[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the quorum call be rescinded.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)

       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'', $10,000,000 may be available 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)

       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'' $1,000,000, may be available 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.

                          ____________________