[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22669-22677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
          AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
2500, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2500), ``making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and 
     for other purposes,'' having met have agreed that the House 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, 
     and agree to the same with an amendment, signed by all of the 
     conferees on the part of both Houses.

  (The report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of 
November 9, 2001 page H7986.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Under the previous order, 
there are 45 minutes for debate of which Senator Hollings, Senator 
Gregg, and Senator McCain have 15 minutes each.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as is 
necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.

[[Page 22670]]


  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am very pleased to present to the 
Senate today the FY 2002 State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies 
conference report. The conference report before you combines the 
strongest components from both the Senate and House bills which passed 
a few months ago, and it addresses new priorities that have arisen 
since September 11.
  I could not have done this without the help of the ranking member, 
Senator Gregg. He and his staff have worked diligently with me and my 
staff to produce a fair, well balanced, and bi-partisan bill. I also 
want to thank Chairman Wolf and ranking member Serrano, as well as 
their staffs, for their commitment to a positive and constructive 
conference. The outcome of this conference is a bi-partisan and bi-
cameral piece of legislation. In fact, the House passed this bill 411-
15 yesterday. I now call on the Senate to pass this bill as well.
  I have always said that the funds appropriated under this bill affect 
the lives of all Americans in so many different ways. However, the 
importance of this bill became even more apparent in the aftermath of 
the September 11 attacks. The conference report before you today meets 
the following three goals: One, it provides funding at the Federal, 
State, and local level to combat terrorism here at home.
  In fact, that is exactly what we were debating with Senator Gregg's 
initiative on counterterrorism at the time the Pentagon was struck that 
morning.
  Second, it provides funds to protect American citizens and employees 
of the American Government, while overseas, and three, this bill 
continues the numerous domestic programs that have had, and will 
continue to have, a positive impact on the American way of life.
  First, this bill continues to fund the counter-terrorism programs 
under the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Domestic 
Preparedness (ODP). Most of these funds go directly to States in the 
form of formula grants for the purchase of equipment to respond to 
terrorist incidents at both the State and local level. The distribution 
of funds among State and local agencies are based on State plans that 
each State must submit to ODP prior to receiving grant funds. Funds 
provided to the office of domestic preparedness are also used to 
provide training to State and local law enforcement officials, as well 
as to provide real-time emergency exercises for first responders and 
Federal, State, and local executives.
  The bill also provides a significant increase in funds over last year 
to ensure that agencies have the resources they need to prevent and 
fight terrorism. For example, the fiscal year 2002 bill includes a $280 
million increase over last year for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigations and a $700 million increase for Immigration and 
Naturalization Services.
  Second, as in past years, the conferees have placed significant 
resources--$1.3 billion for worldwide security upgrades and $458 
million for Embassy construction--into ensuring that our overseas 
facilities are adequately protected. U.S. citizens and overseas 
employees utilizing these facilities should be safeguarded against 
possible terrorist attacks--and the funding provided in this conference 
report will help assure that they are.
  Finally, the conferees have placed great emphasis on continuing 
funding for domestic programs that have a positive impact on the 
American way of life. It is imperative that the terrorist attack 
against this Nation does not force us to abandon the vital domestic 
programs that have made us a great nation. This conference report 
ensures that those vital programs are not neglected. It continues 
programs that make our Nation's primary and secondary schools safer by 
providing grants for the hiring of school resource officers. Funds are 
provided to protect all Americans by increasing the number of police 
officers walking the Nation's streets, providing additional funds to 
fight the growing problem of illegal drug use, guarding consumers from 
fraud, and shielding children from internet predators. In addition, 
people throughout this country benefit from weather forecasting 
services funded through this bill. These Americans include farmers 
receiving information necessary to effectively manage their crops, and 
families receiving lifesaving emergency bulletins regarding tornadoes, 
floods, torrential rains, and hurricanes. This conference report 
continues to assist States in their efforts to manage overwhelming 
economic growth in our coastal communities. It also provides funds to 
preserve our few remaining pristine estuarine areas. Funding is 
provided to assist our small businesses, to gather economic statistical 
data, to perfect our census process, to promote export of American 
products. All of these are vital programs that have contributed daily 
to the strength of this Nation.
  In all, the CJS bill totals $39.3 billion in budget authority, which 
is $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 2001 amount. The Departments of 
State, Justice, and Commerce, as well as the Judiciary, all receive 
significant increases over prior year appropriations. I would like to 
take a few minutes to go over some of the specific funding highlights 
from the SJC bill the conferees are presenting to the Senate:
  Once again, the FBI's Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report 
released this past May demonstrates how well these programs are 
working. According to the FBI's report, in 2000, serious crime has 
decreased 7-percent from 1998, marking 9 consecutive years of decline. 
This continues to be the longest running drop in crime on record. 
Bipartisan efforts to fund DOJ's crime fighting initiatives have 
impacted this reduction in crime during the past 10 years.
  The conference report provides $3.5 billion for the FBI, which is 
$280 million above last year's funding level. To meet the critical need 
of sharing and storing information within the FBI, the bill provides 
the FBI with $142 million for the FBI's Computer Modernization Program, 
Trilogy. In addition, the conference report provides significant 
funding increases for vital programs such as $6.8 million to improve 
intercept capabilities; $7 million for counter-encryption resources; 
$12 million for forensic research; and $32 million for an annex of the 
engineering research facility, which develops and fields cutting edge 
technology in support of case agents.
  The conference report provides $1.48 billion for DEA, $129 million 
above last year's funding level. Increased funds are provided for 
technology and infrastructure improvements, including an additional $13 
million for DEA's laboratory operations for forensic support.
  To combat drugs that are reaching our streets and our children, the 
conference report provides $32.8 million to fight methamphetamine and 
encourages the DEA to increase its efforts in fighting heroin and 
emerging drugs such as oxycontin and ecstacy. The conference report 
also directs the DEA to renew its efforts to work with Mexico in 
combating drug trafficking and corruption under the country's new 
President Vicente Fox.
  For the INS, the conference report includes $5.6 billion, $2 billion 
of which is derived from fees. This is an $800-million increase over 
last year's funding level and provides the necessary resources to 
address border enforcement and benefits processing.
  For border enforcement, the bill provides $66 million for 570 
additional Border Patrol agents, and $25.4 million for 348 additional 
land border inspectors. To better equip and house these enforcement 
officers, the conference report provides $2 million for Border 
vehicles, $22 million for Border equipment, such as search lights, 
goggles and infrared scopes, $40 million to modernize inspection 
technology; and $128.4 million for Border patrol and detention facility 
construction and rehabilitation.
  For INS' benefits processing efforts, the conference report provides 
an additional $45 million to specifically address the case backlog and 
accelerate processing times.
  This conference report includes $3.24 billion for the Office of 
Justice Programs, which is $425 million above the amount requested by 
the President. This bill provides for the funding of a number of 
important law enforcement programs.

[[Page 22671]]

  The conference report provides $251.4 million to the Office of 
Domestic Preparedness for equipment and training of State and local law 
enforcement regarding counter terrorism activities. In addition, $2.4 
billion has been provided for State and local law enforcement 
assistance grants. Within this amount; $594.4 million is provided for 
the Byrne State and Local Law Enforcement Program; $400 million is 
provided for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; $390.5 
million is provided for Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, Programs, 
including programs to assist disabled female victims, programs to 
reduce violence against women on college campuses, and efforts to 
address domestic and child abuse in rural areas; and $565 million is 
provided for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which 
reimburses States for the incarceration costs of criminal aliens.
  Within the amount provided for the Office of Justice Programs, a 
total of $305.8 million has been included for Juvenile Justice 
Programs. These funds will go toward programs aimed at reducing 
delinquency among at-risk youth; assisting States in enforcing underage 
drinking laws; and enhancing school safety by providing youth with 
positive role models through structured mentoring programs, training 
for teachers and families so that they can recognize troubled youth, 
and training for students on conflict resolution and violence 
reduction.
  The conference report includes $1.05 billion in new budget authority, 
for the COPS Office which is $195.3 million above the President's 
request. As in prior years, the Senate has provided up to $180 million 
for the Cops-In-Schools Program to fund up to 1,500 additional school 
resources officers in fiscal year 2002, which will make a total of 
6,100 school resource officers funded since Senator Gregg and I created 
this program in 1998.
  The conference report reflects Congress' continued commitment to 
providing grant funds for the hiring of local law enforcement officers 
through the Cops Universal Hiring Program. Although the President did 
not seek funding for this program in fiscal year 2002, the committee 
has provided $150 million to continue to hire officers, as well as to 
provide much needed communications technology to the Nation's law 
enforcement community.
  Within the Cops budget, the conference report provides increased 
funding for programs authorized by the Crime Identification and 
Technology Act, CITA. In fiscal year 2002, $197 million is provided for 
programs that will improve the retention of, and access to, criminal 
records nationwide, improve the forensic capabilities of State and 
local forensic labs, and reduce the backlog of crime scene and 
convicted offender DNA evidence.
  And finally, the conference report has provided $70.4 million within 
Cops to continue the Cops Methamphetamine Initiative. These funds will 
provide for the clean-up of meth production sites which pose serious 
health risks to law enforcement and the surrounding public. Funds will 
also be provided to State and local law enforcement to acquire training 
and equipment to safely and effectively dismantle existing meth labs.
  A total of $5.51 billion is provided for the Department of Commerce 
in fiscal year 2002, this conference report focuses on the goals of 
improving departmental infrastructure and promoting the advancement of 
technology. The Department of Commerce consists of 37,000 employees 
working in agencies as diverse as the Economic Development 
Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
and the Bureau of the Census. They are highly-trained experts who are 
responsible for a huge array of critical programs. These employees help 
minority businesses and small manufacturers flourish, run trade 
missions to open foreign markets to American goods, forecast 
hurricanes, estimate the Nation's gross domestic product, set standards 
and measurements recognized and used world-wide, fly satellites, manage 
the Nation's fisheries, conduct censuses, and process patents. These 
missions of the Department of Commerce are the glue that holds together 
the U.S. economy, both domestically and abroad.
  There is no doubt as to the importance of the missions under the 
purview of the Department of Commerce. There is, however, a crisis 
looming in terms of the infrastructure available to the employees who 
work there. The conference report we have before us begins to turn the 
tide on infrastructure needs. In all cases, the conference report funds 
the President's request for capital upgrades. This includes new 
information technology systems at the Minority Business Development 
Agency, the Bureau of the Census, the Economic Development Agency, and 
the Office of Economic and Statistical Analysis. The conference report 
includes a $76 million increase for the next generation of polar-
orbiting satellites. It also includes a new radio spectrum measurement 
system at the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration. We also encourage the United States Patent and 
Trademark Office to reflect on its infrastructure needs and to report 
back on what we can do to help in the future.
  The conference report provides $3.26 billion for NOAA. Funding is 
included to begin construction of 2 new research vessels and to 
refurbish 5 others. In addition, funding is included for repairs at the 
Beaufort, Oxford and Kasitsna coastal laboratories. Sufficient funding 
is provided to begin construction on regional National Marine Fisheries 
Service buildings in Hawaii and in Alaska. The bill provides funding to 
start building visitor facilities at national marine sanctuaries.
  The funding provided in this conference report for these purposes is 
a down-payment on the future of a robust Department of Commerce. I 
believe that the people at the department are its greatest asset and 
that these targeted funds will allow these professionals to better do 
their jobs for decades to come.
  In terms of advancing technology, in addition to the satellite 
programs, research vessels, radio spectrum management systems and other 
programs that I mentioned earlier, the bill provides $674.5 million for 
the National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST. This amount 
aggressively funds scientific and technical research and services that 
are carried out in the NIST laboratories in Gaithersburg and in 
Boulder. The bill provides the current year funding level of $60.7 
million for new ATP awards. The ATP is an industry-led, competitive, 
and cost-shared program to help the U.S. develop the next generation of 
breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors. ATP 
contracts encourage companies to undertake initial high-risk research 
that promises significant widespread economic benefits. Over one-half 
of the ATP awards go to small companies.
  In the aftermath of the bombings of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the 
Department of State focused more on the security of our overseas 
infrastructure and peacekeeping missions than on the ``quality of 
life'' needs of its employees. Secretary of State Colin Powell should 
be commended for taking the approach that the morale of his employees 
does not have to be compromised in the name of safety. The conference 
report before the Senate today takes a good first step in that same 
direction. The conference report provides $7.36 billion in funding for 
the Department of State, an increase of $761 million above last year's 
appropriated level of $6.6 billion. This funding level includes $95 
million for the Secretary's ``new hire'' initiative which will provide 
for an increase in 360 personnel, along with $12 million for training 
and recruitment, and $162 million in human resources enhancements. The 
conference report provides funding for recruitment, spousal employment, 
and civil service mobility. Funding also is provided for an additional 
186 security personnel and for the replacement of obsolete equipment 
and motor vehicles overseas.
  The conference report before the Senate today also addresses a 
significant weakness in the State Department's information technology 
infrastructure. The worldwide web has become essential to the conduct 
of foreign policy.

[[Page 22672]]

Yet, at this moment, most of the State Department's overseas posts are 
dependent on obsolete computers and communications equipment to process 
information, and most posts lack secure internet browser access for 
their employees. Full funding is provided in this conference report to 
bring the internet to the desk top of all employees by January 2003 and 
also to protect the Department's classified global computer system from 
cyber-terrorism.
  Finally, full funding in the amount of $1.3 billion is provided for 
worldwide security upgrades and $458 million for Embassy construction. 
Again, under Secretary Powell's leadership in the selection of General 
Williams to head the foreign buildings operations, millions of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars have already been saved in the re-evaluation of 
current construction projects. This prudent action should expedite the 
construction needs highlighted in the Crowe report and put us ahead of 
schedule in addressing the security needs of our vulnerable facilities.
  Let me conclude by saying again this is a solid piece of legislation 
that addresses issues that affect the daily lives of all Americans. It 
is a good bill that balances the needs on many diverse missions, and 
the interests of members from both parties and both Houses. Every year, 
we face difficulties with respect to limited funding and multiple, 
sometimes competing, priorities. This year was no different. And, as in 
past years, the CJS conferees made those decisions in a bipartisan, 
bicameral, and judicious manner. This could not have happened without 
the assistance of Senator Gregg and the endless hours of work that both 
my and his staff put into drafting the conference report before the 
Senate today. Specifically, I would like to thank my clerk, Lila Helms, 
along with Jill Shapiro Long, Luke Nachbar, and Dereck Orr as well as 
Senator Gregg's minority clerk, Jim Morhard, along with Kevin Linsky, 
Katherine Hennessey, and Nancy Perkins.
  This is a great conference report before the Senate and with the help 
of my colleagues, I look forward to swift passage at the end of this 
debate.
  I thank the distinguished Chair. I again thank my distinguished 
ranking member.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, as I understand the regular order, the 
Senator from South Carolina has 15 minutes, I have 15 minutes, the 
Senator from Arizona has 15 minutes, and then we go to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, does the Senator from New Hampshire seek 
recognition?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I inquire of the managers if I may have 5 
or 6 minutes to raise a point.
  Mr. GREGG. I will be happy to yield you 6 minutes of my time after I 
have finished.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I begin by congratulating the Senator 
from South Carolina for bringing this bill forward. He has done a 
superb job. This is a bill that has a lot of moving parts. It covers a 
broad sector of the agencies of the Federal Government, some of the 
most critical agencies, of course, being the Justice Department, the 
State Department, the Commerce Department, SEC, FTC, FCC, and SBA. The 
list goes on and on, so it is a complex bill.
  As is typical of the Senator from South Carolina, he has handled it 
with great ability and acumen. As a result, we have before us what I 
think is an extraordinarily strong bill, and a bill which aggressively 
funds and promotes these agencies, and the primary roles of these 
agencies, as well as making a point of focusing on certain initiatives 
which are critical to better governance in this country, especially in 
light of September 11.
  A large percentage of the terrorism dollars that are domestically 
oriented, and the initiatives that are domestically oriented, are tied 
up in this bill with over $1.1 billion of funding. The initiatives 
which are necessary in order to secure strong action on the part of the 
Justice Department and the State Department are also part of the policy 
in this bill.
  So I congratulate the Senator from South Carolina for doing a superb 
job. But he could not have done it, and I could not have participated 
in this bill, without having exceptional staff. His staff, headed up by 
Lila Helms, has done an exceptional job. His staff has been extremely 
supportive of the efforts on our side of the aisle, and has worked with 
our staff, led by Jim Morhard, extraordinarily well. I specifically 
thank my staff people, including Jim Morhard and Kevin Linskey, 
Katherine Hennessy, and Nancy Perkins. They all work around the clock 
at this time of the year, and we very much appreciate it. We have 
produced an exceptional bill because of those efforts.
  The Senator from South Carolina has highlighted what amounts to the 
key areas in the bill, but I do want to return to a couple items and 
make a point to reinforce the commitment that this bill makes in those 
areas.
  First is the area of terrorism, as I mentioned. This committee long 
before this bill was brought forward, has focused a great deal on the 
issue of how we try to get ourselves up to speed to deal with 
terrorism. Regrettably, obviously, we were not up to speed when 
September 11 occurred. But in the past, this committee orchestrated the 
Central Command Center for Crisis Management at the FBI. It has 
orchestrated the legate services overseas in order to try to improve 
our intelligence capabilities.
  It was as a result of this committee that we undertook two major 
exercises in the area of terrorism, the top-off program, which showed 
us that we had cracks, but it also showed us where we needed to go. A 
lot of what is happening in the post-September climate is as a result 
of information we were able to develop especially out of the Denver 
bioterrorism top-off exercise.
  The bill specifically has in it the creation of a Deputy Attorney 
General for Combating Terrorism, the concept being there are a lot of 
different agencies, a lot of different moving parts just within the 
Justice Department that have responsibility for terrorism--the INS, 
obviously; the DEA; most importantly, the FBI; and the Justice 
Department itself. There needed to be a central focus where there was 
one person thinking solely about the issue of how Justice specifically 
manages the question of terrorism.
  There were some questions as to how this individual would relate to 
the Attorney General, and specifically to Governor Ridge in his role. 
My view is that he complements Governor Ridge in that he or she will 
give Governor Ridge a single point of contact where he can get action 
within the Justice Department and cut through red tape and turf. And, 
hopefully, as a result, this person will increase the capabilities of 
Governor Ridge as we try to manage the Federal response to terrorism. 
So I think it is an initiative which makes sense, and I understand that 
it has been worked out.
  Secondly, I congratulate the chairman and his staff and the 
participation of our staff in the area of NOAA. This is an agency which 
is really one of the premier science agencies in our country; of 
course, specifically, science related to the atmosphere and ocean.
  The maintenance of a series of vibrant NOAA programs is extremely 
important if we, as a country, are going to have the science we need in 
order to protect, preserve, and improve those resources, the ocean and 
our air, and manage issues such as hurricanes and tornadoes, and other 
potential God-driven catastrophes, and be ready for those events so 
that we can handle them more effectively as a Government.
  In addition, as the Senator mentioned, we have made a huge commitment 
in the area of technology. This is a very important function for us, 
not only in the Justice Department but equally important in the State 
Department, where they really have been lagging in their technological 
capability. We think progress is being made in this

[[Page 22673]]

area, rather dramatic progress, as well as, of course, as was 
mentioned, the attempt to upgrade our facilities overseas, and 
especially harden them in light of the terrorist threat which they 
confront.
  One area that was left out of this bill, which was not left out 
because of any actions by the chairman--it was left out because of the 
House Ways and Means Committee--was the issue of conflict diamonds. 
When this bill passed the Senate, it had language in it which would 
limit the use of conflict diamonds. Conflict diamonds are those 
diamonds being produced primarily in Sierra Leone. They are diamonds 
which have blood on them. They are diamonds which are being used to 
fund not only the terrorist elements in Sierra Leone, known as the RUF, 
but it appears now there is a connection between those diamonds and al-
Qaeda and the organizations of Osama bin Laden. These diamonds, where 
people are basically held in slavery in order to produce them, and 
children are used, child labor is used, and people are tortured in 
order to produce these diamonds, should not be on the open market in 
free countries.
  Therefore, we put in language which would attempt to set up a system 
that would track diamonds. Diamonds are an important part of our 
culture, especially when we get around the holidays. There are a lot of 
folks who express their love and concern for individuals by using 
diamonds, but we want Americans to know when they buy diamonds they are 
not funding terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or the RUF.
  Regrettably, that language--which I think is very important, and 
which I know the chairman on the House side, Congressman Wolf, strongly 
supported because he was one of the authors of this language on the 
House side--was forced out of the bill on a procedural issue raised by 
the House Ways and Means Committee. It is my understanding the Ways and 
Means Committee is going to have hearings on this issue. I hope they 
have them soon. I hope we do not leave this session of Congress without 
having passed effective conflict diamond language.
  Again, in conclusion, I thank Chairman Hollings. I thank his staff, 
led by Lila Helms, and I thank my staff, led by Jim Morhard. I thank 
them all for the excellent job in producing what I think is an 
exceptional piece of legislation, which more than adequately 
aggressively funds our efforts to try to address the issue of 
terrorism, but it also strongly funds the agencies which are under our 
jurisdiction, especially agencies such as NOAA.
  Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I thank my colleague for 
the 5 minutes.
  I simply want to use this time to raise a point that I think should 
concern all of us in the Senate in terms of procedures. I understand 
that the Parliamentarian would rule against me and so, therefore, I 
will not offer it. I cannot because of the unanimous consent agreement, 
but I raise this point--and I hope the Parliamentarian will pay 
attention--because I believe this is a serious matter.
  There was language in both the House and Senate bills that dealt with 
taxpayer dollars not being used to interfere in any pending lawsuits 
with some of the survivors of the Bataan Death March.
  It was a controversial issue, but both the House and the Senate 
agreed verbatim with the language. Not one word, no date, no comma, no 
letter, nothing, nothing misspelled, no changes in spelling; it was 
verbatim. The language was exactly the same.
  Under rule 28.2, it states:

       Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not 
     committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from 
     the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. If new matter is 
     inserted in the report or if matter which was agreed to by 
     both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point of order may 
     be made against the report, and if the point of order is 
     sustained, the report is rejected or shall be recommitted to 
     the committee of conference if the House of Representatives 
     has not already acted thereon.

  This is very complicated and it is parliamentary language. It is 
difficult to understand. In essence, what has happened here is the 
House and the Senate, as prescribed by rule 28.2, had identical 
language. And because under the rules you substituted the Senate bill 
for the House bill, you have now used that as a technicality to rule 
against me and to rule against this provision.
  What happens is, the House and the Senate agree on something. You go 
into conference. Nobody disagrees. But it comes out. Mysteriously, it 
is taken out by somebody in the conference committee, of which the rest 
of us are not privy. It violates the rules. And if it does not violate 
the rule, it violates the spirit and intent of it, clearly.
  This is very troubling. It is not just this issue. It could be any 
issue down the road where somebody has worked hard on both sides, the 
House and Senate, to put in the language. Then it is taken out in 
conference in violation directly of rule 28.2. It clearly violates it.
  When you say you can substitute a Senate bill for the House bill to 
get around that, that means any provision to which we agree can be 
held, if you want to apply that standard. That is simply wrong.
  I would just say to the Parliamentarians that we ought to clarify 
this. If this is what we are going to do, then throw out rule 28.2 and 
say it is irrelevant. You are throwing it out because you are using 
this substitute which is a gimmick to take out language that somebody 
just decided they didn't like.
  Again, the language is the language. You have a bunch of POWs now who 
are going to get screwed by this, to put it bluntly. That is not the 
issue as much as it is who is next and how many times does this have to 
happen before we correct it and do the right thing.
  I am not picking on this particular bill or the two managers here. 
The point is, it happens to be something I was involved in and I know 
about it.
  If I had had the chance, I would have made the Parliamentarian rule. 
But I didn't get down here in time before the unanimous consent. I 
think you should rule and we can prove that it is an incorrect ruling.
  You have to decide. I hope we will take 28.2 out, if that is what we 
are going to do. My preference is that it would stay in and you would 
stop the interpretation, because if you can substitute a Senate 
substitute for the House, how then can you have a conference? What is 
the purpose of a conference if you can say, I am going to substitute 
the Senate version for the House version, take the House version and 
throw it out the window? That is where it goes, right out. There is no 
conference. You have now substituted bill A for bill B, and there is no 
conference. And anything that you have in here, whatever you have in 
this book, in your report, is no good. The language is irrelevant 
because you have now said you can substitute one bill for another.
  It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It is what makes the American 
people sick of what we do here, that they see stuff passed. They see it 
in both Houses. They see it go into conference, identical language. At 
least you could have changed the date and made it legal. Instead, you 
took verbatim language and threw it out. It is wrong. And I want to 
make that point. I am very sorry it happened.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire, generally speaking, is correct. We tortured over this. 
Bottom line, the White House opposed it. So question: Do we pass a bill 
that is going to be approved or do we pass a bill that is going to be 
disapproved?
  On page 171 of the report language:

       The conference agreement does not include language proposed 
     in both the House and Senate bills regarding civil actions 
     against Japanese corporations for compensation in

[[Page 22674]]

     which the plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of 
     war during World War II, he or she was used as slave or 
     forced labor. The conferees understand that the 
     Administration strongly opposes this language, and is 
     concerned that the inclusion of such language in the act 
     would be detrimental to the ongoing effort to enlist 
     multilateral support for the campaign against terrorism. The 
     conferees strongly agree that the extraordinary suffering and 
     injury of our former prisoners of war deserve further 
     recognition, and acknowledge the need for such additional 
     consideration.

  In fairness to the position of the White House, we did have in 1951 
the treaty of San Francisco settling the claims of prisoners of war 
against the Japanese Government. Maybe it wasn't adequate. For 50 years 
we have adhered to that treaty, and now with the terrorism attacks in 
the United States out with an affirmative action plan to win friends 
and influence people, to form a coalition, now is no time for us to 
take treaties and start abrogating them 50 years past or 1 year hence.
  The truth is, the U.S. Senate ratified that treaty. On this 
particular vote, the Senate bill was--the Senate bill--in the nature of 
an amendment to the House bill. The entire bill was in the nature of an 
amendment. That is how technically, under the rule cited by my 
distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, it can be found as 
parliamentarily sound. That is what we had to do in order to get the 
bill approved. I am sorry these occasions arise. It was a measured 
judgment.
  We agree with our distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, but 
that is the best we could do under the circumstances.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I say to the Senator from South Carolina, 
you are correct. I am not challenging the technical aspect. I think it 
is a violation of the spirit of the rule. My point is, I know how you 
feel about it. We had the debate on the floor. I respect your view. I 
know you respect mine. The House, by 393 to 33, disagreed with you. And 
the Senate, by a vote of 58 to 34, disagreed with you. I thought we had 
separate but equal branches of Government. If the White House wants to 
veto the bill over that, then veto the bill over it. We will bring it 
back here and talk about it. I don't think it is right to violate the 
spirit and intent of the rules.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It was just like President Lincoln, during the Civil 
War, when he put a vote to his Cabinet and all the Cabinet voted aye 
and President Lincoln voted no. And he said: The ``no'' vote prevails. 
That is what prevailed here.
  I yield the remainder of our time under the agreement.


               national domestic preparedness consortium

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank Chairman Hollings and 
Senator Gregg for their leadership and efforts on the Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. This bill 
contains funding for many of the important law enforcement activities 
and counterterrorism training that is vital in the wake of the 
September 11 attacks.
  I want to comment on one aspect of this bill and that is the funding 
for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium. The consortium has 
been fulfilling the important role of training the Nation's first 
responders and training cities and communities on how to assess their 
own vulnerabilities to an attack for over 3 years. I believe the bill 
funds the consortium at a level of $13.969 million, divided evenly. 
This is a significant reduction in funding from last year, and it is my 
understanding that additional funding is expected to be provided in the 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  The components of the consortium each have an important role to play, 
however, the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center, 
NERRTC, at Texas A&M has been the leader in the number of first 
responders trained. It would be my hope and willingness to assure 
increased funding for the NERRTC and the consortium as a whole.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be happy to review the need for increased 
resources for the consortium and consider further funding in the 
supplemental bill.
  Mr. GREGG. I agree that additional funding for the consortium should 
be considered in the supplemental bill to support our antiterrorism 
efforts.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank Chairman Hollings and Senator Gregg for their 
consideration.


               detention facility on choctaw reservation

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to 
clarify language included in the Commerce, Justice, State, 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. My distinguished colleague, 
the chairman of the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Hollings, 
worked with me to ensure that a very important project for the 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was included in the Senate version 
of the bill and the subsequent conference report.
  The Senate-passed version contained $16,300,000 for the construction 
of an adult and juvenile detention facility on the Choctaw Reservation. 
The tribe has encountered many obstacles as it has sought to satisfy 
both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Justice Department through 
compliance with their varying jurisdictions, regulations, and varied 
interpretations of law enforcement for Indian tribes over the past 
decade. These delays have resulted in a deterioration of law 
enforcement, and an escalation in the costs of the facility. Further 
delays will only exacerbate these problems.
  The Choctaw Tribe is firm in its view that detention is essential to 
the maintenance of law and order of the reservation. The detention 
facility the tribe currently utilizes was built by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs in 1973 as a temporary holding facility designed to hold 18 
prisoners for up to 72 hours. Today, an average of 33.4 offenders are 
being held daily. Because of the lack of space, only the most serious 
and repeat offenders are incarcerated and the tribal court has been 
forced to rely on ``deferred sentencing'' for less serious offenses. 
This has created a large backlog of convicted inmates waiting to be 
placed in jail. The current facility is simply inadequate to meet 
existing needs and the projected law enforcement needs of the tribe and 
its growing population.
  The tribe is in need of a new facility and the gentleman from South 
Carolina recognized this requirement and included funding for the 
construction of the Choctaw jail in the Senate bill. I thank the 
conference committee for its inclusion of language directing the 
Department of Justice to fund the Choctaw detention facility. I would 
like to clarify, however, that it was the intention of the Senate to 
provide $16,300,000 for the construction of the Choctaw jail facility.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Indeed, my colleague from Mississippi is correct. The 
Senate did include funding in the amount of $16,300,000 for the Choctaw 
Indians to construct their jail facility. It was the intention of the 
Senate that the tribe receive this needed funding for this project as 
noted in the conference agreement.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator for clarifying this 
issue and for his support of this project.


                          slave labor in japan

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment 
with the conference committee on the FY 2002 Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill for eliminating the provision that would allow 
World War II POWs, who served as slave laborers in Japan, to have their 
day in court.
  The amendment, sponsored by Senator Smith of New Hampshire and 
myself, would have prohibited the U.S. State Department and the 
Department of Justice from blocking attempts by American veterans to 
obtain compensation in court from Japanese companies who used the POWs 
for slave labor during WWII.
  Some 30,000 Americans were taken prisoner in the Philippines in the 
months following Pearl Harbor and forced to perform as slave laborers 
for Japanese companies. For more than 3 years, our POWs endured 
horrific conditions and received little or no compensation. It is wrong 
and unfair that the U.S. Government is using taxpayer dollars to fight 
against these men and

[[Page 22675]]

women who served and suffered for us during WWII, and deny them the 
compensation they deserve.
  Some 60 families and POW survivors in Iowa are affected.
  I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if it was appropriate for the 
committee to cut out this provision, considering both the House and 
Senate voted to include it in the bill?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this decision clearly 
disregards the wishes of the House and Senate. I taught history and 
civics when I was a teacher. I always taught my students that 
conference committees were intended to resolve differences between the 
House and Senate versions. There is not difference in this case.
  Let me read from the report:

       The conference agreement does not include language proposed 
     in both the House and Senate bills regarding civil actions 
     against Japanese corporations for compensation in which the 
     plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of war during 
     World War II, he or she was used as slave or forced labor.

  There was no difference between the two versions, just a decision by 
a small group of conferees to impose their own will on both Houses of 
Congress. This is not the way things should work.
  The House passed this amendment in July with a 393-33 vote. The 
Senate later passed the exact same provision with a 58-34 vote.
  Congress should not turn its back on the 700 prisoners of war and 
their families who are seeking long-delayed justice. They have gone to 
court to demand compensation from the Japanese companies that used from 
for slave labor. Throughout the war, these Americans worked in mines, 
factories, shipyards, and steel mills. They labored every day for as 
long as 10 hours a day in dangerous working conditions. They were 
beaten on a regular basis. They were given no compensation by these 
companies.
  Now they deserve their day in court without interference by the U.S. 
State Department or the Department of Justice. That's what our 
amendment had set out to do--allow our POWs to seek the long-delayed 
justice and compensation they deserve.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the record the 
Budget Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 
2500, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002.
  The conference report provides $38.656 billion in discretionary 
budget authority, of which $567 million is for defense and $438 million 
is for conservation activities. That budget authority will result in 
new outlays in 2002 of $26.126 billion. When outlays from prior-year 
budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the 
report total $38.847 billion in 2002. By comparison, the Senate-passed 
version of the bill provided $38.641 billion in discretionary budget 
authority, which would have resulted in $38.744 billion in total 
outlays. The conference report does not include any emergency 
designations.
  Because the conference report exceeds the outlay allocation provided 
to the subcommittee for conservation activities, the report is in 
violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget 
committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 2500, THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002, SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          General
                                                          purpose     Defense   Conservation  Mandatory   Total
------------------------------------------------------------\2\---------\2\-------------------------------------
Conference report:
  Budget Authority....................................     37,651         567          438         572    39,228
  Outlays.............................................     37,853         631          363         581    39,428
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority....................................     37,651         567          439         572    39,229
  Outlays.............................................     38,653           0          203         581    39,437
President's request
  Budget Authority....................................     37,178         465          284         572    38,499
  Outlays.............................................     38,016         538          259         581    39,394
House-passed:
  Budget Authority....................................     37,534         567          440         572    39,113
  Outlays.............................................     37,913         632          360         581    39,486
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority....................................     37,782         604          255         572    39,213
  Outlays.............................................     37,880         660          204         581    39,325
 
           SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation: \1\
  Budget Authority....................................          0           0           -1           0        -1
  Outlays.............................................       -169           0          160           0        -9
President's request:
  Budget Authority....................................        473         102          154           0       729
  Outlays.............................................       -163          93          104           0        34
House-passed:
  Budget Authority....................................        117           0           -2           0       115
  Outlays.............................................        -60          -1            3           0       -58
Senate-passed:
  Budget Authority....................................       -131         -37          183           0        15
  Outlays.............................................        -27         -29          159           0       103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For enforcement purposes, the budget committee compares the conference report to the Senate 302(b)
  allocation.
\2\ The 2002 budget resolution includes a contingent ``firewall'' in the Senate between defense and nondefense
  spending. Because the contingent firewall is for budget authority only, the Senate appropriations committee
  did not provide a separate allocation for defense outlays. This table combines defense and nondefense outlays
  together as ``general purpose'' for purposes of comparing the conference report outlays with the Senate
  subcommittee's allocation.
 
Notes.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping
  conventions.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the conferees of this bill for 
their hard work. This legislation provides funding for fighting crime, 
enhancing drug enforcement, and responding to threats of terrorism. It 
further addresses the shortcomings of the immigration process funds the 
operation of the judicial process, facilitates commerce throughout the 
United States, and supports the needs of the State Department and other 
agencies.
  This conference report spends at a level 4.9 percent higher than the 
level enacted in fiscal year 2001. In real dollars, this is $828 
million in additional spending above the amount requested by the 
President, and a $1.9 billion increase in spending from last year.
  Once again, however, I find myself in the unpleasant position of 
speaking before my colleagues about parochial projects in yet another 
conference report. I have identified $1.8 billion in earmarks, which is 
greater than the cost of the earmarks in the conference report passed 
last year, which totaled $1.5 billion. so far this year, total 
porkbarrel spending has already hit a staggering $9.6 billion.
  There are hundreds of millions of dollars in porkbarrel spending 
throughout this bill. The avalanche of unrequested earmarks buried in 
this measure will undoubtedly further burden the American taxpayers. 
While the amounts associated with each individual earmark may not seem 
extravagant, taken together, they represent a serious diversion of 
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars at the expense of numerous programs that 
have undergone the appropriate merit-based selection process.
  Let me read a quote from Allen Schick, a congressional expert at the 
Brookings Institution:

       Pork thrives in good times and bad. The problem is not the 
     individual project, but the cumulative effect. . . . When you 
     add up the total, it just blows your mind.

  Now I want to turn to some examples of earmarks in this bill:
  There is $250,000 for the Central California Ozone Study; $500,000 
for the International Pacific Research Center at the University of 
Hawaii; $1 million for the National Coral Reef Institute in Hawaii; 
$3.7 million for the Conservation Institute of the Bronx Zoo; $750,000 
for the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation; $3.35 million for the 
New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College; and $6 
million for the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth University 
for the nanocystalline materials and biomass research initiative.
  There are many more projects on the list that I have compiled, which 
will be available on my Senate Web site.
  Once, again, I must remind my colleagues that the administration has 
urged us to maintain our fiscal discipline to ensure that we will 
continue to have adequate funds to prosecute our war against terrorism, 
to aid those in need, and to cover other related costs. We should let 
the people who run the programs we fund decide how best to spend the 
appropriated funds. After all, they know what their most pressing needs 
are.
  I am also greatly concerned by the Appropriations Committee's 
decision to fund the controversial Advanced Technology Program at 
$184.5 million. In his budget request, the President recommended that 
Congress suspend new funding for ATP, pending a reevaluation of the 
program. The Secretary of Commerce has not released

[[Page 22676]]

the results of that review nor any recommended changes to the program 
to the Commerce Committee. I urge my colleagues to await the results of 
the Secretary's review, before we consider funding this program. As we 
all know, the country is currently involved in both war and economic 
downturn, and this $184.5 million should be spent on higher priorities 
than a welfare program for special corporate interests.
  Furthermore, I am equally concerned that of the $62.4 million in the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology's Construction account, 
$41.5 million is for non-construction related ``pork'' projects. 
Earlier this year, I wrote to the Secretary of Commerce expressing my 
concerns about the physical conditions of the NIST laboratories, home 
of two recent Nobel Prize winners. I am amazed to see that we are more 
concerned about ``pork'' than supporting world-class research 
facilities.
  Several items provided under funding for the State Department stand 
out for their questionable role in advancing American foreign policy 
interests. The report language directs the Department to make available 
$500,000 to the Northern Forum, which works to ``improve international 
communication, cooperation, and opportunities for economic growth in 
northern regions of countries'' around the world. I am from the 
Southwest, so perhaps I am geographically biased, but I have trouble 
understanding how this earmark serves the national interest.
  There is also a $200,000 earmark for a conference in human 
trafficking at the University of Hawaii in this bill. I am pleased the 
conference report does not include language earmarking $9 million for 
the East-West Center, as proposed in the Senate bill, although it does 
contain a plus-up for the center of $500,000, and it does not include 
Senate language earmarking $5 million to the State of Hawaii for 
hosting an Asian Development Bank meeting.
  Five new educational exchange earmarks found their way into this 
conference report, although the report language refers only to 
``$500,000 for one-time seed funding for five new exchange activities 
listed in the Senate chart.'' Since the conference report neglects to 
list them, I will: they are the Jointer Fellowships in War, the Padnos 
International Center, the UNI-Cedar Falls Russo-American Exchange, the 
UNLV Global Business Exchange, and the UNR International Business 
Exchange. In addition, the conferees have generously provided $400,000 
for ``exchanges to build linkages between American and foreign 
musicians and musical institutions.''
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to curb our habit of directing hard-
earned taxpayer dollars to locality-specific special interests.
  Mr. INOUYE. I rise to congratulate and commend Chairman Hollings and 
Senator Gregg and their staff for their tireless work in crafting the 
Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Bill for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State and the Judiciary. Because 
of their efforts, we have before us today a fair bill that puts aside 
partisan politics in favor of delivering to the American people the 
governmental programs and support they need. I know from personal 
experience how difficult it can be to strike balances among competing 
interests, and the introduction of the tragic events of September 11, 
2001, have only compounded these difficulties.
  The efforts of my friends, Chairman Hollings and Senator Gregg, were 
supported by the work of their extraordinary staff. Under the 
leadership of Ms. Lila Helms on the majority side, and Mr. Jim Morhard 
on the minority, this dedicated crew stayed late and came in on 
weekends to help my distinguished colleagues put together a conference 
report that every one of us can vote for with pride.
  Accordingly, I also wish to extend my congratulations to each member 
of Chairman Hollings' staff, Ms. Lila Helms, Ms. Jill Shapiro Long, Mr. 
Luke Nachbar, and Mr. Dereck Orr, and to each member of Mr. Gregg's 
staff, Mr. Jim Morhard, Ms. Katherine Hennessey, Mr. Kevin Linsky, and 
Ms. Nancy Perkins.
  Ladies, gentlemen, my esteemed colleagues, I salute you all.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to vote for the Commerce, 
Justice, State, and the Judiciary, CJS, conference report today. This 
legislation is critical to our continuing efforts to fight terrorism 
and increase homeland security.
  I am troubled, however, that the conference report appropriates only 
$14.4 million for the Police Corps Program, an amount which I believe 
is insufficient to adequately fund this critically important program. I 
strongly support the $30 million level of funding that was included in 
the Senate version of the CJS appropriations bill. The CJS conference 
report before us today slashes the budget of the Police Corps program 
in half. It is more important now than ever before that we work to 
ensure that Americans feel safe within their communities and that our 
Nation's police forces have strong federal support.
  The Police Corps Program helps police and sheriffs' departments to 
increase the number of officers with advanced education and training. 
It provides Federal scholarships to highly motivated students who agree 
to serve as police officers or sheriffs' deputies for at least 4 years. 
Participants in the program are assigned to areas of the country that 
are in the most desperate need for additional officers. All of the 
participants serve on community patrol.
  The benefits of this program can be seen in many ways. By encouraging 
educated young men and women to enter into the police force, Police 
Corps improves the quality of law enforcement in towns and States 
throughout the country. Police Corps reduces the local costs of hiring 
and training new officers by providing Federal funding law enforcement 
training. In addition, the Federal Government pays police departments 
that hire participants $10,000 a year per participant for the first 4 
years of service.
  Police Corps also offers a scholarship program for children of 
officers killed in the line of duty. Eligible children can receive up 
to $30,000 to cover educational expenses. There is no service or 
repayment obligation and the application process is non-competitive. I 
can think of no time in our recent history more appropriate than now, 
in the wake of the terrible loss of police officers on September 11, to 
ensure that this program is adequately funded.
  Every police department in the country is being called upon to 
increase their vigilance, to expand their duties, and to do more to 
respond to the threat of terrorism. Increased funding for the Police 
Corps Program would improve the quality and capabilities of police 
departments throughout the country by educating and training qualified, 
motivated young people. The whole country stands to benefit from this 
program. I deeply regret that the CJS conference report does not 
contain, at a minimum, level funding for the Police Corps Program and 
am saddened that the program has been so drastically cut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I would like to draw attention to what I 
believe is an unconstitutional amendment that was recently added to the 
final conference report of the FY02 Commerce, Justice, State and the 
Judiciary Appropriations Act. This amendment, which was first offered 
by Senator Craig on September 10 in the Senate version of the bill, 
would prohibit any U.S. funds from being used ``for cooperation with, 
or assistance or other support to, the International Criminal Court or 
the Preparatory Commission.''
  The Craig amendment, which was opposed by the administration, seeks 
to prevent our government from having a role in shaping the definition 
of the crime of aggression and other key issues pertaining to the 
International Criminal Court, ICC. It is my belief that this attempt to 
curtail the power of the President to negotiate treaties is 
unconstitutional and I urge the administration to remain engaged in a 
process vital to our country's national security.
  In addition to highlighting the constitutional concerns raised by 
this amendment, I would also like this opportunity to raise a broader 
concern.

[[Page 22677]]

The legislative maneuvering that led to the adoption of this amendment 
follows European Union and German requests that our government refrain 
from adopting anti-ICC legislation. In late October the Belgium Foreign 
Minister Louis Michel wrote on behalf of the European Union to Senator 
Daschle and Secretary of State Colin Powell, expressing the EU's strong 
support for the ICC. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer wrote to 
the Secretary of State directly on October 31, noting that, ``In view 
of the international effort against terrorism . . . it is particularly 
important for the United States and the European Union to act in accord 
in this field too.'' He continued, ``The future International Criminal 
Court will be a valuable instrument for combating the most serious 
crimes. It will provide us with an opportunity to fight with judicial 
means crimes such as the mass murder perpetrated by terrorists in New 
York and Washington on 11 September 2001.''
  While Members of the Senate may have real questions and concerns 
pertaining to the ICC, now is not the time to be pushing legislation 
that undercuts the administration's efforts to work with our closest 
allies in building a strong coalition against terrorism. In addition, 
the President's recent order allowing military tribunals to be created 
for trials involving members of al Qaeda suggests that a long-term 
fight against terrorism will include a variety of legal structures 
ranging from Lockerbie type tribunals to the International Criminal 
Court. It is thus imperative that our government remains engaged in the 
development of the ICC. I strongly hope that the Bush administration 
will do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding, Madam President, that the Senator 
from Arizona, who had the other 15 minutes, is willing to yield back 
his time. I believe that is correct. So I yield back our time on this 
side, and I understand we are setting the vote for 12:45.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time is yielded back.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that all time on the conference 
report be yielded back and the Senate vote on adoption of the report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
final vote on the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report to accompany H. R. 2500. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 340 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

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

                                NAYS--1

       
     McCain
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Torricelli
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________