the
construction phases as soon as possible for this important project.
Certainly, the portion of the design for which construction funds are
available should receive the highest priority.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I fully concur with the remarks of the
Senator from Iowa and the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
The Department should move with the greatest dispatch to design and
construct these biosecurity-3 facilities. It is important that we move
forward quickly in order to enhance research in this critical area, and
it is also important that research facilities of this nature be in
compliance with very strict biosecurity standards. Every area of our
nation would see very significant damage to animal agriculture if
certain diseases manifest themselves. The Department should use the
authorities it has to accelerate the design and construction of these
important facilities.

california anti-terrorism information center

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from
California and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to address
the dangerous gap that exists in the counterterrorism intelligence
network in this country. Information pertaining to terrorist threats is
not currently collected in a centralized place for review, analysis,
and dissemination. Statewide counter terrorist data is therefore not
accessible to every law enforcement agency that may need it. The
collection, analysis, and accessibility of this information to law
enforcement are critically important to protect the health and safety
of citizens.
In late September, the California Governor and Attorney General
signed a memorandum of understanding that established The California
Anti Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) to address this critical
problem. Every day, State and local law enforcement learn information
that may be useful to Federal intelligence authorities or that may
actually prevent terrorist events from taking place. Despite this
obvious point, there is currently no reliable and secure system to
ensure that this information flows back and forth among the right
people in a rapid and organized manner.
The California Anti-Terrorism Information Center is designed to solve
this problem by developing a sophisticated data system that includes
trained intelligence specialist, extensive technology infrastructure,
and strong safeguards to protect constitutionally guaranteed civil
liberties.
This new system represents a crucial advance in counter-terrorism
intelligence sharing and some federal agencies have already committed
analysts to CATIC. Dozens of State and local personnel will also be
detailed to the various investigative and analytic units of CATIC. I
believe Federal resources are also a necessary component of this
project if it is to achieve maximum effectiveness.
Mrs. BOXER. It has become increasingly clear that the coordination
between Federal, State and local law enforcement is crucial if we are
to keep our citizens safe. The California Governor and Attorney General
have combined their efforts and devised a system to meet these critical
needs. The California Anti-Terrorism Information Center will provide
law enforcement agencies with valuable intelligence support, enhancing
their efforts to combat the threat of terrorism. I join my colleague in
urging the Department of Justice to fund the California Anti-Terrorism
Information Center.
Mr. BYRD. I understand the concerns raised by the Senators from
California. I urge the Department of Justice and other national
security agencies to give due consideration to projects such as the
California Anti-Terrorism Information Center that ensure a reliable
system of intelligence sharing between local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies.

reverse commute pilot project

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague,
the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, regarding a
border security need along our northern border. First, let me commend
the chairman for recognizing the many areas of our homeland defense
that are in need of funding and for providing that funding in this
economic stimulus package. I am especially encouraged to see a large
border security initiative that will finally address the lack of
resources given to the northern border in the past to ensure the safety
and integrity of our northern border without negatively impacting the
free flow of commerce.
While much has been done over the last decade to improve security on
our border with Mexico, the northern border has largely been ignored.
For example, only 1,773 Customs Service personnel are present at our
border with Canada, while 8,300 protect our southern border. Similarly,
while 8,000 Border Patrol agents monitor our 2,000 mile southern
border, only 300 are stationed at our 4,000 mile northern border. This
policy of neglect must be corrected without delay and I think the
additional funding you are recommending will do that.
One of the vulnerabilities which has come to light regarding our
international bridges and tunnels on our border with Canada is that
potentially dangerous vehicles are inspected only after they have
crossed into our country. With the increased security risks faced by
our Nation in the post-September 11 climate, it seems obvious that
inspecting vehicles for dangerous materials such as bombs or explosives
after they enter our tunnels or cross our bridges is ineffective, at
best.
To rectify this homeland security vulnerability, we must work with
our neighbors to establish a reverse inspection program that would
inspect vehicles before they have entered into our country. This would
reduce the possibility that important transportation infrastructure
could be endangered or destroyed.
One way to move this process forward would be to establish a pilot
program on reverse inspection. Customs could work in consultation and
partnership with the Canadian Customs Service and identify any hurdles
and the details that would need to be worked out. One logical place to
start would be in Southeast Michigan where 50 percent of the U.S.-
Canada trade traverses the border, and where we have the Ambassador
Bridge and Detroit Windsor Tunnel, two of the busiest border crossings.
I would like to inquire of Chairman Byrd if he would agree that this
is something the Customs Service should take a hard look at?
Mr. BYRD. I see no reason why the U.S. Customs Service should not
look

[[Page S12671]]

at the issue of reverse inspection and I would support their doing so.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
first offer my thanks to the servicemen and women serving our Nation in
the War on Terror. Their courage, sacrifice, and professionalism
assures us of victory over our terrorist enemies, and is a testament to
America.
As the first stage of this war ends, a number of promising
developments have taken place. In Afghanistan many of our enemies have
been routed. In Germany, Afghan political leaders have taken great
steps to secure peace and stability for the future of their nation. As
we ask the Afghan people to turn towards peace and democracy, it is our
duty to help them. Otherwise we risk facing another similar crisis in
the future.
Tackling the job ahead in Afghanistan will require men and women of
the highest caliber. They must be equal parts warrior and statesman.
For it is these men and women who will help secure peace for this
troubled land and build the foundation for the future of democracy in
Afghanistan. I speak of course of the soldiers and Marines of the Civil
Affairs community.
As a former Civil Affairs commander, and Deputy Chief of the Office
of Civil Affairs, I know first hand what a contribution these fine
warriors can make. They have made a positive impact on nearly every
continent of the globe. In fact, during the last five years alone, over
4,600 Civil Affairs personnel have utilized their expertise in securing
the peace and rebuilding the Balkans.
Civil Affairs soldiers are warriors of the finest sort. They train to
fight and work for peace. Civil Affairs soldiers are experts in
humanitarian operations and institution building. Consequently, I can
think of no time when the role of Civil Affairs would be more crucial
than it will be in Afghanistan.
I would like to take this opportunity to call upon the Department of
Defense to take advantage of the unique skills that these men and women
possess. Furthermore, we owe it to these men and women to equip them as
we do our finest soldiers and Marines in accordance with the gravity of
their mission. If we do this I have no doubt that these soldiers will
succeed in any mission that comes their way.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Defense
appropriations bill.
I believe this bill provides the right balance of funding for the
Department of Defense given the administration's efforts to reorganize
and realign the missions and architecture of this pillar of our
freedom. I am particularly heartened that President Bush and Secretary
Rumsfeld are working hard to revitalize the Department. I am totally in
support of their efforts and feel it is important that the
administration be allowed to determine the new force structure in light
of our rapidly developing military posture at home and overseas.
While we can not fix 10 years of neglect overnight, this bill does
many things to help the Defense Department and the men and women who
serve so proudly. In particular, I am very pleased that this
appropriations bill fully funds an average 5 percent military pay
raise. It also provides additional pay raises for military personnel in
middle level ranks, thus helping the Department to retain these
valuable personnel. Again, this bill addresses the needs of the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by reducing out of pocket costs
for housing from 15 percent in 2001 to 11.3 percent in 2002. I am also
glad that we are trying to make our troops lives more stable by asking
the Department of Defense to develop a plan that reduces the number of
permanent change of station moves for the military.
This year's defense starts us on the right road to fixing the
military's readiness, training, and depot support programs. It provides
almost $10 billion increase over fiscal year 2001 funding levels for
these critical programs. It also fully funds the Army Transformation
initiatives which I support wholeheartedly. Additionally, this bill
enhances critical defense health programs such as breast and prostate
cancer research and adequately funds TRICARE for life.
The fiscal year 2002 Defense bill has made a significant contribution
to this Nation's intelligence-gathering capability by funding the
Senior Scout Program which I have long supported. I also pleased that
the President's request for missile defense is supported in this bill.
We cannot ignore the threat that our Nation faces from enemies who each
year grow more and more capable of reaching our Nation with nuclear
missiles.
However, I am very disappointed about the funding reduction of $50
million for the D-5 Life Extension Program. This reduction means that
some of our submarines will carry outdated and possibly dangerous
trident missile systems.
In closing, I would like to recognize the exceptional efforts of U.S.
Air Force Major James R. Byrne, who has served me as a legislative
fellow for the past year. Jim's command of the legislative process and
his ability to research complex legal questions have been exceptional.
I want to recognize particularly Jim's outstanding counsel on homeland
defense issues including security preparation for the Olympics.
Major Jim Byrne is a true patriot, an officer, and a gentleman. I
want to thank him for his dedication and hard work, and to wish him
well on his new assignment as he departs the Senate for Germany. The
staff and I will miss him. I have every confidence, however, that he
will continue to serve our Nation with distinction.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to support the 2002
appropriations bill, particularly some key provisions that will help
ease the financial burdens of our men and women in the National Guard
and support those on the front lines in the fight against terrorism.
The 2002 DOD appropriations bill provides $317 billion to our Armed
Forces. I think it is especially important that the bill provides a 5
percent across the board pay raise and targeted raises for skilled
positions in the Armed Forces. 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. 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, especially as they continue to be mobilized for duty in
response to the attacks of September 11th. It is because of this that I
want to take a second to discuss a very important provision for our
armed forces included in this bill.
This bill includes a provision expanding the protections of the
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act to National Guard personnel
protecting our Nation's airports and other vulnerable public
facilities. This act suspends certain civil obligations to enable
service members to devote full attention to duty. It protects our Armed
Forces from foreclosures, evictions, and installment contracts;
reinstates any health insurance that may have been terminated during
the time of service, protects against cancellation of life insurance,
and limits interest on debt to 6 percent.
It is my belief that the SSCRA was never meant to purposely exclude
Guard called up by the Governor at the request of the President--as the
case of the Guard mobilized today. Passing this bill will provide the
men and women of the National Guard some financial security, and more
importantly, a little peace of mind.
Although I support this bill, I am against its provision of $8.3
billion for missile defense. 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 antiterrorism
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
am hopeful that the President will choose that option. I would also
like to take a moment to talk about the importance of the money
included in this bill to improve our

[[Page S12672]]

homeland security. We have some absolutely urgent national security
needs here at home and I thank my colleague from West Virginia for his
leadership on this homeland security appropriation. Although I had
hoped we could have provided more money for the important programs in
this package, and believe we must re-visit this issue again, I am
grateful for what was worked out and am hopeful that we will be able to
pass this bill quickly and get the funding in the communities where it
belongs.
We need to beef up our ability to anticipate future acts of
terrorism. We need to better insure the safety of our borders. We need
to ensure the safety of our transportation system and our energy
facilities. And we need to make sure that first responders to any
future acts of terrorism have the resources and training they need to
fully, adequately, and safely respond.
I won't go too much into the details of the homeland security
appropriation but I would like to mention a few provisions. This
appropriation has funding for: Health and Human Services for lab
security, disaster response, smallpox and anthrax vaccines; Department
of Agriculture and FDA to hire food inspectors, improve lab security
and expand lab facilities; aid state and local law enforcement
agencies; FEMA firefighting grants; border security including funds for
INS and Customs on the northern border.
This homeland security appropriation has money allocated for state
and local law enforcement to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.
This is money that can be used for programs such as a local homeland
defense emergency reserve fund. Since September 11, support for local
public service and servants has never been more important. This type of
fund would support local communities whose resources have been
exhausted by our current national emergency posture. Specifically, this
money could be used to create an emergency fund for counties and local
entities to dip into when their local resources have been exhausted by
extreme and unforeseen circumstances. In Minnesota, for example, county
sheriffs provide additional security for nuclear power plants, water
treatment facilities, refineries, chemical and other facilities
vulnerable to terrorist targets; but additional security costs were
never factored into local budgets. The extra costs of new hiring and
staff overtime have already taken their toll on Minnesota communities'
local budgets and other unexpected costs are sure to arise in the
future. This type of fund would provide much needed relief and adequate
economic security to our overtaxed communities.
The homeland security appropriation also has money for a FEMA
Firefighters Grant Program. The FEMA Firefighters Grant Program
provides grants to state and local communities to expand and improve
firefighting programs. Over 50 percent of funding goes to volunteer
fire departments in rural communities. In recent weeks, I have had the
opportunity to meet with fire department officials and first responders
throughout the State of Minnesota. The one request that they have all
made to me is for additional support for training and equipment. We
have learned since the events of September 11 what a crucial role our
fire departments play in all of our communities. The FEMA Fire Grant
program is an efficient vehicle to get funding out to these departments
to provide increased training and to purchase new equipment. Given that
the issues local fire departments now confront are national in nature,
it is reasonable that the federal government provide these additional
resources for training and new equipment.
The bill in front of us now also has money to enhance our border
security, particularly our northern border with Canada. Specifically,
the money will be used to increase the number of INS border patrol
agents and INS facilities, to create a data base for monitoring foreign
student visas, to increase Customs Service border patrol agents and
facilities, and for GSA facilities.
In Minnesota, the agencies protecting our borders--even in normal
times--are understaffed. Given Sept. 11, the situation is now urgent.
Border patrol, INS and the Customs Service simply do not have the
capacity to do regular inspections as people come across the border and
then to follow-up after they enter the country. Some borders are only
open part-time in the summer--such as the border at Crane Lake. Borders
such as these are basically wide-open. Some are even staffed via
telephone and video. For example, a person wanting to cross into the
United States from Canada simply arrives and calls the Border Patrol to
announce ``we are here.'' Many border crossings do not even have a
facility and the checks are conducted outdoors. International Falls is
one place that although open full time, conducts much of its business
outdoors.

When I first heard about the security situation on our northern
border I was absolutely amazed. The situation there demands immediate
attention and even now I question if we are providing enough. The anti-
terrorism legislation we passed earlier authorized money to triple the
number of security agents on our northern border, the money is
appropriated today will not make that a reality. But it is a good
start.
This homeland security appropriation also contains money that is
essential for fighting bioterrorism. We need to improve our State and
local public health capacity. There is widespread agreement that the
public health system has been underfunded for years. We need more
laboratories, more epidemiologist, more equipment. This appropriations
bill provides money to do that. Many local public health departments
don't have e-mail capacity. Many don't even have fax capacity. In the
event of bioterrorism, good communication is an absolute necessity.
This appropriations bill helps made sure that communication can take
place.
The recent antrax attacks have shown us that early detection and
treatment saves lives. We learned that hospitals need help to be able
to recognize the pathogens that may be used in a bioterrorist attack.
This appropriations bill provides that help. We learned that
bioterrorism can have a powerful effect on the workplace. I have been
advocating that we work on identifying the best ways to maintain the
safety of our workers in the event of bioterrorism. I am pleased that
this bill provides money for training and education regarding effective
workplace responses to bioterrorism. We learned how important the CDC
is for the security of all of us. This bill makes sure that they have
the money they need to do their job to protect us. This bill provides
funds to make sure there are adequate supplies of vaccines, antibiotics
and other medicines necessary to protect all of us. These are not
optional programs. They are an essential part of protecting the public
health.
We have got to do a better job of addressing the needs of our most
important assets in the fight against terrorism: our law enforcement,
firefighters, health care providers, and other first responders. We
have a long way to go but we have taken an important first step today
with this appropriations bill.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on this day in 1941. our Nation was
``suddenly'' and ``deliberately'' attacked by an enemy who sought to
conquer our homeland and destroy our way of life. Today marks the 60th
anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a day which saw
2,388 Americans perish and 1,178 wounded. Many though that American
shores would never again be breeched by enemies, but that most tragic
day in September visited sadness on our Nation again.
I would have liked to have been in the city of New Orleans today, as
the National D-Day Museum opens up a new wing dedicated to the war in
the Pacific. The D-Day museum is a fitting tribute to all of those who
stormed the shores of foreign nations to ensure that future
generations, would enjoy the fruits of liberty and democracy. The sneak
attack on American Naval and Air Forces in Hawaii marked the end of a
distinct period in American history, and the beginning of another. In
the years that followed that fateful day, America help up the mantle of
Liberty for all civilized and freedom loving people and she still does
today.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senate amendment,
which pays tribute to all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
who gave the ultimate sacrifice to the Nation 60 years ago today at
Pearl Harbor. It also pays tribute to the American spirit that
triumphed over enemies in two

[[Page S12673]]

theaters of the world in the most horrible war man had ever known. This
amendment will also commemorate the opening of an institute dedicated
to commemorating the unique and powerful spirit of America at the
National D-Day Museum in New Orleans.
Victory in the Second World War by the United States and her allies
will probably be known as one of the greatest achievements in all of
history. The ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe
is a testament to the uncommon valor of American soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines. The years 1941-1945 also witnessed an
unprecedented mobilization of domestic industry which in large measure
contributed to our safety at home and supplied our fighting men on two
distant fronts. As the generation that faced this challenge takes its
final lap, it is important that we take the time this day and every day
to honor them for the many sacrifices they made. These men and women
can always be remembers in the promising words of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt when he proclaimed in a 1942 fireside chat: ``We are going to
win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows.'' It was
the gallantry of American troops abroad and the tireless devotion of
workers at home that made these words come true.
Though our Nation has seen war many time, the strength of American
democracy has ensured that war is an aberration and not the norm in our
society. The conflict we now face will put great strains upon our
Nation and will ask of us to sacrifice in unprecedented ways. In times
of peace, it is the natural order that children live to bury their
parents. War violates this National order. War causes parents to bury
those children who have been cut down in their prime by the arrows of
conflict and discord. War makes young men and women widowers and widows
long before the proper time, and deprives our youth of parents to teach
them the wonders of life. This conflict has already deprived our nation
of so many brave men and women, and many more will perish before it is
concluded.
Indeed, the valorous acts of veterans are normally remembered in
bronze and stone on battlefields both at home and abroad. American
orators have been inspired by their deeds to utter words of uncommon
elegance. Today in this Chamber and in many places across the Nation,
the events of Pearl Harbor will be remembered. But the greatest honor
we can give to our veterans is the unwritten memorial of memory, etched
not on stone but in the hearts of all who survive and gladly toil on
liberty's behalf.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the fiscal
year 2002 Defense appropriations bill. I believe this bill reflects the
difficult times we face, both in the bill's priorities and in the
spirit of bipartisanship in which it was crafted. I want to commend the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
for their patience and hard work.
I believe this bill provides funding for the urgent needs of military
personnel who are risking their lives every day in this war against
terrorism. It provides for a 5 percent increase in basic pay for all
service members and a targeted pay raise for midgrade officers and E-4
to E-9 enlisted personnel. It increases readiness accounts by $9.6
billion to aid our soldiers and sailors carrying out Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle. In addition, while taking care of
immediate needs, this bill also considers the future, and provides
funding for the services' transformation.
One major transformation effort funded by this bill is the Navy's
SSGN program. The President's budget request included a proposal to
begin converting two of the four Trident submarines that would
otherwise be retired under the Defense Department's plan to reduce the
Trident ballistic missile submarine force from the current level of
eighteen boats to a new level of fourteen boats. This bill adds $193
million to accelerate the program and preserve the option for
converting all four boats.
These converted submarines will provide the Navy with next generation
technology. In one scenario, the SSGN can be configured to carry as
many as 154 tomahawk missiles, more missiles in one vessel than are now
carried in an entire carrier battlegroup and almost as many tomahawks
used in Operation Allied Force. During operations against Iraq and in
Kosovo, several submarines and surface ships were dedicated solely for
missile strikes. With the SSGN, one vessel would be dedicated for
strike operations and the remaining platforms would be freed up for
other missions. In addition, this strike capacity would remain hidden
so it would retain the element of surprise and be relatively
invulnerable to attack.
These converted submarines could also be configured to carry up to 66
special operations forces along with two advanced seal delivery systems
or two drydock shelters. The ability to insert such a large number of
special operations forces from a position of stealth would give the
navy an unmatched capability to conduct covert operations or prepare
for a larger landing force.
Operations in Afghanistan are revealing on a daily basis the need for
the invaluable tools that the SSGN can provide. I am pleased that this
bill is providing this funding.
Now, I would like to address an area of the bill where I have
concerns. The recent events in Afghanistan and the reported attempts by
Osama bin Laden to obtain chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear
weapons materials and technology, including plutonium and highly
enriched uranium, have increased the importance of the Nunn-Lugar
programs at the Department of Defense and the related programs at the
Department of Energy. These programs account for, secure and destroy
weapons of mass destruction and supporting materials in Russia and the
states of the former Soviet Union. I believe there is general consensus
that these programs should not only be accelerated but that they should
also be expanded.
As a result, I was surprised and disappointed when I saw that the
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program at the Department of
Defense was cut in the Defense appropriations bill by $46 million. This
cut is particularly troublesome because the fiscal year 2002 budget
request for this program had already been reduced by $49 million by the
administration. With this additional cut to Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction program the program is $85 million below the fiscal
year 2001 funding level. This is a 19 percent reduction in this
important program, a program which after September 11, is even more
important.
I want to note that the additional supplemental funding that has been
proposed would increase the funding for the companion programs at the
Department of Energy, which I fully support, but there is no additional
money for the Nunn- Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs at the
Department of Defense in the proposed supplemental funding.
I hope the funds for the Nunn-Lugar programs can be restored at least
to the budget request level of $403 million before deliberations on
this bill are concluded .
I would also like to take a few minutes to discuss the funding for
ballistic missile defense. Before September 11, ballistic missile
defense was the administration's top priority. Today, despite weeks of
evidence of other pressing needs and vulnerabilities that must be
addressed, ballistic missile defense seems to still be the
administration's top national security priority.
In its July budget submission, the administration requested a
staggering $8.3 billion for ballistic missile defense, a 57 percent
increase from last year's funding level. The consensus of the
Democratic members of the Senate Appropriations Committee was that of
the $8.3 billion proposed for missile defense, $1.3 billion was ill-
considered, and could best be spent elsewhere, for example on counter-
terrorism programs. This is consistent with the report of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, which also recommended a $1.3 billion
reduction for missile defense.
I find it interesting that today many of my colleagues opposed the
homeland security provisions in this bill, stating there it was unwise
to allocate additional funds despite the obvious needs. Yet, there is
still support for a 57 percent increase in the ballistic missile
defense accounts when the program addresses a remote threat and is in
some respects overfunded.

[[Page S12674]]

Even if we had a working missile defense system, such a system could
not have defended us from the attacks on the World Trade Center, nor
the anthrax attacks, nor any of the other potential threats we face
from worldwide terrorist networks.
The fact is that terrorist networks do not have ballistic missiles,
let alone missiles capable of reaching the United States. A ballistic
missile leaves an easily detectable ``return address'' against which
the United States could immediately and devastatingly retaliate. Such a
weapon is not appropriate for terrorists who operate in shadows and in
caves, eluding and evading detection. Furthermore, what nation would
allow a terrorist organization to launch a ballistic missile from its
soil, knowing that it would mean certain destruction for that Nation?
Taking into account recent events, this appropriation bill places
ballistic missile defense into a larger context and takes $1.3 billion
of the $8.3 billion budgeted for missile defense and allocates it for
missile defense and/or counterterrorism programs, whichever the
President decides is in the best interest of national security. This
provision is consistent with the fiscal year 2002 National Defense
Authorization bill previously passed by the Senate.
Given the seriousness of the terrorist attacks on our country, and
the continuing alerts of possible additional terrorist attacks, I urge
President Bush to spend that $1.3 billion on counterterrorism programs.
In the months following September 11, the nation has come to recognize
just how vulnerable we are to the scourge of terrorism, and now many
resources are needed to bolster our security. By contrast, if President
Bush chooses to spend the $1.3 billion on missile defense, he will not
be addressing the most likely and imminent threats we face, and he will
not be furthering the cause of missile defense, either. That is because
the $1.3 billion reduction approved by the Appropriations Committee is
for activities that are ill-considered and poorly justified.

Four simple principles ought to apply to missile defense programs, or
any other development program for that matter.
First, avoid deploying equipment that has not been thoroughly tested.
We should know the equipment works prior to giving it to our soldiers.
Second, do not fund activities that cannot be executed. This simply
wastes scarce resources.
Third, avoid excessive funding for non-specific activities without a
firm justification or plan of how to spend the funding.
And finally, avoid undue program growth rates--programs that have
been moving along well should not be drastically accelerated without
justification.
The administration proposed spending over $200 million to procure 10
untested missiles and an untested radar for the THAAD theater missile
defense system. The administration also proposed spending another $100
million to buy untested missiles for the Navy Theater-Wide system.
These missiles would, if funded, permit the administration to claim
``contingency deployments'' for these systems by 2004, long before the
systems are fully developed, tested and demonstrated to work
effectively.
Deploying systems that are not fully developed and tested is not the
best way to get an effective missile defense capability for our nation,
nor is it a wise way to spend our defense dollars. To do this would be
to invite what retired Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welch
called a ``rush to failure,'' which we have previously experienced in
missile defense programs, most notably in the THAAD program a few short
years ago. We should not head down that road again. It leads to delays,
cost overruns and program failure.
The administration's desire for ``contingency deployments'' is
particularly puzzling since the administration itself has spoken out on
the risks of such deployments. Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, the
Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, stated in his
testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``emergency
deployments are disruptive and can set back normal development programs
by years.'' Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz provided similar
testimony to the committee.
The funding reductions for missile defense recommended by Senate
Appropriations Committee would eliminate funding for ``contingency
deployments'' of untested systems, freeing the funding for the fight
against terrorism. I hope President Bush chooses to provide these funds
for counter-terrorism rather than for ``contingency deployments'' of
unproven missile defense systems.
Hundreds of millions more dollars were in the administration's
request to accelerate missile defense programs that are not yet fully
designed, and for testing of programs that haven't even been fully
conceived. For example, the budget request included $50 million for
development and testing of a sea-based boost program. However, the
design of a sea-based boost system does not yet exist, and it is
unreasonable to request funding to test a nonexistent system. The
Appropriations Committee substantially reduced funding for this
activity, to a level more appropriate to a program still in its
conceptual stage. I strongly support this reduction.
The administration unduly accelerated a number of programs that are
not ready for acceleration, thereby putting hundreds of millions of
dollars at risk of being wasted on programs that will have to be
reworked later. A prime example of this is the SBIRS-Low program, a
very complex program of satellites intended to track missile targets by
detecting the heat they emit while in space. Not only is this a very
challenging mission, but the program has undergone substantial cost
growth recently--the current cost estimate for the program now stands
at over $20 billion. A few years ago the cost of three SBIRS-Low
prototype satellites grew so high that the prototypes were canceled
outright.
Substantial cost growth is indicative of programmatic problems which
should be resolved before spending more on the program. Options to the
current plan should be considered and weighed. Yet the administration
has proposed over $380 million for SBIRS-Low in 2002, a 60 percent
increase over last year's funding level. Such a huge funding increase
is not appropriate. The Appropriations Committee recommended a
reduction of $120 million for SBIRS-Low, and I think this reduction is
very wise.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has given the President of the
United States a very important choice to make. Following the lead of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Appropriations Committee has
recommended $1.3 billion of funding reductions for missile defense.
These reductions are not based on ideology or partisanship. They are
based on an objective technical assessment of each missile defense
program, and are consistent with the four principles I outlined
earlier.
Even with these reductions, the administration would still receive
$7.0 billion for missile defense, 40 percent more funding than last
year. By comparison, the Department of Defense only proposed $650
million for research in chemical and biological defense, a mere 16
percent more than last year.
The President can choose to spend the $1.3 billion the Senate
Appropriations Committee has offered him on the real threats the nation
is facing today--on combating terrorism. Or he can choose instead to
spend that money on unwise, ill-justified ballistic missile defense
programs that will not increase our Nation's security. I urge him to
choose counter-terrorism.
This bill was drafted in trying times. It had to be immensely
difficult to discern which of the innumerable pressing needs should
receive scarce resources. I believe this appropriations bill strikes
the proper balance and will provide our fighting men and women with
what they need for victory. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, dislocated workers in Minnesota and
throughout America need assistance now. The Nation's unemployment rate
took another big leap upward in November, to 5.7 percent, the highest
level in 6 years. An additional 331,000 Americans lost their jobs last
month.
For these families, there is no time to waste. As many of us worry
about what to buy our loved ones for the holidays, unemployed workers
are worrying about how to provide for their families. Unemployment
benefits are

[[Page S12675]]

running out and savings are being depleted. Laid-off workers are left
worrying about how they will pay for the basic necessities of life;
housing, clothing, food, and health insurance for their families.
In Minnesota, the Department of Economic Security reported the number
of applications for unemployment benefits increased nearly 24 percent
this November compared to November of last year. Today there are 55,000
workers receiving unemployment assistance in Minnesota, with an
additional 55,000 unemployed who receive no unemployment assistance.
As the State of Minnesota faces a budget deficit of almost $2
billion, the problem is only getting worse. Today, Minneapolis-based
Sun Country Airlines announced that it will immediately lay off 900
employees. This underscores the immediate need for Congress to help
America's financially pressed unemployed now.
We must extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers, putting
money into the hands of dislocated workers and their families. These
are the people most likely to immediately spend any additional funds
they receive. This spending on necessary goods and services will not
only help these families make it through tough times, they will help
spur our economy. Workers need assistance now.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senator Byrd,
Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye, for their leadership on this
important proposal. In particular, their proposal provides the
resources that are urgently needed to begin to address the challenge of
bioterrorism.
Our public health and medical professionals at the State and local
levels will be on the joint lines in any bioterrorist attack. The
legislation that Senator Frist and I introduced recognizes the
importance of strengthening preparedness at the State and local levels.
The Byrd-Stevens-Inouye proposal provides over $1 billion to begin to
prepare our health defenses against bioterrorism.
The proposal provides the resources needed to enhance the ability of
CDC to respond effectively to bioterrorism. By investing $165 million
in new laboratories at CDC, the proposal will allow the disease
detectives at CDC to identify dangerous pathogens accurately and
rapidly.
The proposal will expand stockpiles of pharmaceuticals and medical
supplies that will be needed to protect Americans in a bioterrorist
attack. It will allow work to begin immediately on production of new
smallpox vaccine.
The bipartisan proposal will enhance the safety of the food supply by
providing the resources needed to train more food inspectors and
conduct research on biological threats against American agriculture.
The Byrd-Stevens-Inouye proposal takes the first important steps in
preparing the nation for bioterrorism. We should support this proposal
and do all we can to see that our national investment in bioterrorism
preparedness is sustained in the years to come.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd for his
extraordinary leadership in putting together a plan that addresses
America's most urgent homeland defense needs. I also thank him for his
tremendous eloquence, which has helped all of us, and all of America,
understand the critical importance of strengthening our homeland
security.
I also thank Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for their persistence
in making sure we didn't leave here before we acted to protect
Americans at home and abroad. Thanks to our colleagues, Senators
Schumer and Clinton, for making sure this agreement helps keep
commitment we made to stand with the people of New York as they recover
from September 11. And, as always, I thank my friend, the assistant
majority leader. Once again, Harry Reid's patience and his mastery of
politics, policy, and process have enabled us to find a principled,
bipartisan compromise.
Sixty years ago, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor. After Pearl
Harbor, Americans instantly and instinctively came together to protect
our nation. Together, we defeated a mighty enemy. Nearly 3 months ago,
America was again attacked on our soil by a foreign enemy. It was the
first time since Pearl Harbor.
Now we must decide. Will we do what that earlier generation did? Are
we willing, in this Congress, to put aside our party's agendas, and
perhaps our personal agendas, and do what it takes to protect our
Nation.
It had seemed that the answer to that question was clear. After
September 11, Congress and the President worked together to respond
quickly to the terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat. We expressed
our strong support for the President's leadership in the war on
terrorism, and authorized the use of force in the war. We worked
together to keep the airlines flying, and to make America's airports
safer. We made a commitment to the Pentagon, and to the people of New
York and Pennsylvania, that we would help them rebuild and recover from
the horrific attacks of September 11. We did all of those things with
strong, bipartisan agreement. We had hoped that support for
strengthening America's homeland security would be just as broad.
Clearly, the need is just as urgent. Yesterday, we learned that the
President is preparing his own homeland security package that he
intends to send Congress next year. The President's plan reportedly
will cost $20 billion--nearly three times what is our plan. We also
know that, after Congress authorized $20 billion to strengthen homeland
security and help communities recover from the terrorist attacks, the
President's own agencies submitted to the White House requests totaling
more than $200 billion for homeland security alone. The President's own
Cabinet members identified $200 billion in domestic security needs they
said urgently needed to be addressed to prevent future terrorist
attacks.
So we all understand that the need is great, and urgent. We also
understand, on our side, that the Senate can only act when there is
broad support. So, we will support this bipartisan agreement. The
amount is different than our plan, but the priorities are the same.
We said there must be more money to fight bioterrorism. This
agreement includes more money for bioterrorism. We said there has to be
more money to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or the
materials to build them. This agreement includes more money to do just
that. We said we must keep our word to New York. This package does
that. It doesn't meet all of America's homeland security needs. It
doesn't even meet all of our most urgent homeland security needs. But
it is better than the inadequate proposal we started out with. It is a
downpayment on a stronger, more secure America. In that regard, it is
at least a partial victory for the American people. For that reason, I
intend to support it, and I hope my colleagues will as well.
When this debate began, Democrats proposed a $20 billion homeland
security package as part of a larger economic recovery plan. We believe
strongly that was the right thing to do. After all, if we want people
to get back on planes, and go on with their business and their lives,
they need to know they are safe. But our Republican colleagues refused
to even talk about homeland security as long as it was part of an
economic recovery plan. So we agreed to take homeland security out of
our economic plan. Then, the other side said $20 billion is too much
for homeland security. So we cut $5 billion from our proposal. They
said even that was too much. So we cut our proposal in half--to $7.5
billion.
Again and again, we have made principled compromises in an effort to
reach a bipartisan solution. Now we are accepting even further
reductions in size of the package--in exchange for a commitment from
our Republican friends that they will support more money for
bioterrorism and other urgent homeland security needs. We want to
caution our friends, however. We will not compromise our principles. We
will not compromise the safety of the American people. We expect to see
these commitments in the final conference report. We do not want a plan
that sells our homeland security short.
Sixty years ago today, more than 4,000 American sailors and soldiers
were killed at Pearl Harbor. Three months ago next week, more than
4,000 innocent civilians were killed in New York, at the Pentagon, and
in Pennsylvania. The attacks of September 11 revealed, in a horrific
way, some of the gaps in our homeland defense. With

[[Page S12676]]

this vote, we are taking an important first step toward closing some of
the most dangerous gaps.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no further amendments, the
question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of
the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The bill (H.R. 3338), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. 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 Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on the behalf of the leader, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses,
and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of
the Senate, with no intervening action or debate.
There being no objection, the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Hollings, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Reid, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg,
and Mrs. Hutchison conferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Hawaii and
congratulate him and his staff for doing such a marvelous job on a very
complex bill in such a short period of time. It is a pleasure to work
with him. I also include in that thanks to Steve Cortese, our chief of
staff, and the staff working with him. It is a very complex bill. It is
my hope we will bring this bill back to the Senate by early next week
for final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this has been a long day. I wish to thank
all of my colleagues for their patience and their cooperation. The
measure that we have just adopted, I have been told, is the most
expensive appropriations bill ever adopted by the U.S. Senate.
I wish to thank the staff, Mr. Charles Houy and his team. Without Mr.
Houy and Mr. Steve Cortese, we would not be here at this moment. We
thank them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want everyone to know, Senator Daschle
said we would finish the bill today, and we did it, with a minute's
grace.
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. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________