[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13118-S13138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 
                    FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--Continued

  Mr. LEVIN. I believe under the unanimous consent agreement that has 
been entered into, we will have a period of, I believe, 2 hours for 
debate which I hope perhaps will be reduced. In any event, the first 
half hour was to be under the control of Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank my 
distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  Madam President, I was troubled by President Bush's announcement this 
morning to withdraw the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty of 1972. This development has earth-shaking implications for our 
national security, especially in considering the potential range of 
reactions from Russia and other nuclear powers, including China. Arms 
control is bound to become more difficult as these countries work to 
make sure that their nuclear deterrent can still work when--or if--we 
successfully deploy an anti-missile system. While bringing us no closer 
to realizing a workable national missile defense system, withdrawal 
from the ABM Treaty signals to the world that the United States seeks a 
dominant, not a stable, strategic nuclear position.
  I am not an expert on the technology used in nuclear weapons or 
ballistic missiles. But I do know that China has twenty missiles 
capable of delivering nuclear weapons to our shores. China has been 
satisfied that these twenty missiles provided it a nuclear deterrence 
against other nuclear powers, including the United States. As a result 
of this move by the President against the ABM Treaty, I have no doubt 
that China will seek a larger, more sophisticated nuclear arsenal. Does 
that make the United States more or less secure? What about our allies 
and friends overseas?
  Does a larger Chinese nuclear arsenal help the President of South 
Korea sleep at night? What about the Prime Minister of Japan, or even 
the Prime Minister of Britain? Clearly, our friends have good cause to 
be concerned about U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. I do not 
believe it is an overstatement to say that withdrawing from the ABM 
Treaty will have serious consequences for our allies, and by extension, 
on our national security interests.
  I also know that many experts on missile technology have grave 
concerns about how easy it would be to build missiles that can fool a 
national missile defense system, rendering it useless. Russia has 
already developed a missile that could pierce our planned missile 
defense system, even if it worked. And I think that one can bet that 
China is working on similar technology. If China and Russia, two 
countries with past records of sending missile technology to the likes 
of Iran and North Korea, have the technology to fool our missile 
defense radars, how long do you think it will take for that technology 
to end up in the hands of rogue states? I understand the President's 
desire to develop a national missile defense system for the United 
States. I support that goal, as long as it produces a system that is 
feasible, affordable, and effective. However, we have no assurances at 
this point that an effective missile shield can be developed. We are 
operating on little more than conjecture and speculation. Can a 
reliable, workable missile shield be developed? We're not sure. How 
many missiles can a missile shield deflect? Good question. What will it 
ultimately cost? No idea.
  To jettison the ABM Treaty with no replacement agreement in hand and 
no better understanding of how or whether a missile defense system will 
work--and that is where we are right now--to bring additional turmoil 
to a world that is already reeling from the terrorist attacks on 
America is, in my opinion, a rash and ill-considered course of action.
  The United States has been engaged in intensive arms control talks 
with Russia over the past several months. These talks have focused on 
two key issues: first, altering the ABM Treaty to allow the United 
States to increase its missile defense testing, and second, negotiating 
reductions in the nuclear arsenals of both the United States and 
Russia. Russia has repeatedly expressed its belief that the ABM Treaty 
is the ``cornerstone of strategic stability.'' By limiting the 
development of missiles that could shoot down an opponent's nuclear 
missiles, the argument goes, both the United States and Russia 
understood the strategic capabilities of the other--of each other. 
Indeed, progress in first limiting the nuclear arms of the United 
States and the Soviet Union was concurrent to progress in limiting the 
development of anti-ballistic missiles. In the three decades since the 
ABM Treaty and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty were ratified, the 
United States has been able to reach consensus with the Soviet Union--
and later Russia--on the principles of the Strategic Arms Reduction 
Treaties, commonly known as START, to steadily reduce the nuclear 
arsenals of both countries.
  These arms reduction treaties have slashed the nuclear arsenals of 
our two countries by over half over the last decade. All the while, the 
ABM Treaty provided the strategic stability to allow these cuts to 
occur without threatening the strategic balance between the two nuclear 
giants.
  Senator Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, spoke 
very clearly yesterday on his concerns over a precipitous withdrawal 
from the ABM Treaty. I thank the Senator for his remarks, and for his 
valuable insight into this very troubling subject. The Constitution of 
this Nation deliberately established a clear separation of powers among 
the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government. 
Article II, Section 2, gives the President the power to make treaties 
``by and with the consent of the Senate.'' There is a reason for that 
caveat, and the reason is that treaties among nations are enormously 
important instruments of power. The framers of the Constitution 
recognized the importance of treaties, and saw the potential danger of 
allowing any individual to enter into a treaty with another nation. The 
required acquiescence to any treaty by two-thirds of the Senate is a 
fundamental part of the checks and balances of our Government.
  This is what disturbs me so greatly about the President's 
announcement of withdrawal from the ABM Treaty without seeking the 
advice or consent of Congress. And this announcement comes on the heels 
of the President's declaration a few weeks ago that he is willing to 
further reduce America's nuclear arsenal on the strength of a handshake 
from his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, instead of pursuing the 
START process. Again, the decision was made without seeking the advice 
or consent of Congress. To me, shutting Congress out of the decision-
making process involving agreements among nations is a dangerous--a 
dangerous and corrosive course of action. It effectively undermines, I 
think, the intent of the framers of our Constitution. Monarchs make 
treaties. American Presidents propose treaties. They make treaties by 
and with the consent of the Senate. There is a tremendous difference 
between the two, and defining such differences is the essence of our 
Constitution.
  I recognize that under the terms of the treaty, the President has the 
legal right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty with six months notice. I 
recognize that, upon adoption of the Defense authorization conference 
report, which strikes an existing prohibition, he will have the legal 
authority to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal without the consent of 
Congress. But I also believe that it would be a violation of the spirit 
of our Constitution to take either course of action without seeking the 
endorsement of the Senate. I think that the President's contention that 
the ABM Treaty is a cold war relic merits some consideration. His 
belief that it is time to move onto a new framework for missile defense 
reflecting the new realities of a world with multiple nuclear powers 
and would-be nuclear powers, makes a great deal of sense.
  The President's ABM and weapons reductions proposals merit debate and

[[Page S13119]]

consideration in the Senate. I know there are some in this body who 
agree with him wholeheartedly and others who disagree just as 
passionately. I would like to hear their views on both sides. The 
American people should have the opportunity to hear the views of each 
side. But by the President deciding unilaterally to withdraw from the 
ABM Treaty and to reduce America's nuclear stockpile on the strength of 
a wink and a nod, the American people are denied a voice in the 
decision--a voice by the Senate--a decision, by the way, that will 
affect the security of the American people and the stability of the 
world for years to come.

  Our hands are effectively tied at this point. The Defense 
authorization bill, in which we could have dealt with both of these 
issues, is for all intents and purposes signed, sealed and ready for 
delivery to the Senate for a vote in the Senate. A statutory 
prohibition preventing the President from reducing the U.S. nuclear 
arsenal below the levels established in START I is eliminated in that 
bill. A well-reasoned provision that would have conditioned the 
expenditure of FY 2002 missile defense funds on U.S. compliance with 
the ABM Treaty was thrown overboard before the Senate even took up 
debate on the Defense authorization bill.
  We are advancing headlong into committing our nation and our treasure 
to an untried and unproven missile defense system, which we may or may 
not need and which may or may not protect us, while at the same time we 
are in full retreat from arms control treaties and policies that have 
helped stabilize the world for decades. We are looking to expand our 
military might from the land, seas, and skies into the heavens. The 
Department of Defense is investigating ways to use space as the 
``ultimate high ground'' in military operations, expanding upon the 
peaceful use of satellites for intelligence and surveillance. No one is 
sure exactly where this research is leading, but we ought to have a 
full debate on the weaponization of space before these types of 
technologies are realized. We are taking these major, major steps 
without the nearest scrap of debate, discussion, or decision in the 
United States Senate.
  You can be assured that I am as eager as anyone to reduce the number 
of unnecessary weapons in our country. But I am decidedly less than 
eager to pursue such a course of action without ensuring that Russia is 
on the same glidepath. Without a written agreement, without a treaty, 
such assurances cannot be made. We cannot verify intentions without a 
verification regime. We cannot measure progress without a formal system 
of monitoring. We cannot be assured of compliance without written 
guidelines spelling out what compliance means. A handshake, no matter 
how sincere or well-intentioned, is no substitute for a signature.
  A President may be here today and may be gone tomorrow. A President 
of Russia may be here today and may be gone tomorrow.
  A handshake was all right back in the old days when the Senator from 
Virginia and I decided that we would like to trade cows, or a couple of 
horses we would like to trade, or I would like to buy his crop of cane 
molasses. But when dealing between nations, we can't be content with a 
handshake or just looking into the other person's eyes and reading his 
soul. Things have to be put in writing. A handshake, no matter how 
sincere or well intentioned, is no substitute for a signature.
  As Ronald Reagan so famously exhorted, ``Trust, but verify.''
  It may have been W.C. Fields who said something to the effect: Trust, 
but always cut the deck. It was something like that. Always cut the 
deck.
  Similarly, there is no vehicle before us for debate or a vote on the 
merits of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. We gave away the opportunity 
to discuss this matter in the context of the Defense authorization bill 
in the interests of comity. We relinquished our right to even debate 
whether to condition missile defene funding on compliance with the ABM 
Treaty. Now, we are at the mercy of the President. He has to be aware 
that this is a contentious issue. He has to be aware that many members 
of this body have grave concerns over his decision. He has to be aware 
that a decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty will have global 
ramifications.
  As of this morning, it appears that withdrawal of the United States 
from the ABM Treaty is a done deal. I would have strongly preferred to 
have the President give more consideration to the role of Congress in 
foreign and defense affairs. He could have chosen to consult with 
Congress, and submitted to the Senate a formal resolution of withdrawal 
on which we could debate and have a vote. It appears that we are now 
past that point. But I would urge the President to put any agreement to 
reduce our nuclear arsenal in writing, as President Putin has 
requested, and to submit that agreement to the Senate so that the 
legislative branch, as intended by the framers, will have voice in the 
execution of such an important agreement between nations.
  The issue of missile defense, the future of the ABM Treaty, and the 
future of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal are matters of the gravest 
importance. These are matters that deserve the full and undivided 
attention of the President, the Congress, and the Nation. These are not 
decisions that should be sprung on the nation in a speech or at press 
conference. I hope that the President will make the effort to include 
the legislative branch--the people's branch--in making any future, 
final decisions relating to these matters.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will our distinguished colleague yield for 
a question on the speech he has just given?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it was very interesting. I followed it 
very closely. The Senator from West Virginia is a valued member of our 
committee. I fully admit that I advanced in the course of our hearings 
in markup, and likewise the various provisions, which give rise to the 
Senator's concern.
  I strongly support the President's action of exercising article 15 
and giving notice. But I must say I am intrigued by the comments of the 
Senator from West Virginia. He obviously has done a good deal of 
research.
  What are the precedents by which a President feels that a treaty is 
no longer of value to our Nation? Have they heretofore formally 
consulted and notified particularly the Senate which has to give the 
advice and consent? I will research that. But I was interested to the 
extent that the Senator might have some knowledge of it. We have had, I 
guess, minimal consultation.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia, my colleague--I have 
been here 23 years; my colleague has been here many more years than I. 
I recall that many times we would sit down with Presidents and discuss 
momentous decisions regarding foreign policy informally. Then we had 
extensive hearings on the ABM Treaty. In each one, I advocated that we 
basically take the action our President was taking. But I am trying to 
think of the consultative process.
  At this particular time, the best that I know is there were telephone 
calls with the Secretary of Defense and discussions with me about it. I 
presume that occurred with my chairman and perhaps the Senator from 
West Virginia. But what are the precedents for Presidents in a more 
formal way advising the Senate about the fact that he has reached a 
decision that a treaty is no longer of value to this country, and, 
therefore, he is going to exercise such a provision as the treaty may 
provide for the withdrawal?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, as I have stated, I don't question the 
President's legal right to do that. That is not the question.
  I think the question is, as I have tried to pose it, that the Senate, 
a body which, under the Constitution, approves or disapproves the 
ratification of treaties, should have an opportunity, in the case of 
the ABM Treaty--a treaty of such significance as this one has been and 
is--the Senate should have an opportunity to debate this. As I have 
indicated, I think the President should have asked for some advice from 
the Senate. He does not have to take the advice, but I have seen no 
evidence of the President seeking advice on this matter. He simply made 
up his mind to do it and did it.
  Mr. WARNER. But he did forewarn the Nation.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Our Nation.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. The Congress, President Putin, and others that that was 
his intention. He did have a series of

[[Page S13120]]

consultations with President Putin, his key aides, his Secretary of 
State, his Secretary of Defense, and, likewise, the National Security 
Adviser. But I guess we come back to the problem that you feel it was a 
matter of comity, not of law, that he----
  Mr. BYRD. I say that he had the legal right.
  Mr. WARNER. To do what he did.
  Mr. BYRD. But if the Senator will recall, let's go back to the time 
when we were considering the INF Treaty. Mr. Dole was the leader on 
that side of the aisle. I was the leader on this side. And the Reagan 
administration sought to reinterpret the ABM Treaty to its own way of 
thinking at that time. There was a big dispute about this. There was a 
lot of pressure on me, as the majority leader at that time--the Senator 
probably didn't realize that, but I have not forgotten--to bring up the 
INF Treaty.
  I said: Well, let's see what Mr. Nunn, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, has to say about that. And let's see what Mr. 
Boren, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, has to say. And 
let's see what Mr. Pell has to say. Now, when they all come back to me 
and give a report to me that they are satisfied with this, then we will 
call it up.
  There was great pressure on me to bring up that treaty because 
President Reagan wanted to go to Moscow and sit down with Mr. Gorbachev 
and have an exchange of ratification papers on the INF. Mr. Baker, at 
the White House, was going to be there also. But I waited until those 
three chairmen of the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Foreign 
Relations Committees, respectively, were satisfied about the treaty.
  As the Senator will recall, out of that delay Mr. Shultz went to 
Paris, I guess it was, and met with Mr. Schevardnadze and brought back 
something in writing, and we all reached an agreement that any 
reinterpretation of the treaty had to be agreed upon and approved by 
the Senate. And we are talking about the ABM Treaty.
  I believe it was agreed that the interpretation of the treaty would 
be based on the testimony of witnesses, the actual language within the 
four corners of the treaty, and the interpretation by the then 
administration expressed through its witnesses in Senate hearings, and 
that any subsequent administration could not change that 
reinterpretation without going through this process and having the 
approval of the Senate.
  Now, I say all of that, and my memory may not be exactly accurate on 
every point. That was back in 1987 or 1988, somewhere along that line, 
a long time ago.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I remember. I was here.
  Mr. BYRD. At that time we were very concerned about a subsequent 
reinterpretation of the ABM Treaty, the ratification of which the 
Senate had approved, by a subsequent administration. Otherwise, a 
treaty would be without any value if a subsequent administration could 
come along and reinterpret a given treaty based on the way it saw 
things at that later time.
  I say all that to my good friend from Virginia because I have been 
involved in the ABM Treaty for a long time. At that time we saw it as a 
matter of grave importance that an administration be allowed to 
reinterpret that ABM Treaty without subsequent hearings and without 
subsequent approval by the Senate as to the interpretation.
  But here we are today, and we are walking away from that same treaty, 
and the administration--the President did announce this in the 
newspaper, but I saw nothing that was ever sent up. I do not remember 
ever seeing any letter from the President to the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee or the Appropriations Committee or the Foreign 
Relations Committee or the Intelligence Committee.
  Now, there may have been such, but I was not aware of it. The 
President said, some time ago, he was thinking about doing this. He did 
not feel that anything needed to be put in writing. That, to me, is 
enough to keep me awake at night. When a President says he does not 
think something of this nature has to be put in writing, that a mere 
handshake is good enough, that is a rather scary way of looking at it 
as far as I am concerned.
  So this is why I say, I am sorry--I am not sorry we are reducing our 
arsenal. We ought to do that. It is costing too much, and we do not 
need it. But for the President just to walk away from the treaty, and 
the Senate not to have had any expression from the President in 
writing, or any formal expression at all--the Senate, as far as I am 
concerned, was ignored in this matter. This is what puzzles me. I am 
sorry that the Senate apparently is willing to just lie down, be quiet, 
and not ask any questions.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I do 
not feel that he just walked away.
  In deference to your observations, he did, through a series of 
hearings with his key advisers, through public statements, clearly 
indicate his strong dissatisfaction with a treaty which has served its 
purpose, in my judgment, and now, given the turn of events--
particularly those on September 11, when our Nation was shocked at the 
devastation brought on by terrorists--he feels it imperative, that it 
is his duty to now begin to proceed to explore technology and options 
which could lead to an effective system that hopefully will be 
deployed.
  But I just wanted to see----
  Mr. BYRD. See, I do not see that nexus. I do not see that connection.
  Mr. WARNER. I just wanted to see if there were precedents. Perhaps 
henceforth the Senate, in the advice and consent process, should put 
a--what do we call it?
  Mr. LEVIN. Condition.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, into a treaty requiring the President, before any 
amendment or reinterpretation, to come back and seek the advice and 
consent of the Senate on his proposal. There we state very clearly. But 
so far as I know, I do not know of a requirement or a precedent which 
our President has broken, nor did he do anything that was not in 
accordance with the law and/or the terms of the treaty.
  Mr. BYRD. I have already said the President did not do anything that 
is not in accordance with the law. He has not done anything that is 
illegal.
  But let's see if your imagination and mine might be stretched to the 
farthest limit. Let's imagine I became President. And that taxes the 
imagination.
  Mr. WARNER. No. I think you would do quite well.
  Mr. BYRD. In the farthest stretches of the imagination, if I were 
President, I would not think of walking away from a treaty--the ABM 
Treaty--one that has served the Nation well, without at least having 
the Senate in on the action. I would find some way to get some 
expression and view from the Senate.
  As it is, no Senator here has pointed out to me, tonight at least, 
that that effort was made. I think the administration would be much 
wiser if it took the Senate into consideration and had some expression 
of support; let the American people hear some debate in the Senate. I 
think the administration would be much wiser if it let the Senate in on 
the matter and sought its advice.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I remember the many debates we have 
had in the past on the War Powers Act. Although that act is observed in 
spirit by Presidents, Republican and Democrat, they certainly have 
never accepted it really as the letter of the law. It does explicitly 
set out the need for consultation with the Congress.
  Mr. BYRD. It does.
  Mr. WARNER. And we have had various forms of consultation heretofore.
  Mr. BYRD. It also requires reports from the President.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Madam President, the conference report to the fiscal year 2002 
Defense authorization bill before the Senate today contains many 
provisions that will help the men and women who serve our country in 
uniform. The bill provides for pay raises, increased educational 
benefits, and better housing for our military personnel. It authorizes 
important funds for the military services' counter-terrorism programs, 
and enhances efforts to improve the serious accounting problems of the 
Department of Defense.
  Unfortunately, as developments unfolded in our strategic relationship 
with Russia on nuclear weapons and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 
it became clear to me that the conference report before us does not 
move us in the right direction on those two critical issues. It is the 
importance of our strategic relationship with Russia, and

[[Page S13121]]

the rest of the world, that compelled me to oppose this conference 
report. The conference report eliminates a provision of law that 
forbids the President from reducing our nuclear stockpile below the 
levels laid out in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, which 
total about 6,000 warheads. Assuming that this conference report is 
enacted into law--and I assume it will be on its way to the President--
the President will then be accountable to no one on how much he would 
like to reduce our nuclear arsenal. The President could call for these 
cuts without so much as one minute of debate in Congress.
  Let me be perfectly clear for the third time: I do not oppose 
reductions in our nuclear arsenal. The cold war has passed into 
history, and to a great degree, so has the logic of maintaining 
thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at a country that no longer 
advocates the destruction of our way of life.
  In the next fiscal year, the Department of Energy will spend $5.4 
billion on our nuclear stockpile. That is serious money. I do not know 
exactly how many nuclear warheads we need to maintain, but I cannot 
think of one good reason to continue spending that much to maintain far 
more nuclear warheads than what almost all experts believe to be 
appropriate to meet our national security requirements. However, we 
must consider the role of Congress in our national defense, as spelled 
out in the Constitution. To me that is the bedrock of the Republic, 
Congress, the people's plans, the control over the purse. Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 12 reads: ``The Congress shall have the power to 
raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use 
shall be for a longer term than two years.'' The Constitution does not 
give the executive branch the power to raise armies. That is 
congressional power. The Constitution gives that power to the 
legislative branch, the Congress. The document that establishes our 
republic says that Congress, not the President, shall have the power to 
support armies, to maintain navies.
  Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not want the chief executive to 
have the sole power to determine the size and shape of our military. By 
eliminating the one statutory restriction on the President's action 
with regard to the size of our nuclear forces, we in Congress have 
turned our back on that responsibility. I have already spoken today on 
the President's announcement to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. I believe 
that it is an ill-timed move that should have been subject to 
consideration and debate in the Senate. I supported a provision that 
was included in the original version of the Defense authorization bill 
as passed by the Armed Services Committee to limit our missile defense 
testing for the next 9 months to those tests that are allowable under 
the ABM Treaty. Those restrictions could have been waived under two 
circumstances: first, if the United States and Russia reached a new 
agreement on missile defense testing, or if there was an affirmative 
vote in both houses of Congress to authorize the tests. This was a 
reasonable provision. It protected the constitutional duty of Congress 
in national defense and foreign affairs.
  I regret that, following the tragic events of September 11, this 
provision was dropped from the bill without so much as a vote. I can 
understand the great desire on the part of all of us to support the 
President in a moment like this. Considering the President's 
announcement this morning on withdrawal of the United States from the 
treaty, we should have had a fuller debate on the ABM Treaty 
provisions. What is history going to read? Where is history going to 
go? Where are the Senators of tomorrow going to look in the record for 
a debate on this very important matter? While I voted against this 
conference report, I appreciate the work that the chairman and ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin and Senator 
Warner, have put in on this bill. They have few peers in their 
knowledge of the challenges facing the armed services. For the 7 weeks 
that this bill was in conference, they have had an exhausting schedule 
of meetings with their House counterparts, often meeting several times 
each day. They have continued the tradition of bipartisanship on the 
Armed Services Committee, and their staffs likewise have labored day 
and night, hour after hour to bring forth this legislation.
  The issues of nuclear arms reductions and national missile defense 
should not disappear from our consciousness because of the President's 
announcement on the ABM Treaty. I hope that it will focus the attention 
of other Members of the Senate to the need to safeguard the role of 
Congress in defense and foreign affairs. While I look forward to future 
debates on these vital issues, I deeply regret that this Defense 
authorization bill did not tackle them head-on, have a debate, votes 
thereon, and for that reason I voted against its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this morning, President Bush announced 
that he had given Russian President Putin formal notice that the United 
States--pursuant to article 15 of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty--was exercising its right to withdraw from that Treaty. That 
article provides that ``each Party shall . . . have the right to 
withdraw from this Treaty'' with six months notice. I support the 
President's action.
  The ABM Treaty has served the cause of peace well for many years, but 
the Treaty has completed its mission. It was negotiated and signed in 
an era when the United States and the Soviet Union were implacable 
enemies. I, as Secretary of the Navy, was in Moscow in May 1972, where 
President Nixon signed the ABM Treaty for the United States. Each 
nation sustained large nuclear forces aimed at the other. The Treaty 
was seen as a means of controlling the arms competition between our two 
nations and as a building block to other arms control agreements. It 
has served its purpose. But the cold war, as President Bush noted in 
his remarks today, is long over. The Soviet Union has fallen, and 
Russia is, in the words of President Bush, no longer an enemy. Our 
President is pursuing with Russia a new strategic relationship. As 
President Bush has said, ``We're moving to replace mutually assured 
destruction with mutual cooperation.'' President Putin has accepted 
this new challenge and we can expect the two Presidents to make further 
progress. Now our President must explore new technologies and provide a 
system to protect our people from attacks by a limited number of 
missiles.
  The events of September 11 dramatically illustrate that this nation 
has enemies willing to go to extraordinary lengths to attack our 
homeland and indiscriminately kill thousands of innocent civilians. 
Where some doubted such devastation to our nation could ever occur, all 
doubts are now gone. We know that terrorists are seeking to acquire 
weapons of mass destruction, and we know that many of the nations that 
support the terrorists either have, or are seeking to acquire, both 
weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.
  It is the first obligation of any U.S. President to provide for the 
defense of our citizens and our vital national interests. President 
Bush is committed to protecting our nation--from all known threats. His 
commitment to provide defenses against attack from a limited number of 
ballistic missiles, and his determination to move beyond the ABM Treaty 
are motivated by this solem obligation.
  From the inception of the new administration, President Bush and his 
key advisors have persistently pursued with Russia, through a series of 
consultations, a framework of understandings that would enable the 
United States to perform testing of new options and other steps leading 
to the eventual deployment of a ballistic missile defense system. These 
discussions will continue, but it is timely for the United States to 
give notice under article 15. Some have claimed that exercising this 
option to withdraw is a ``violation'' of the Treaty. It is not. It is 
not a ``violation'' to exercise our rights under article 15.
  The Russian Government certainly recognizes and accepts this. Indeed, 
the statements coming from Russian leaders indicate that President 
Bush, and his key aids:, have carefully laid the groundwork for U.S. 
withdrawal from the treaty. The U.S. action was preceded by U.S. and 
Russian commitments to accomplish the most dramatic reductions in 
offensive nuclear forces in the history of arms control. This was a 
high priority for Russia.

[[Page S13122]]

There is no sense that U.S. withdrawal will result in a new arms race. 
There is, instead, a sense of acceptance and a recognition that our 
close relationship will continue to grow.
  The President has an obligation to defend this nation--from all known 
threats. Deliberately leaving our nation vulnerable to missile threats 
in a world so unpredictable and dangerous is not the wise course of 
action. We cannot, and must not, allow another nation to have a veto 
over our right to defend our homeland and our people. The President has 
acted courageously. He has my full support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first let me thank our good friend from 
West Virginia for his kind remarks about myself and my ranking member.
  I yield myself 10 minutes. I would like to comment on a few things 
which the good Senator from West Virginia said.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator yield so that I could join him simply 
in thanking the Senator for his reference to the two of us and our 
staffs. We very much value his work as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank both Senators. Concerning the work, the diligence, 
the dedication, and the loyalty to our country that is constantly being 
demonstrated and exhibited by these two leaders of the Armed Services 
Committee, my words fall pitifully short in expressing my true respect 
for these two Senators.
  They leave nothing undone when it comes to the expenditure of hours, 
labor, toil, and sweat. I also say the same with regard to the staffs 
of both Senators. As a Member, I have been treated very fairly on both 
sides. I thank the Senators.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank our dear friend. Madam President, I totally agree 
with the Senator relative to the unilateral decision made by the 
President today to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. I think it is a 
serious mistake.
  I made a statement earlier today going into great detail as to why I 
think it was a mistake. I don't think any subject has taken more time 
of our committee than the national missile defense program and its 
relationship to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I will read from the 
long statement that I made today relative to this subject:

       Ensuring the security and safety of the American people, 
     especially from weapons of mass destruction, must remain our 
     first defense priority. If I believed that withdrawing 
     unilaterally from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would 
     enhance our national security, I would support doing so. 
     However, the President's announcement that the United States 
     will unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty is a serious 
     mistake for our national security. It is not necessary and it 
     is not wise.
       Unilateral withdrawal is not necessary because the ABM 
     Treaty is not a significant constraint on testing at this 
     time. Indeed, until a few months ago, the Ballistic Missile 
     Defense Organization, BMDO, was proceeding with research, 
     development and testing that was entirely consistent with the 
     treaty. This approach recognized that the United States can 
     develop and test national missile defenses and stay in the 
     treaty. However, the administration then added new tests that 
     would conflict with the treaty--even though these tests are 
     of marginal value.
       Unilateral withdrawal is not wise because it focuses on the 
     least likely threats to our security rather than the most 
     likely threats. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that 
     ballistic missiles are the least likely means of delivering a 
     weapon of mass destruction to the United States. The more 
     likely threat comes from a nuclear, biological or chemical 
     weapon being delivered to the United States in a plane, 
     truck, ship or a suitcase, which would be more reliable, less 
     costly, harder to detect and have no ``return address'' 
     against which to easily retaliate. We need to focus on the 
     most likely threats to our security before accelerating the 
     spending of billions of dollars for defenses against the 
     least likely threats.
       Unilateral withdrawal is not wise because it needlessly 
     strains our growing relationship with Russia, a partner in 
     the new war on terrorism. The President's decision also seems 
     to be a violation of his campaign pledge at the Citadel in 
     September 1999, that, if elected, he would ``offer Russia the 
     necessary amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.'' 
     From newspaper accounts it appears that the administration 
     did not offer amendments to the Russians that would allow us 
     to proceed with the new tests that the administration added. 
     Instead, something much broader was proposed by the 
     administration and not necessarily in the form of amendments. 
     In other words, rather than proceeding with tests permissible 
     under the ABM Treaty or reaching agreement with Russia on 
     amendments to allow for further testing and maintaining the 
     right to withdraw at a later time, the administration has 
     decided at this time to unilaterally withdraw. This is not 
     the way to treat an important nation with which we seek a new 
     relationship based on mutual cooperation. It is fair to ask: 
     What specific amendments to the ABM Treaty were proposed to 
     the Russians by the President as he promised?
       Unilateral withdrawal is not wise because it risks 
     upsetting strategic stability. It risks a dangerous action-
     reaction cycle in offensive and defensive technologies that 
     would leave America less secure. Even though the missile 
     defense system being pursued by the administration is 
     limited, the technologies that would be created as part of 
     this limited system could quickly lead to a much larger 
     program that could--in Russian eyes--undermine their nuclear 
     deterrent. This could prompt Russia to take the destabilizing 
     step of putting multiple warheads on missiles, so-called 
     MIRVed missiles. this could lead China to rapidly increase 
     their nuclear program. It could also lead China or other 
     countries to devise countermeasures and decoys that they 
     could then sell.
       Finally, the President's decision to withdraw unilaterally 
     from the ABM Treaty is not wise because it risks undermining 
     our relationships with allies, partners and other nations 
     just when the world is united in a common fight against 
     terrorism. As this multilateral effort clearly demonstrates, 
     our security is enhanced when we make common cause with other 
     nations in pursuit of common goals. In both the short-term 
     and the long-term, our security is diminished when we forge 
     ahead unilaterally regardless of the impact on the security 
     of other nations.
       The Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on the 
     administration's decision in the weeks and months ahead.

  Madam President, I start with a very strong ``Amen'' to the Senator 
from West Virginia on his comments relative to the decision of the 
President to unilaterally withdraw from an arms control treaty, with no 
new structure in its place. He has decided to tear down the old 
structure, which has produced significant stability when the cold war 
was on and after it was over. Unilateral withdrawal could unleash some 
very negative forces in this world. It could unleash an arms race in 
offensive measures, countermeasures, ways to defeat limited defenses, 
decoys, and ways to overcome those countermeasures. The marginal gain 
that will be achieved in terms of the proposed additional testing is so 
marginal it doesn't come close to outweighing the negative forces that 
now are likely to be unleashed.
  The likelihood that we would be attacked by a state with a ballistic 
missile--we have been told by our top military people --is very slim. 
The greater likelihood is that a weapon of mass destruction would be 
delivered by a truck, a ship, a suitcase, or by an airplane, which have 
no return address the way a missile does. You don't know from where 
that suitcase or truck comes. They make it harder to find the source. 
But with a missile, you know the source. Whoever launched a missile, if 
they could get their hands on one, would be immediately destroyed. The 
idea that a North Korean regime would attack us with a missile, which 
would lead to their immediate destruction, runs counter to what the 
intelligence community has told us: Their first goal in life is their 
own survival.
  So in tearing down this security structure, this source of stability, 
without having anything in its place, to address the least likely means 
of delivery, means that we will be spending a huge amount of resources 
against the least likely threat, instead of putting those resources on 
the most likely threat, which are the terrorist threats, delivering a 
weapon of mass destruction with a truck, or a ship, or an airplane.
  We have, by this action of the President today, removed a structure 
that made it possible for us to have a stable relationship and allow us 
to be much more, it seems to me, rational in the use of our resources.
  So I agree with the Senator from West Virginia on that point. I want 
to reassure him of a couple things, if I can. First of all, the 
language I had offered in the committee requiring a vote before any of 
the funds that are authorized or appropriated would be used for any 
test in conflict with the ABM Treaty was language which, by its own 
terms, did not affect the power of the President to withdraw from the 
ABM Treaty. Subsection (d) of that language, which I had offered, and 
we were able to pass with the help of the Senator from West Virginia--
by one vote in the Armed Services Committee--explicitly said: Nothing 
in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the United 
States to withdraw

[[Page S13123]]

from the ABM Treaty at any time upon a decision of the United States 
that extraordinary events relating to the subject matter of the treaty 
jeopardized the supreme interest in accordance with article XV of the 
treaty.
  To the extent that that is reassuring, the language that was removed, 
for reasons which I gave at the time, did not prevent the President 
from withdrawing from the treaty. In fact, if it had prevented the 
President from withdrawing from the treaty, we would not have been able 
to get the majority vote in the Armed Services Committee. Some 
colleagues would not have voted for it if it had limited the 
President's right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.
  The second thing I want to say to our good friend from West Virginia 
is this: The language that prohibited the executive branch from going 
to a lower level of nuclear weapon delivery systems, below the START I 
level, has been in the law for a number of years. We have tried to 
remove that language for many years. Indeed, I think the Senator from 
West Virginia may have supported that effort at times to remove that 
language. The uniformed military has urged us to repeal that language. 
The top defense civilian leadership has urged us to repeal that 
language.
  But I want to assure the chairman of the Appropriations Committee of 
something that he knows better than any Member of this body, so I am 
even a little reluctant to give him this assurance, because if anybody 
stands for what I am going to say, it is the Senator from West 
Virginia: Nobody can take away from the Congress the power of the 
purse. Nobody. Nobody can take away from the Congress the power to tell 
the President of the United States you must have whatever level of 
nuclear forces we determine you must have.
  Mr. BYRD. The Supreme Court ruled within the last couple of years 
that Congress could not give away its constitutional power.
  Mr. LEVIN. Indeed, we cannot.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Michigan, together with the then-
distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, and the then-Senator 
from Oregon, Mr. Hatfield, and I sought to bring that case before the 
Court. The Court said we didn't have standing. But subsequent to that, 
other parties that did have standing, and were recognized as having 
standing by the Court, pursued that case. The Court, throughout that--I 
am trying to think of a word I can safely say here in the Senate about 
the line-item veto.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would suggest the word ``abomination.''
  Mr. BYRD. The Supreme Court, throughout that miserable piece of 
legislation, upheld the fact that, as the Senator said, the Congress 
cannot give away its powers as set forth under the Constitution.
  Mr. LEVIN. And that is what I just want to reassure my good friend 
from West Virginia that he has been the most steadfast, the most 
valorous, and the most determined representative of that point of view. 
I was proud to join him in the Supreme Court.
  The Appropriations Committee, of which our good friend is the 
chairman, has determined there will be funds in fiscal year 2002 for 
500 minutemen ICBMs--it is in your bill--and for 50 peacekeeper ICBMs. 
There will be 17 to 18 Trident subs. There will be 94 B-52Hs. That is 
the power of the purse. So we have done nothing to diminish that power. 
The President cannot take that away. We could not give it away. We 
should never try. But if anyone ever tried, we can't give it away. The 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the appropriators, and 
then ultimately this Congress, determines what level of weaponry we are 
going to fund and what must be maintained. We determine that.
  Nothing in this bill changes that. That continues to exist. But what 
we did do is remove a prohibition in permanent law that said--not the 
annual appropriation, which continues to be ours, and ours alone, but a 
permanent law--we had what I considered to be an artificial prohibition 
that they had to stay at the START I level instead of leaving that to 
the annual appropriations process; it was something in permanent law.
  There are a number of us who have been trying to remove that 
prohibition for years. We thought it was no longer appropriate. The 
military and defense officials were saying we were spending a lot of 
money we should not spend, and our conference successfully repealed 
that prohibition this year. It does not in any way diminish the power 
of this Congress, which was just exercised on the appropriations bill 
again this year to determine the level of nuclear forces or any other 
weapons we have in our inventory.
  That remains, should remain, and always must remain the power of the 
Congress, the power of the purse.
  Madam President, this is no ordinary time. Two days ago, the Nation 
observed the 3-month anniversary of the most deadly attack ever against 
the United States. For more than 2 months, U.S. forces have been 
engaged in a military campaign on the ground and in the skies of 
Afghanistan. Their success has been remarkable: after just 9 weeks, the 
Al Qaeda terrorist network is on the run, and the Taliban regime that 
harbored them is no more. Our brave men and women in uniform embody 
America's determination to protect our citizens from more terror and 
our resolve to track down and relentlessly pursue terrorists and those 
who would shelter them. And even as we continue to remove flag-draped 
coffins from the ruins in New York, flag-draped coffins have returned 
from Afghanistan with the bodies of heroes who have given their lives 
for our freedom, including our freedom from fear.
  Against this background, I am pleased to bring to the floor of the 
U.S. Senate the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2002. The conferees have produced a good, balanced bill that will 
strengthen our national security. The U.S. military is the most capable 
fighting force in the world today, and this bill ensures it will remain 
so, especially as it is engaged in a war against terrorism.
  This bill reflects the contributions and hard work of many, many 
people over many, many months. I am grateful to Senator Warner for 
working with me every step of the way in producing this bill. We have 
served together on this committee for more than two decades. We agree 
on most things. When we disagree, we trust one another. No chairman 
could ask for a better partner. I want to take this occasion to express 
my gratitude for his invaluable support, which made this a better bill.
  I also want to thank the chairmen and ranking members of the 
subcommittees for their help in the conference and throughout the year 
in completing action on this important bill.
  Finally, I want to thank Representatives Stump and Skelton. Like 
Chairman Stump, this was my first year as chairman. He was also 
chairman of the conference. As conferees, we faced many difficult 
decisions. This was a very challenging conference. But Representatives 
Stump and Skelton made a major contribution to produce a bill that is 
in the national interest. Madam President, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 authorizes $343.3 billion for 
national defense programs, the full amount requested by the President 
and in the budget resolution. This bill addresses a number of important 
priorities.
  This bill builds on Congressional efforts in recent years to improve 
the compensation and quality of life for our forces and their families. 
It authorizes a pay raise of at least 5 percent for all military 
personnel, effective January 1, 2002, and targeted pay raises between 6 
and 10 percent for mid- and senior-level enlisted personnel and junior 
officers. It extends critical bonuses and special pay authorities by 1 
year. It authorizes personnel with critical skills to transfer up to 18 
months of unused benefits under the Montgomery G.I. bill to family 
members in return for a commitment to serve 4 more years, an important 
provision Senator Cleland has been fighting for for some time. It 
authorizes a plan to provide U.S. savings bonds to personnel who commit 
to serve at least 6 additional years of active-duty service in a 
critical specialty. It authorizes $10.5 billion for military 
construction and family housing, an increase of more than $500 million 
above the budget request. It includes a series of provisions to enhance 
the ability of military voters and their families to vote.
  One of the most difficult issues for the conference was whether 
disabled military veterans would receive their

[[Page S13124]]

retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently. This is 
a popular and meritorious benefit that Senator Harry Reid has 
championed. I was disappointed that the House was unwilling to accept 
this benefit because it would have required a vote on the budget point 
of order. The conference agreement authorizes disabled military 
veterans to receive their retired pay and veterans disability 
compensation concurrently, but make this contingent on the enactment of 
legislation offsetting the cost of this benefit. The conference 
agreement also includes an extremely modest enhancement to special pay 
for retirees with service-connected disabilities. It is my hope that in 
the future Congress will allow our military veterans to receive the 
retired pay and veterans disability compensation that they earned and 
deserve.
  This conference report improves the ability of U.S. forces to combat 
terrorism, and it improves the ability of the United States to combat 
the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. To help 
combat terrorism, it adds to the budget request: $47 million for 
science and technology to help confront asymmetric threats such as 
chemical and biological warfare; $17.4 million to procure additional 
protective equipment for chemical and biological agents; and, $10 
million to help fund our combatant commanders around the world fund 
high-priority projects to defend U.S. forces against terrorism.
  This bill also authorizes the full $403 million requested by the 
administration for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to continue 
destroying and dismantling nuclear warheads and missiles in the former 
Soviet Union. The bill also adds nearly $60 million for Energy 
Department programs and research to combat proliferation of such 
weapons. With this funding, the Congress gives additional tangible 
support to the continuing effort to reduce the threats posed by 
offensive nuclear weapons, their delivery systems, and related 
materials.

  On missile defense, we followed the funding formula in the Senate 
bill, making a reduction of $1.3 billion in the request and authorizing 
the President to use the $1.3 billion for whichever he determines is in 
our national security interest: one, research and development of 
missile defense programs as previously requested; and two, DOD 
activities to combat terrorism. I sincerely hope the President will 
wisely choose to use these funds to combat the more likely threats to 
the United States from terrorism, rather than the least likely threat 
of a ballistic missile attack on our Nation.
  The bill contains important language requiring the Department to 
provide additional information and program reviews to ensure adequate 
congressional oversight and transparency of the program. I would add 
that the Senate owes a great debt to Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who 
worked on this issue tirelessly over many months to reach this point.
  The House bill contained language that could have been interpreted to 
authorize the use of Fort Greely, AK, as an operational ballistic 
missile defense site. A number of us in the Senate felt very strongly 
that we should not authorize an operational site in violation of the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. So this language was modified in 
conference to clarify that Congress has authorized the construction of 
only those facilities that are necessary to establish a test bed, not 
an operational missile defense site.
  As I already mentioned, the national missile defense testing program 
is not constrained at this time by the ABM Treaty. The President's 
decision to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty is a serious mistake 
for our national security. It is not necessary and it is not wise.
  As I also mentioned, I am pleased that the conference report contains 
a provision from the Senate bill that would eliminate statutory 
restrictions on the President's ability to retire unneeded U.S. nuclear 
forces. We have been fighting for this flexibility for years, and I was 
disappointed that we had to drop a similar provision in the conference 
on last year's defense bill. This conference agreement allows the 
administration to move the United States toward lower nuclear force 
levels contemplated under START III and below, and toward levels being 
sought by the administration.
  This bill allows for significant savings through improved management 
in several important areas of the Defense Department. This bill 
includes a major victory for good government and for the readiness and 
transformation our military forces, it authorizes another round of base 
realignment and closure. The civilian and military leadership of the 
Department of Defense have told us over and over again, through two 
administrations, that DOD has excess infrastructure and needs a new 
round of base closures to free up billions in savings for higher 
priority defense needs. Senator McCain and I have been fighting for a 
new BRAC for more than 5 years, and I am very pleased it is included in 
this bill.
  This bill makes several minor changes to the previous BRAC process 
and to the Senate bill. Instead of occurring in 2003 as proposed in the 
Senate bill, the new round of BRAC will, in order to obtain approval by 
the House, occur in 2005. Even with this delay, the House held out 
until the last minute.
  We also have tightened the provisions by which the base closure 
commission can add additional facilities for closure not already 
included in the list proposed by the Secretary of Defense. I want to be 
very clear about this second change. As in the past, the Secretary will 
propose to the commission for their consideration a list of 
installations he suggests for closure or realignment. If the commission 
wishes to add to the Secretary's list more installations for its 
consideration, at least 7 of the 9 commissioners, a super-majority, 
must vote to do so. However, once an additional installation is added 
for consideration, the final recommendation on whether to close or 
realign it will be by a simple majority vote, 5 votes, of the 
commission, just the same as the original list. In other words, we have 
raised the preliminary hurdle for the commission to add to the 
Secretary's list installations for consideration, but the final hurdle, 
whether to actually include that installation in the commission's 
recommendation to Congress, will be the same for all installations and 
the same as in previous BRACs, that is, a simple majority.
  BRAC was by far the most difficult issue in conference, and I want to 
especially thank Senator McCain for his leadership and Senator Warner 
for his support on this issue. Personally, I would have preferred BRAC 
in 2003 over 2005. But I also prefer 2005 over no BRAC at all. In the 
end, those were the options. This bill is clear, there will be another 
round of base closure in 2005. This is a major victory for those who 
want to give the Defense Department the ability to realize the 
significant savings that can only come from more base closures.

  The bill provides for improved contract management and greater 
competition for the $50 billion of service contracts awarded by the 
Department of Defense each year. Secretary Rumsfeld has testified that 
the Department should be able to achieve 5 percent savings across the 
board through management improvements. We have identified a number of 
management tools and strategies already in wide use in the private 
sector that should enable the Department to save billions of dollars on 
its service contracts over the next several years.
  This bill makes the Defense Department, rather than Federal Prison 
Industries, FPI, responsible for determining whether FPI products meet 
the Department's needs. This means that private sector companies will 
have an opportunity to compete with FPI for Department of Defense 
contracts that are paid for with their tax dollars. It is fundamentally 
unfair that these companies have been denied this opportunity in the 
past, and I am delighted that we have finally been able to address this 
problem.
  This bill makes significant contributions to the readiness of our 
military. It authorizes funding to improve the readiness of Army 
aviation, including: funding for 22 Black Hawk helicopters, 10 more 
than the administration requested; upgrades to Apache helicopters; and 
additional TH-67 training helicopters. It authorizes $62.5 million for 
upgrades to the B-2 bomber and an additional $100 million to maintain 
the B-1 bombers, which continue to demonstrate their effectiveness 
against

[[Page S13125]]

terrorist targets in Afghanistan. It authorizes $55 million to upgrade 
engines and reduce maintenance costs for the F-15 and F-16 aircraft.
  The bill also adds money to increase full-time manning in the Army 
National Guard; upgrade the Navy's electronic warfare aircraft; improve 
the operational safety and capabilities of our test ranges and space 
launch facilities; and continue modernizing the training aircraft used 
by the Air Force and Navy for the training of new pilots.
  This bill also supports the transformation of our military to a 
lighter, more lethal, more flexible force. It authorizes the request of 
$3.9 billion for the F-22, including funding to procure 13 aircraft. It 
approves the requested funding of $3.0 billion for three Arleigh Burke-
class destroyers, $2.3 billion for one Virginia-class attack submarine, 
and $370.8 million for one T-AKE auxiliary cargo and ammunition ship. 
It provides the full request of more than $1.5 billion for the Joint 
Strike Fighter program. It authorizes nearly $200 million for Navy 
transformation, including an increase of $178 million for converting 
four excess Trident strategic missile submarines to carry Tomahawk 
cruise missiles, instead of two as requested in the budget. It 
authorizes more than $561.3 million for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAVs, 
including an increase of $26 million for procurement of Predator UAVs, 
which have been used successfully in Afghanistan in the war on 
terrorism.
  The conference agreement modifies the provisions that we adopted last 
year regarding the status of training exercises by the Navy and Marine 
Corps on the Island of Vieques. It cancels the referendum on live-fire 
training that was required in last year's authorization bill. It also 
authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to close the Vieques training 
range only if the Secretary certifies to the President and Congress, 
after reviewing the recommendations of the Chief of Naval Operations 
and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, that an alternative facility or 
facilities will provide equivalent or superior training.
  In view of the importance of this issue to the people of Puerto Rico, 
I would have preferred a solution that placed the decision on whether 
to close the range in the hands of the President. I believe that this 
approach would have been more likely to ensure peaceful access to the 
island for training purposes in the long run. However, the House 
rejected this approach, and this compromise is the best outcome we 
could achieve.
  Included in the Conference Report Statement of Managers is an excerpt 
of a letter dated November 29, 2001, from Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz 
making it clear that the President prefers the approach we have taken 
in this bill. It reads:

       Consistent with the commitments made by both the President 
     and Secretary England, the Navy remains committed to 
     identifying a suitable alternative and is planning to 
     discontinue training operations on the island of Vieques in 
     May of 2003, contingent upon the identification and 
     establishment of a suitable alternative. However, until a 
     suitable alternative is established, Vieques remains an 
     important element in the training of our forces deploying to 
     fight the war.

  This is a strong, balanced bill. It fully funds the $343.3 billion 
for national defense requested by the administration. It improves the 
compensation and quality of life of our forces and their families. It 
improves the readiness of the military services. It advances the 
transformation of the military to lighter, more lethal and more capable 
forces. It improves the capability of the armed forces to meet 
nontraditional threats, including terrorism and unconventional means of 
delivering weapons of mass destruction. It improves the efficiency of 
DOD programs and operations.
  Once again, I want to thank Senator Warner, all the Members of the 
Senate and House Armed Services Committees, and the staffs of both 
committees for their long hours of hard work on this legislation. I 
hope the Senate will join us in passing this bill, sending it to the 
President for signature, and sending a strong message of support to our 
military men and women now engaged in a war to defend our freedom and 
way of life.
  I am going to yield the floor at this time. After the Senator from 
Virginia speaks, perhaps the Senator Akaka, who has been here a while, 
can be recognized.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to start by thanking Chairman 
Levin, and his staff under the fine leadership of David Lyles, for the 
manner in which they conducted this conference. It was a team effort 
from start to finish, and we have a good product to present to the 
Senate as a result.
  We were all sent here by our constituents to do the people's 
business, and that we have done. The conference report now before the 
Senate strengthens the President's hand in the on-going way on 
terrorism. This legislation sends a clear signal to all of the men and 
women in the military--from the newest private to the four-star 
general--that we are clearly behind them.
  With this legislation, we are providing critical funding and 
legislative authorities to support the men and women defending freedom 
in Afghanistan and those on station around the world who are 
safeguarding our liberties and who are prepared to answer the call on a 
moments notice.
  The conference report we are presenting to the Senate today contains 
$343.3 billion for defense--an increase of almost 11 percent over last 
year's level. In addition, this legislation authorizes the defense 
portion of the $40 billion emergency supplemental that was proposed by 
the President to respond to the events of September 11. Of that $40 
billion the Defense Department has received $13.7 billion from the 
first $20 billion increment, and will receive several billion more from 
the second $20 billion--the exact amount is still the subject of an 
ongoing appropriations conference.
  As our military is engaged in an all out war against terrorism, the 
Congress is fulfilling its duty with this legislation by providing the 
funding needed to successfully conduct that war.
  Just 3 weeks ago, I joined Chairman Levin in visiting our military 
men and women who are participating in Operation Enduring Freedom. We 
visited with forces in Uzbekistan, were privileged to share 
Thanksgiving dinner with some of our troops in Pakistan and with 
sailors aboard the USS Carl Vinson, from which planes are flying in 
support of forces in Afghanistan.
  Our Nation can be proud of the men and women serving in our Armed 
Forces. The dedication, professionalism and bravery that is being 
displayed at any hour of the day or night is extraordinary.
  During our trip to the region, we spent time with a Special Forces 
team of 11 men preparing to deeply into Afghanistan. I was struck by 
the professionalism, courage and dedication of these soldiers. With 
imminent danger ahead, their thoughts were of mission, home, family and 
their uncompromising love of country. They knew they were embarking on 
a critical mission, and they were ready to go.

  I have had the privilege of being associated with the United States 
military for over a half a century, beginning as a young sailor in the 
closing days of World War II. I have never seen greater bravery or 
dedication or commitment in the faces of our soldiers, sailors, airmen 
and Marines. The support of the Congress and the American people is the 
only modest recognition they hope for. That, we owe them; that they 
have, not since the days of world War II has the nation been so united 
behind the men and women in uniform.
  I commend President Bush for his inspiration and leadership. During 
the nearly 10 weeks of military operations, he has communicated his 
clear intent, and he has not wavered. The American people are united 
behind him and behind our military.
  It is interesting to note that, less than a year ago, the Bush 
Administration inherited a proud armed force but one that was showing 
the effects of a decade of underfunding and over commitment abroad. 
While U.S. servicemen and women performed their military missions with 
great dedication and professionalism, military personnel, equipment and 
infrastructure were increasingly stressed by the effects of the 
unprecedented number of military deployments over the past decade, 
combined with years of declining defense spending. This contributed to 
what General Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
referred to as the ``strategy-resource mismatch.''

[[Page S13126]]

  President Bush is to be commended for the increases he has proposed 
in defense spending. Prior to September 11, the President recommended 
increases for Defense for fiscal year 2002 totaling $38.2 billion. 
These increases represent an almost 11 percent increases in Defense 
spending above the fiscal year 2001 amount. The amount for Defense 
requested by the President in the emergency supplemental totals over 
$20 billion. Hopefully that additional amount will be provided as well.
  Building on the President's solid proposal for fiscal year 2002, 
Senator Levin and I were able to conclude a conference agreement that 
is much needed by the military, particularly at this time of conflict 
when those in uniform and their families are facing all the dangers and 
unknowns of war. The conferees have stepped up to meet the challenges 
and to provide our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, what is needed 
at this critical time in America's efforts in leading the world against 
a common enemy--terrorism.
  A few days ago, the President returned to the Citadel to address the 
Corp of Cadets. In his remarks, the President reaffirmed his vision for 
the armed forces and his plan for defending the blessings of liberty 
and freedom against those who would seek to destroy them.
  The President noted at the Citadel, ``If America wavers, the world 
will lose heart. If America leads, the world will show its courage. 
America will never waver. America will lead the world to peace.''
  In this time of war, we must show our support for our military, our 
President. I thank all Senators who supported the conference report.
  Madam President, I will remain on the floor indefinitely. We do wish 
to accommodate other colleagues. The distinguished Senator from Arizona 
is present, and at the appropriate time, we will try to accommodate our 
colleague from Arizona.
  I see our colleague from Hawaii. This Senator will be very happy at 
this time to yield the floor, if he so desires to seek recognition.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Hawaii will yield for a 
moment.
  Mr. AKAKA. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, before I leave for a moment, I beg the 
indulgence of my good friend from Virginia. I have a lot I want to say 
in a very heartfelt way about my friend from Virginia. We could not 
have a bill without the partnership we have on that committee. The 
Senator from West Virginia was very nice in the way he phrased that. I 
will always remember the way he gave us a bouquet tonight on a bill 
which he, for his own very strong principles, decided to vote against. 
I want to let my friend know, though I have to leave for a moment, I 
will be back to say thank you to the Senator from Virginia and the 
staffs.
  Mr. WARNER. No thanks are necessary. It is my duty. My constituents 
sent me, and we will at some point in time resume the colloquy between 
the chairman and myself. At this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for 
the conference report to S. 1438, the Department of Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. I commend Chairman Levin, 
Senator Warner, and their staff for the tremendous amount of work that 
has resulted in this conference report. There were many difficult 
issues to resolve, and I appreciate the persistence of our chairman and 
ranking member in ensuring the successful outcome of this conference 
report.
  In the area of readiness and management support, the conference 
report authorizes $10.5 billion for military construction and family 
housing programs, an increase of $528.7 million to the administration's 
budget request. The report also includes $36 million for various 
systems to improve accounting for spare parts inventories and 
streamline maintenance processes. These are important steps in our 
efforts to improve the facilities in which our military personnel work 
and the housing in which they and their families live.
  The conference report includes several provisions to improve the 
management and oversight of the Department of Defense. For example, 
there is a provision which addresses the Department's inability to 
produce reliable financial information or auditable financial 
statements, a long-time concern for myself and a number of my 
colleagues. The conference report also provides for improved management 
and greater competition for the $50 billion of service contracts 
awarded by the Department of Defense each year.
  While I am disappointed with the reductions that were made in the 
operations and maintenance accounts, I remain committed to focusing our 
efforts towards ensuring the readiness of our military services. I 
believe further advances in sustainment, restoration and equipment 
maintenance are possible, in particular increasing attention to 
corrosion prevention technologies and products. As I know from the 
military facilities in Hawaii and elsewhere in the Pacific, maintaining 
military equipment and facilities in wet, salty, and hot environments 
is a significant challenge. The conference report authorizes $27 
million for equipment and testing to prevent the corrosion of military 
equipment. I look forward to continuing to address the issue of 
corrosion in the future as its impact on readiness is significant.
  I am pleased to note that the conference report includes an event-
driven implementation of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet to ensure that 
the program is fully tested and proven as it is introduced into the 
Navy and Marine field units.
  I also want to highlight the provision in the conference report which 
directs the Department of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for 
addressing environmental problems caused by unexploded ordnance on 
current and former military facilities. I believe this is very 
important as we continue to address the issue of encroachment and its 
impacts on readiness and training.
  While we have more work to do to ensure the readiness and training of 
our military, the conference report is a significant step forward. I 
join my colleagues in supporting this important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in support of the Defense 
authorization bill and commend Senator Levin and Senator Warner for 
their great efforts. They have crafted a bill that will provide 
materiel assistance and support to the men and women of our Armed 
Forces.
  This bill includes, among other things, a targeted pay raise for our 
military, authority for military personnel to transfer unused 
Montgomery GI bill benefits to their dependents. This was a particular 
concern of Senator Cleland, and he should receive particular 
commendation for his unfailing efforts over several years to get this 
provision enacted into law. Today it is part of the law.
  In addition, this legislation will include a base closure round for 
the year 2005, which is something very important, although very 
controversial. It is important to move from a cold war infrastructure 
to a post-cold-war infrastructure, as we have done with our personnel 
and force structure, and this legislation will do that.
  However, today this conference report has been overshadowed by the 
President's announcement that he proposes to withdraw from the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty. As chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, I 
spent long hours examining and looking very closely at the 
administration's plans for missile defense.
  I worked closely with all my colleagues, particularly the ranking 
member, Senator Allard of Colorado. We may have disagreed on issues, 
but we worked together to try to ensure all the information was 
available to our colleagues.
  I believe the legislation we proposed in committee represented a 
sound balancing of the need to develop particularly theater missile 
defense but also to develop national missile defense. It did so 
cognizant of the fact that to deploy such a national missile defense 
would be violative of the ABM Treaty and would be a threat to very 
delicate arms control agreements that have evolved over decades.

  Our legislation was brought to this floor in the wake of September 
11, and in the need, in a very real sense, to provide a rallying point 
of consensus rather than an opportunity for further debate, our 
legislation, which reduced the

[[Page S13127]]

appropriations for national defense by $1.3 billion, was modified 
significantly to give the President the option to apply this $1.3 
billion to ballistic missile defense or to counterterrorism. I believe 
as we look very carefully and very closely at the threats we face 
today, the terrorism effect is more immediate and more central to our 
concerns of this moment. I hope the President will take that 
opportunity to apply those resources at $1.3 billion to 
counterterrorism.
  Today, the President's announcement has been greeted by different 
opinions in different venues. My impression is that his announcement is 
both unwarranted and unwise. It is unwarranted because we are far away 
from the time that we have the technology to effectively deploy a 
national missile defense. It is also many years before I sense that we 
need to conduct tests that would be violative of the ABM Treaty. It is 
unwise because I think we are jeopardizing our relationship with 
Russia. Although their immediate response might be muted in some 
respects, what we will see is less than enthusiastic cooperation on a 
whole spectrum of cooperative efforts on which we need their help and 
assistance, from antiterrorism to the securing of their nuclear 
materials, to the securing of their biological materials. In this 
sense, it represents a departure from an endeavor over many decades, to 
erect a regime of arms control together with the keen awareness of our 
relationship with Russia.
  I believe we have plenty of time to develop, and should develop, an 
adequate system and then face the decision of deployment and the 
decision of the treaty perhaps years from now. In October, Secretary 
Rumsfeld suggested there were four potential tests that would violate 
the treaty. As a result, he was canceling those tests. I think in fact 
that might have been a situation where those tests easily could have 
been postponed and therefore the decision could have been easily 
deferred with respect to the treaty.
  One of the activities in question, for example, was the use of an 
Aegis ship radar to observe a missile defense test, clearly in 
violation of the ABM Treaty. The problem is the development of a sea-
based missile defense system is at least a decade away. As a result, to 
rush forward and try at this point to insert a test of that nature 
suggests to me there was more interest in bumping up, as they say, 
against the treaty rather than bringing to the field a system that will 
work.
  The system that is the most advanced is the land based national 
missile defense system. Indeed, this system, too, has plenty of room 
for further research and development before it is necessary to go ahead 
and call into question the ABM Treaty.
  The President today called the ABM Treaty a relic, a vestige of the 
cold war. The dynamics of world powers have definitely changed. But the 
reality is clear that nuclear weapons still are present in the world, 
they still must be contained, their use prevented--we hope. In this 
respect, we still have a need for a structured arms control regime, a 
structure that I think will not be aided by the abandonment today by 
this administration of the ABM Treaty.
  Now, there is encouraging news. There is news that the Russians and 
the United States may, either through treaty or by unilateral decision, 
reduce their warheads. That would be progress.
  But I do believe we are sending a signal not just to the Russians but 
to the rest of the world that the United States is stepping back from 
multilateral treaties and bilateral treaties which will further the 
cause of arms control. That will set not only the wrong tone but indeed 
perhaps the wrong direction.
  The other aspect of this unilateral approach is the fact that it may 
not provoke an immediate and demonstrable adverse reaction from Russia, 
but as I said before, it will inhibit the kind of full-fledged 
cooperation that we need to address the more immediate threat of 
terrorism. We recognize today that Russian assistance in many ways has 
helped immensely in our struggle in Afghanistan. The use of their 
intelligence sources and the fact that they have, in an economic sense, 
continued to produce petroleum so that energy prices remain low are 
examples of their cooperative efforts.
  I ask whether or not, given our unilateral withdrawal, given our 
unwillingness to continue a dialogue with respect to treaty 
modifications, would essentially undercut other areas of cooperation 
that, I argue, also are extremely necessary.
  The proliferation of nuclear materials, the presence of vast stocks 
of biologic materials--all of these within Russia and all of these with 
questionable security mechanisms--raise a profound issue of our 
security. This afternoon in our committee we had a hearing with respect 
to the control of our nuclear weapons, and we have elaborate 
procedures, expensive procedures. I suggest the Russians probably do 
not match us with those procedures but they should. That is an example 
of cooperation we have to undertake immediately, cooperation that might 
be undercut.
  China has expressed concern--another area we have to consider--in 
terms of their ability to deploy more missiles, to provide more 
sophisticated warheads with more penetrating aids, with more decoys, 
those things that will make the world less stable, the nuclear balance 
less stable.
  I believe we have, today, taken the wrong path. Rather than 
continuing to work for a structure of arms control agreements, we have 
turned away from that structure. I hope the President not only 
recognizes perhaps the arguments we are making this evening, but truly 
works to reach out to try to develop more cooperative efforts with 
Russia that are to our mutual advantage; also, that we would recognize 
we still have an obligation to develop a structure of arms control 
agreements that will make the world safer.
  The decision today to withdraw is, again, in my view, unwarranted by 
the circumstances and unwise. I believe in the long run it will not aid 
materially our security.
  I hope the provisions we have included in this legislation that 
provide for overview of the Ballistic Missile Defense Program, that 
provide the option to use funds not only for ballistic missile defense 
but for counter-terrorism, will be used by the administration to pursue 
those aspects of counterterrorism and also a prudent development 
program for ballistic missile defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Our good friend from Rhode Island is a valued member of 
our committee, very hard working, very industrious. I expect it will be 
that situation for an indefinite period as the years roll by. He had a 
distinguished military career himself, a graduate of West Point.
  But I do have a few differences of view. And my good friend, the 
chairman, utilized these same key phrases I keep hearing. That is, we 
have a greater threat to our Nation from trucks, ships, or an airline 
that might bring in a missile or some type of nuclear device. We are 
putting so much money on missile defense at the time ``when it is the 
least likely means of delivery.''
  I say to my friend, I listened carefully, but you don't rule out the 
possibility that someone could fire in anger but a single missile.
  That is the fallacy that I find in this argument. They do not rule 
out, they do not address the possibility, that but a single missile 
would come in and in all probability that missile would cause 
devastation far greater than a device that perhaps was conveyed by a 
truck or otherwise.
  So I think I just cannot accept the arguments, that concept of the 
``least likely'' would deter this President or any President from 
proceeding toward a system to protect us against an attack by a limited 
number of missiles. That is all this President has asked repeatedly in 
his short term since he has been President. That is what he is asking. 
I hope Congress eventually delivers on that request by our President.
  Then there is a second argument; that is, suppose a nation possessed 
nuclear weapons which potentially they could use against us. They might 
not fire the weapon. But as our President might be deploying our forces 
to a region of the world, perhaps not unlike what we are doing in 
Afghanistan with a coalition of other nations, the threat could come: 
If you deploy a single member of the Armed Forces of the

[[Page S13128]]

United States in an effort to deter or, indeed, engage an enemy on a 
foreign land, which enemy is acting against an ally or friendly country 
or in any way inimical to the cause of freedom, that missile could be 
used as a threat against our President. A single missile could make a 
dramatic change in the ability of a President, as Commander in Chief of 
our Armed Forces, to make a decision on a deployment.
  So perhaps at some point those Senators who have spoken against this 
could answer the two questions that I leave pending at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Alabama?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as our distinguished colleague from 
Alabama desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and I thank Senator Warner for 
yielding time to me. It has been a tremendous experience for me to 
serve on the Armed Services Committee--over 3 years now, under the 
leadership of Senator Warner and now Senator Levin. It has been a 
pleasure to watch how the committee operates. On occasion, we have 
disagreements, but the committee works with such good grace and harmony 
and a generalized interest in what is best for America that I think it 
has been a good example for other committees.
  Senator Levin, I thank you for your consistent courtesy, your 
brilliant leadership; and Senator Warner, thank you for your leadership 
on this bill and in the past as chairman of the committee, now as 
ranking member.
  I am generally very pleased with this legislation. Essentially, as I 
see it, we had about a $30 billion increase in expenditures planned in 
our budget item as we came forward this year over last year in actual 
appropriations dollars. Then we had a supplemental. Then we had the $20 
billion supplemental that we passed after September 11. We are looking 
at a pretty significant increase in defense spending. Some of that, of 
course, is going to homeland defense that we were not expecting to 
spend just a few months ago, but essentially we have a nice increase in 
defense.
  Our fundamental problem has been, as one of President Clinton's 
service secretaries said, we are in a death spiral in many aspects of 
our defense because we are carrying equipment--aircraft, ships, 
military vehicles--that are so old, it costs more to operate and 
maintain than is really justified. We really need to leap forward to a 
new generation of equipment, but we do not have the money to do that, 
and it is draining us in a lot of different ways.

  But we made some progress this year and last year, with great pay 
raises, or at least significantly above the inflation rate for our men 
and women in uniform, trying to make sure they know we affirm them and 
the service they are rendering. We did that prior to September 11, and 
I think there is an even stronger feeling in America today of 
appreciation for our men and women in uniform and a respect for the job 
they do.
  I feel pretty good about where we are going. We know the Army needs 
to transform itself. That is not an inexpensive process. We have not 
given it enough money to transform itself. For each year that I have 
been on the Armed Services Committee, we have been talking about the 
challenge, making sure the Army is capable of doing basically the very 
kind of things we are doing in Afghanistan today. We configured that 
Army to meet the Soviet Union and their vast capability and large 
standing Army and heavy equipment that they had, to confront them on 
the plains of Europe. But we do not have that threat in the same degree 
today that we did then.
  So everybody who has given serious thought to the situation knows we 
ought to be moving toward an Army that can respond to the various kinds 
of threats we are likely to be seeing in the world today. If we can do 
that, we would have served our country well.
  I do not think we have traveled far enough down that road, frankly. 
It has been impressive, however, to see that we continue to modernize, 
continue to exploit the technological advantage this country has in the 
world, and our ability to project power in a systematic way. I believe 
our modernization has caused the least possible damage to the defense 
related industrial sectors of this Nation in the process, and our 
ability to encourage innovation in these sectors while being smarter 
with our funding has increased dramatically.
  It has been an extraordinary effort that is being carried on in 
Afghanistan. It points out anew that we need to continue that 
transformation. We need to continue to bring on aircraft that is 
unmanned in larger numbers, to continue to improve our smart bombs, 
smart missile capability, and to do it in a way that is most effective 
in different types of conflicts into which we might be entering.
  I believe this bill has progressed in those areas, for which I am 
very delighted. One of the issues that we did have a dispute about and 
debate about in the committee was what to do about an anti-ballistic 
missile system in our country. I have been a real strong believer that 
this country needs a ballistic missile defense system, that we have 
dawdled too long, and it is time to move forward.
  This Congress voted 94-to-3 to deploy an anti-ballistic missile 
system as soon as technologically feasible several years ago. President 
Clinton signed that legislation. I thought that pretty much settled it.
  But we have had a good bit of debate since. President Clinton put in 
$5 billion for ballistic missile defense this year in his budget 
request before he left office. Under President Bush, that figure was 
raised $3 billion, to $8 billion.

  That is an increase he felt very strongly about. That was an increase 
that reflected an interest of his that was very important. He 
campaigned on it. He said he wanted to do it. He has suggested ever 
since he was elected, and even before he was elected, that we ought to 
either negotiate a new treaty with Russia, or we ought to take 
advantage of the provisions in the treaty that allows him to get out of 
the treaty. Today I am pleased to see that he made the decision to 
remove the United States from that treaty.
  Let me share a few things about this that I think are very important. 
We signed a treaty with the Soviet Union in 1972, with an ``evil 
empire'' that no longer exists. We now have a healthy, positive, 
growing, developing relationship with Russia--a country with which we 
want to continue to grow and develop our relationship. That old treaty 
in 1972 was no foundation for a relationship. The treaty only dealt 
with an ABM system. It only prohibited both countries from establishing 
an ABM system. It didn't develop a relationship of any significance 
between the countries. It was only a few pages. It only dealt 
exclusively with the details of prohibiting us from developing a 
ballistic missile defense and the Soviet Union from building one. It 
was a good idea at the time. Nobody had missiles but the United States 
and Russia, and perhaps our allies in Europe. We didn't feel threats 
from anyone but each other.
  We had mutual assured destruction. So we agreed that neither country 
would expend billions of dollars to develop a system that really 
wouldn't be effective against the massive amount of missiles that each 
country had.
  But now something has changed. Other nations have missiles. Lots of 
other nations have missiles. And they are buying more on the market 
today. We know the story of North Korea. We know about Iran's effort. 
We know other countries are expanding their ability to develop 
ballistic missile systems.
  Thus, I think that leaves us in a vulnerable position. We are in an 
ironic position, if you think about it, by prohibiting this Nation from 
building a missile defense system to protect us from other hostile 
nations on the basis of a treaty from 1972 with a nation that no longer 
exists.
  I don't believe Russia has any right--certainly no moral right and no 
legal right--to ask the United States to keep itself, as Henry 
Kissinger said, vulnerable to attack because of that old treaty. They 
have no right under the generally recognized rules of international 
relations to ask a nation to leave itself vulnerable to serious attack 
because of this old treaty.
  The President said he wants a new relationship with Russia. We are 
going to move forward, with a great new future between us. But I am not 
going to

[[Page S13129]]

sit here and allow these United States to be vulnerable to attack from 
Korea, Iran, or any other nation that may acquire a nuclear missile and 
leave our people subject to attack.
  As Senator Warner said, it is a real problem, because a President may 
be eyeball to eyeball with some smaller nation and that nation may have 
a missile capable of hitting Los Angeles, New York, or Miami. They say: 
Mr. President, you move against us like you moved against Afghanistan 
and like you moved against Iraq--let us say that Iraq had one of these 
missiles, or half a dozen that could reach the United States and Mr. 
Saddam Hussein said, Mr. President, you move against us; I am launching 
my missiles immediately. Do not move against us. We don't want the 
President to be in that position, knowing he has no defense whatsoever 
against that kind of attack when we have the capability of building a 
defense to that attack.

  I think we have made some great progress. I salute President Bush. I 
salute his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who from the 
beginning of this administration has understood quite clearly the 
importance of moving beyond the ABM Treaty to a new relationship with 
Russia, but at the same time protecting us from attack from who knows 
what may occur in the years to come.
  The bipartisan commission that was chaired by now-Secretary of 
Defense Rumsfeld concluded we would be vulnerable to that kind of 
attack by 2005. To have a national missile defense system in place by 
2005, you have to get started on it. We may have ups and downs as we go 
forward.
  But this movement by the President is in the right direction. We are 
moving away from this old relationship with Russia to a new 
relationship. We are now going to be able to build a missile defense 
system that is the best effective defense of America without having to 
configure it, to manipulate it to fit within this treaty's limitations. 
They were trying to develop a system that would fit within the very 
strict confines of this treaty.
  I don't believe that was wise. It would be more costly. The system 
would be less effective than otherwise would be the case.
  We are doing the right thing by withdrawing from the ABM treaty. We 
are doing the right thing in following President Bush's suggestion that 
we increase spending for ballistic missile defense system.
  As I indicated, we have about $60 billion in increased defense 
spending this year. President Bush simply asked for $3 billion more 
than did President Clinton. That is not going to break the bank.
  Don't let anybody tell you that by building a national missile 
defense system we don't have money to transform the Army, or we don't 
have money to buy high-tech weaponry, or we don't have money to do 
other things. In the scheme of things, this extra $3 billion is not the 
back breaker to any one program when we have a $330-plus billion 
defense budget.
  Also, I am pleased to see one of the finest Senators on the floor, 
Senator Cochran. It was his legislation, I believe with Senator 
Lieberman, that we passed overwhelmingly in this body 97- to-3 to 
deploy a national missile defense system as soon as was technologically 
feasible. He led that effort. He was ahead of his time.
  I am sure he has every right to feel today that through that effort 
our Nation is moving on to a new day, geared more to the real threats 
that we face. I was pleased to support him in that effort, and Senator 
Lieberman. They were on the right track.
  I believe the President has shown consistent courage throughout this 
effort. There were a lot of people who said the Europeans are not going 
to go for this, the Senate is not going to go for this, and the 
Russians are not going to go for this.
  I know the Russians knew we wanted to get out of the treaty, but they 
know it does not threaten them for us to get out of this treaty. They 
would like to see us maybe make some concessions on some other 
arrangements in order to justify them giving up a little here. I will 
not call it extortion, but they are trying to deal with us on this 
issue.
  I am glad the President worked with them openly. He worked with this 
Congress openly. He worked with the American people openly. He 
campaigned on a national missile defense system. He has never waffled 
on it. President Clinton's was an unwise policy of claiming that he 
really wasn't building a national missile defense system, but just 
doing some research on it. We were testing it and doing things that 
were leading to the point where we were actually in violation of the 
treaty. A good lawyer could assert that.
  President Bush has been honest from day 1. He said we have to get out 
of this treaty. We can't keep on being clever and manipulative about 
the wording of it while intending to build a national missile defense 
system. The treaty prohibits the building of a national missile defense 
system. If it says anything at all, it says you cannot build a national 
missile defense system.

  The President's policy and the Congress' policy was to build a 
national missile defense system. So we couldn't play games forever with 
this treaty. It was time to put it out on the table. I salute him for 
biting the bullet on it. I believe it is the right step forward. I am 
hopeful that it will result in improving our ability to act in the 
world, giving the President some confidence that he does not have to be 
worried every minute that some missile might, by accident, be launched, 
or some small rogue nation might launch an attack on us.
  Again, I salute our leaders, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, and 
all the members of the committee for their hard work. We made some real 
progress this year. I hope that we can continue it next year. If we 
have a disciplined, longtime approach to our defense spending, we can 
recapitalize the military, we can transform the Army, we can continue 
the high-tech improvements in our Air Force, Navy and Marine forces and 
armaments, and make sure we are always ahead of the game.
  We never want our men and women in combat fighting on behalf of the 
United States of America put in the same position that those soldiers 
of Iraq were in when they were being attacked on the road as they were 
retreating out of Kuwait. That is the kind of thing that this Nation 
must never allow to happen.
  I believe we are doing the right things. We could use some more 
spending, but we are making progress. I am pleased to support this 
bill, and I thank our leadership for bringing it to pass.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, I wish to thank our colleague 
from Alabama. He is a very valued member of our committee. I say to the 
Senator, we thank you very much for your work throughout this year to 
make this bill possible and for your very thoughtful comments about the 
chairman and myself.
  Madam President, I yield such time to the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi as he so desires.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Mississippi yield for just 30 
seconds?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I also thank our friend from Alabama for making a major 
contribution as the ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee. We 
thank him for that effort. We thank him for his kind remarks in this 
Chamber. We have a very fundamental disagreement as to the way in which 
the ABM Treaty has been unilaterally withdrawn from, but that has not 
stopped us from having a very cordial, collegial relationship, or me 
thanking him for that contribution he makes to our committee. I thank 
the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, let me first thank the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia for yielding time to me on this conference 
report. And I commend the Senator from Alabama for his excellent, 
persuasive statement in support of the President's actions that he 
announced he was taking today to give notice that under the Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, the United States was withdrawing 
from that treaty. It took a lot of courage for the President to 
announce that today.
  It has taken a lot of insight and hard work for the Senator from 
Alabama to rise to the position of leadership that he has in the 
Senate, on not only an

[[Page S13130]]

issue such as missile defense but on the wide range of issues that come 
before the Armed Services Committee on which he has served so 
effectively, and in a way that has reflected great credit on the Senate 
and on the State of Alabama.
  I appreciate the kind remarks he has made about my efforts on the 
National Missile Defense Act of 1999, to which he referred in his 
remarks. There were a lot of people, a lot of Senators personally and 
actively involved in that effort. He was one of them. He was right at 
the forefront of the effort to convince the Senate we needed to pass 
that legislation, that we needed to state it as a matter of national 
policy and have it in a statute that it is the policy of the United 
States to deploy a missile defense system that will protect the United 
States, the territory of the United States, and the citizens of the 
United States from ballistic missile attack. And that is on the books.
  This committee has also provided leadership in ensuring that 
authorities were given under this bill to the President to proceed to 
carry out that policy.
  We have, in this conference report, $8.3 billion that is authorized 
for use by the administration to develop, to conduct research, to test 
in the missile defense programs that are underway now, to achieve the 
goals of not only the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 but the 
other responsibilities that the Commander in Chief has to protect 
deployed forces around the world from theater missile attack. They are 
already in the hands of adversaries around the world--Scud missiles 
other advanced missile systems--that threaten American forces that are 
deployed around the world.
  We are at the point now of actually putting in the field defenses 
against these ballistic missiles. These are shorter range missiles. 
They are not ICBMs, and they do not travel as fast as ICBMs. But the 
Army has this program, the Theater High Altitude Area Defense. The 
acronym is THAAD, but it is not named for me.
  The point I am making about that program is that it has been proven 
effective. It works. The tests have been phenomenally successful. There 
have been a series of tests with a missile hitting a missile to defend 
against and knock down an attack from these missile systems that would 
threaten our forces in the field. Those programs have proven that the 
defense against missiles is possible by using interceptor missiles to 
knock them down.
  We were heartened just recently when a missile was fired from 
Vandenberg Air Force Base and intercepted from Kwajalein. We saw that 
effectively tested so that the missile hit its target, traveling at 
high rates of speed, way up in the atmosphere. It is phenomenal what 
the research scientists have been able to accomplish in this area.
  When President Bush was running for President, he told the American 
people, as Senator Sessions pointed out, that he was in favor of 
developing and deploying a national missile defense system. He 
acknowledged there was an impediment to doing that, and that impediment 
was a treaty the United States entered into in 1972 with the Soviet 
Union, saying that neither would deploy a national missile defense 
system, except in one case: to protect a civilian population center or 
to protect an offensive capability. Those are the missiles that could 
be launched against the other side.
  The United States decided to deploy an ABM system back then. And the 
Senate grudgingly approved it. It was in the process of being deployed, 
and they changed their mind and withdrew the authority for actual 
deployment of an ABM system that would protect our silos and missiles 
in the Dakotas. That is what we were going to protect.
  The Russians, on the other hand, decided to deploy their system that 
was legal under the treaty to protect Moscow. And that system is still 
in place. People wonder: Why would you want to deploy an ABM system. 
Well, Russia did. Russia deployed the system, and they still have it. 
It is still there. So they must think they have an effective, workable 
missile defense system in place.
  So those who wonder whether it is possible to have a system that is 
workable and effective, look at that example, and look at theater 
missile systems that we have deployed, that we are deploying, and we 
have tested effectively, and then the series of tests for the system 
that has been under development here in the United States.
  So what I want to do is simply point out how important the decision 
is to our national security interests that the President has made. By 
ending the participation of the United States in this obsolete 
agreement--the ABM Treaty--President Bush has removed one of the 
central obstacles to ensuring the security of our homeland.
  The President's actions come as no surprise. It should not surprise 
anyone either in the United States or our friends and allies around the 
world. At the beginning of his election campaign, President Bush made 
clear that he was determined to defend the United States from the 
threat of ballistic missile attack and that it was his belief that the 
ABM Treaty posed an unacceptable obstacle to doing this.
  So with this action, the President is doing what he said he would do 
if it was necessary. He has made every effort to explain his views and 
his intentions to Russian leadership and to outline his plans for our 
friends and other allies around the world.
  Since taking office, he and his senior officials have missed no 
opportunity to engage their Russian counterparts on the subject of 
missile defense. They have labored to convey the President's commitment 
to defending this Nation, the urgency of the threat, and the pressing 
need to move beyond the ABM Treaty.
  Over this past year, the issue has been discussed frequently at the 
highest levels of the United States and Russian Governments. The 
Government of Russia has refused to cooperate in an effort to reconcile 
new security needs with this outdated treaty. Therefore, the President 
has been given little choice but to proceed as he has. He deserves 
great credit not only for his determination to defend our country but 
for his patience in attempting to resolve this disagreement by arriving 
at a new mutually satisfactory arrangement with Russia.
  Much work remains to be done though. We have to determine which 
technologies are most effective, and we have to produce and deploy 
them. This work must be pursued with a sense of urgency.
  For the first time in 30 years, the United States will be able to 
develop and field the best technology available to protect our citizens 
from missile attack, instead of being artificially constrained by an 
outdated and counterproductive arms control agreement. America's 
scientists, engineers, and policymakers will finally be free to work 
toward a missile defense that responds to the threat, rather than fear 
of violating an outdated set of rules that prohibited testing of new 
technologies.
  Some have predicted the sky will fall if the United States exercises 
its right to withdraw from this agreement and that the relationship 
between the United States and Russia will suffer irreparable harm from 
such an action. Some surely will be renewing such claims. Some have 
today, and in the days ahead we will hear these remarks. But before 
becoming overwrought, it might be helpful to note what the President of 
Russia said about this during his recent visit to the United States. 
Asked about the conflict between the United States and Russia over the 
ABM Treaty, President Putin said this:

       Given the nature of the relationship between the United 
     States and Russia, one can rest assured that whatever final 
     solution is found, it will not threaten or put to threat the 
     interests of both of our countries and of the world.

  On September 11, ironically, the deputy chief of the Russian General 
Staff, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, said this:

       I can assure you that our relations will be continuing 
     regardless of whether the U.S. withdraws from the ABM treaty 
     or not. [It] will not affect these relations of trust.

  President Bush has successfully moved us beyond the cold war. He has 
made it clear that he will not tolerate a relationship between our two 
nations whose most fundamental basis is the threat of mutual 
annihilation and whose currency is fear, suspicion, and mistrust. The 
President has said he wants a new relationship with Russia, not one 
marked by the deadly themes of a dangerous and bygone era. His decision 
to leave the ABM Treaty is a significant step in building that new

[[Page S13131]]

relationship, and the words of President Putin make it equally clear 
that Russia also wants a new relationship with the United States.
  The debate over whether the United States should remain in the ABM 
Treaty is now over. As we move forward with the development and testing 
of missile defense programs, we should support our President and help 
him implement this important element of our homeland security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I commend our distinguished colleague from Mississippi. I 
was the author of the Missile Defense Act of 1991. He was the author of 
the Missile Defense Act of 1999. We came to the Senate together, my 
distinguished colleague from Mississippi one number senior to me in 
this institution. I am always very respectful of that.

  I wonder if I might engage my colleague and suggest he delivered his 
remarks with such eloquence and such authority that those who may not 
have followed this issue as closely as he and I and others don't 
realize that the ABM Treaty wouldn't let us utilize our developing 
technology in space. We couldn't build any part of the system up in 
space. We couldn't build any part of the system on the sea, 
incorporating the use of the U.S. Navy as platforms. Those are the 
things that our President took into consideration. We have one of the 
finest navies in the world. The American taxpayers have put enormous 
sums of money into that Navy. Yet we cannot use a single ship for that 
purpose.
  I wonder if the Senator would detail some of the things that the ABM 
Treaty blocked which have now enabled our President and our Nation to 
move forward and utilize that technology. I remember in this debate 
years ago I used to explain that it would be more efficient, quicker, 
and less costly to the taxpayer to utilize these options which now 
finally are going to be on the table in 6 months.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a 
response, I appreciate very much his kind remarks about my efforts on 
this issue.
  He is absolutely correct. The effect of the ABM Treaty has been to 
deny the United States the legal right to test technologies, not only 
radars that are aboard ships, such as the Aegis fire control system 
radar, but also space-based elements such as sensors that could assist 
in making sure the system was effective, that it was workable, and that 
it did what we hoped it would do, and that was knock an incoming 
missile down before it struck the United States.
  Just recently, as an example, Secretary Rumsfeld announced that some 
tests that had been planned on this program development schedule were 
being canceled because to undertake the tests as planned and as needed 
for this system would violate the terms and the understanding we have 
had with Russia since the treaty was ratified, the ABM Treaty. There 
were demarcation agreements that were agreed to in the Clinton 
administration that limited the testing programs we were undertaking. 
All of that now is set aside.
  When the notice the President gives becomes effective, the notice of 
intent to withdraw, we will then be able to resume tests that had 
previously been scheduled that we couldn't undertake without violating 
the treaty. The President was forthright and honest about it. He wasn't 
trying to hide our violations or get away with something that was 
prohibited under the treaty. He was acknowledging that he couldn't 
proceed because he didn't want to violate the treaty. He didn't want to 
break the law. And treaties have the force and effect of law.
  The Senator from Virginia is absolutely correct in the effect that 
that treaty was having on our ability to proceed as we had authorized, 
as we had planned, in conformity with a policy that had been adopted by 
the Congress and signed by the previous President.
  His leadership and the efforts of Senator Levin, too, in helping to 
ensure that this conference report contains authorities and 
authorization for appropriations that will help us defend our homeland 
security are things for which we should all express our appreciation. I 
do that tonight with great thanks.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, just one further comment: 
Understandably, there are those who disagree with the President, and 
they have accused him of a violation, but the Senator has correctly 
pointed out, the President was faced with, Do I move forward and break 
the law or do I comply with the terms of the treaty which are explicit? 
He gave notice of withdrawal in 6 months. He chose to stay within the 
terms of the treaty, and he in no way violated the law. Am I not 
correct?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is absolutely correct in pointing that out. 
That is another mark of the strong leadership the President has 
provided on this issue. He has made everybody understand what the real 
problems were and why this treaty was outdated, why we needed to move 
beyond, why it was a relic of the cold war. And given the threats as 
they are emerging and exist today, we couldn't be safe confronting the 
new emerging missile capabilities from many countries all around the 
world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me very briefly say to my good friend 
from Mississippi, we have debated the question of whether or not this 
country should unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and whether 
that would make us more or less secure probably on half a dozen 
occasions. I have always enjoyed those debates. We have always enjoyed 
each other's company, even though we are on different sides of that 
issue. It has been my feeling--and I have expressed it in a statement 
today and on the floor earlier tonight--that we will be less secure as 
a result of unilaterally withdrawing from an arms control treaty. It is 
going to unleash negative forces, measures, countermeasures. We are 
going to find, I am afraid, in my judgment, that we are going to have a 
dangerous action/reaction cycle which is going to be precipitated. 
Defensive technologies are going to make us less secure because of the 
effort of other countries to overcome those technologies. We are going 
to have to try to overcome their efforts. We have debated that many 
times. The President has unilaterally given notice, and we are not 
going to have too many more of these debates. We will miss them because 
we have had fun doing this together.

  Nonetheless, that is where we are. I think everybody agrees that the 
security of this Nation comes first. If I thought for 1 minute that 
withdrawing from this treaty unilaterally would make us more secure, I 
would recommend that we withdraw from this treaty. I think it leaves us 
less secure. If I thought it would make us more secure, I would not 
hesitate. I think everybody here has the goal to make us more secure.
  We have had differences, also, on the Missile Defense Act of 1999. 
The good Senator from Mississippi quotes section 1 of that act. There 
were two sections to that act, which I always point out. Nonetheless, 
we are now past that point.
  I wish to very briefly take up other parts of this bill, including 
one in which Senator Reid has been so involved. I want to get to that 
point immediately because he is in the Chamber now. I want to pay 
tribute to the effort he has made to try to end what is a real 
unfairness in our law. The unfairness is that our disabled veterans are 
not permitted to receive both retired pay and VA disability 
compensation. This is something that is unique to our veterans--that 
they are not able to receive both the retired pay plus the disability 
compensation, which they have been awarded. It sounds unusual to say 
one is ``awarded'' compensation for disability.
  We had a provision in the Senate bill to address this inequity. We 
would have allowed our disabled veterans, as others in the Federal 
Government employ and others in society, to receive both retirement and 
disability pay. The House leadership was not willing to have a vote on 
the budget point of order, which would have been made, which would have 
authorized this benefit to be paid. So we were left with no 
alternative.
  Senator Warner and I were both there in conference, day after day. We 
pointed out that Senator Harry Reid has been a champion on this, and 
there

[[Page S13132]]

are others in this body who have pointed out the inequity in the 
provision that prohibits the receipt of both retired pay and disability 
compensation.
  At the end, we could not persuade the House to include this provision 
and have a point of order contested in the House. So what we ended up 
with was something a lot less than what we hoped we would get, and that 
is the authorization for these payments to be made, the authorization 
to end the unfairness, but it would still require an appropriation in 
order to fund them.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I basically want to spread across the 
Record of this Senate my appreciation to the chairman and ranking 
member for the advocacy on behalf of the American veterans regarding 
this issue. This is basic fairness. Why should somebody retired from 
the military, who has a disability pension from the U.S. military, not 
be able to draw both? If that person retired from the Department of 
Energy, he could do both.
  We have debated this, and there is overwhelming support from the 
Senate. It is late at night, but I want the Record to be spread with 
the fact that I deeply appreciate, as do the veterans, your advocacy. I 
want the Record to also be very clear that the Senate of the United 
States has stood up for this. The House refused to go along with us.
  Also, I feel some sadness in my heart because we are going to come 
back and do this next year. Sadly, next year there are going to be 
about 500,000 less World War II veterans. They are dying at the rate of 
about 1,000 a day. So people who deserve this and would be getting this 
during this next year will not because the average age of World War II 
veterans is about 79 years now. So there is some heaviness in my heart.
  We are going to continue with this. I don't want anybody in the House 
of Representatives to run and hide because there is no place to hide. 
This was killed by the House. For the third time, I appreciate Senator 
Levin and Senator Warner.
  So although I support the conference report for H.R. 3338, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, I feel a sense 
of disappointment.
  Once again this year, the conference report failed to include a 
provision on an issue that I have been passionately working on for the 
last couple of years. Namely, the concurrent receipt of military 
retired pay and VA disability compensation.
  Unbelievably, military retirees are the only group of federal 
retirees who must waive retirement pay in order to receive VA 
disability compensation.
  Put simply, if a veteran refuses to give up their retirement pay, the 
veteran must forfeit their disability benefits.
  My provision addresses this 110-year-old injustice against over 560 
thousand of our nation's veterans.
  It is sad that 300-400 thousand veterans die every year. I repeat: 
300,000-400,000 veterans die every year. They will never be paid the 
debt owed by America to its disabled veterans.
  To correct this injustice, on January 24th of this year, I introduced 
S. 170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001.
  My bill embodies a provision that permits retired members of the 
Armed Forces who have a service connected disability to receive 
military retirement pay while also receiving veterans' disability 
compensation.
  The list of 75 cosponsors clearly illustrates bipartisan support for 
this provision in the Senate.
  My legislation is very similar to H.R. 303, which has 378 cosponsors 
in the House. I'm thankful to Congressman Bilirakis, who has been a 
vocal advocate for concurrent receipt in the House for over fifteen 
years.
  My legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service 
organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National Military/
Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, 
the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the 
Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees.
  In October, I introduced an amendment identical to S. 170 for the 
Senate Defense Authorization bill. The Senate adopted my amendment by 
unanimous consent.
  Unfortunately, the House chose not to appropriate funds for this 
important measure.
  This meant that the fate of my amendment would be decided in a 
``faceless'' conference committee.
  It pains me deeply to see that my amendment was removed in 
conference.
  This is an old game played in Congress in which members vote for an 
amendment to help veterans, knowing full well the amendment will be 
removed at a later time.
  When will decency replace diplomacy and politics when it comes to the 
treatment of America's veterans.
  Why won't members of the House of Representatives join their Senate 
colleagues and right this wrong?
  Why can't we do our duty and let disabled veterans receive 
compensation for their years of service and disability compensation for 
their injuries?
  We gather at a solemn moment in the history of our great Nation.
  On September 11th, terrorists landed a murderous blow against the 
World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
  Right away, we saw the men and women of our Armed Forces placed on 
the highest level of alert. American troops then deployed to the center 
of the storm, set to strike against the enemies of all civilized 
people.
  Our Nation is once again calling upon the members of the U.S. Armed 
Forces to defend democracy and freedom. They will be called upon to 
confront the specter of worldwide terrorism.
  They will be called upon to make sacrifices.
  In some tragic cases, they will be seriously injured or even die.
  Most believe that a grateful government meets all the needs of its 
veterans, no questions asked.
  I am sad to say this is not the case today.
  I will continue this fight until we correct this injustice once and 
for all.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank Senator Reid. He has been a champion of this 
cause. He has fought harder than anybody I know to end this inequity. 
The House leadership simply would not go along with this. We had a 
choice: We would either have a bill or no bill. That is what this 
finally came down to.
  I believe Senator Reid got something like 75 cosponsors for his 
provision. The Senate overwhelmingly supported this provision. I hope 
we have better luck next year in the House.
  In the meantime, what we have done is we have authorized this, and 
perhaps our Appropriations Committee will be able to find the means to 
fund this. But until next year, I am afraid the number of veterans you 
have pointed out--perhaps 1,000 a day--will not get the benefits they 
deserve.
  Mr. REID. I am on the Appropriations Committee. I will work toward 
that. I do want the Record to reflect my overwhelming support for this 
legislation. I feel badly this provision is not in it, but this is a 
fine piece of legislation on which the two of you have worked so hard.
  Mr. WARNER. I also thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Reid, 
for his leadership on this issue. We speak of a disabled veteran. I 
have had a lifetime of association with the men and women in the U.S. 
military. In my military career, I was not a combat veteran. But I 
served with many who have lost arms, legs, and lives. Those 
individuals, when they go into combat and lose their limbs, or suffer 
injuries, are somewhat reduced in their capacity to compete in the 
marketplace for jobs and do all of the things they would like to do as 
a father with their children and their families.
  I take this very personally. I feel that some day the three of us--
and indeed I think this Chamber strongly supports it--will overcome and 
get this legislation through. I thank the Senator for his leadership. 
He is right that the World War II veterans have died at a 1,000, 1,200, 
sometimes 1,400 a day, and many of those are being penalized by this 
particular law. So I thank the Senator and I thank my chairman. We 
shall renew our effort early next year.
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to say one thing publicly. I want to again thank 
Senator Warner. As he often points out, we came at the same time to 
this body. I have been blessed by having him as a partner and a ranking 
member for the short few months I have been chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee. Nobody could have asked for a better partner than I 
have had in Senator

[[Page S13133]]

Warner. There are times, of course, that we don't agree with each 
other, but there has never been a time I can remember in 23 years where 
we don't trust each other.
  There is nothing more important in this body than to be able to look 
somebody in the eye and say that. That is something I feel very keenly. 
Our staffs have been extraordinary in their work. This has been a very 
difficult bill.
  In addition to thanking Senator Warner personally, I thank our staffs 
for the work they have done. Every night when I call David Lyles--every 
night--he is there with the staff until 10 or 11 o'clock. I do not even 
call him after 11 o'clock because that is when I go to bed, or at least 
I try to. I am pretty sure he stays on after that. I know it is true 
with Senator Warner's great staff, too.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my great chairman. He succeeded 
me as chairman. We just moved one seat at the table in our committee 
hearing room. I guess that was the only change. Of course, other things 
took place.
  As he says, the trust is there, the respect is there. We travel. We 
just finished an extraordinary trip. We were the first two Members of 
Congress to go into the area of operations in Afghanistan, having 
visited our troops in Uzbekistan, our troops in Pakistan and Oman, and 
then on up into the Bosnia region where we visited our respective 
National Guards who are serving there now.
  I value our friendship. I look forward to hopefully many more years 
working together. I thank my friend. We shall carry forward. We do this 
in the spirit of bipartisanship on behalf of our men and women in 
uniform of the United States. We are here to do the people's business, 
and I say to the Senator, we have done the people's business. We have 
been aided in that effort by Judy Ansley, my chief of staff, having 
succeeded Les Brownlee; and Senator Levin's wonderful David Lyles, and 
Peter Levine. I use Senator Levin's lawyer's legal brains as much as I 
use my lawyer's legal brains.
  I thank our distinguished Presiding Officer, again, for helping us 
here tonight. I again salute and commend my staff. I am a very 
fortunate individual to be served so well in the Senate. We share our 
staffs in many ways. They get along quite well together.
  Mr. LEVIN. Indeed, they do.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise in support of the Conference 
Report to accompany S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2002 and to congratulate Chairman Levin and Senator Warner 
on this agreement. Having served both as the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am aware of the 
challenges they faced in reaching this compromise. It is a tribute to 
their leadership and strong support for our national security and our 
men and women in uniform that the Senate is considering this Conference 
Report.
  Typical of all conference reports, this legislation is a compromise 
between the House and Senate bills. It is not a perfect bill, however, 
in my judgment it is a bill that responds to the tragic events of 
September 11 and strengthens our national security. It will be critical 
to our effort to win the war against terrorism and meet the challenges 
of the ever increasing missile threat. To support these goals, the 
conference report provides more than $15 billion. Of equal importance 
to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines is the fact that the 
legislation includes the largest pay increase for military personnel 
since 1982, increased housing allowance and substantial improvements to 
the military health care benefits.
  I am especially pleased that the agreement includes many programs to 
support our reserve components who are finally becoming equal partners 
to the active forces. The bill increases full time manning by more than 
1,700. It provides approximately $1.0 billion for reserves facilities 
enhancement and enhances both medical and commissary benefits for the 
men and women who serve our Nation both as a citizen and as a soldier.
  As with any compromise, there are winners and losers. I am 
disappointed that legislation includes a provision that will severely 
limit the ability of the Federal Prison Industries to sell its products 
to the Department of Defense. This will have a significant impact on 
the prison system and its ability to provide programs to rehabilitate 
and occupy the prison population. I hope we will be able to reverse 
this setback with legislation that is pending in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, Chairman 
Stump and Representative Skelton for their strong support of Department 
of Energy programs. The conference report includes an increase of more 
than $700 million for key programs, including more than $200 million 
not requested in the budget to begin to recapitalize the nation's 
nuclear weapons complex infrastructure. As all those who have DoE 
facilities in their State know that much of the nuclear weapons complex 
infrastructure dates to the post-World War II era. It is critical that 
we begin to restore these facilities to ensure we maintain our nuclear 
capability.
  This morning the House agreed to this conference report by a vote of 
382 to 40. I urge my Senate colleagues to demonstrate no less support 
for our men and women in uniform and the Nation's security.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to support the fiscal year 
2002 National Defense Authorization conference report which we passed 
today. As a former member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and 
chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I fully appreciate the hard work 
and long hours my colleagues in the Senate and their counterparts in 
the House have dedicated to the completion of this report.
  I also want to acknowledge the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Carl Levin, and the ranking member, the senior 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. John Warner, for their superb leadership 
throughout the entire defense authorization process.
  First and foremost, the conference report continues to recognized the 
invaluable contributions--especially since the tragic events of 
September 11 and the subsequent advent of the war on terrorism--of our 
service members through significant improvements to their quality of 
life. In addition to substantial pay raises of five to ten percent, the 
report includes over $10.5 billion for military housing construction, 
which is a desperately needed increase of over $500 million from last 
year's authorization; continues to improve upon the coverage and 
quality of healthcare for our active duty military members, retirees, 
and their family members; expands education benefits for service 
members and their families; and enhances the ability of active duty 
personnel to participate in federal, state, and local elections.
  Secondly, the bill reaffirms Congress' commitment to the war against 
terrorism by meeting the funding requirements needed to support our 
Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen that are on the front lines with 
the planes, vehicles, ships, and armament they need to carry out their 
missions. Whether providing over $30 million to improve field living 
conditions for the ground troops, augmenting the Army, Navy, and Air 
Force budgets by over $560 million for unmanned aerial vehicles, or 
increasing funding for F-15 and F-16 engine conversions, this bill 
supports the diverse missions our armed forces are accomplishing to 
meet the national military strategy.
  Given my tenure of the Seapower Committee and home state of Maine, I 
cannot overlook the substantial funding for ship construction provided 
by this bill. The conference report addresses the future of our 
nation's Navy and the importance of recapitalization of our fleet by 
authorizing the construction of five new ships. This includes $3 
billion for three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers--the most 
advanced surface combatant in the world; $370 million for the new 
ammunition and cargo ship, the T-AKE; and $2.3 billion for a Virginia 
class attack submarine.
  Additionally, the committee has laid substantial ground work for 
continuing to modernize our amphibious fleet in fiscal year 2003 
through the authorization of $421 million and $260 million in advance 
procurement funding for the LPD-17 and LHD programs, respectively.
  I am also pleased to see that the Committee did not lose sight of the 
administration's long-term goals of

[[Page S13134]]

transforming and modernizing the military. While we fall short of the 
Defense Department's goal of allocating three percent of the defense 
budget to investing in future defense development programs, it does 
include substantial funding to meet asymmetrical terrorist threats 
including chemical and biological weapons and develop the agility, 
mobility, and survivability necessary to meet the challenges of the 
future that we are glimpsing today in Afghanistan.

  I voted for this legislation because I believe that it is critically 
important to ensure that our armed forces are fully prepared to carry 
out America's war on terrorism. However, I support the bill despite my 
strong opposition to provisions authorizing a round of base closures in 
2005.
  Even before the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, I had serious 
questions about both the integrity of the base closing process itself 
as well as the actual benefits realized. Now, with acts of war 
committed against the United States, I do not believe this is the time 
to be talking about closure of bases.
  The base closure provision in this conference report requires that 
the Department of Defense submit a comprehensive force structure plan 
to Congress detailing the relationship between defense requirements and 
infrastructure. This is something I have been calling for 4 years. But 
I believe we need this plan before we debate base closures, not after 
we have already authorized them. This is putting the cart before the 
horse.
  Before we legislate defense-wide policy that will reduce the size 
number of training areas critical to our force readiness, the 
Department of Defense ought to be able to tell us that level of 
operational and maintenance infrastructure required to support our 
shifting national security requirements. Congress, instead, was pressed 
to authorize base closures essentially in the dark.
  The administration and proponents of additional base closure rounds 
claim that reducing infrastructure has not kept pace with other post-
cold-war military force reductions. They say that bases must be 
downsized proportionate to the reduction in total force strength. 
However, there is no straight line corollary between the size of our 
forces and the infrastructure required to support them.
  Since the end of the cold war we have reduced the military force 
structure by 36 percent and have reduced the defense by 40 percent. But 
whiles the size of the armed services has decreased, the number of 
contingencies that our service members have been called upon to respond 
to in recent years has dramatically increased. And, keep in mind, Mr. 
President, once property is relinquished and remedied, it is 
permanently lost as a military asset for all practical purposes.
  In addition, advocates of base closure alleged that billions of 
dollars will be saved. And yet, the Department of Defense has admitted 
that savings will not be immediate; that approximately $10 billion 
would be needed for up-front environmental and other costs; and that 
savings would not materialize for years.
  I want to protect the military's critical readiness and operational 
assets. I want to protect the home port berthing for our ships and 
submariners, the airspace that our aircraft fly in and the training 
areas and ranges that our armed forces require to support and defense 
our Nation and its interests. I want to protect the economic viability 
of communities in every State. And I want to make absolutely sure that 
this nation maintains the military infrastructure it will need in the 
years to come to support the war of terrorism. We must not degrade the 
readiness of our armed forces by closing more bases. so I strenuously 
oppose the base closure provisions win this legislation, and before it 
is a fundamental mistake to include it in the DOD authorization.
  With the exception of the basis closure provisions, this defense bill 
takes a positive stem toward modernizing our armed services, meeting 
their operational and maintenance funding requirements, and improving 
the quality of service for our committed men and women of the military.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to express dissatisfaction 
with language included in the conference report on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2002 that repeals the requirement 
for a referendum on the future of U.S. military training on the island 
of Vieques, PR. Although, in the interest of national security, I voted 
for the adoption of the report, I am deeply disturbed by the manner in 
which the people of Vieques have been deprived of the right to decide 
for themselves as to whether or not they wish to allow the U.S. 
military to continue using their island as a military training 
facility.
  I certainly agree with those who argue that in times like these, when 
the U.S. is heavily involved in military conflict, that we must take 
every possible step to ensure the readiness of our troops. However, I 
believe it is safe to say the people of Vieques have endured more than 
their fair share of sacrifice for the good of America, and the cause of 
U.S. military readiness. We must recognize the sacrifices made by the 
people of Vieques, and provide them with the consideration they deserve 
as American citizens.
  By repealing the requirement that the people of Vieques have a 
referendum to decide whether or not the U.S. military is allowed to 
continue to presence on the Island, this Congress has taken a dangerous 
step toward curtailing the inalienable rights to which those who call 
the island home are entitled as U.S. citizens. I find that outcome to 
be deeply troubling.
  As I close, I would like to make perfectly clear that I fully support 
the efforts of the U.S. military to maintain its readiness to defend 
our nation, as it is so bravely and effectively doing as we speak. 
However, I feel that the choice between maintaining readiness and 
protecting the rights of American citizens on Vieques is a false 
choice, and one that we do not have to live with. The Department of 
Defense, by its own estimates, if directed to do so should be able to 
leave the island by 2003 without a detrimental effect on military 
readiness. This knowledge makes the decision of this body to strip the 
people of Vieques of a voice in their future all the more perplexing.
  Sixty years of bombing has taken its toll on Vieques. The US citizens 
of Vieques and Puerto Rico have been patient long enough. They should 
be permitted a free and fair ability to express their wishes, which is 
a cornerstone of our great democracy. The language in this Bill which 
pertains to Vieques diminishes the rights of the citizens of Puerto 
Rico and I believe the Senate should revisit this issue during the next 
session.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report to accompany S.1438, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. I am disappointed that the 
conference agreement did not include some key legislative provisions 
that I had sponsored in the Senate during the course of the normal 
legislative process which would have begun to transform the military as 
requested by the President. Some of the provisions in this bill that I 
find objectionable are provisions that: delay base realignment and 
closure, BRAC, authority until 2005, codify the anti-trade domestic 
source restrictions of the Berry amendment, and continue the unfair 
personnel policy which financially hurts disabled military retirees by 
reducing their earned military retirement. This is a broken promise to 
military retirees and their families, year after year. These are also 
the reasons why I did not sign the final conference agreement.
  With respect to concurrent receipt, clearly, retirees who have 
incurred significant disabilities over the course of a military career 
deserve better than how they are treated today. Many such service 
members are compelled to forfeit their full-retired pay under current 
rules. I have stated before on the Senate floor, and I am compelled to 
reiterate now, retirement pay and disability pay are two distinct types 
of pay.
  Retirement pay is for service rendered through 20 years of military 
service. Disability pay is for physical or mental pain or suffering 
that occurs during and as a result of military service. In this case, 
members with decades of military service receive the same compensation 
as similarly disabled members who served only a few years, with no 
recognition at all for their more extended, careers of service to our 
country. This is patently unfair

[[Page S13135]]

and more must be done to correct this problem.
  I would also like to highlight that this year's defense authorization 
bill contained $1.3 billion in unrequested add-ons to the defense 
budget that will rob our military of vital funding on priority issues. 
While this year's total is less than in previous years, and is far less 
than the $4.5 billion in the defense appropriations bill, it is still 
$1.3 billion too much. We need to, and can do, better.
  Over the past 6 years, Congress has increased the President's defense 
budgets by nearly $60 billion in order to address the military 
services' most important unfunded priorities. Still, it is sufficient 
to say that the military needs less money spent on pork and more money 
spent wisely to redress the serious problems caused by a decade of 
declining defense budgets.
  We also must reform the bureaucracy of the Pentagon, this bill does 
not. We did not even make significant improvements requested by the 
President and the Secretary of Defense when he presented his budget for 
fiscal year 2002. With the exception of minor changes, our defense 
establishment looks just as it did 50 years ago. We must continue to 
incorporate practices from the private sector-like restructuring, 
reforming, and streamlining to eliminate duplication and capitalize on 
cost savings. More effort must be made to reduce the continuing growth 
of headquarter staffs and to decentralize the Pentagon's labyrinth of 
bureaucratic fiefdoms to change its way of doing business with its 
bloated staffs and its outdated practices.
  In addition, more must be done to eliminate unnecessary and 
duplicative military contracts and military installations. Every U.S. 
military leader has testified regarding the critical need for further 
BRAC rounds. We can redirect at least $6.3 billion per year by 
eliminating excess defense infrastructure. There is another $2 billion 
per year that we can put to better purposes by privatizing or 
consolidating support and maintenance functions, something not 
considered in either body, and an additional $5 billion can be saved 
per year by eliminating ``Buy America'' restrictions that only 
undermine U.S. competitiveness overseas. Despite these compelling 
facts, the conference agreement on the contrary, includes several 
provisions that move demonstratively in the opposite direction.
  The conference agreement delays a base realignment and closure, BRAC, 
round until 2005. There is no good reason to delay BRAC. By doing so, 
too many servicemen and women will continue to live in old and 
dilapidated barracks and homes because we have too many bases. Although 
I would prefer to say that base closing is a new idea, it isn't. In 
1970, the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, ``Fithugh Commission'', made 
reference to ``consolidation of military activities at fewer 
installations would contribute to more efficient operations and would 
produce substantial savings.'' In 1983, the President's Private Sector 
Survey on Cost Control, ``Grace Commission'', made strong 
recommendations for military base closures. In 1997, the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, QDR, recommended that, even after four base closure 
rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995, the Armed Forces ``must shed 
excess infrastructure.'' Likewise, the 1997 Defense Reform Initiative, 
DRI, and the National Defense Panel, NDP, ``strongly urged Congress and 
the Department of Defense to move quickly to restore the base 
realignment and closure, BRAC, process.''
  Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, former Secretaries Dick Cheney and 
William Cohen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, all the Service 
Chiefs, the Congressional Budget Office, and other respected defense 
experts have been consistent in their plea that the Pentagon be 
permitted to divest themselves of excess infrastructure beyond what was 
eliminated during the prior rounds of base closings. Through the end of 
1998, the Pentagon had closed 97 major bases in the United States after 
four previous rounds of BRAC. Since then, it has closed none. Moreover, 
the savings from closing additional unneeded bases would be shifted to 
force modernization.
  The Department of Defense is obligated to maintain 23 percent excess 
capacity in infrastructure. When we actually look for the dollars to 
pay for the Unfunded Priority Lists as provided by the Service Chiefs, 
it is important to look to the billions of dollars that would be saved 
by base realignment and closure. Only 30 percent of the defense budget 
funds combat forces, while the remaining 70 percent is devoted to 
support functions such as bases. Continuing to squander precious 
dollars in this manner will make it impossible for us to adequately 
modernize our forces for the future. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have 
stated repeatedly that they desire more opportunities to streamline the 
military's infrastructure.

  Total BRAC savings realized from the four previous closure rounds 
exceed total costs to date. Department of Defense figures suggest 
previous base closures will save, after one-time closing costs, $15 
billion through fiscal year 2001, $25 billion through fiscal year 2003 
and $6.3 billion a year thereafter. Additional needed closures can save 
$20 billion by 2015, and $3 billion a year thereafter. Sooner or later 
these surplus bases will be closed anyway. The sooner the issue is 
addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go 
toward defense modernization and greater pay raises for service 
members. Delaying the BRAC process, as we have done in this Conference 
Report, only harms force modernization and hurts the pocket book of 
service members, their families and military retirees.
  We can continue to maintain a military infrastructure that we do not 
need, or we can provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can 
fight and win future wars. Every dollar we spend on unnecessary bases 
precludes our military leaders from spending scarce resources on 
training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an 
appropriate level, maintaining force structure, replacing old weapons 
systems, and advancing our military technology.
  In my view, the Committee on Armed Services took a step backwards by 
codifying in Title 10 ``Buy America'' restrictions which divert 
necessary funds to ensure our military is properly equipped. Every 
dollar we spend on archaic procurement policies, like ``Buy America,'' 
is a dollar we cannot spend on training our troops, keeping personnel 
quality of life at an appropriate level, maintaining force structure, 
replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military technology.
  It would be unconscionable not to examine the potential for savings 
from modifying congressionally-mandated protectionist procurement 
policy instead of codifying in Title 10 procurement legislation which 
obligates the Department of Defense to maintain wasteful spending. 
Secretary Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated repeatedly 
that they want more flexibility to reform the military's archaic 
acquisition practices. We need to give them that flexibility.
  I have spoken of this issue before in this Chamber and the potential 
impact of certain domestic source restrictions on bilateral trade 
relations with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose 
protectionist trade policy, not only because I believe free trade is an 
important means of improving relations among nations and a key to major 
U.S. economic growth, but also because I believe we must reform these 
practices in order to get more bang for our defense dollars.
  It is my sincere hope that next year the chairman and ranking member 
of the committee will hold hearings on this issue and start serious 
reform. It is important to point out that the Secretary of Defense and 
the President do not like, nor do they want this protectionist policy, 
codifying it as the chairman and ranking member have done, absent any 
hearings or consultation with members of the committee who have strong 
views on this matter shows disregard to an informed or proper committee 
process. We must end once and for all the anti-competitive, anti-free 
trade practices that encumber our Government, the military, and U.S. 
industry.
  Finally, I am disappointed that the conferees did not adopt 
legislation by Representative Heather Wilson, R-NM, that would rescind 
a congressionally-mandated provision added in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 over the strong objections of 
the civilian and military leadership and would return Second 
Lieutenants and Ensigns to regular commissions vice reserve commissions

[[Page S13136]]

upon graduation from one of the Service Academies or certain ROTC 
scholarship programs.
  Service Academies have a unique opportunity and special 
responsibility to provide an environment that cultivates, indeed 
demands, the internalization of honor, loyalty, integrity, and moral 
courage, the qualities essential to developing leadership. The core of 
our officer commissioning program are the Service Academies, this is 
not to say that the ROTC, OCS, and other critical commissioning 
programs are not outstanding, they are, just look at our current 
military leadership: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard 
Myers, Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, and Marine Corps 
Commandant General Jim Jones. I believe returning to regular service 
commissions for Academy and certain ROTC junior officers will inspire a 
core of career-oriented officers for our military.
  In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my belief in the importance 
of enacting meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve service 
members. They risk their lives in Afghanistan and elsewhere to defend 
our shores and preserve democracy, and we cannot thank them enough for 
their service. But, we can and should pay them more, improve the 
benefits for their families, and support the Reserve Components in a 
manner similar to the active forces. Our service members past, present, 
and future need these improvements. We also cannot continue with this 
``business as usual'' mind set. We must reform the Department of 
Defense and not fall prey to the special interest groups that attempt 
to warp our perspective and misdirect our spending. We owe so much more 
to our men and women in uniform who defend our country. They are our 
greatest resource, and I believe they are woefully under-represented. 
We must continue to do better.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of items added to the defense 
authorization bill Conference Report by the Conference Committee be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Fiscal Year 2002 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL CONFERENCE REPORT
                         [In million of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Title I--Procurement
 
Aircraft Procurement, Army Rotary Wing: Helicopter New Training   $25.0
Other Procurement, Comm-Combat Communications: Improved High        5.0
 Frequency Radio, USAR.........................................
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy--Auxiliaries, Craft and Prior     2.0
 Year Program Costs: Mine Hunter SWATH.........................
Missile Procurement, Air Force--Other Support, Space Programs:     22.7
 NUDET Detection System........................................
 
      Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
 
Army:
  Materials Technology.........................................     5.0
  Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology.....................    15.0
  Countermine Systems..........................................     5.5
  Medical Advanced Technology..................................     5.0
  Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology............    13.0
  Environmental Quality Technology Dem/Val.....................     7.0
  Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles............................     1.5
Navy: Communications, Command and Control, Intelligence,            5.0
 Surveillance..................................................
Air Force: Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion.................     2.0
Defense Wide:
  Cooperative DoD/VA Medical Research..........................     2.5
  Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative.........    15.0
 
              Title III--Operations & Maintenance
 
Army: (Budget Activity 01: Operating Forces):
  Land Forces Divisions: ECWCS/MSS.............................     4.0
  Land Forces Readiness:
    M-Gator....................................................     6.6
    Range Instrumentation......................................     6.0
Budget Activity 04: Administration & Servicewide Activities
 Logistics Operations:
  Logistics Support Activities: Maintenance AIT/RFID...........     9.0
    Replacement Containers, Ft. Drum...........................     1.0
    Electronic Maintenance & Point-to-Point Wiring.............     4.0
Other, Army: Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center     0.65
Basic Skills and Advanced Training, Navy: Professional              2.0
 Development Education Aviation Depot Apprenticeship Program...
Other, Navy:
  Veterans Affairs Renovations/Great Lakes.....................     2.0
  United Through Reading Program...............................     0.18
Marine Corps (Budget Activity 04: Administration & Servicewide      6.8
 Activities): Canceled Account, Full Spectrum Battle Equipment.
Air Force (Budget Activity 04: Administration & Servicewide
 Activities):
  Logistics Operations: Aging Propulsion System Life Extension.    10.0
  Other, Air Force:
    Lafayette Escadrille.......................................     2.0
    Scot Life Support System...................................     6.0
    Spares Information System..................................     7.0
Defense-Wide (Budget Activity 04: Administration & Servicewide
 Activities):
  Defense Logistics Agency: CTMA Depot-level Actions...........    20.0
  Office of the Secretary of Defense:
    Information Assurance Scholarships--Addition...............     3.5
    Legacy Resource Management Program.........................     6.5
Other, Defense-Wide:
  Impact Aid...................................................    31.0
  Impact Aid--Children with Disabilities.......................     5.0
Army Reserve (Budget Activity 01: Operating Forces):
  Land Forces: Division Forces ECWCS/MSS.......................     2.0
  Land Forces Readiness: Forces Readiness Operations Support       25.0
   Controlled Humidity Preservation............................
Army National Guard (Budget Activity 01: Operating Forces):
  Land Forces: Division Forces ECWCS/MSS.......................     4.0
  Other:
    Transfer Accounts: Env Rest, Formerly Used Defense Sites...    40.0
    Miscellaneous: Payment to Kaho'olawe Island................    15.0
 
        Department of Energy, National Security Program
 
National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities:
  Construction:
    Microsystem and engineering science applications (MESA),       37.0
     SNL.......................................................
    Atlas relocation, Nevada test site Las Vegas, NV...........     3.3
    Renovate Existing Roadways.................................     2.0
 
                             MILCON
 
Alabama:
  Army:
    Fort Rucker Aircraft Parts Warehouse.......................     6.8
    Restore Arsenal Ammunition Surveillance Facility...........     2.7
  Air National Guard: Dothan AGS Combat Communications Complex.    11.0
Alaska:
  Army: Fort Richardson Mout Training Facility.................    18.0
  Air National Guard: Juneau Readiness Center..................     7.57
Arizona:
  Army: Yuma Proving Grounds Range Improvements................     3.1
  Air Force: Davis Monthan AFB Child Development Center........     6.2
Air Force Reserve: Luke AFB Add/Alter Squadron Operations           1.4
 Facility......................................................
Arkansas:
  Air Force: Little Rock AFB Fire Station......................     7.5
  Army Reserve: Conway Reserve Center/Organizational                5.63
   Maintenance Shop............................................
California:
  Army:
    Fort Irwin Direct Support Maintenance Shop.................    23.0
    Monterey Defense Language Institute Barracks Complex.......     5.9
  Navy: China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center Propulsion and         10.1
   Explosives Lab..............................................
  Air Force:
    Beale AFB Communications Operations Center.................     7.9
    Travis AFB Radar Approach Control Center...................     3.3
  Army National Guard: Azuza Readiness Center..................    14.01
  Air Force Reserve: March ARB Fire/Crash Rescue Station.......     7.2
Colorado:
  Air Force: Schriever AFB Secure Area Logistics Facility......    11.4
Delaware:
  Dover AFB Fire Station.......................................     7.3
Florida:
  Navy: Pensacola Naval Air Station Consolidated Fire Station..     3.7
  Air Force: Tyndall AFB Add/Alter Communications Facility.....     5.3
  Army Reserve: St. Petersburg Armed Forces Reserve Center.....    34.06
  Air Force Reserve: Homestead ARB Add/Alter Communications         2.0
   Facility....................................................
Georgia:
  Air Force: Moody AFB Fitness Center..........................     8.6
Hawaii:
  Army (Pohakuloa Training Area):
    Land Acquisition (Kahuku Windmill Site)....................     0.9
    Land Acquisition (Parker Ranch)............................     1.5
  Navy: Ford Island Water Line Replacement.....................    14.1
Illinois:
  Army: Rock Island Arsenal Child Development Center...........     3.5
Indiana:
  Navy: Crane Surface Warfare Center Microwave Devices              9.11
   Engineering Facility........................................
  Defense-Wide: Newport Army Ammunition Plant Ammunition Demil     66.0
   Facility....................................................
  Air National Guard: Fort Wayne IAP Upgrade Aircraft Parking       8.5
   Ramp and Taxiway............................................
Kansas:
  Air Force: McConnell AFB Health and Wellness Center..........     5.1
Kentucky:
  Army: Fort Knox Multi-Purpose Digital Tank Range.............    12.0
  Defense-Wide: Bluegrass Army Depot Ammunition                     3.0
   Demilitarization Facility...................................
Louisiana:
  Air Force: Barksdale AFB Control Tower.......................     5.0
  Navy Reserve: New Orleans Joint Reserve Base Joint Reserve       10.0
   Center......................................................
Maine:
  Navy: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Bachelor Enlisted Quarters...    14.62
Maryland:
  Army: Fort Meade Operations Facility (55th Signal Company)...     5.4
  Navy: St. Inigoes Navalex Communications Integration Facility     5.1
  Defense-Wide: Aberdeen Proving Ground Ammunition                 66.5
   Demilitarization Facility...................................
Massachusetts:
  Air National Guard: Barnes ANGB Upgrade Support Facilities...     5.2
Michigan:
  Army National Guard: Augusta TASS Instruction/Administration/    13.32
   Barracks/ Mess Hall.........................................
  Air National Guard: W.K. Kellogg Airport Munitions                9.5
   Maintenance and Storage Complex.............................
Minnesota:
  Air National Guard: Duluth IAP Composite Aircraft Maintenance    10.0
   Complex.....................................................
  Air Force Reserve: Minneapolis-St. Paul ARS Consolidates          8.4
   Lodging Facility............................................
Mississippi:
  Navy:
    Pascagoula Naval Station Fleet Operations Facility.........     4.68
    Meridan Naval Air Station T-45 Aircraft Support Facility...     3.37
  Air Force Columbus AFB Radar Approach Control Center.........     5.0
  Army National Guard: Batesville Readiness Center.............     3.05
  Army Reserve: Gulfport CBC Controlled Humidity Storage           12.18
   Warehouse...................................................
Montana:
  Air Force: Malmstrom AFB Child Development Center............     4.65
Nevada:
  Navy: Fallon Naval Air Station Water Treatment Capital            6.15
   Improvements................................................
  Air Force: Nellis AFB Land Acquisition.......................    19.0
New Jersey:
  Army: Picatinny Arsenal High Energy Propellant Formulation       10.2
   Facility....................................................
  Navy: Earle Navy Weapons Station Explosive Truck Holding          4.37
   Yards.......................................................
  Air Force: McGuire AFB Air Freight Terminal/Base Supply          12.6
   Complex.....................................................
New Mexico:
  Army: White Sands Missle Range Professional Development           7.6
   Center......................................................
  Air Force: Kirtland AFB Upgrade Small Arms Range Support          4.3
   Facility....................................................
New York
  Army: Fort Drum Training Area Access Road....................    18.5
  Air National Guard: (Hancock Field):
    Civil Engineering Facility.................................     1.5
    Composite Readiness Support Facility.......................     2.5
  Niagra Falls IAP Fuel Cell/Corrosion Hangar Addition.........     2.8
North Carolina:
  Army National Guard: Fort Bragg Military Education Facility..     8.29
North Dakota:
  Air National Guard: Hector IAP Weapons Release Systems            5.0
   Complex.....................................................
Ohio:
  Air Force Wright-Patterson AFB, Security Gate, Base Entrance.     3.4
  Army National Guard:
    Bowling Green Readiness Center.............................     3.2
    Coshocton Readiness Center.................................     2.63
  Air National Guard: Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport....    10.6
Oklahoma:
  Army National Guard: Oklahoma City Readiness Center..........     9.32
Oregon:
  Army National Guard: Eugene Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center     8.3

[[Page S13137]]

 
Pennsylvania:
  Navy: Philadelphia Naval Foundry and Propeller Center Machine    14.8
   Shop Modernization..........................................
  Army Reserve: Johnstown Transient Quarters...................     3.0
Rhode Island:
  Navy: Newport Naval Station Unmanned Undersea Combat Vehicle      9.37
   Laboratory..................................................
South Carolina:
  Army: Fort Jackson Central Energy Plant......................     3.65
  Air Force Shaw AFB Education Center..........................     5.8
South Dakota:
  Air Force: Ellsworth AFB Live Ordnance Loading Area..........    12.2
  Air National Guard: Joe Foss Field/Souix City Runway/Taxiway      6.5
   Improvements................................................
Tennessee:
  Air National Guard: Nashville IAP Replace Aircraft               11.0
   Maintenance Complex.........................................
Texas:
  Army:
    Corpus Christi Army Depot Energy Disassembly and Cleaning      10.4
     Facility..................................................
    Fort Bliss Replace Elevated Water Tanks....................     5.0
  Air Force:
    Laughlin AFB Security Forces Complex.......................     3.6
    Sheppard AFB Fitness Center/Health and Wellness Center.....     8.2
    Dyess AFB C-130 Squadron Operations Facility...............    16.8
  Navy Reserve: Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base Bachelor Enlisted     9.06
   Quarters Modernization......................................
Vermont:
  Air National Guard: Burlington IAP Vehicle Maintenance            5.6
   Complex.....................................................
Virginia:
  Navy: Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base Personnel Support        9.09
   Facility....................................................
  Air National Guard: Fort Pickett Maneuver and Equipment          10.7
   Training Site...............................................
Washington:
  Navy:
    Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Industrial Skills Center........    14.0
    Whidbey Island Naval Air Station...........................     3.9
West Virginia:
  Army National Guard:
    Williamstown Readiness Center..............................     6.43
    Glen Jean Reserve Center/Organizational Maintenance Shop...    21.38
  Air National Guard: Yeager Airport Base Civil Engineer            4.1
   Maintenance Complex.........................................
Wisconsin:
  Air National Guard: Volk Field Control Tower.................     5.7
 
 Total FY02 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report Pork=$1.3
 Billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, 9 months ago I stood before this body as 
a proud cosponsor of the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001. This 
bill, which I also cosponsored in the last Congress, seeks to redress a 
major inequity that has resulted in a serious slight to the dedicated 
men and women who have selflessly served our Nation. It is an injustice 
that has puzzled me for decades.
  Current law bans so-called ``concurrent receipt'' of VA disability 
compensation and military retired pay, so that the amount of any VA 
disability payment to a military retiree is subtracted from the monthly 
retirement check. The obvious flaw of this rule is clear to the vast 
majority of the members of this body and to most members of the House. 
In its original form, this legislation garnered 78 cosponsors in the 
Senate and a whopping 378 members in the House. It seems that this was 
something that should have made it through the Conference Committee 
process without much question. But, unfortunately, what we saw emerge 
from conference was a real disappointment to me, to many Members of 
this body, and most of all, to our brave men and women--both those who 
have served in the past and those who continue to serve and continue to 
face the risk of disability.
  Here was an opportunity--a real chance to address a serious inequity 
and we let it fall by the way side. What message are we sending to our 
Armed Services? This incongruity only hurts those men and women who 
have devoted the majority of their working lives to our Nation because 
it only affects military retirees. If a soldier retires from the 
service after 20 years and has sustained a service-connected disability 
along the way, then their VA disability payments are subtracted from 
their military pensions. It makes no sense that those in uniform who 
suffer a service-connected disability end up being penalized for 
deciding to remain in the military, while those who chose to leave the 
military receive their disability payments along with any pension they 
may receive from an additional employer. The longer you serve in the 
military, the more you are penalized. Does this make sense? It doesn't 
to me. They surely have earned both.
  We have been fighting this fight now for too long. Year after year, 
it is brought to the floor and year after year Senators stand up and 
sing its praises. Now more than ever, Americans are painfully aware of 
what the sacrifices of our Armed Forces mean to us all. The horrific 
attacks upon our country on September 11 and the recent 60th 
anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor have made us all appreciate 
the millions of Americans who have selflessly served our nation and 
continue to protect our freedoms today. When our troops eventually 
return from serving in Afghanistan, undoubtedly there will be some 
among them who will find themselves penalized by our inability to 
correct this wrong. I am frustrated that even in this time when the 
importance of our troops is more evident than ever, we continue to 
shortchange our veterans.
  So here we are--poised to send a vastly reduced version of 
legislation that had huge bipartisan support in Congress to the 
President for signature. It is my hope the minor concessions made under 
the Department of Defense authorization conference report will serve as 
a stepping-stone for future improvements. But still, how many more 
military retirees must see their VA disability payments reduce their 
retirement benefits before more meaningful changes are made and this 
inequality is ended?
  We have troops in the field as I speak, putting their safety on the 
line to protect our way of life, and passage of this Defense 
Authorization bill is vital to our military operations. So it is 
important that this bill be passed. But, I want to put my colleagues 
and this administration on notice, this isn't the last battle in this 
war. One day those who put their lives at risk by wearing the uniform 
of this country, and who become disabled from their service, won't be 
punished for their duty. This is an unfairness that should have been 
corrected years ago, and an unfairness that will continue to plague 
those who offered their lives for the freedom we all enjoy. There is 
too much at stake here and I am not going to give up the fight to enact 
full concurrent receipt until we get this corrected.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I want to address one provision of this 
very important bill having to do with Department of Energy facilities. 
This bill will require the Department of Energy to submit to Congress a 
plan for the infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex. This will 
include those facilities that support the nuclear weapons stockpile, 
the naval reactors program, and nonproliferation and national security 
activities.
  In my view, we have not seen adequate investment in the Department of 
Energy's facilities over the last 10 years. This is true of the 
facilities and infrastructure that support both the defense and 
civilian missions of the Department of Energy. In addition to its vital 
national security missions, DOE is a premier science agency of the U.S. 
Government. I am encouraged that my colleagues want to begin to address 
the decline in DOE's infrastructure. I think this plan will be an 
opportunity for DOE to begin a dialog with Congress on what levels of 
new investment are needed.
  The Naval Reactors Program--a joint DOE and Navy program--has a very 
proud history at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory in my State. Although this program is not as active as it 
historically was in Idaho, the critical mission of fuel examination and 
storage continues at the Naval Reactors Facility. This work allows our 
country to have continued confidence in the ability to send our 
nuclear-powered naval vessels to any global hotspot or point of 
conflict, on short notice and fully fueled. In this way, nuclear power 
continues its critical role in our national defense.
  Given the technical excellence of the Naval Reactors Program, I am 
confident that as long as the Navy sends its spent nuclear fuel to 
Idaho for examination and storage, they will provide for the 
safekeeping of this material until a deep geologic repository is 
opened. In fact, the Navy is party to a court-enforceable agreement 
with the State of Idaho that commits to this very objective. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues in Congress, with the Navy and 
with DOE on securing a robust nuclear infrastructure within the DOE 
complex.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am very pleased that the National 
Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate has passed, includes a 
provision to allow Federal civilian employees and military personnel, 
as well as their family members, to make individual use of frequent-
flyer miles and other promotional benefits offered as a result of 
official Government travel. This measure, found in section 1116 of the 
legislation, will correct a glaring inequity that exists between 
government

[[Page S13138]]

and private sector employees for work-related travel. The time has come 
for us to recognize that the current prohibition on frequent flyer 
benefits is unfair to our Federal workforce as well as unnecessary for 
good government. In fact, by making these benefits available to 
government workers, we will help make Federal service more competitive 
with the private sector.
  I am especially proud that this measure applies to military 
personnel, many of whom are deployed in hostile environments, far from 
home and family. This time of war brings home the fact that every 
soldier, sailor, pilot and marine who serves our country around the 
clock deserves the best treatment we can offer.
  This provision originated in an amendment to the Defense 
Authorization bill offered in the Armed Services Committee in September 
by Senator Warner and myself, and was further developed as S. 1498, a 
bill which I introduced in October with Senators Thompson, Akaka, 
Warner, and Voinovich, and which provided the basis for the final 
language of section 1116.
  I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of this 
provision be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


          Section 1116--Retention of Travel Promotional Items

       Subsection (a)--Definition. The term ``agency'' has the 
     meaning given under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5701.
       Subsection (b)--Retention of Travel Promotional Items. This 
     subsection provides that government personnel and others may 
     make personal use of frequent flyer miles and other 
     promotional items received from official travel. Official 
     travel may be either at Government expense or accepted by the 
     Government from a non-Federal source. This provision is 
     comprehensive, covering travel by civilian, military, and 
     foreign-service personnel, family members when on official 
     travel (as when personnel are being relocated), and any other 
     individuals (such as academic experts or fellows) who may 
     travel at Government expense (or accepted by the Government 
     from a non-federal source).
       Subsection (c)--Limitation. This subsection (c) provides 
     that only ``agencies'' (as defined in subsection (a)) are 
     covered by the section. Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) 
     states that only travel at the expense of such an agency (or 
     accepted by the agency from a non-federal source) is covered 
     by the section, and paragraph (2) states that travel by an 
     officer, employee, or other Government official who is not in 
     such an ``agency'' is not covered. Thus, Government personnel 
     in one agency are covered even if they are traveling at the 
     expense of another agency, but Government personnel are 
     excluded if they are not in any agency, even if an agency is 
     paying for the travel.
       As noted above, subsection (a) applies the definition of 
     ``agency'' in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5701, and that definition is 
     further established by 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101-105, which 
     define certain terms used in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5701. The section 
     thus covers all executive and military departments and most 
     other executive-branch agencies. In the legislative branch, 
     the section covers the General Accounting Office, the Library 
     of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and other 
     legislative-branch agencies. All offices and agencies in the 
     judicial branch are covered.
       Governmental entities outside of the definition of 
     ``agency'' in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5701 are not considered to be 
     covered by the existing ban on personal use of frequent flyer 
     miles in section 6008 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
     Act, and have established their own rules and policies on 
     this subject--some allow their employees to use frequent 
     flyer miles and some do not. This section would not affect 
     any of these entities. These entities include the U.S. Postal 
     Service, government-controlled corporations, and the House 
     and Senate.
       Subsection (d)--Regulatory Authority. This subsection 
     provides that an agency with authority to regulate official 
     travel may issue regulations necessary to carry out 
     subsection (a) with respect to promotional items granted in 
     connection with such travel. So, for example, for travel by 
     members of the foreign service, the Secretary of State may 
     issue such regulations; for travel by members of the 
     uniformed services, the secretaries of the respective 
     services may issue such regulations; and for travel by most 
     other civilian employees, the Administrator of GSA may issue 
     such regulations.
       Subsection (e)--Repeal of Superseded Law. This subsection 
     repeals section 6008 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
     Act, which now requires that awards under a frequent traveler 
     program or other promotional items accrued through official 
     travel be used only for official travel.
       Subsection (f)--Applicability. This subsection provides 
     that the section shall apply to promotional items received 
     before, on, and after the date of enactment.
  Mr. REID. 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. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________