John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our colleague from Arkansas. He has worked long and hard on this issue for a number of years. He is a very valued member of the Armed Services Committee, particularly as it relates to personnel issues, in the area in which the Senator spent much time. Senator, we are doing our duty. I thank the Senator. I add a few observations of my own about this legislation. I deferred my comments so others could proceed because I was going to remain on the floor. Mr. President, everyone at a time such as this draws on personal recollections. I had an opportunity to briefly discuss with our distinguished colleague from Delaware his own experiences in the military. I draw on my modest experience in the military to derive the support I give to this particular piece of legislation. I have said on this floor many times that I would not be in the Senate today, privileged to represent my State these 24 years now, had it not been for the opportunities accorded me by brief tours of active service and a period of some 10 years in the Reserves in the military, together with opportunities I had in the Naval Secretariat after 5 years, 4 months, during that critical period of our history when our men and women were engaged in Vietnam, as well as elsewhere in the world in the cold war. For those brief periods I served in the closing months of World War II, as a 17-year-old sailor, really in the training command only, I have vivid memories of the streets of America, lined with men and women in uniform, coming and going to the battlefields of the Pacific and Europe, and particularly those who had returned from the battlefields showing the scars of war. As the chairman pointed out, that particular generation of World War II are passing on today in numbers exceeding 1,000 each day of the year. This legislation, should it become law--and I am optimistic it will become law; certainly the underlying provision in the committee bill which the Presiding Officer and others worked on--will touch a few of the World War II generation. As the years passed on and I had the opportunity to have a brief tour of duty in Korea, again, as simply a ground officer with the First Marine Air Wing, I had occasion to observe those on the field of battle and experience the losses. That is emblazoned in my memory forever. Then in the Navy Secretariat from time to time we would go to Vietnam. We are now honored in this Chamber with a very distinguished veteran of that period as the active chairman of the committee. I visited many of those in the aid stations and otherwise who had borne the brunt of war. Therefore, it is with sheer joy that I participated with my colleagues today, just one in the ranks, to try to get this amendment passed. The numbers of veterans organizations which work in this is long and lengthy that I and other Members of the Senate visited with in the course of our independent work on this particular piece of legislation, as well as what we did in the committee structure. It is remarkable when you deal with those organizations. They are men and women of humility, proud they had the opportunity to wear the uniform of the Nation, and they come out of a sense of duty to try to provide for those who have gone before us on active duty and those who are on today and those who will follow in the generations to come. As I pointed out in my colloquy with the Senator from Delaware, while my most vivid memories are associated with those who bore the brunt of combat and war, many bear the scars of arduous training. Think of how many accidents we have had associated with the training in parachutes, the training in aviation, the operation exercises. Many of our exercises, people may not recognize, are conducted under live fire conditions, by necessity, to harden those who someday may face the reality of a combat zone. I was with the distinguished Senator from New York visiting those who came back from the battlefields in Afghanistan who had borne the brunt of combat and suffered the injuries, to visit them and thank them for their duty for this Nation and the cause of freedom. I somehow believe this is just a fulfillment of an obligation that we have had long overdue. I join those who will move every possible way we can to see that this becomes the law. I thank so many colleagues who have taken time today to speak to this particular issue. Their motivations are pure of heart, simply to do duty. We have done it and we have now seen this opportunity. The Senate has met that opportunity, by the vote which we have witnessed and agreed to this. Amendment No. 3900 Mr. President, earlier I offered a second-degree amendment to the Levin amendment. Under the Levin amendment, the Secretary of Defense is required to go through a reprogramming process which, by its very nature, is indeterminate in time. No one can predict the certainty of how quickly a measure can get through four committees. That has to be done in order for the Secretary to spend funds, to fully implement the President's Crusader budget amendment which set forth the purposes for the use of the funds. I come back to the word ``fully.'' Had any one of those committees not--for whatever reason, even reasons unrelated to the Crusader issue--acted affirmatively on the reprogramming request, then the Secretary would not have the ability to fully expend those funds consistent with the objectives laid down in the President's budget amendment. Also, it is a long process, the reprogramming process, and the outcome has a certain degree of uncertainty. If any committee vetoes the reprogramming, the Secretary would not be able, again, to fully implement the budget amendment. He would be able only to implement those programs contained under the future combat system; whereas, under my amendment, the Secretary has more flexibility. Thirty days after notification to the Congress, under my amendment, the Secretary can move funds to all and fully implement the objectives of the President's budget amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, be added as a cosponsor on the concurrent receipt amendment offered by the chairman and myself, and that the consent be granted prior as if to the taking of the vote.

Mr. WARNER. I likewise say to our colleague who serves on the Armed Services Committee, we appreciate her work. I think she gave a well- delivered statement from the heart.

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

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this is an amendment that was considered by our committee. The chairman has stated very accurately the facts. The vote was 13 to 6. I happen to have been in the six. I would like to explain the background. The President sent to the Congress a document entitled ``Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Amendment, Crusader Termination, May 2002.'' The operative message is on page 4. It says as follows: Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Amendment for Crusader Termination, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army. Justification: The Department of Defense has decided to terminate the Crusader Artillery System Program. This action will support development of objective force indirect fires and network fires. Crusader funding can be used to accelerate the development and fielding of indirect fire platforms such as the high mobility artillery rocket system and precision munitions such as Excalibur Projectile Precision Guided Mortar Munitions and Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (unitary). Certain selected technologies developed within the Crusader program will have application to future artillery programs. These changes should boost long-term capabilities. When this arrived in the Congress, it provoked, understandably, considerable concern. The Senator from Oklahoma, I am sure, will shortly address those concerns. He has been fully involved throughout this. I commend him for bringing to the attention of the chairman and myself the need to address this very carefully within the committee as a separate item. That was done, as I stated and as the chairman stated. The committee action represents such consensus as a vote of 13 to 6 represents. In my capacity as ranking member of the committee, I have an obligation to work with the Secretary of Defense and to determine the extent to which we can arrive at the budget amendment request sent by the President. I have done that in such a manner as to develop an amendment, which I will shortly send to the desk, in the second degree to the amendment offered by the chairman. This amendment was drawn after careful consultation with the Secretary and other members of the Department of Defense through several sessions yesterday. I think it is a very fair compromise and hopefully will be adopted by the Senate. I represent that the amendment I have devised reaches the same basic goals as enunciated in this justification forwarded to the Congress by the President. At the same time, my amendment recognizes the important contributions by the chairman and others in drafting the committee amendment. I, too, join the chairman in expressing concern about what I call ``due process'' accorded the Department of the Army in the course of reevaluating this Crusader system at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, which to some degree was done prior to the forwarding to the Congress of this budget amendment. The chairman--and, indeed, I and others--believed the Army should be given the opportunity to fully explore, as the chairman stated, the reasons for either continuing Crusader or pursuing other avenues leading to the goals enunciated in the budget amendment. Therefore, my amendment carefully preserves--at least I have endeavored to do that--the portions of the chairman's amendment which enable the Army to perform those important analyses, forwards them to the Secretary of Defense, and then the Secretary is to take certain actions. The basic difference between the chairman's amendment and my amendment is that my amendment eliminates the reprogramming, a series of four reprogrammings which are required when a matter of this importance is brought to the Congress. It is my judgment--and I think the Secretary of Defense--that we should as quickly as possible, to save dollars and in every other way, remove the delays incorporated in moving to a new system for the U.S. Army with regard to its very important indirect and network fires. The four reprogramming actions have the possibility of delays built in, plus the fact that, for whatever reason, one of those four committees could block the action. I believe with the consideration being given in the Senate today, the consideration that will be given in a conference between the House and the Senate, assuming the amendments are adopted, that we will have given proper congressional oversight of the decision by the President and the Secretary of Defense to stop the Crusader program terminating and proceed with moving in accordance with the justification I have outlined. So for that purpose I now send to the desk an amendment in the second degree and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague, and I look forward again--as this will be our 24th year--of working together on the authorization bill. Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend, the chairman, he mentioned that the Bush administration has yet to provide a formal national security strategy. I note that the timetable for submitting this document is not unusual. The Clinton administration did not submit its first national security strategy until well into its second year in office. In my contacts with the administration, they will soon be submitting that national security strategy. I thank Chairman Levin for the work he has done on the bill which is before the Senate. I also want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their wise counsel and efforts, as well as the tremendous efforts of our committee staff. In large measure, this Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 is a good bill and an important step forward in our war against terrorism. In this time of national emergency it is essential that we provide our President and our armed forces the vital resources they need to defend our Nation, and to fight the scourge of terrorism at home and abroad. In the end, I joined with seven of my Republican colleagues on the committee in voting against this bill in committee--primarily due to the drastic cut of over $800 million in missile defense. Having worked hard for a year on the many critical issues related to this bill, I considered my vote against the bill necessary, but regrettable. Despite the fact that I voted against this bill, I support most of what is contained in this legislation. It represents the bipartisan work of all committee members--working together to support our men and women in uniform, and their families. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 contains the largest defense increase in over 20 years--an increase of $45.0 billion over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. The good news story associated with this much needed increase is that it has the full, bipartisan support of the Senate. While there is disagreement over how some of the money is allocated in this bill, there is virtually no dissent about the need for this significant increase in the top line for defense. This is a remarkable display of unity behind our President, so important and fitting with our nation at war. In line with the request of the President, the bill significantly increases all major defense accounts over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated levels: It increases spending on military personnel by over 12 percent, including a 4.1 percent pay raise for our servicemen and women. It increases funding for operations and maintenance by over 15 percent, providing the necessary resources to fully fund our war effort. The bill increases the procurement account by almost 10 percent. This will enable our military departments to procure the equipment they need to replace aging and heavily used assets, as well as to buy the things they need to protect our facilities, infrastructure and people in these increasingly uncertain and dangerous times. Additionally, the bill increases spending on research and development by almost 9 percent, ensuring that investment is being made in the future to develop the capabilities we need to deter and defeat emerging threats to our national security. The bill also sets aside a $10.0 billion reserve fund, as requested by the President, to pay for ongoing and future military operations in the global war on terrorism. The threats to our Nation and the ongoing war on terrorism demand this increased investment in national security, both now and in the future. The bill contains many key provisions which I support to improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, our retirees, and their families. In addition to the 4.1 percent pay raise for our uniformed personnel I mentioned earlier, additional funding is included for facilities and services that will greatly improve the quality of life for our service personnel and their families, at home and abroad. The bill includes a legislative provision that calls for the phased repeal of the prohibition on concurrent receipt of non-disability retired military pay and veterans disability pay for our military retirees with disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher. The committee also approved a managers' amendment, sponsored by Senator Bob Smith, which will soon be considered by the full Senate, to repeal fully and immediately, the prohibition on concurrent receipt, a step which will allow all nondisability retired veterans with VA disability ratings to collect the full amount they have earned. This action is long overdue. It is important to note that this bill, with the exception of the cuts made to missile defense, supports and fully funds virtually all of the priorities established by the Department and the President for the development and procurement of major weapons systems, including Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 and the Army's future combat system. In addition, I was pleased that we were able to add $229 million to the CVN(X) new generation aircraft carrier to restore the original development and fielding schedule for this essential program. The carrier proved its worth once again in Afghanistan--a war which relied on carrier-based assets. This bill supports acceleration of this important program. Despite the very favorable aspects of this bill, however, I cannot support the bill in its current form. I was joined by seven of my Republican colleagues in opposing the bill as reported by the committee. For the second consecutive year, the Senate Armed Services Committee divided along party lines primarily over the issue of missile defense. Sincere, good-faith efforts were made by Republican Members to find common ground and compromise on this issue, but these efforts were voted down. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003 that we have before us, in my view, fundamentally alters the President's national security priorities and fails to send a clear message, on the issue of missile defense, to America's allies and adversaries that the Congress will provide the resources necessary to protect our homeland, our troops deployed overseas and our allies and friends from all known threats--including the very real and growing threat of missile attack. I will work in the days ahead, and into the conference with the House, to restore the cuts made to these important programs and to staunchly defend the priorities our President has established. The world as we knew it changed forever on September 11. We lost not only many lives and much property that day, but we also lost our uniquely American feeling of invulnerability; our feeling of safety within our shores, our borders, behind two vast oceans. But from our darkest hour, our nation has quickly emerged stronger and more united than ever. Our President has rallied our country and many nations around the world to fight the evil of terrorism. As we begin our floor debate on the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003, our nation is at war. U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, together with their coalition partners, are engaged on the front lines in the global war against terrorism, with a mission to root out terrorism at its source in the hopes of preventing future attacks. Our armed forces have responded to the call of duty in the finest traditions of our nation. It is critical that the Congress keep faith with our troops by providing the resources and capabilities our President--our Commander in Chief has requested. Homeland security is now, without a doubt, our top priority. We have a solemn obligation to protect our Nation and our citizens from all known and anticipated threats--whatever their source or means of delivery. As a candidate and as President, George W. Bush promised our Nation that homeland security was his most urgent priority. Our President submitted a responsible, prioritized budget request for fiscal year 2003 that addressed our most important security needs. The bill before us reflects the urgent security needs of our Nation by doubling the funding for combating terrorism at home and abroad. It invests in new technologies to detect weapons of mass destruction and to deter their development. The bill provides funding and authorities for the establishment of new organizations within the Department of Homeland Defense, including the formation of Northern Command, NORTHCOM, to provide coordinated land, sea and air defense of the United States. As we re-look and re-evaluate our security needs, it is especially important to remember that protection of our nation, our citizens, our deployed troops and our allies from ballistic missiles is also an integral part of homeland defense and an overall sense of security. The budget request for missile defense was reasonable. It was a request that represented no increase over last year's funding level, and a request that was less than two percent of the defense budget. We must use these resources to move forward now, without artificial limitations--either fiscal or legislative--to develop and deploy adequate missile defenses. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003, as reported out of committee, contains a drastic reduction, of over $800 million, from the President's request for missile defense programs, including over $400 million in reductions to theater missile defense programs. In addition, the bill contains a number of restrictions and excessive reporting requirements that will further hamper the rapid development of missile defenses. Together, these actions have resulted in a letter from the Secretary of Defense informing the Senate that he would recommend a veto of this legislation if the reductions and restrictions on missile defense remain. Three years ago, by a vote of 97 to 3, this body approved the National Missile Defense Act of 1999--the Cochran bill. This act established two clear goals: to deploy an effective ballistic missile defense for the United States, ``as soon as technologically feasible;'' and, to seek further negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. Last month, President Bush signed a landmark arms control agreement, in Moscow, that will ultimately reduce the number of U.S. and Russian deployed nuclear warheads by two-thirds over the next 10 years. The second goal of the Cochran bill has been achieved. This month, the United States formally withdrew from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty--a 30-year-old treaty--which had hampered the U.S. missile defense program. With this action, all artificial restraints have been removed from the ability of the United States to research, develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. Both goals of the Cochran bill that the Senate so overwhelmingly supported are in sight. Congress should not now apply new limitations on the rapid, cost-effective development of defenses to protect our nation and deployed troops from missile attack. The funding reductions and program constraints contained in the bill before us are a significant step backward in our efforts to improve the security of our nation. The threat of missile attack against the United States and U.S. interests is real and growing. According to the January 2002 national intelligence estimate, NIE, on the missile threat, ``The probability that a missile with a weapon of mass destruction will be used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the cold war, and will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature.'' Dozens of nations already have short- and medium- range ballistic missiles in the field that threaten U.S. interests, military forces, and allies; and others are seeking to acquire similar capabilities, including missiles that could reach the United States. We must be prepared to protect our nation. I am also concerned with other key areas in the bill, particularly the level of funding for shipbuilding. While I understand the tough choices that our defense leaders must make in establishing priorities and putting forth budget recommendations, shipbuilding was severely underfunded in the President's budget request. The bill we are now considering provides some additional resources for shipbuilding, but I believe more must be done to reverse the downward trend in shipbuilding. We all know that we are not currently building enough ships to maintain an adequate Navy for the future. Ultimately, there will be a high price to pay if this trend is not reversed. It is with these concerns in mind that I urge my colleagues to join me in constructive dialogue to find a way to restore the President's fundamental national security priorities and to ensure we are making the right investments in future capabilities. It is imperative that we send our President, our fellow citizens and the world a message of resolve from the Congress--a national defense authorization bill that provides the resources and authorities our Nation's leaders and our armed forces require to protect our Nation, our citizens abroad, our vital interests, and our international partners who stand with us against terrorism. I thank the distinguished chairman. I am going to a meeting on this bill tonight as to how we can order the amendments tomorrow on which I will work with the chairman.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Brett Rota, senator Ensign's legislative assistant; Mark Swayne, a military fellow working in my office; Randy Rotte and J. C. Nicholson, fellows in the Office of Senator Hutchison; and William Zirzow, a DOD legislative fellow in the Office of Senator Collins be granted the privilege of the floor throughout the debate on S. 2514.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a valued member of our Senate family, Matthew Evans, the Senior Landscape Architect here at the United States Capitol, who was recently honored by the National Arbor Day Foundation with their 2002 Good Steward Award. Through the years, Matthew has earned numerous awards including the American Society of Landscape Architects' once-in-a-century Centennial Medallion in recognition of the Capitol Grounds as a national landmark for outstanding landscape architecture. Gardens designed by him have been featured in films and magazines. These awards recognize him for his outstanding professional abilities and his invaluable contributions to our U.S. Capitol Building and Grounds. We are fortunate to have Matthew's practiced eye and professional skill at work for us here at the Capitol. He and his staff are meticulous in the care they provide a preserve and enhance the grounds of this treasured national landmark. Matthew also collaborates with countless groups and representatives from other government agencies, civic organizational and community groups to ensure that the many important ceremonial and special events held on these historic grounds occur in a way that protects and preserves our invaluable greenery. Each day of the year, thousands of Americans as well as foreign dignitaries and guests tour our Capitol and grounds. Many of them linger to snap photos and to view the magnificent old trees and beautiful plantings here on our Capitol grounds. These landscape treasures add immeasurably to the memories our visitors carry away from their visits here. Matthew Evans now faces perhaps the greatest challenge of his career. He must protect, to the greatest extent possible, the trees and grounds of the Capitol during the construction of the new Visitors Center and then restore this historic property to its beautiful state. We all wish him well in this important endeavor. I congratulate Matthew on receiving the prestigious Good Steward Award and I thank him for his dedicated service. I am glad to know he will be continuing his skillful and wise stewardship of the invaluable architectural landscape legacy we enjoy here at the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the members of the Armed Services Committee, I thank both of our leaders for recognizing the need to move to the Defense authorization bill. That hopefully will then set the stage for the Defense appropriations bill to follow in an orderly manner. Just moments ago, the chairman of our committee, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and I conferred with the leadership. I think I can speak on behalf of the chairman that we are both ready to go, and we will be prepared to bring up some of the more, should we say, controversial amendments early on so that those issues can be addressed and hopefully thereafter we can move quickly through the other provisions of the bill. I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the insurance industry faced an unprecedented situation. The final costs and impact on the insurance industry and its consumers have yet to be determined. Although secondary insurers will help to cover some of the expenses associated with the September 11 attacks, it is critical for the Senate to consider and pass legislation to address the risks of future terrorists attacks. The administration, the insurance industry, and policy holders throughout the various and diverse sectors of the economy, state the critical importance of passing legislation in a timely manner. The attacks in September dealt a detrimental blow to an already sluggish economy leaving the health and stability of the economy very uncertain. Although the economic outlook is improving, further delay in passage of a terrorism insurance measure will adversely affect economic progress and growth. Since September we have passed the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund, the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, and the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. The insurance industry is also facing a potential crisis. It is now June 13, 2002, and we still have not passed a bill. Every day that we fail to do so, the growing uncertainty in the market threatens the ability of businesses to obtain adequate and affordable insurance. Need to Address Group Life Insurance

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President I am pleased to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Allen, to create the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park. This legislation builds on an effort that I have been involved with for over a decade. In 1991, the Congress authorized the National Park Service to conduct an assessment of the historical integrity of significant Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. That examination identified 10 Civil War battlefields in eight counties in the Valley that remained significantly as they were during the war. The Valley itself was a location of constant engagements throughout the War with more than 325 armed conflicts. The 10 battlefields that are today preserved under the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Management Plan include the places of Stonewall Jackson's 1862 campaign, and later Union General Philip Sheridan's 1864 campaign which left the Valley in ruins. This legislation is the product of many months of discussions with affected individual property owners with the battlefield boundary, our partner non-profit organizations who today preserve Belle Grove Plantation and surrounding lands within the battlefield, local governments and many interested citizens. I am pleased to present to the Senate their strong support for this legislation. I know that with retaining the private sector ownership of buildings and their direct participation in preserving and interpreting the story of Cedar Creek, we will have a truly unique partnership. The compelling story of the events that unfolded at Cedar Creek surely earns recognition within our National Park system. In October of 1864, the Federal Army of the Shenandoah, having soundly defeated the Confederate Army of the Valley at Winchester on September 19 and then again at Fisher's Hill on September 22, ran the Confederate forces out of the Shenandoah Valley. In the process of this Union advance, Federal forces either burned or took all of the Confederate food reserves and livestock between Staunton and Strasburg. Thinking he had finally deprived the Valley as the Confederate's food source and as an invasion route North, Major General Philip Sheridan left his army camped along Cedar Creek at Middletown and went to Washington to have meetings with his supporters. Refusing to give up the Valley to the Federals, General Jubal Early moved his very hungry, tired, and ill-equipped army of about 17,000 to Fisher's Hill on October 13. Facing down Sheridan's well dug-in army of over 30,000 men, Early had to make a decision to attack or retreat. He chose to attack. On the night of October 18, he sent three of his divisions under the command of Major General John Gordon across the Shenandoah River and along the flank of Massanutten Mountain to hit the Federal position from the east, behind its entrenchments along Cedar Creek. After marching and maneuvering all night, Gordon's divisions struck at dawn in a thick fog. The Federals were clearly surprised. Early pushed the Federals all the way out of their camps, past Belle Grove plantation and all the way through Middleton. At mid-day, Gordon ordered a halt to the advance so that he could regroup his forces. Being informed that there was a battle going on, Sheridan rushed to Middletown from Winchester. Once he arrived there in the afternoon, he found his army posted along a ridge north of Middletown. There he was able to rally his men, and from the position he ordered a massive counterattack. The counterattack completely swept the Confederates from the field. The battle of Cedar Creek was significant for many reasons. The battle dealt the crushing blow to the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley, thus ending the career of Jubal Early in the process. Most importantly, however, coupled with the successes of General William T. Sherman in the Atlanta campaign, the battle boosted the morale of the war-weary North and guaranteed the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln. The untouched landscape of this battlefield and the historic structure of Belle Grove plantation still today evoke the stories of the war. This site will serve to tell the whole story of the campaigns of the Valley and visitors will experience the full impact of the War of these surrounding rural communities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President I am pleased to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Allen, to create the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park. This legislation builds on an effort that I have been involved with for over a decade. In 1991, the Congress authorized the National Park Service to conduct an assessment of the historical integrity of significant Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. That examination identified 10 Civil War battlefields in eight counties in the Valley that remained significantly as they were during the war. The Valley itself was a location of constant engagements throughout the War with more than 325 armed conflicts. The 10 battlefields that are today preserved under the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields Management Plan include the places of Stonewall Jackson's 1862 campaign, and later Union General Philip Sheridan's 1864 campaign which left the Valley in ruins. This legislation is the product of many months of discussions with affected individual property owners with the battlefield boundary, our partner non-profit organizations who today preserve Belle Grove Plantation and surrounding lands within the battlefield, local governments and many interested citizens. I am pleased to present to the Senate their strong support for this legislation. I know that with retaining the private sector ownership of buildings and their direct participation in preserving and interpreting the story of Cedar Creek, we will have a truly unique partnership. The compelling story of the events that unfolded at Cedar Creek surely earns recognition within our National Park system. In October of 1864, the Federal Army of the Shenandoah, having soundly defeated the Confederate Army of the Valley at Winchester on September 19 and then again at Fisher's Hill on September 22, ran the Confederate forces out of the Shenandoah Valley. In the process of this Union advance, Federal forces either burned or took all of the Confederate food reserves and livestock between Staunton and Strasburg. Thinking he had finally deprived the Valley as the Confederate's food source and as an invasion route North, Major General Philip Sheridan left his army camped along Cedar Creek at Middletown and went to Washington to have meetings with his supporters. Refusing to give up the Valley to the Federals, General Jubal Early moved his very hungry, tired, and ill-equipped army of about 17,000 to Fisher's Hill on October 13. Facing down Sheridan's well dug-in army of over 30,000 men, Early had to make a decision to attack or retreat. He chose to attack. On the night of October 18, he sent three of his divisions under the command of Major General John Gordon across the Shenandoah River and along the flank of Massanutten Mountain to hit the Federal position from the east, behind its entrenchments along Cedar Creek. After marching and maneuvering all night, Gordon's divisions struck at dawn in a thick fog. The Federals were clearly surprised. Early pushed the Federals all the way out of their camps, past Belle Grove plantation and all the way through Middleton. At mid-day, Gordon ordered a halt to the advance so that he could regroup his forces. Being informed that there was a battle going on, Sheridan rushed to Middletown from Winchester. Once he arrived there in the afternoon, he found his army posted along a ridge north of Middletown. There he was able to rally his men, and from the position he ordered a massive counterattack. The counterattack completely swept the Confederates from the field. The battle of Cedar Creek was significant for many reasons. The battle dealt the crushing blow to the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley, thus ending the career of Jubal Early in the process. Most importantly, however, coupled with the successes of General William T. Sherman in the Atlanta campaign, the battle boosted the morale of the war-weary North and guaranteed the re-election of President Abraham Lincoln. The untouched landscape of this battlefield and the historic structure of Belle Grove plantation still today evoke the stories of the war. This site will serve to tell the whole story of the campaigns of the Valley and visitors will experience the full impact of the War of these surrounding rural communities. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Why would the Secretary of Defense have indicated----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Amendment No. 3704 (Purpose: To strike the appropriation for Agricultural Research Service buildings and facilities)

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, before the leader leaves the floor, if I might regain the attention of our distinguished leader, I would be prepared to enter, not at this moment, but look at a time agreement so we can move this process along. I hope we could explore that and advise the Senator from Connecticut in due course because I have a series of cosponsors, which I am about to read. If those cosponsors desire some time, I hope they will inform me very quickly. In that way, we can get a time agreement on the principal amendment and then we can have a time agreement on the second-degree amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Is the Chair prepared to receive the vote of the Senate on that? I have no objection.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor. I have been yielding for the purpose of letting our distinguished leader and others get their points made. I think we are progressing. If I understand, the UC has been granted; am I correct in that, Madam President?

Mr. WARNER. To facilitate the Senate moving ahead on this matter and on the bill--you have raised this question--I am prepared to amend my amendment to include 2015.

Mr. WARNER. Well, we are not, Mr. President. The question is not: May I amend it to include 2016?

Mr. WARNER. Fine. Can we do them seriatim?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I see in the Chamber the distinguished majority whip who has been, in a most courteous manner, allocating time slots to those desiring to offer amendments. I wish to send an amendment to the desk, and my colleague from Connecticut has an amendment in the second degree. I am joined by the distinguished Senator from Georgia as a cosponsor of the amendment. I would like to accommodate the distinguished majority whip if he wishes to address the order of proceeding because our good friend, the Senator from Illinois, is seeking recognition.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I think the normal way to proceed is for the principal amendment to be addressed by the sponsor, myself, and the cosponsors, Mr. Miller, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Allen, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Craig, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Frist and Senator Sessions likewise. This is a matter with which the Senate has considerable familiarity so I shall be brief in my remarks. This amendment, the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, is necessary to protect--I repeat, protect--our servicemembers and certain Government officials from prosecution--or that is potential prosecution--by the International Criminal Court, hereinafter referred to as the ICC, an institution which comes into effect on July 1, 2002, over the objections of the United States of America. This amendment would protect U.S. military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the U.S. Government against potential criminal prosecution by an international tribunal court to which the United States is not a party. In light of our ongoing global war on terrorism, it is vital that the Senate adopt this important amendment to protect our brave servicepersons and others who are now being dispatched daily to the farflung points of this globe in the battle against terrorism. At the outset I would like to recognize the leadership of our distinguished colleague, Senator Helms, who by necessity is absent today; otherwise, he would be handling this. This is his legislation which I am privileged and, indeed, honored to bring forth on behalf of my distinguished longtime friend and colleague from North Carolina. He has worked tirelessly on this issue for a number of years, and we all, every Member of this Senate, owe to him a debt of gratitude for keeping this matter before the Senate and to be the ever watchful eye on the steps this Senate must take to protect our servicepersons and others. President Bush has consistently--I repeat, consistently--opposed this treaty. In May of 2002, a short time ago, President Bush notified the United Nations that the United States does not intend to become a party to the ICC. However, since over 60 nations have ratified the treaty, the ICC will be established and become effective on July 1 of this year. The International Criminal Court will have the power at that moment to proceed to indict, prosecute, and imprison persons anywhere in the world accused by the Court of ``war crimes,'' ``crimes against humanity,'' and ``genocide.'' In 2000 and again last year, Senator Helms introduced, and I cosponsored, freestanding legislation similar to this amendment. Last December, the Senate approved by a vote of 78 to 21--and I encourage my colleagues to do their basic research on that vote to see how they cast their vote--a version of this legislation on the Defense appropriations bill. However, the provision was dropped in the conference. It is important to note that the administration supports this amendment. I repeat, the President supports the amendment brought by myself and other colleagues, and the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice have all been closely consulted and their views incorporated into this amendment. Also, an identical provision is contained in the House-passed supplemental appropriations bill adopted by the House on May 24 of this year. I received a call from the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Congressman Hyde, early this morning, expressing his strong support of the Senate adopting favorably the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. This amendment seeks to protect American servicemembers, embassy officials, and Government employees from the ICC, and preclude cooperation with the ICC so long as the Senate does not ratify the treaty. This body, I repeat, will again have the opportunity, if for some reason it is brought up, to ratify this treaty. However, the amendment does allow, on a case-by-case basis, cooperation with ad hoc courts provided--that is, ad hoc courts elsewhere in the world--they are created through the United Nations Security Council, examples being those courts created by Yugoslavia and Rwanda. I shall now outline key provisions of this amendment. First, no Federal or State entity, including courts, may cooperate with the ICC in law enforcement matters such as arrest and extradition, searches and seizures, discovery, asset seizure, financial support, transfer of property, personnel details, intelligence sharing, or otherwise render services to the ICC. No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC. The United States must secure permanent immunity from ICC jurisdiction for American personnel before they can participate in any United Nations peacekeeping operation or other arrangements must be in effect to protect U.S. peacekeepers from the jurisdiction of this Court. The President may submit a national interest certification, however, effectively waiving this restriction if that is his judgment. Another provision: No ICC treaty party can receive U.S. military assistance except for NATO countries and major non-NATO allies. The President again may waive this restriction for other countries that ratify the treaty but then conclude agreements with the United States to protect our personnel from the Court. The President may also waive this restriction if he determines that such waiver is important to the national interest. The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of U.S. or allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of this Court. The President is urged to analyze existing alliance command arrangements and develop plans to achieve enhanced protection from the ICC for U.S. military personnel subject to such arrangements. Let me quote from testimony given before Congress in 1998 by the lead U.S. negotiator on the ICC, Ambassador David Scheffer, a he explained the danger posed by the Court: Multinational peackeeping forces operating in a country that has joined the treaty can be exposed to the court's jurisdiction even if the country of the individual peacekeeper has not joined the treaty. Thus, the treaty purports to establish an arrangement whereby United States armed forces operating overseas could be conceivably prosecuted by the international court even if the United States has not agreed to be bound by the treaty. Not only is this contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty law, it could inhibit the ability of the United States to use its military to meet alliance obligations and participate in multinational operations, including humanitarian interventions to save civilian lives. In closing, let me also quote from a floor statement on this legislation given by Representative Henry Hyde, chairman of the House International Relations Committee, on May 10, 2001: The ICC threatens the sovereignty of our Nation. This legislation has been endorsed by a who's who of the American foreign policy establishment--a bipartisan group of some of our wisest and most experienced exports on national security matters, men and women who held high office in every Administration since that of Richard Nixon. From Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and Brent Scowcroft to Donald Rumsfeld, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, they all agree, and I quote from their letter, that This legislation is an appropriate response to the threat to America's sovereignty and international freedom of action posed by the International Criminal Court. This is an important amendment that deserves the support of all our colleagues. We have a responsibility to protect our servicemembers and the adoption of this amendment is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a quick question? Is there not incorporated in the amendment of the Senator from Virginia sufficient Presidential waiver to take care of every point the Senator has made?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is most accommodating. If we can have a gentleman's understanding that at the conclusion of the two amendments by the Senator from Arizona, the amendment the Senator from Georgia and I want to put before the Senate could be considered at that time without binding the leadership.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.