Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. The suggestion of the Senator from Pennsylvania that some $170 million be added for some modification in the President's new budget proposal is proof of the fact that the analysis is necessary because what the Senator is proposing is different now from the administration's budget amendment. That is how fast these things change. That is point No. 1. It seems to me what Senator Santorum is arguing is exact evidence of the fact that we need to complete the analysis which was truncated. My second opinion: This is not a unilateral decision by the administration. No expenditure of funds is unilateral. There is a House of Representatives. There is a Senate. The House of Representatives has decided on a certain source of action, and in that course of action, they do not want this contract canceled. We have to go to conference with whatever we do. This is not just a decision that has been made and it is over. They should have had the analysis before they made the decision. They did not. We should still have the analysis before we decide what is the next course for these Future Combat Systems. It is just possible at least--possible--that when the analysis that was terminated prematurely is completed, that actually might affect the administration's plans. On both points I would have a difference with our friend from Pennsylvania. I yield the floor. The Senator from Oklahoma has been very patient.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania did want an opportunity to respond to some of my comments. If it is consistent with the needs of the Senator from Oklahoma--I should have given that opportunity to our friend from Pennsylvania--perhaps he can now have the opportunity.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?

Mr. LEVIN. While the Senator from Pennsylvania is on the floor, let me comment on one thing he said about the unwillingness of the Army to make the tough decision. The Army was in the middle of an analysis when it was completely truncated unexpectedly against the commitment and statements made by the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense. So they were in the middle of making an analysis. It is not as though they were unwilling to make the analysis. This is important. It is an analysis looking at seven different questions, including what are the risks of proceeding versus the risks of canceling, the alternatives, what are the costs, and what is the cost effectiveness--all of these issues, under six combat scenarios. I think the Senator would agree that these could be life-and-death decisions. Whichever way you come out on these questions, these are life-and-death decisions. The Army is in the middle of an analysis, which they were told at the end of April they should finish by May 30, and on May 6 the Secretary of Defense indicated they decided to terminate. The analysis is important and it addresses many of the same issues the Senator from Pennsylvania addresses. I know what he is after. We want the best system we can possibly get as soon as possible. Relevant to that, surely, is the analysis of the Army looking at seven questions, including force effectiveness, benefit of each alternative; that is an issue that should be looked at, surely. We don't want to ignore what is the force effectiveness benefit of each of the four alternatives. We want to look at the capability of each alternative to support--now I am reading the questions--the capability of each alternative to support a rapidly deployed force in a small-scale contingency. That is one of the questions they are looking at. Six combat scenarios. People say: Gee, could the Crusader have been useful in Afghanistan? That is one of six. What about in a desert situation when the Paladin cannot keep up with the vehicles it is supposed to be supporting? Is that relevant? I know how deeply involved the Senator is and how committed he is to the same goal. These are important questions. To simply, without any explanation, change course twice in 2 weeks, first saying we are going to decide this by September 30, and then saying we are going to decide this by May 30, and then say I just decided--I will soon yield the floor, but I assure the Senator from Pennsylvania that the Army was in the middle of an analysis that was due by the end of this May. This amendment says we want that analysis finished--not just to check on the decision of the Department of Defense to end the Crusader system, but also to help us decide where we want to go in terms of some of the expenditures about which the Senator was talking. It is not just an analysis that helps us decide what course to change from, but what course to change to. That is why we put this provision in here for this analysis. I don't think it makes a huge difference as to whether or not, frankly, we have an analysis and a period of wait or we have an analysis and then reprogramming. In either event, if the Department of Defense stays on its present course after the analysis, after the benefit of that analysis, if they decide after receiving the Army's review of these seven questions and these six scenarios and the four indirect fire alternatives--if the Department of Defense decides they want to stay on the current course, in that case they will not be prevented from doing so under either of the two alternatives--the first-degree amendment or the second-degree amendment. That is why I tell my friend from Virginia and our other colleagues here to accept the second-degree amendment, with the understanding that we would then proceed to a vote with the support of the Senator from Virginia on the first-degree amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Immediately.

Mr. LEVIN. It would be in the Future Combat System line which most of that money would be spent even under the proposal of the Secretary of Defense, his budget amendment, for the Future Combat System. Under both approaches, if the decision of the Secretary of Defense, following the completion of the Army analysis, is not to proceed with Crusader, the money will not be spent for Crusader. There is no difference between our approaches, as I understand it. The difference would be that under our amendment, he would seek reprogramming. If any of the four committees did not grant them reprogramming, then the money would not be spent on Crusader. It would have to be spent within the Future Combat System.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the reason this amendment--with or without the second degree--is so critical is that the decisionmaking process that has been used here has been so defective and denies the Army, the public, and the Congress critically important information relative to the need for future artillery systems. That information should have been available prior to the decision of the Department of Defense. Instead, there has been a zigzag decisionmaking process. That zigzag decisionmaking process should not have been followed because it leaves us without answers to the critically important questions about relative risks under various scenarios, under various kinds of combinations of artillery systems. I want to go through just a bit of that to give a flavor as to why it is so important that this analysis of the Army be reasonably completed and not be truncated or terminated a few days after it was supposed to begin in May. This field artillery system, called Crusader, which is an advanced field artillery system, has been under development since 1994 to be the Army's next-generation self-propelled howitzer and artillery resupply vehicle. There has been criticism of the Crusader program outside of the Department of Defense, and that is to be welcomed. It is always to be considered when we get that kind of criticism of a system. Congress should consider that criticism, and we have. But until very recently, the civilian and military leadership of the Defense Department consistently and strongly supported the Crusader program in testimony before the Congress. The fiscal year 2003 budget that was submitted by the President for the Department of Defense was submitted on February 4 of this year. That budget and the authorization bill that is before us included $475 million in continued research and development funding for the Crusader program. On February 28, General Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified before the Congress that: Crusader's agility to keep up with our ground maneuver forces--its longer range, its high rate of fire, its precision . . . and the addition of Excalibur--would bring the potential of a precision weapon . . . with the platform and the munition being brought together, [and] would be a significant increase to the potential shortage of fires that we have today. Excalibur itself will not solve the problem. And Crusader is very much a part of our requirement. ``The bottom line''--quoting General Shinseki's testimony to our committee on March 7--``is we need it.'' That is referring to the Crusader. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently testified in response to a question of whether we need Crusader as follows: I think we need some of it, a lot fewer than the Army had planned on. We have cut the program by almost two-thirds. And they have done a lot to cut the size and the weight of the system. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz said the following: But I am not one of those people who think that I can bet the farm on not needing artillery ten years from now. He summarized: And I think this [Crusader] is the best artillery system available. That was just a few days before they reversed field. Something changed dramatically in the attitude of the senior civilian leadership of the Defense Department toward the Crusader program in just a matter of a few weeks. The first change of course actually came in late April. The media reported--and I was told personally--that the Office of the Secretary of Defense would be reviewing the Crusader and other weapons systems during the program review process leading up to the fiscal year 2004 budget, and that a decision on the program would be made around September 1. This was documented in the recent Army IG Report on The Release of Crusader Talking Points to Members of Congress, which noted that prior to April 30, the Defense Guidance indicated that a Crusader alternatives study would be completed no later than September of 2002. Then came the second change of course. On May 2, Secretary Rumsfeld told the press that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Under Secretary Aldridge had ``advised the Secretary of the Army that they wanted a study within 30 days that would look at a specific alternative that would assume Crusader was canceled.'' On May 2, the Secretary of Defense told the press that within 30 days a study would be looking at alternatives to Crusader. Secretary Rumsfeld went on to say it was his impression that ``when the study comes back, a final decision would be made.'' In other words, no final decision until the 30-day study period was completed. The same day, May 2, Under Secretary Aldridge also told the press: We'll brief the deputy secretary in 30 days, and then we'll make a decision is this the right plan or may not be the right plan. We're allowing the Army to tell us if that is in fact the case, being as objective as possible . . . so we have a basis for an analytical judgment based on rational and objective criteria. That is Under Secretary Aldridge on May 2. Thirty days, so we have rational and objective criteria. Less than a week later comes change of course No. 3. On May 8, before the 30-day study is completed, Secretary Rumsfeld announces: After a good deal of consideration, I have decided to cancel the Crusader program. We still do not have any study based on rational and objective criteria to support that decision, and that zigzag decisionmaking process did not end with the decision to terminate the program. On May 16, the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the proposed termination. At that hearing, the Secretary of Defense testified that the Crusader money be spent ``to accelerate a variety of precision munitions, including GPS-guided rounds for all U.S. 155- millimeter cannons, as well as adding GPS guidance and accuracy to upgraded multiple-launch rocket system vehicles and the more mobile wheeled version of this system, the high mobility artillery rocket system, or HIMARS.'' The Secretary also testified that the Department would maintain key pieces of Crusader technology for use in the Army's Future Combat System. At the same hearing, the Chief of Staff of the Army testified he could not comment on the Secretary's proposed alternatives to the Crusader program because he had not had the opportunity to analyze those alternatives or to review any analysis that may have been conducted by the Secretary's office. Nonetheless, the Department of Defense formalized these alternatives in a budget amendment that was submitted to the Congress on May 29. That budget amendment provided $195 million for the artillery component of the Army Future Combat System; $115 million for other aspects of the Future Combat System; $165 million for precision artillery and other initiatives unrelated to the Future Combat System. Even after the committee had its hearing, the Department of Defense and the Army continued to provide the committee with inconsistent information. On May 22, the Army informed the committee that it would cost $385 million if termination were delayed until early next year. On June 5, 2 weeks later, the Department of Defense informed the committee that it would cost $584 million if the termination were delayed until early next year. We have a $200 million difference, about an 80-percent increase in costs in just a matter of 2 weeks. On May 22, the Army informed the committee that it would cost $290 million to terminate the Crusader program immediately. On June 10, we were told the termination costs could be reduced to less than $100 million if the Department entered into a bridge contract to transfer Crusader technologies to the Future Combat System and made a commitment to follow on FCS contracts with the Crusader contract. It is possible, Madam President, that the Department's budget amendment takes the right approach for the future of the Army. It is possible. But this kind of ad hoc decisionmaking, this zigzag change of course, is not the way in which we should make decisions which are life-and-death decisions for the people we put in harm's way and could be life-and-death decisions, indeed, for whether or not this country wins a battle in the years ahead. It is important we take this step back and conduct the reasoned analysis before deciding how to proceed. My amendment would provide for that analysis to be completed. The second-degree amendment of the Senator from Virginia also provides the same time period, as I understand it, for this reasoned analysis to take place. The difference between these amendments--and I have not yet decided, because I have not had an opportunity to read the exact language of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, as to what my position will be on his second-degree amendment. But as I understand the difference, it is whether or not, after the analysis is completed by the Army, after there is a recommendation by the Department of Defense, there is either a period where there would be a request for reprogramming or whether there would be a 30-day wait period without that reprogramming process. That difference may sound more significant than it really is. The reason is that under the language of my amendment, if reprogramming is not adopted, the money is nonetheless required to be spent in the Future Combat System budget line. It will not be spent for Crusader unless there is a reverse in decision relative to Crusader, a reversal by the Secretary of Defense. As I understand the language--and I want to study it--in the second- degree amendment, the 30-day period would be provided so that if a decision were made by the Secretary of Defense following the completion of this objective analysis, there would be 30 days available for the Congress to act to reverse that decision should it choose to do so. In either event, under either the first-degree amendment or the second-degree amendment, if the Secretary of Defense decided after receiving the Army analysis that he did not want to finish Crusader under either the first-degree amendment or the second-degree amendment, there would not be funding for Crusader. So there is no difference in that sense. Under both amendments, if the Secretary's decision following the analysis is not to complete Crusader, the money will not be spent to complete Crusader. The difference is more subtle than that. I yield the floor to give others a chance to speak. I want an opportunity to study the language in the second-degree amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, momentarily, I will be offering an amendment on behalf of the majority of the Senate Armed Services Committee which addresses the Crusader artillery system program and the Army's fire support requirements. The amendment would do two things: First, it would take $475.6 million out of the Crusader program and put the money into a separate funding line for Future Combat Systems research and development, the Army's armored systems modernization line. In terms of making sure this issue is very clear, it is essential to understand that the first action this amendment would take would be to move that $475 million from the Crusader program but keeping it in the Army's Future Combat Systems research and development program; that is, the Army's armored systems modernization line. It would do a second thing which was very important to the majority of the Armed Services Committee; that is, that it would require the Chief of Staff of the Army to conduct an analysis of alternatives for the Army's artillery needs and to submit his findings to the Secretary of Defense no later than 1 month after the date of enactment of this bill. Under this amendment, the Department would not be permitted to spend the $475 million until after the Secretary of Defense adds his own conclusions and recommendations to the Army Chief of Staff's report and forwards the report to the Congress. With his own decision, the Secretary of Defense would, under our amendment, be required to submit the recommendations of the Chief of Staff of the Army. They may be two different recommendations, as they were during the hearing that we had, where we had the Secretary of Defense saying the Crusader should be terminated immediately, and the Chief of Staff of the Army giving us the reasons he believed the Crusader system made sense in terms of modernization, made sense in terms of transformation. It was a very important hearing for all of us, including the Presiding Officer, who was present at that hearing. At that point, after that period had run--1 month after the date of enactment--the Secretary would be free to do a number of things: spend the money for future combat systems in that account or request a reprogramming to spend the money on other programs which address the Army's indirect fire requirements. So under our approach, we would accomplish two things, basically: One, we would make sure this money is spent for future combat systems essential to the Army; secondly, we would provide that the Army complete the analysis, which was truncated, which was interrupted when the Secretary of Defense, in early May, said it was his decision to terminate the system before that analysis could be completed. This was an analysis which was going to look at a number of very critical issues. The Army was looking at seven questions, questions which were critical to the survival of soldiers in our future. These are questions which could be life-and-death questions down the road. These are survival questions. These are questions which affect the men and women in the Armed Forces at some point down the road. How these questions are answered could literally make the difference between whether or not we prevail during a battle and what casualties are incurred during a battle at some time in the future. These were not just questions of affordability at which the Army was looking, these were questions of capability, of various alternatives. Four indirect fire alternatives were being analyzed by the Army. They were analyzing these alternatives in six different combat scenarios. And they were going to answer seven questions. Again, the answers to those questions are critically important to success in combat or to survive in combat. The majority of the committee objected to the termination of that analysis. Many people had concluded that Crusader ought to be canceled. Other people had concluded that Crusader should not be canceled. But I think where many of us--perhaps most of us--in the Armed Services Committee finally rested, wherever you tend to go or be on that continuum, for or against, that there is a middle ground here, where that analysis, which was underway by the Army, not only would help us determine whether we should leave Crusader, terminate Crusader, but would also help us determine where those funds should be spent as an alternative to Crusader. So this study became significant and relevant to both whether we leave our current path and to what new direction should we move. That is why the amendment, which I offered in committee, required that the Secretary of the Army be given a reasonable period of time to complete that analysis so that we would have the benefit of the Army's analysis. The Secretary of Defense would not be bound by it. The Secretary of Defense, after that analysis was completed, would have an opportunity to reach his own conclusions. They may or may not be the same. They may or may not be, as he has already decided, that we should leave Crusader and move to something else. But at least it would be based on an analysis which addressed such critically important questions as the Army was in the process of addressing--looking at all the alternatives, looking at the risks, looking at the benefits of approaching each one of those or utilizing each one of those alternatives. The committee approved this amendment by a vote of 13 to 6. And that is where it currently stands. The amendment which we adopted is not part of this bill. It is, in effect, going to be offered in a few moments as a proposed committee amendment. More technically stated, it is an amendment which I will be offering on behalf of the committee because, since this is a new bill which was filed, a committee amendment technically would not be in order. So it amounts to the same thing. But for those on the Armed Services Committee, they should be aware of the fact that this will be an amendment which I will be offering on behalf of the committee pursuant to the majority vote of that committee. In conclusion, the amendment would simply require the Department of Defense to undertake a reasoned analysis of all the alternatives, an analysis which the Army was in the middle of making, before making a final decision whether to terminate the Crusader program and, if the program is terminated, how the money should best be spent to support the Army's indirect fire needs. The objective is not to preserve a particular program or to advance a particular approach. It is simply intended to ensure a reasoned analysis of a potentially life-and-death issue. I hope we will adopt this approach. I understand my dear friend and colleague from Virginia, our ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, may be offering a second-degree amendment. Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I am authorized by the committee to send that amendment to the desk. I wish to make clear there is one very technical change in the amendment. I have stricken the words that are confusing, ``organic-to- unit.'' Those words have been stricken from the amendment adopted by the committee. I have touched base with at least one key Senator on the committee who is very supportive of proceeding with Crusader. I have touched base with my ranking member on this issue. There is no objection to those words being stricken in a number of places to provide greater clarity. I ask that the amendment be immediately considered.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for 2 minutes for a quick response?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Hamilton, a defense fellow in Senator Mikulski's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Levin and Ms. Stabenow pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 287 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am submitting today, along with my colleague Senator Stabenow, a resolution congratulating the Detroit Red Wings, who on June 13th, 2002, defeated the Carolina Hurricanes 3-1 to win their third Stanley Cup in six years. With this victory, the Wings have further solidified their position as one of the most storied teams in all sports by bringing Lord Stanley's Cup home to Hockeytown for a 10th time. Few doubted that this year's team could make a run at the Cup. Many have argued that this was the greatest hockey roster ever assembled. The last names alone evoke hockey greatness. Along with long time stars like Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, and Shanahan, this season's team included future hall of famers by the names of Hull, Robitaille, and Hasek. It was a team assembled to win, and in the end, that goal was reached. This is not a story of individual talent, though surely there was a surplus of that. This is a story of teamwork and dedication. Despite the phenomenal play by Detroit's stars, they would not have succeeded had it not been for the contributions of players like Igor Larionov, Tomas Holmstrom, Kris Draper, Darren MacCarty and Steve Duchesne. Their selfless dedication was exemplified by Duchesne, who sat out only one shift, about ten minutes, after losing six teeth to an errant puck. During the season many critics claimed that while Detroit had talent, the team was too old to endure the grueling playoffs, which last for over two months. They claimed that the Wings, who average over 30 years of age and have seven players over 35, would succumb to injury or fatigue against younger competition. However as the playoffs progressed, the team only grew stronger. All questions were put to rest in game three of the playoffs when 41 year old Igor Larionov scored two goals including the game winner in the third overtime. Though the Wings are known for their powerful offense, it was their smothering defense which led to their victory. Throughout the playoffs, their defense kept the number of scoring chances for the opposing team to a bare minimum. The anchor of the Detroit defense was Nicklas Lidstrom who averaged over 31 minutes per game throughout the playoffs and over 35 minutes during the finals. For his exceptional contributions, he was awarded the Conn Smythe trophy as the Most Valuable player in the Playoffs. Special recognition is also due to the Red Wings Captain, Steve Yzerman, who has been the team captain since 1986. During his career in the Motor City, this humble star has amassed 175 playoff points, besting the great Gordie Howe for the team record. For this year's playoffs, Yzerman led the team with 23 points, second in the NHL. Along with holding the team record for playoff goals, Stevie, as he is fondly known in Detroit, is the motivational leader of the team. When things were going poorly in the series against Vancouver, it was Yzerman who gave the motivational speech which led to a Wings victory and a tide shift in the series--all of this despite a knee which will need reconstructive surgery this off-season. This victory also marks the end of an era, not only for Detroit, but for the NHL. Soon after the game ended, Scotty Bowman, the Red Wings coach since 1993, announced his retirement. When Scotty came to Detroit nine years ago, we had been without the Cup for nearly four decades. However, during his tenure, the Wings made it to the payoffs seven of eight years, and won the Stanley Cup three times. With this, his ninth Stanley Cup, victory Scotty also surpasses his mentor Toe Blake with the most cups in NHL history and joins Red Auerbach and Lakers coach Phil Jackson among the coaches with the most championship victories in major sports. I join with every Detroiter in saying, ``Thank you Scotty.'' Hockey has long been a second religion in Detroit. I fondly remember going to Red Wings games as a kid with my big brother, Sander-- Congressman Levin now--and our mother. Those teams were also filled with future hall of famers: Sid Abel, Gordie Howe, Teddy Lindsay. These players and other Wings alumni established a winning tradition which continues to this day. Yesterday, Senator Stabenow and I joined over a million fans in congratulating this fantastic team. The celebration was not only an outpouring of emotion and a celebration of talent, it was an affirmation of Detroit's title as Hockeytown. During the ceremonies, I had the opportunity to say thanks and farewell to Scotty Bowman. I also had the pleasure of chatting with Stevie Yzerman and his family. I wish him a speedy recovery from his surgery. More than anything else, he and the rest of the wings have been mentors to our children--along with being incredible hockey players on the ice they are charitable public citizens and dedicated family members . I know my Senate Colleagues will join me and hockey fans around the country in congratulating the Red Wings for bringing hockey's ``Holy Grail'' back to Hockeytown.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, as we have recently passed June 13, I want to discuss the demise of the Anti-Ballistic Missile ABM Treaty that ceased to exist after that date. I believe it is important to help a record of how this important treaty was brought to its end. The ABM Treaty was signed by President Nixon in 1972 with the Soviet Union as an important element of U.S.-Soviet arms control and strategic stability. It served to prevent an arms race in defensive weapons that would have led to larger offensive nuclear missile forces. It thus helped pave the way for negotiated limits and reductions in strategic arms. It was supported by every U.S. President until President George W. Bush, including Presidents Ford, Reagan and the first President Bush. The ABM Treaty affected only defenses against long-range, or strategic, ballistic missiles, those missiles with ranges of 5,500 kilometers or more. It has no effect on defenses against missiles of shorter ranges, which are the only missiles that endanger our troops and allies today, and against which we have designed and built the Patriot theater missile defense system and helped develop Israel's Arrow missile defense system. Both the United States and the Soviet Union saw this treaty as a central component of their efforts to ensure mutual security. Russia, like the Soviet Union before it, saw the ABM Treaty as one of the foundations for the structure of arms control and security arrangements that had been carefully built over three decades to reduce the risk of nuclear war. As late as June 2000, at their Moscow summit, President Clinton and President Putin issued a joint statement emphasizing the importance of the ABM Treaty. That statement said the two Presidents ``agree on the essential contribution of the ABM Treaty to reductions in offensive forces, and reaffirm their commitment to that treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability.'' It also stated that ``The Presidents reaffirm their commitment to continuing efforts to strengthen the ABM Treaty and to enhance its viability and effectiveness in the future, taking into account any changes in the international security environment.'' Last December 13, President Bush announced that the United States would unilaterally withdrawn from the treaty. The treaty permits either side to withdraw from the treaty upon six months notice if either side decides that ``extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.'' Although President Bush and members of his administration said they would try to modify the treaty to permit the development, testing and deployment of a limited National Missile Defense system, in the end they did not offer an amendment to the Russians. When he was campaigning for the presidency, then-Governor Bush gave a speech at The Citadel on September 23, 1999, in which he stated the following: ``we will offer Russia the necessary amendments to the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty--an artifact of the Cold War confrontation.'' He went on to say: ``If Russia refuses the changes we will give prompt notice, under the provisions of the Treaty, that we can no longer be a party to it.'' That seems to be a clear and straightforward position. Candidate Bush said that the United States would offer amendments to the Russians to modify the treaty so as to permit the deployment of missile defense systems, and if Russia refused the amendments the President would withdraw the United States from the treaty. But the administration didn't propose any amendments to the treaty that would permit it to remain in effect in a modified form that, in turn, would have permitted the testing and deployment of limited missiles defenses. Instead, we tried to sell Russia on the idea of abandoning the treaty, not modifying it. That was something the Russians were never going to accept. Last year it was difficult to get a clear answer from the administration on its missile defense plans for fiscal year 2002, and whether they would be inconsistent with the ABM Treaty. First, Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization told us in June that he knew of no planned missile defense testing activities that would conflict with the treaty. Later in June, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told us he didn't know whether there would be a conflict because, even after the budget had been submitted to Congress, the missile defense program was undecided. Then in July, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said that our planned missile defense activities would inevitably ``bump up'' against the treaty in a manner of months, not years. He also said that by the time a planned missile defense activity encounters ABM Treaty constraints, ``we fully hope and intend to have reached an understanding with Russia'' on a new security framework with Russia that would include missile defenses. Next came an announcement on October of last year by Secretary Rumsfeld that several planned missile defense tests were being postponed because they could have violated the treaty, even though one of the tests had already been postponed previously for entirely different technical reasons. Finally, the President announced on December 13th that the United States would unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty to permit testing and development of missile defenses, something Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz had previously called a ``less than optimal'' choice. During all months of discussions and negotiations with the Russians we never heard details of any amendments proposed by the United States to modify the permit limited missile defenses. At the end we didn't offer an amendment to the treaty. Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged this fact in a letter dated May 2, 2002 after I wrote him in January to ask whether the United States had, in fact, ever presented Russia with any proposed amendments or modifications to the treaty. ``The direct answer to your question,'' wrote Secretary Powell, ``is that we did not table a proposed amendment to the ABM Treaty.'' The administration has made much of the argument that the ABM Treaty was the reason we could not develop and test missile defense technologies adequately, and thus the treaty was keeping us defenseless against ballistic missiles. Madam President, now that the ABM Treaty has ceased to exist, I expect the administration to assert that they are finally free to make unconstrained progress toward defenses against long-range ballistic. As one example, they plan to begin construction of a missile defense test facility in Alaska, even though that would have been permitted under the treaty. Congress authorized this construction last year, and they could have begun construction while the treaty was still in force. I expect they will also start to conduct a number of tests that would not have been permitted under the treaty, but which will not significantly advance the state of missile defense technology in the near term. All this may make good political theater, but it will not suddenly make possible rapid progress toward effective missile defenses because it wasn't the treaty that was preventing such progress; If these technologies prove workable, it will still take many years of rigorous development, integration, testing, and refinement, and probably hundreds of billions of dollars, to produce operationally effective missile defenses--even without the ABM Treaty. And or course, even if they prove to be technologically feasible and affordable, limited missile defenses still could be readily overwhelmed or spoofed by decoys and countermeasures that Russia or China might develop and possibly provide to others. In 1999, the intelligence community stated publicly that ``Russia and China each have developed numerous countermeasures and probably are willing to sell the requisite technologies.'' This would only make the task of developing missile defenses more difficult, more time consuming and more expensive. So although the ABM Treaty will come to an end after 30 years, its absence will not suddenly permit effective missile defenses. That task will remain inherently difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Furthermore, there may be long-term consequences of our withdrawal that we cannot yet foresee, but which may make us less secure. For example, two weeks ago it was reported that Japanese officials indicated the possibility that Japan may feel a need to pursue its own nuclear weapons. This was in response to Japanese concerns about China's increasing nuclear forces, which in turn seems to be, at least in part, a Chinese response to our pursuit of defenses against long- range ballistic missiles. Our security will not be enhanced if China increases or accelerates its nuclear missile forces, or if Japan then decides to pursue its own nuclear weapons. Madam President, this is just one recent example of the kind of repercussions or consequences that may result from our unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Other nations will act in their own self interest, and if our actions make other nations feel less secure, they will act in a manner designed to preserve their security--even if it makes us less secure. In a world with nuclear weapons, the United States cannot be secure by making other nations feel insecure. If our ballistic missile defense efforts make other nations feel less secure, they could take actions that would reduce our security. We cannot yet foresee all the long-term reverberations from our decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. By taking a unilateral approach, it makes it more likely that others will act unilaterally as well. That is not the best way to increase mutual security and international stability. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the correspondence between Secretary of State Powell and myself on this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in behalf of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to bring the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to the floor. This bill would fully fund the fiscal year 2003 budget request of the administration of $393.3 billion for the national security activities for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. In the first 41 days of congressional session this year, the Armed Services Committee held 41 hearings to examine the administration's budget request and related issues. Last month, after meeting in markup for 3 days, the committee approved S. 2514, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. I thank all the members of committee for their hard work on this bill. There were two close votes on two funding issues that caused a few of our members to vote against the bill at the end, which, of course, we regret. But except for those two issues, I think we probably would have had a unanimous vote on our committee. As we take up this bill, America's Armed Forces are engaged around the world as never before. In the months since September 11, we have dispatched troops not only to Afghanistan but also to Pakistan, the Philippines, the countries of central Asia and the Persian Gulf. We called up the National Guard to assist in contingency operations and to assist in safeguarding our borders and protecting our airports. All of this has been done without relieving our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines of ongoing deployments in Korea, the Balkans, Colombia, and elsewhere. This year, as much as ever before, we owe it to our men and women in uniform to act on this bill with dispatch. The events following September 11 have once again shown that the U.S. military is the most capable fighting force in the world. The success of our forces in Afghanistan has been remarkable. Osama bin Laden--if he is alive--is on the run and in hiding. Many of his al-Qaida terrorists have been captured or killed. The Taliban regime that harbored them is no more, and a new government is in place. Nations around the world have been put on notice: America is determined to protect itself from more attacks and to bring terrorists to justice. From Europe to the Persian Gulf to the Korean Peninsula, the presence of U.S. military forces and their contributions to regional peace and security continue to reassure our allies and deter potential adversaries. Over the last decade, U.S. forces have excelled in every mission assigned to them, including not only Operation Enduring Freedom, but also the 1999 NATO air campaign over Kosovo and ongoing enforcement of the no-fly zones over Iraq; humanitarian operations from Central America to Africa; and peacekeeping operations from the Balkans to East Timor. The excellence behind that success was not built in months. The success of our forces in Afghanistan is a tribute to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the investments in national defense that Congress and the Department of Defense have made over many years. Future success on the battlefield will likewise depend upon the success of Congress and the Department in preparing, training, and equipping our military for tomorrow's missions. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 builds on the considerable strengths of our military forces and their record of success. The Armed Services Committee identified five priorities to guide us in preparing this bill. These were to: No. 1, continue the improvements in the compensation and quality of life of the men and women in the Armed Forces, retirees and their families; No. 2, sustain the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned mission, including current and future operations against international terrorism; No. 3, improve the efficiency of Defense Department programs and operations and apply the savings toward high-priority programs; No. 4, improve the ability of the Armed Forces to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; and No. 5, promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century. First, compensation and quality of life: The bill reflects the committee's highest priority--ensuring that our men and women in uniform, retirees and their families receive the compensation and quality of life they deserve. Toward that end, we added more than $1.2 billion to the budget request for pay and quality of life initiatives. Specifically, the bill includes a 4.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel, with an additional targeted pay raise for the mid-career force; adds $640 million above the budget request to improve and replace facilities on military installations; and authorizes a new assignment incentive pay of up to $1,500 per month to reward military members who agree to serve in difficult-to-fill assignments. The bill would also begin to address a longstanding inequity in the compensation of military retirees by authorizing the concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for military retirees with disabilities rated at 60% or more. During our markup, the committee approved a separate amendment that would authorize concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for all disabled military retirees for non-disability retirement. Senator Warner and I plan to offer this amendment on behalf of the committee at the earliest possible point in the debate of this bill. With regard to readiness, we propose to set aside $10 billion, as requested by the administration, to fund ongoing operations in the war against international terrorism during fiscal year 2003. The President requested that this money be reserved for the continuance of the war against international terrorism, and we believe that there is no more important purpose to which this funding could be dedicated. However, the Department is not yet in a position to state how long the war on terrorism will continue, or in what form, or to specify the specific programs for which the requested funds would be used. For this reason, the provision recommended by the committee would authorize for appropriation the $10 billion requested by the President upon receipt of a budget request which: No. 1, designates the requested amount as being essential to the continued war on terrorism; and No. 2, specifies how the administration proposes to use the requested funds, consistent with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, P.L. 107-40. In addition, the bill would add funding to address shortfalls in a number of key readiness accounts and help lessen the burden on some of the Department's high demand, low density assets. These funding increases include $126 million to protect and enhance military training ranges; $232 million for aircraft, ship, and Navy gun depot maintenance; $176 million for improvements to Air Force and Army facilities; $51 million for ammunition to meet new training requirements and supplement war reserve stocks; $55 million to address the Army's aviation training backlog; $110 million for the purchase of an additional EC-130J Commando Solo aircraft; and $114 million for modifications to help improve the readiness of the EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft fleet. Relative to combating terrorism, the bill before us would take a significant step towards addressing nontraditional threats by providing in excess of $10 billion for combating terrorism initiatives, as requested by the Department, including more than $2 billion for force protection improvements to DOD installations around the world. In addition, the bill would provide increases of $200 million to enhance the security of our nuclear materials and nuclear weapons in the Department of Energy, $43 million in funding for the U.S. Special Operations Commands, and $30 million for defense against chemical and biological weapons and other efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction. We have also included two important legislative initiatives that would require the Department of Defense to take a more comprehensive approach to installation preparedness for weapons of mass destruction attacks and authorize the Secretary of Defense to expand cooperative threat reduction activities beyond the countries of the former Soviet Union. Relative to transformation, the bill would provide significant funds to promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century. In particular, the bill would add more than $1.1 billion to the Navy's shipbuilding accounts to refuel a nuclear submarine and pay for advance procurement of an aircraft carrier, a Virginia-class submarine, a DDG-51 class destroyer, and an LPD-17 class amphibious transport dock. Our bill would add $105 million for funding for research and development on the Army's Future Combat System and more than $100 million for science and technology needed to help the Army achieve its Objective Force. It would fully fund the $5.2 billion requested by the Department for the F- 22, the $3.5 billion requested for continued research and development on the Joint Strike Fighter, and more than $600 million requested for Air Force unmanned aerial vehicles. It would add more than $300 million to the Department's science and technology budget, bringing the Department closer to the Secretary's goal of devoting 3 percent of all defense funds to the programs that promise to bring us the revolutionary technologies that will be needed to prevail in future conflicts. Relative to the Crusader Artillery System, in the middle of our committee markup of this bill the Secretary of Defense announced that he intended to terminate the Crusader Artillery System. This is a system which the Department of Defense had strongly supported until just a few days earlier. Because the committee had no opportunity to review the reasons for this sudden reversal, we did not address this issue in our markup. Instead, we scheduled a hearing with the Secretary of Defense and the Army Chief of Staff to consider the merits of the program. At that hearing, the Secretary of Defense favored termination. The Army Chief of Staff testified that the system was very important and very necessary and, as a matter of fact, an important part of transformation. The Chief of Staff is a very strong supporter of transformation. I think we all--as we perhaps will be debating the Crusader System-- should recognize the contribution of the Army Chief of Staff to the transformation of the Army. He is not one who has resisted transformation. He has been a very strong supporter of transformation, and he views the Crusader Artillery System--or viewed this at the time he testified--as an important part of that transformation. On June 13, the committee met to discuss the Crusader Artillery System. At that time, the committee voted 13 to 6 to recommend an amendment that would do two things. First, it would take the $475 million out of the Crusader program and put the money into a separate funding line for future combat systems research and development. This is the Army's armored systems modernization line. Second, we would require the Army Chief of Staff, in our amendment, to conduct an analysis--or finish his analysis--of alternatives for the Army's artillery needs and to submit his findings to the Secretary of Defense no later than 1 month after the date of enactment of this act. This approach would enable the Secretary of Defense to terminate the Crusader program following the receipt of the Army's analysis which was truncated. The Army, in late April, was told that it could complete its analysis by the end of this fiscal year. And then, in early May, it was told that it could have until the end of May to complete this analysis. I emphasize the importance of this analysis. The Army's analysis is intended to answer seven questions. I am not going to go through them all, but I am simply going to say these are important questions. These are important questions for the future well-being of the men and women in the Army. They are critical questions. They have to do with risk. What are the risks in proceeding? What are the risks in canceling? These are questions which the Army was in the middle of analyzing when suddenly, a few days into May, despite the earlier decision to allow the completion of this analysis by the end of May, the Secretary of Defense simply said: We are going to terminate. Seven questions were to be answered. And I emphasize, these are questions which can be life-and-death questions for the men and women in the future armies of this country. They were going to analyze these questions in six combat scenarios. They were going to look at four different alternatives. We believe the answers to those questions in that analysis should be completed. The amendment, which I will offer on behalf of the committee, as I promised to the committee I would offer early in this debate, was adopted, as I said, by a 13-to-6 vote. We hope the Senate will approve this amendment. We think it is the correct balance. Not only should we have that information before we or the Defense Department--either one of us--finally decide on termination, that analysis is important as to how best to spend that money. Where should we jump to? Even if we, this Nation, decide to jump from Crusader, even if we take whatever risks are involved--and there are risks involved in that--the decision also involves, Where do we then allocate those funds? How do we allocate those funds? And that analysis is critically important to that issue as well. We hope our amendment will address both those issues in a rational, thoughtful way. Congress has a responsibility also to ensure that the resources our taxpayers provide for national defense are spent wisely. The administration has not complied with statutory requirements to provide Congress with a national security strategy and an annual report outlining detailed plans for the size, structure, shape, or transformation of the military. In the absence of that planning, again, required by law, the Department of Defense is going to have difficulty establishing a clear vision for the future for our Armed Forces. But a year ago, the Secretary of Defense testified before us saying: ``We have an obligation to taxpayers to spend their money wisely.'' He said that he had ``never seen an organization, in the private or public sector,'' to use his words, ``that could not, by better management, operate at least five percent more efficiently if given the freedom to do so. Five percent of the DOD budget,'' he pointed out, ``is over $15 billion!'' He testified that that $15 billion of savings from management efficiencies could be used to: increase ship procurement from six to nine ships a year; to procure several hundred additional aircraft annually rather than 189. He could meet the target of a 67-year facility replacement rate, and those savings could increase defense- related science and technology funding from 2.7 percent to 3 percent for the Department of Defense budget. To this date, it has been disappointing that the Department has identified less than $150 million of the $15 billion annual savings projected by the Secretary. Despite the largest proposed increase in defense spending in 20 years, the budget request would fund just 5 ships and 166 aircraft, way below the goals; replace facilities at a 122-year rate instead of the 67-year rate, which is desirable. It would leave the rate of defense-related science and technology unchanged at just 2.7 percent of the Department of Defense budget instead of the 3- percent target which is desirable. In short, despite the proposed $48 billion increase in defense spending, management efficiencies are needed now more than ever to ensure the taxpayers' money is well spent. Our bill includes a number of provisions to help address this problem, including a major initiative, based on recommendations of the Defense Science Board and the DOD Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to address budget shortfalls and organizational shortcomings in the Department's test and evaluation infrastructure that have led to inadequate testing of major weapons systems. It would provide for a continuation of last year's initiative by the committee to improve the way in which the Department manages its $50 billion of services contracts with resulting savings of $850 million. We include a provision that would address the Department's inability to produce reliable financial information and achieve $400 million of savings by deferring spending on new financial systems that would be inconsistent with a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture currently being developed by the Department. We include a provision requiring the Department to establish new internal controls to address recurring problems with the abuse of purchase cards and travel cards by military and civilian personnel. In the area of missile defense, the bill would reallocate $812 million for missile defense expenditures that appear to be unjustified or duplicative to higher priority areas. The bill would transfer $690 million from missile defense activities to fund advanced procurement of a second Virginia-class submarine as soon as fiscal year 2005; advanced procurement for a second LPD-17 amphibious transport dock in fiscal year 2004; and advanced procurement for a third DDG-51 Arleigh Burke- class destroyer in fiscal year 2004. Every defense budget requires choices, as every other budget of every other Department. Even with more than $390 billion to spend for national security activities, the administration was not able to fund every important national security priority. Each of the military services came to us with a long list of unfunded priorities, items not included in their budget, which they believe to be important to the national defense. There was unanimous agreement among the members of the Armed Services Committee that the President's budget did not provide adequate resources to maintain the Navy's surface fleet or attack submarines. The committee received extensive testimony from DOD witnesses and numerous DOD and Navy reports indicating that the Navy should be building 8 to 10 ships per year to recapitalize its current fleet. A number of Navy witnesses, including the chief of naval operations, have indicated they believe that the Navy should be building a fleet with as many as 375 ships in order to meet the requirements the Navy faces today. Two years ago, the Navy's shipbuilding plan called for 23 ships between 2003 and 2005. This year's plan calls for only 17 ships during that period. The Department's proposed budget for missile defense was not even reviewed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Earlier this year, each of the four service chiefs testified before the Armed Services Committee that they had not been asked for their views on the funding for missile defense programs relative to other priorities in the budget--all those unmet requirements that they told us about. They were not asked to weigh the importance of the missile defense budget against those other needed items. The committee, and the subcommittee chaired by Senator Jack Reed, conducted an exhaustive examination of the proposed missile defense budget, holding two strategic subcommittee hearings alone on missile defense, reviewing 400 pages of missile defense budget documentation, and participating in more than 25 hours of staff briefings by the Department of Defense. Based on this lengthy review, the committee recommended funding the vast majority of the Department's missile defense requests, an amount that is sufficient to aggressively fund all of the specific systems that the Department has said it wants to develop. However, at the same time the committee identified $810 million of the missile defense request, which is 11 percent of the total request, that could not adequately be justified by the Department despite a detailed review of available documentation and repeated requests at hearings and in briefings. For example, the budget request included $1.1 billion in the ballistic missile defense program element. That is an increase of $250 million over the current funding level. The major purpose of this program element is to develop an integrated architecture of BMD systems. While this is an important goal, most of the systems that will comprise the BMD architecture are years away from being deployed, making the development and definition of a detailed BMD architecture impossible at this point. After receiving more than $800 million for this program element in fiscal year 2002, the Missile Defense Agency has yet to provide to Congress any indication what the overall ballistic missile defense architecture might be. In fact, the committee learned that of the $800 million appropriated for that program element in fiscal year 2002, only $50 million had been spent by the end of March, halfway through the fiscal year. Because of this slow execution, the Missile Defense Agency informed us that $400 million of these fiscal year 2002 funds will be available for expenditure in 2003. So half of the money that we appropriated in 2002 for that program element is not going to be spent. It is going to be available next year. Under those circumstances, it is hard to see why the Department would need a $250 million increase in that program element in fiscal year 2003. In short, we made a choice to make careful, well-justified reductions in missile defense programs to fund increases to the Department's shipbuilding accounts, and other critically important accounts, which are strongly supported by most members of the uniformed Navy and by members of the committee. The choice was the right one. One of the things we used the money for, one of the important areas that we used that funding for, was greater security of our Department of Energy nuclear facilities. The greatest threat we face is a terrorist threat. Those facilities are not adequately protected. We found some additional money--about $100 million--in those reductions in the missile defense accounts which we believed could not be justified, not just to build more ships, which are necessary, but also to give greater security to our Department of Energy nuclear facilities which are so critically important to be defended. Secretary Rumsfeld has written us that the Department opposes these changes and he would recommend that the President veto the bill if this change in missile defense funding remains in the bill. But again, this veto threat not only is addressed at the funding cuts in the bill but, in effect, is addressed at the items that we added in the bill which are so important to the national security of this country. We believe our bill would provide the Missile Defense Agency as much money as can reasonably be executed for the missile defense program in this year and would ensure that this money is expended in a sound manner. Mr. President, finally, I wish to say a few words on two items that are not included in this bill. First, the budget request of the administration included $15 million in the Department of Energy to begin studying the feasibility of the new robust nuclear earth penetrator. We had doubts about the need for this new nuclear weapon, particularly at a time when we are trying to convince other countries to forgo the development of nuclear weapons, and we adopted an amendment deleting funding for the robust nuclear penetrator and instead we directed the Department of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to submit a report to Congress on the requirements for this new nuclear weapon--how it would be deployed, what categories of targets it would be used against, and whether conventional weapons could effectively address such targets. Second, less than a month before we began our markup, the Department of Defense sent us a legislative proposal to exempt certain military installations and activities from the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act, or CERCLA. We did not consider those proposals because all those statutes fall outside the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. We did include two environmentally sound provisions in the Department's proposal that were in our committee's jurisdiction. These provisions authorize the Department of Defense to enter into agreements with non- Federal entities to manage lands adjacent to military installations and to create buffer zones between training areas and the surrounding population. America's Armed Forces are ready to help keep the peace, to deter traditional and nontraditional threats to our security and our vital interests around the world, and to win any conflict decisively. Our bill builds on the considerable strength of our military forces and their record of success by preserving a high quality of life for U.S. forces and their families, sustaining readiness, transforming the Armed Forces to meet the threats and challenges of tomorrow. I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office is required to prepare a cost estimate for spending legislation reported by committees. The cost estimate for the bill reported by the committee, S. 2514, was not finished at the time the report on this bill was filed. The CBO cost estimate is now available. I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the Defense authorization bill reported by the Committee on Armed Services be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following named staff members of the Committee on Armed Services be granted the privilege of the floor at all times during the Senate's consideration of and votes relating to S. 2514, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003; Dara R. Alpert, Charles W. Alsup, Judith A. Ansley, Kenneth Barbee, Michael N. Berger, Leah C. Brewer, David L. Cherington, Christine E. Cowart, Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Madelyn R. Creedon, Kenneth M. Crosswait. Richard D. DeBobes, Marie F. Dickinson, Edward H. Edens IV, Gabriella Eisen, Evelyn N. Farkas, Richard W. Fieldhouse, Daniel K. Goldsmith, Brien R. Green, Creighton Green, William C. Greenwalt, Gary M. Hall, Carolyn M. Hanna, Mary Alice A. Hayward, Jeremy L. Hekhuis. Ambrose R. Hock, Gary J. Howard, Robert Andrew Kent, Jennifer Key, George W. Lauffer, Maren R. Leed, Gerald J. Leeling, Peter K. Levine, Patricia L. Lewis, David S. Lyles. Thomas L. MacKenzie, Michael J. McCord, Ann M. Mittermeyer, Thomas C. Moore, Cindy Pearson, Arun A. Seraphin, Joseph T. Sizeas, Christina D. Still, Carmen Leslie Stone, Scott W. Stucky, Mary Louise Wagner, Richard F. Walsh, Nicholas W. West, Bridget M. Whalan.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, since 1968 it has been illegal for convicted felons, illegal aliens, individuals involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, individuals who have renounced their citizenship, drug addicts, those dishonorably discharged from the military, and fugitives who possess or purchase a firearm. In 1996, Congress passed legislation to extend the prohibition on firearms to individuals who were under a domestic violence restraining order or convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. I supported that legislation because of growing evidence that people who had committed acts of domestic violence were buying guns and using them. According to the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 40 percent of women killed with firearms are murdered by an intimate partner. According to a Violence Policy Center analysis, a woman is 14 times more likely to be murdered by a spouse, intimate acquaintance or close relative if there has been a history of domestic violence. And, having one or more guns in the home makes a woman more than seven times more likely to be the victim of homicide. The threat posed by some domestic abusers was highlighted by a Federal court case, Emerson v. United States. Timothy Joe Emerson was subject to a domestic violence restraining order that required him to stay away from his wife and her young daughter. Because of the restraining order, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Emerson was indicted for violating that provision after an incident in which he threatened his wife with a Beretta pistol and pointed it at her child. This is not an isolated case, and we need to prevent these people from possessing and purchasing firearms. On Wednesday morning my staff met with Kathy Hagenian of the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. Kathy is in Washington this week as part of the National Network to End Domestic Violence Annual Meeting and Legislative Day. The Coalition's mission is to combat all domestic and sexual violence by supporting prevention and intervention programs in communities throughout the State of Michigan. One of the issues she raised was her organization's support of Senator Reed's Gun Show Background Check Act. I, too, support this common sense gun safety legislation. This bill would simply apply the background checks that are mandatory for guns purchased in stores to gun shows. In 1996, the Congress closed the domestic violence loophole. Now it is time to close the gun show loophole. The lack of background checks at gun shows leaves battered women and their children vulnerable to violence. I urge my colleagues to support this important gun safety legislation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate three Michigan students whose projects have been selected for the high honor of being presenters at the National Museum of American History on Wednesday, June 12, 2002. These three students are three of only 34 chosen to present from over 2,000 National History Day finalists. The National History Day contest annually receives more than a half million entries. Trevor Bakker, of Holland West Middle School in Holland, MI, won for his project titled ``A Pinch of Salt: Mahatma Gandhi's Nonviolent Revolution.'' From Rochester Adams High School in Rochester Hills, MI, Allison and Rachel Brown received recognition for their project called ``Laying It On the Line: The United Automobile Workers' Struggle for Labor Reform.'' These projects reflect this year's National History Day theme, ``Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History.'' Michigan has played a critical role in revolution and reform in our country. On December 30, 1936, the newly-formed United Automobile Workers of America revolted against management with a sit-down strike in Flint to protest General Motors' decision to shift work to other factories where the union was not as strong. Three months later, the strike ended successfully with an agreement under which General Motors recognized the union as the bargaining agent of the workers, inspiring the growth of countless unions across the country. In addition, Michigan was the home of Sojourner Truth, the great reformer for the issues of slavery and women's rights, over the last 20 years of her life. And Michigan's unique ten-cent bottle refunds, implemented in 1978 by the Beverage Container Act, represents a significant reform for the national issues of recycling and waste reduction. These three young historians have poured months of research into this endeavor. Along the way they have sharpened their critical thinking and research skills while becoming bonafide experts on their respective topics. Their time in Washington is sure to be an enriching experience as they observe some of the richness of American history up close. I know my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating Trevor, Allison, and Rachel for their tremendous accomplishment, and in hoping for their continued success.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have come today to ask the Senate to join with me in paying tribute to the Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency which is located in the City of Flint, in my home state of Michigan. Home ownership has long been one of the best ways for individuals and families to acquire capital, build equity and secure entry into the middle class. Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency was founded in 1997 by Reverend Elmira Smith-Vincent to assist those who desire to own their own home thereby gaining further control over their financial futures. As a real estate agent, Reverend Smith-Vincent saw a need to educate people and provide them with the skills needed to purchase a home. A faith-based, non profit agency, Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency provides assistance to families and individuals in the skills needed to purchase a home. Since its inception, Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency has developed strong working relationships with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Fannie Mae Corporation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, the United States Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank, area banks and lenders, local governments, schools, and the faith-based community. These strong relationships have enabled the Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency to have accomplished many great things since its inception only five years ago. In 2001, they formed a partnership with Fannie Mae to offer the Mission of Peace Faith-Based Home ownership Initiative. As well, they implemented with great success an Individual Development Account program which allows participants to open an account at the Fifth Third Bank to save toward the down payment and closing cost of home purchase. Most recently, the United States Department of the Treasury announced that Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency is a recipient of a First Accounts Program Grant to assist ``unbanked'' people. Through this grant, they will provide services in Genesee, Lapeer, Oakland, Saginaw and Shiwasee Counties. Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency is a leader in helping people take control of their financial well-being and has been recognized numerous times for their achievements. Some of the agencies awards include the Local and National HUD Best Practices Award, the Congress of National Bank Churches Client Volume Award, Homeowners and Outstanding Achievement Awards, Fannie Mae Partner Award, State of Michigan Special Tribute Award, the City of Flint Peppy Rosenthal Human Service Award and the Project Zero Partner of the Year Family Independence Agency of Genesee County Award. I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating Mission of Peace Housing Counseling Agency on the work that they have done, and in wishing them well in the years to come.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, later this month, on June 14th, people in my home state of Michigan will be gathering at a special ceremony to honor men and women of the U.S. armed forces who have served to preserve our nation's freedom. This ceremony held by the Chaldean American Ladies of Charity will pay tribute to Chaldean American men and women who have served or are currently serving in our Nation's military. It is particularly poignant that people are gathering to honor Chaldean American veterans on the day set aside to honor our foremost symbol of freedom: the American flag. At a time when we are reminded of the priceless value of our many freedoms, it is important that we do not forget the heroes who fought so fearlessly and valiantly in past conflicts to protect our nation and our freedoms. Such brave men and women have preserved our liberty and democratic values and safeguarded our freedom to pursue the American dream. The Chaldeans are people who possess a long and fascinating history. They have traditionally spoken a form of Aramaic, the language in which the New Testament was written, and possess an interesting theological history that includes a reunion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1551 A.D. This reunion led to the establishment of the Chaldean rite of the Catholic Church. Many Chaldeans immigrated to the United States from Iraq, and have played an important part in our nation's growth and success. Detroit is privileged to be home to the largest Chaldean community in the United States. In Detroit and throughout the nation, Chaldean Americans have dedicated themselves to the making a better life in America. Detroit, the State of Michigan and our nation have benefitted from their patriotism, hard work and dedication to community, faith and family. These many contributions have greatly benefitted our nation and have included the service of nearly two hundred Chaldean Americans in the United States Armed Forces. The entire Chaldean American community can take pride in their long and honorable tradition of service to our nation, particularly their service in our nation's armed forces. I am sure that my Senate colleagues join me and the Chaldean American Ladies of Charity in paying tribute to Chaldean American veterans.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.