Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have been reluctant to put the Federal Government in the position of judging the appropriateness of a binding arbitration clause in a private contract. However, I will support the amendment because I believe that in the case, the relative ability of parties to negotiate contract provisions are particularly uneven. My vote should not be interpreted as an indication of my position on future legislation that may be offered on the subject of the Federal Government overriding binding arbitration clauses. I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment, my colleague from Wisconsin, whether, under this amendment, either party to a contract that contains a binding arbitration clause can choose alternatively to go to court to resolve the dispute.

Mr. LEVIN

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. LEVIN. I would suggest the word ``abomination.''

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.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.

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 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. 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.

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. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Hawaii will yield for a moment.

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 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 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. LEVIN. Condition.

Mr. LEVIN. Indeed, we cannot.

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 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. 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. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to make sure that Senator Reid knows precisely what is going on. That is the only reluctance I have. I don't know whether it is even in order without first getting the bill before the Senate and then having the amendment and then setting the bill aside. I want Senator Reid to hear your request.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the Helms amendment regarding U.S. policy concerning the establishment of an International Criminal Court in the future. The Helms amendment, in my judgement, goes too far. The amendment offered by Senator Helms would authorize the use of military force against a friendly country, the Netherlands, where the court might exist, in order to remove a foreign citizen from prison, even if the country of which that person is a citizen might not want that removal. I supported the alternative amendment offered by Senator Dodd which would have required the President to report to the Congress on any additional legislative actions necessary to advance and protect U.S. interests as it relates to the establishment of an International Criminal Court.

Mr. LEVIN. I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, regarding a border security need along our northern border. First, let me commend the chairman for recognizing the many areas of our homeland defense that are in need of funding and for providing that funding in this economic stimulus package. I am especially encouraged to see a large border security initiative that will finally address the lack of resources given to the northern border in the past to ensure the safety and integrity of our northern border without negatively impacting the free flow of commerce. While much has been done over the last decade to improve security on our border with Mexico, the northern border has largely been ignored. For example, only 1,773 Customs Service personnel are present at our border with Canada, while 8,300 protect our southern border. Similarly, while 8,000 Border Patrol agents monitor our 2,000 mile southern border, only 300 are stationed at our 4,000 mile northern border. This policy of neglect must be corrected without delay and I think the additional funding you are recommending will do that. One of the vulnerabilities which has come to light regarding our international bridges and tunnels on our border with Canada is that potentially dangerous vehicles are inspected only after they have crossed into our country. With the increased security risks faced by our Nation in the post-September 11 climate, it seems obvious that inspecting vehicles for dangerous materials such as bombs or explosives after they enter our tunnels or cross our bridges is ineffective, at best. To rectify this homeland security vulnerability, we must work with our neighbors to establish a reverse inspection program that would inspect vehicles before they have entered into our country. This would reduce the possibility that important transportation infrastructure could be endangered or destroyed. One way to move this process forward would be to establish a pilot program on reverse inspection. Customs could work in consultation and partnership with the Canadian Customs Service and identify any hurdles and the details that would need to be worked out. One logical place to start would be in Southeast Michigan where 50 percent of the U.S.- Canada trade traverses the border, and where we have the Ambassador Bridge and Detroit Windsor Tunnel, two of the busiest border crossings. I would like to inquire of Chairman Byrd if he would agree that this is something the Customs Service should take a hard look at?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, November 30 was the eighth anniversary of the signing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The passage of that legislation was a watershed event in the fight against gun violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control statistics cited by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, since the Brady Law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States has dropped 27 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 28,874 in 1999. Even more dramatically, the number of gun homicides dropped by more than 40 percent from 18,253 in 1993 to 10,828 in 1999. While the Brady Law is not the only reason for the decrease, its impact on gun violence cannot be overlooked. Keeping guns out of criminal hands saves lives. The law's requirement that gun purchasers undergo a criminal background check before they can buy a firearm has stopped literally hundreds of thousands of criminals and others prohibited by law from purchasing a gun. The obvious success of the Brady Law should spur us to do more to stop gun violence. A logical step would be to extend the Brady Law's mandatory criminal background check provisions. As it stands, the law only applies to guns sold by Federal firearms licensees. It does not cover gun sales by unlicensed private sellers at gun shows. Despite the evidence that background checks save lives, lobbyists from the National Rifle Association and their allies have fought against legislation to close the ``gun show loophole.'' The Senate should not allow itself to be held hostage by the gun lobby. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting efforts to bring legislation to the floor to close the gun show loophole.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into the Record some important information about guns and terrorists. Currently, shoppers at gun shows may choose to buy firearms from federally licensed firearms dealers--or from unlicensed dealers. Since unlicensed sellers are not required to run Brady background checks, which involves an instant background check for among other things, criminal history, outstanding warrants and illegal immigration status, gun shows are an important source of guns for criminals and terrorists who would not be able to buy weapons in a store. In fact, several cases have linked the purchase of guns at gun shows to terrorists. For example, in Florida, a man accused of having ties to the Irish Republican Army testified that he purchased thousands of dollars worth of machine guns, rifles, and high- powered ammunition at gun shows and proceeded to smuggle them to Ireland. Now more than ever, we must close the gun show loophole. I urge my fellow Senators to support bringing to the floor legislation that will close the gun show loophole.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.