[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7204-S7221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2400, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2400) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2005 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Service, and other purposes.

  Pending:

       Bond modified amendment No. 3384, to include certain former 
     nuclear weapons program workers in the Special Exposure 
     Cohort under the Energy employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program and to provide for the disposal of 
     certain excess Department of Defense stocks for funds for 
     that purpose.
       Reed amendment No. 3353, to limit the obligation and 
     expenditure of funds for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 
     program pending the submission of a report on operational 
     test and evaluation.
       Bingaman Amendment No. 3459, to require reports on the 
     detainment of foreign nationals by the Department of Defense 
     and on Department of Defense investigations of allegations of 
     violations of the Geneva Convention.
       Warner amendment No. 3460 (to amendment No. 3459), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Feingold modified amendment No. 3288, to rename and modify 
     the authorities relating to the Inspector General of the 
     Coalition Provisional Authority.
       Landrieu/Snowe amendment No. 3315, to amend title 10, 
     United States Code, to increase the minimum Survivor Benefit 
     Plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 62 and older, 
     and to provide for a one-year open season under that plan.
       Reid (for Daschle) amendment No. 3409, to assure that 
     funding is provided for veterans health care each fiscal year 
     to cover increases in population and inflation.
       Ensign amendment No. 3467 (to amendment No. 3315), to 
     provide a fiscally responsible open enrollment authority.
       Daschle amendment No. 3468 (to amendment No. 3409), to 
     assure that funding is provided for veterans health care each 
     fiscal year to cover increases in population and inflation.
       Reid (for Akaka) amendment No. 3414, to provide for 
     fellowships for students to enter Federal service.
       Reid (for Leahy) amendment No. 3387, relative to the 
     treatment of foreign prisoners.
       Warner (for Lott) amendment No. 3220, to repeal the 
     authority of the Secretary of Defense to recommend that 
     installations be placed in inactive status as part of the 
     recommendations of the Secretary during the 2005 round of 
     defense base closure and realignment.
       Warner (for Bennett/Hatch) amendment No. 3373, to provide 
     for the protection of the Utah Test and Training Range.
       Warner (for Bennett) amendment No. 3403, to prohibit a 
     full-scale underground nuclear test of the Robust Nuclear 
     Earth Penetrator weapon without a specific authorization of 
     Congress.
       Warner (for Inhofe) amendment No. 3280, to reauthorize 
     energy saving performance contracts.
       Warner (for McCain) amendment No. 3442, to impose 
     requirements for the leasing of aerial refueling aircraft for 
     the Air Force.
       Warner (for McCain) Amendment No. 3443, to impose 
     requirements for the aerial refueling aircraft program of the 
     Air Force.
       Warner (for McCain) amendment No. 3444, to restrict leasing 
     of aerial refueling aircraft by the Air Force.
       Warner (for McCain) amendment No. 3445, to prohibit the 
     leasing of Boeing 767 aircraft by the Air Force.
       Levin (for Biden/Lugar) amendment No. 3378, to provide 
     certain authorities, requirements, and limitations on foreign 
     assistance and arms exports.
       Levin (for Byrd) amendment No. 3423, to modify the number 
     of military personnel and civilians who may be assigned or 
     retained in connection with Plan Colombia.
       Levin (for Byrd) amendment No. 3286, to restrict acceptance 
     of compensation for contractor employment of certain 
     executive branch policymakers after termination of service in 
     the positions to which appointed.
       Levin (for Corzine) amendment No. 3303, to amend title 10, 
     United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of military 
     retired pay for nonregular service from 60 to 55.
       Levin (for Daschle) amendment No. 3328, to require the 
     Secretary of the Air Force to maintain 3 additional B-1 
     bomber aircraft, in addition to the current fleet of 67 B-1 
     bomber aircraft, as an attrition reserve for the B-1 bomber 
     aircraft fleet.
       Levin (for Daschle) amendment No. 3330, to authorize the 
     provision to Indian tribes of excess nonlethal supplies of 
     the Department of Defense.
       Levin (for Dayton) amendment No. 3203, to require a 
     periodic detailed accounting of costs and expenditures for 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and all 
     other operations relating to the Global War on Terrorism.
       Levin (for Dodd) amendment No. 3311, relating to the 
     imposition by the Department of Defense of offsets against 
     certain contractors.
       Levin (for Dodd) amendment No. 3310, to amend the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to adjust the 
     percentage differentials payable to the Federal law 
     enforcement officers in certain high-cost areas.
       Levin (for Feingold) amendment No. 3400, to enable military 
     family members to take leave to attend to deployment-related 
     business and tasks.
       Levin (for Graham (FL)) amendment No. 3300, to amend the 
     Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998.
       Levin (for Leahy) amendment No. 3388, to obtain a full 
     accounting of the programs and activities of the Iraqi 
     National Congress.
       Levin amendment No. 3336, to authorize the demolition of 
     facilities and improvements on certain military installations 
     approved for closure under the defense base closure and 
     realignment process.
       Levin (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3201, to assist school 
     districts serving large numbers or percentages of military 
     dependent children affected by the war in Iraq or 
     Afghanistan, or by other Department of Defense personnel 
     decisions.
       Levin (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3377, to require reports 
     on the efforts of the President to stabilize Iraq and relieve 
     the burden on members of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States deployed in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.

[[Page S7205]]

       Levin (for Reed/Kohl) amendment No. 3355, to ensure the 
     soundness of defense supply chains through the support of 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers that improve the 
     productivity and competitiveness of small manufacturers; and 
     to clarify the fiscal year 2004 funding level for a National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology account.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I see the proponent of the first amendment on the 
floor, and we are prepared to engage. So at this time, I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 3303

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3303 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is pending. The Senator is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Murray from Washington be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, but very 
important for those who serve us so well and so ably across the globe. 
It is an amendment that will lower the retirement age for National 
Guard and Reserve troops from 60 to 55. During this critical time when 
so many members of the Guard and Reserve are serving bravely in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and elsewhere, I think this is the least we can do.
  We are moving the retirement age to match up with the civilian 
retirement age in the country. The current retirement age was 
established 50 years ago at a time when it neared civil service 
retirement age. In the intermediate time, we have lowered civil service 
retirement age to 55, but we left Guard and Reserves at 60. It does not 
make sense that we are treating civilian Federal employees differently 
than we are treating reservists, particularly, I will point out, in a 
changed security situation.
  Because the world has changed so dramatically since the cold war, our 
Guard and Reserves have a very different role today than they did 
during that time period. I have a chart that shows in stark terms what 
has actually happened with deployment of our Guard and Reserve members. 
This is the number of major contingencies and operations with Reserve 
participation. From 1953 to 1990, there were 11 callups. From 1991 to 
2001, there were 50. I think all of us know how seriously our Guard and 
Reserve are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  They truly have become an integral part and contributor of our 
Nation's defense on the front lines. Not coming into the Reserve 
training centers once a month, 2 weeks on a summer's day, but they are 
on the front lines defending America day in and day out, and I think it 
is time we recognize that and made some adjustments to 50-year-old 
policies.
  Considering the demands we are placing on our ready Reserve right 
now, not only do they make up 46 percent of our uniformed Armed Forces 
personnel, they are especially important in areas of expertise most 
pertinent to the stabilization and nation-building missions in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Guard and Reserves count for 97 percent of military civil 
affairs units--think of what we are using them for in Afghanistan--and 
70 percent of engineering units. Think of what we are trying to do with 
regard to reconstruction in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And 66 percent 
of our military police.
  As a matter of fact, they just called up a National Guard unit in my 
home State of New Jersey. They sent out about 100 folks to Guantanamo. 
It is incredible how we are using over and over our Guard and 
reservists for the very functions we need in the new world we are 
facing.
  As we all know, mobilization is up dramatically. More than 160,000 
Reserve personnel are now on active duty. Last year, the number of 
Reserves was more than 400 percent what it had been 4 years earlier--a 
400-percent increase in the number of reservists on duty relative to 4 
years ago. Again, the number of deployments is exploding, whether it is 
in Haiti, Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Kosovo. Name it, that is where we are 
using these folks day in and day out.
  Reservists are serving longer durations as well. Last year the 
average duration was 319 days for the reservists and guardsmen. That, 
by the way, only included those who completed their assignments. 
That is looking at the folks who had been sent back home. That does not 
take into account the extended time many of those on call are serving.

  With some 140,000 troops currently serving in Iraq and 40 percent of 
Guard and Reserves, it is clear we are relying more and more on these 
brave Americans, more than at any time in the recent past.
  The next chart I have demonstrates one component of our Reserve 
forces, the Army National Guard. By the way, in New Jersey, we have 
about 7,000 of the 9,000 National Guard folks on call, just as a 
backdrop--7,000 out of the 9,000. Until the end of 2002, the number of 
mobilized personnel was relatively stable at 20,000, which is what we 
see on this chart. After that, it exploded upward. It was about 70,000 
when I last brought up this proposal when we were discussing the Iraq 
supplemental last year, and it is up 20,000 which, by the way, was in 
the October period, and now it has gone up another 24,000, to almost 
95,000 National Guard personnel mobilized in the service of the Nation.
  It is clear our Reserve forces are no longer a part-time force. This 
is not sideline work. We have entered a new era where a larger number 
of troops will be deployed for long periods of time, and our policies 
need to change. We have a 50-year-old policy, one that does not even 
match up with our civilian retirement age. I think our National Guard 
and Reserve units have made an unbelievably important contribution, and 
we need to reflect that in our policies as we go forward.
  That is what this amendment is about. I know the problems facing the 
Guard and Reserve because I have talked with a lot of these folks 
myself. There are 303 Guard and Reserve members from my State of New 
Jersey who are over the age of 55, fifty-five of whom have already been 
deployed. Additionally, there is a large swath of folks in that 45-to-
55 age bracket. These people would like to have responses.
  To make this a little more personal, 2 weeks ago Saturday, we lost 
Guard folks in Iraq. One was 51, and one was 46. These were people who 
had made long-term commitments to serve our Nation. They were wonderful 
people with great life stories about how they participated in the 
community.
  I went out to Walter Reed, and there were seven of New Jersey Guard 
folks who were injured in the same firefight.
  You do not meet braver people, and they are performing and 
sacrificing the same way our other troops are. They have a contingent 
risk, and they have all kinds of interference in their lives. Why are 
we not addressing some of the fundamental needs these individuals have 
that are at least the same as our civilian employees? I feel 
passionately that we need to respond to what has changed in how we 
operate our military forces as we go forward.
  I understand the budgetary considerations. I know there are reasons 
that push this back, but we need to put faces to these individuals and 
understand it. By the way, there are good personnel management policies 
and if there are these earlier retirements people are not staying 
around longer than they would otherwise so that they could get the 
benefits they want to have and there could be a greater flow and help 
recruiting; lots of good reasons that are independent of the change in 
policy in activation and use of our Reserve Forces. It is something I 
have a hard time understanding.
  I have some other things in here. We can talk about stop-loss orders 
and how that has impacted the lives of so many of the military folks 
who are extending their terms of duty. I think there are about 16,000 
reservists who are under this new policy because of our needs as a 
nation, and those are perfectly reasonable. We are not arguing about 
whether that was the right or wrong thing to do. It needed to be done. 
It had to be done. It was an exigency that needed to be done, but we 
ought to reflect that in our policies. We need to change policies when 
circumstances have changed.
  Finally, this is one of those things that the people who represent 
our military men and women in the Reserves

[[Page S7206]]

and Guard are absolutely almost 100 percent behind. The military 
coalition, including the Reserve Officers Association, Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force 
Association, Retired Enlistment Association, Fleet Reserve, Naval 
Reserve Association, National Guard Association, all of these people 
feel strongly that this is one of their top priorities.
  There are others. We can talk about health care, the demonstrations 
of it and a number of issues. But why are we staying with a 50-year-old 
policy that is not even as reflective of retirement needs of people who 
are risking their lives to protect Americans as we are with our 
civilian employees? I am not criticizing what our policy is for our 
civilian employees in the Federal Government. We ought to reflect the 
fact that we are using these folks on a regular basis. The deployments 
are up. The numbers are up and they are serving at great risk for us.
  I think this is one of those things we can do to actually change the 
lives of their families and reflect those sacrifices they are making 
for us, and that is why I am asking for the support of the Senate with 
regard to changing the retirement age.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CORZINE. Yes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 4 minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I 
say to the Senator that I think he is right on. In my State of Florida, 
we have the same experience and the very same statistics that he has 
pointed out with regard to New Jersey. This is not what was originally 
contemplated for the Guard and the Reserves, and because of their 
specialties, because there is not enough of the Active-Duty Force, they 
have become, in effect, a full-time active-duty force.
  The good news is they are professionally trained warriors, as much as 
the Active-Duty force. The bad news is, this is not what they bargained 
for in the Reserves and the National Guard, because they have their own 
civilian lives. So I appreciate the Senator offering this amendment. I 
support it.
  If the Senator is finished with his comments, I will take 30 seconds 
and point out one of the differences between the Senate bill and the 
House bill on something we tried to address in 2001, after the debacle 
we had in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, where there was an 
inconsistency of the application of State laws on to the counting of 
military overseas ballots in the Presidential election.
  One of the things we did was start a pilot study for Internet voting 
of overseas military. There was some concern that fraud could be 
injected into Internet voting. So what we have done in the Senate bill 
is still have a process but have it delayed to the 2006 and 2008 
elections. The House bill on Defense authorization has done exactly the 
opposite and instead has cut out any kind of pilot study on Internet 
voting for overseas military.
  I hope when we get to conference that we will insist on the Senate 
provision.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator yields for a question. The 
Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. CORZINE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might just speak personally, I served 
in the Reserves some 12, 14 years and we knew what we had as our 
obligation when we signed up. That is the way it has been throughout 
our contemporary military history.
  I share with the Senator how the Reserves and the Guard with their 
families have borne the brunt of battle in the same way as the regular 
forces, but bear in mind that the regular forces, which are given an 
option for early retirement, have to put in a minimum of 20 full years 
of obligated service. If we continue to narrow the differences between 
the pay and benefits for the Reserves and Guard and the Regulars, 
pretty soon people will say, let's opt for the Reserve or the Guard 
rather than spend 20 years of our lives to gain those benefits that 
Congress accords our people.
  For that reason, I intend to raise a budgetary point of order with 
respect to Senator Corzine's amendment on that very point. The 
amendment would allow eligible reservists to be able to collect 
retirement pay at age 55 instead of age 60. That would be an extremely 
costly change to implement. CBO has estimated it would increase 
mandatory spending in 2005 by $1.7 billion. It would cost $8.2 billion 
in mandatory spending over the coming 5 years and $16 billion over the 
coming decade. Those are very major costs.
  I bring to the attention of my colleagues that already in this bill 
we have added, by way of amendments, an additional $1 billion in direct 
spending, and discretionary spending is at $10 billion. So this bill 
goes up and up and up, and it is going to the point where it might well 
become so top heavy we cannot persuade our colleagues to support it 
and/or the administration as they look at the overall budgetary aspects 
of our financial projections for defense.
  Keep in mind there are additional costs that are incurred--I did not 
hear the Senator address these--regarding health care for retired 
reservists that would be caused by this amendment. The amendment would 
have the effect of lowering to 55 the age at which a reservist retiree 
or his or her dependents would become eligible for medical coverage 
under TRICARE.
  The Department of Defense estimates that the added costs to the 
defense health care program could be as high as $427 million in the 
first year should this matter be enacted, and $6.8 billion over the 
coming 10 years. So both the retirement costs as well as the health 
care costs have to be added in if the Senate wants to look at the total 
financial impact of the initiative by my friend from New Jersey.
  The Senate considered this identical amendment less than a year ago. 
Senator Corzine once before introduced it during debate on the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Iraq and Afghanistan in 
October of 2003. The amendment fell on a budgetary point of order 
failing to achieve even 50 votes.
  The Department of Defense has voiced strong objection to the 
amendment, citing studies and experience showing that lowering the 
Reserve retirement age to 55 would not help the services meet 
recruiting, retention, or force management objectives. DOD advises 
that, in fact, 80 percent of those who would benefit from this 
amendment have already retired.
  Let me be clear that my opposition to this amendment does not reflect 
any implied criticism of the patriotic service being rendered by the 
Reserve and the Guard. Once again, however, we are seeing a proposal to 
change a well-established condition of military service, one all of 
those who go into the Reserves fully understand at the time they commit 
to service. Should this amendment be passed, we are incurring an 
enormous financial impact on this bill and the outyear budget of the 
Department of Defense.
  In response to the claim that the greater reliance on the Reserve 
component calls for increased rewards, please keep in mind the enhanced 
health care benefits included in this legislation already as a result 
of the work of Senator Graham of South Carolina. Consider also Senator 
Harry Reid's amendment on current receipt and Senator Landrieu's 
pending amendment, should that be adopted, that would enhance the 
Survivor Benefit Program. That is a broad range of benefits going to 
the Reserve and Guard and others. These amendments equally benefit the 
Guard and Reserve retiree population, the same individuals who would 
benefit from the pending amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.
  As I say, we currently added over $10 billion in discretionary 
spending to this legislation on top of benefits we also increased in 
the underlying bill itself in committee.
  In response to the assertions that the role of the Guard and Reserve 
is changing and the enhanced retirement benefits are needed, let me 
point out there is in the underlying bill a requirement for a 
commission on the National Guard and Reserve that would have the 
responsibility of examining the roles and missions of the Guard and 
Reserve, and specifically to ``assess the adequacy and appropriateness 
of the compensation and benefits currently provided for the members of 
the National

[[Page S7207]]

Guard and reserve components'' and ``to assess the effects of proposed 
changes in compensation and benefits on military careers in both 
regular and reserve components.''
  I anticipate that this commission will provide important insights to 
the Congress in the continuing debate over these issues.
  In summary, the Department of Defense simply cannot continue to 
absorb mandatory spending directives that drive the cost of military 
personnel, both Active and Reserve, to levels we simply cannot support 
at the same time we are trying to modernize, and also the operational 
costs of the military today.
  I urge you to reject this amendment on the point of order.
  At this point in time, the pending amendment offered by Senator 
Corzine increases mandatory spending and, if adopted, would cause the 
underlying bill to exceed the Armed Services Committee's section 302 
allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment 
pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The point of order is not timely 
until all time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I realize that. I thought all time had expired on the 
other side. I was about to yield back my time. Is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 1 minute 51 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. CORZINE. I will yield back my time, but pursuant to section 904 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of the act for purposes of the pending amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. WARNER. The pending amendment offered by the Senator increases 
mandatory spending if adopted and would cause the underlying bill to 
exceed section 302. Therefore, I once again raise the point of order 
against the amendment, pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional 
Budget Act.

  I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur at the appropriate time. 
The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. The vote will then occur on the waiver?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. And the votes, again, for colleagues who 
might not have followed the majority leader and Democratic whip's 
comments, are to be stacked at approximately 11:30, at which time we 
will proceed to all votes.
  Will the Chair advise the Senate with regard to the next amendment in 
order and the time allocated to each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now consider a McConnell 
amendment and a Kennedy amendment, No. 3377, concurrently, for a total 
of 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I did not hear. I was unable to hear the 
Presiding Officer. Will he repeat it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We now go to the McConnell and Kennedy 
amendments, concurrently, with 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 3472

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will now report the McConnell 
amendment which has not yet been reported.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3472.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 247, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 1022. REPORT ON THE STABILIZATION OF IRAQ.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees an unclassified report (with classified 
     annex, if necessary) on the strategy of the United States and 
     coalition forces for stabilizing Iraq. The report shall 
     contain a detailed explanation of the strategy, together with 
     the following information:
       (1) A description of the efforts of the President to work 
     with the United Nations to provide support for, and 
     assistance to, the transitional government in Iraq, and, in 
     particular, the efforts of the President to negotiate and 
     secure adoption by the United Nations Security Council of 
     Resolution 1546.
       (2) A description of the efforts of the President to 
     continue to work with North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) member states and non-NATO member states to provide 
     support for and augment coalition forces, including efforts, 
     as determined by the United States combatant commander, in 
     consultation with coalition forces, to evaluate the--
       (A) the current military forces of the NATO and non-NATO 
     member countries deployed to Iraq;
       (B) the current police forces of NATO and non-NATO member 
     countries deployed to Iraq; and
       (C) the current financial resources of NATO and non-NATO 
     member countries provided for the stabilization and 
     reconstruction of Iraq.
       (3) As a result of the efforts described in paragraph (2)--
       (A) a list of the NATO and non-NATO member countries that 
     have deployed and will have agreed to deploy military and 
     police forces; and
       (B) with respect to each such country, the schedule and 
     level of such deployments.
       (4) A description of the efforts of the United States and 
     coalition forces to develop the domestic security forces of 
     Iraq for the internal security and external defense of Iraq, 
     including a description of United States plans to recruit, 
     train, equip, and deploy domestic security forces of Iraq.
       (5) As a result of the efforts described in paragraph (4)--
       (A) the number of members of the security forces of Iraq 
     that have been recruited;
       (B) the number of members of the security forces of Iraq 
     that have been trained; and
       (C) the number of members of the security forces of Iraq 
     that have been deployed.
       (6) A description of the efforts of the United States and 
     coalition forces to assist in the reconstruction of essential 
     infrastructure of Iraq, including the oil industry, 
     electricity generation, roads, schools, and hospitals.
       (7) A description of the efforts of the United States, 
     coalition partners, and relevant international agencies to 
     assist in the development of political institutions and 
     prepare for democratic elections in Iraq.
       (8) A description of the obstacles, including financial, 
     technical, logistic, personnel, political, and other 
     obstacles, faced by NATO in generating and deploying military 
     forces out of theater to locations such as Iraq.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand the floor managers, we 
have a half hour, and that time is divided between the Senator from 
Kentucky and myself. We have two different amendments. At some time at 
the leadership's discretion we will have an opportunity to vote on 
those. The asking for the yeas and nays still is yet to be done, but it 
is certainly my intention to do so.
  Mr. President, I yield myself now 5 minutes.
  I want to address an issue that came up yesterday just prior to 
making the comments on my amendment because I do think it is of 
importance, as we are reaching the final hours in the deliberation of 
the Defense authorization bill, to make a comment on a particular 
amendment. This is effectively the Leahy amendment which is supported 
by a number of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  I understand there is a reluctance on the other side of the aisle 
among Republican leadership--not necessarily the chairman of our Armed 
Services Committee but of the Republican leadership--voting on it.
  I want to mention very briefly as we are coming into the final hours 
of the consideration of the legislation, the importance of the 
consideration of that particular proposal. I am very concerned that our 
Senate Republican friends are effectively stonewalling the release of 
the Justice Department memorandum on the torture of prisoners, and 
specifically the majority leader has filed cloture on the Defense bill 
in hopes of preventing a vote on an amendment that would require the 
release of the Justice Department documents.
  The administration released a handful of documents yesterday, but the 
materials are far from complete. This is not a partisan issue; it is a 
constitutional issue.
  It is required by our oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend 
the Constitution of the United States. The administration has shown a 
stunning disregard for the law and the usual rights of oversight, 
resorting time and time again to saying that we are at war.
  We are not under martial law in this country. The laws and the 
Constitution are not suspended because we are at war. The actions of 
the administration

[[Page S7208]]

and questionable advice by the Justice Department contradict the 
founding principles of this country. Our country is not above the law. 
The President is not above the law. The Attorney General is not above 
the law. The Justice Department is not above the law. The Bush 
administration cannot continue to refuse to reveal memoranda because we 
are at war and because he does not want to. This is a precedent that 
could dangerously undermine our system of laws and government as we 
know them.
  I believe the Senate itself is on trial. We have a constitutional and 
an oath of office responsibility to prevent this stonewalling of 
required accountability. If we look the other way and refuse to take 
action, then we are complicit in the gross violation and abuse of all 
that makes this country great.
  America's Constitution is not a document of convenience to be 
followed only when we feel like it. It represents our best ideals as a 
democracy and protects our freedoms. I hope the Senate will uphold the 
Constitution and demand accountability for the prison abuses that are 
so contrary to all we stand for as a nation. I will have more to say on 
that later in the day.
  The amendment which I offer on behalf of myself, the Senator from 
West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
Leahy, and Mr. Feingold, is a very simple amendment. Effectively, we 
understand that the President now is going to the EU and then to NATO. 
During that period of time, he will be asking our international allies 
and friends to participate and help offload some of the very heavy 
burden that Americans are bearing in Iraq, the most notable being the 
loss of life which exceeds 95 percent of the lives that are lost, and 
over 96 percent in terms of the casualties and the extraordinary 
expenditure of American taxpayers' funds, what I think will come out 
well in excess of $4 billion a month.
  We also ought to know the scheduling in some detail for the 
development of internal security--primarily police--and what is being 
done inside the country and outside the country, and what is being done 
in terms of other countries around the world in helping, assisting, and 
offloading the burden on American service men and women who are caught 
in the bull's eye over in Iraq.
  Many, including myself, find it is going to be extremely difficult to 
remove the concept of occupation as long as we are the only ones who 
are involved in the security issues in Iraq.
  This amendment is the result of efforts by the President. We are 
asking for a list of countries that are committed to deploying military 
and police forces. With respect to each country and the level of such 
deployment, we are asking for the scheduling of providing such 
assistance--that would be economic aid--and effectively when that 
assistance will come.
  As a result of the President's efforts, we want to know the number of 
police and military forces in Iraq that have been recruited for 
policing and for the military--the numbers of members of the police and 
military forces that have been trained. We want a description of the 
anticipated U.S. military force posture in the region during the next 
year, including the estimate--I underline the word ``estimate''--of the 
numbers of members of the Armed Forces that will be required to serve 
in Iraq during the next year. That is what we are asking for, 
effectively.
  We are talking about planning, which the military does. Every year 
they have to submit a 5-year plan in terms of troops for the military. 
They have the Quadrennial Defense Review where they talk about the 
planning in terms of the troops and the needs in terms of the troops.
  What we are trying to find out is what is the best estimate. We are 
asking for the estimate, and we are asking for that estimate 30 days 
after the bill becomes law. We hope this bill is going to come to a 
conclusion in the next 2 days. It then will go to conference. All of us 
are very hopeful and expect it will be concluded prior to the time of 
the summer recess. Then the administration will have 30 more days in 
order to make this kind of estimate and report. We will certainly know, 
since the President will return in the next several days, we will be 
able to make that kind of estimate.
  Then we are asking: All right. Give us that information in 30 days, 
and level with the American people. Let the American people know. 
People ask: Why should we do this? It is because we have 140,000 
American reasons to do it. That represents the American troops over 
there. That is the reason to do it. The American people are entitled to 
an estimate within 30 days, and then the follow-on and update of that 
in 6 months.
  Americans who have members of their families serving over there are 
entitled to this information. The American people are entitled to this 
information.
  There is ample precedents where we have required similar information 
in the Defense authorization--before going into the Balkans.
  This is a matter of estimates. It is a matter of information. It is a 
matter of giving the American people the best information we have.
  We have heard all kinds of estimates over all periods of time. We 
heard estimates yesterday by Mr. Wolfowitz talking about the American 
forces may be in there for years.
  The American people are entitled to know what exactly this 
administration and this Defense Department, to the best of their 
information, can provide and should provide for the American people.
  It is a simple amendment. It helps establish some benchmark for which 
we can measure the kind of progress we are making in terms of help and 
assistance from other countries around the world--not only in terms of 
getting support for troops and financial support but also help in 
assisting and getting information to the American people with regard to 
the development of police forces and the training of those forces.
  Those are essential elements in terms of Iraqi policy. The American 
people are entitled to this.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Kennedy amendment is little more 
than an effort to undermine the President and further the myth that our 
efforts to bring stability and democracy to Iraq are somehow 
unilateralist.
  It is past time for some Senators to stop pretending that we are 
``going it alone'' in Iraq. Neither the liberation of Iraq nor our 
efforts today could be characterized by anyone with a rudimentary 
understanding of mathematics as unilateral.
  To begin with, the United States was merely a part of a coalition of 
19 countries that toppled Saddam Hussein and liberated Iraq. In 
contrast, the United States joined only 16 other nations during World 
War II.
  Nineteen is more than one. It is more than a couple. It is more than 
a few. It is a lot. Nineteen countries are more than most Americans 
will visit during their lifetimes.
  The liberation of Iraq was less unilateral than the French opposition 
to it.
  Since liberation, the administration has worked to bring more nations 
into Iraq to help stabilize and reconstruct that country. Currently, 34 
nations are providing military and security forces to assist the Iraqis 
in defending their newly free country from the insurgents and 
terrorists.
  The international commitment to Iraq has grown. Today the South 
Korean President announced that his country will push ahead with the 
deployment of 3,000 soldiers, despite the savage beheading of a South 
Korean citizen in Iraq this very week.
  Although the junior and senior Senators from Massachusetts have both 
diminished the role that NATO countries are playing in Iraq, it is 
worth noting that 17 of these countries are members of NATO. NATO is 
involved in Iraq. It is also involved in Afghanistan. Both efforts are 
integral to our global war against terrorism.

  Currently, 6,000 NATO troops from 25 nations are participating in the 
International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. There are over 
8,000 foreign troops there, representing over half of the 15,000 non-
Afghan forces in Afghanistan.
  Now, the President's critics argue that NATO should be more involved, 
that the international community should be more involved. We all wish 
we had more help in Iraq. I wish we had

[[Page S7209]]

more help in Afghanistan. I applaud the President's recent efforts to 
secure passage of a new Security Council resolution that endorses the 
new Iraqi government's democratic transition and to encourage NATO to 
provide greater assistance. Predictably, Jacques Chirac opposed a NATO 
greater role. Given that NATO operates on the basis of consensus, 
Chirac's unilateral opposition will likely block NATO authorized 
deployments.
  There are two principle barriers to greater international 
participation. It is important to focus on this. First, a number of 
countries, frankly, did not want democracy to take hold in Iraq. They 
do not like the idea that Iraq may become a democracy. Some nations are 
threatened by the march of freedom.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am going to ask the Senator to yield 
momentarily to the managers for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request, which is concurred in by the leadership, without charging the 
time against the debate of this amendment.
  Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I submit the following 
request: Currently, we are debating five votes with the understanding 
that at the conclusion of those votes, and possibly yielding back some 
time, a sequence of five votes will commence. I am now asking unanimous 
consent that sequence of five votes be delayed until 1:45 and that at 
the conclusion of the debate on the five scheduled votes, pursuant to 
regular order, we return to the first pending amendment at the desk, 
which is the Bond amendment, and proceed to debate that amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we on this 
side express our appreciation to the two managers for this arrangement. 
It will be most helpful to everyone, and it will help us see the end of 
this bill. We will have other amendments after we finish the Bond 
amendment.
  No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me start by saying there are two principle 
barriers to greater international participation. First, there are a lot 
of countries that did not want democracy to take hold in Iraq. They are 
not democratic themselves, and they do not want any democracies in the 
neighborhood.
  Second, some nations are threatened by the march of freedom. Others 
had financial interests in the former Saddam Hussein regime. Some 
nations would not contribute troops unless we were to cede control in 
Iraq to the U.N., a prospect most Americans recognize as a dangerous 
fantasy. At such a price, their assistance is not worth the tremendous 
risk placing American security and Iraqi democracy in the hands of the 
U.N. entails.
  Second, many countries that want to help simply lack the resources to 
help. As appreciative as we are of NATO's contributions, we are also 
cognizant of its limitations. European nations spend on average about 2 
percent of their gross domestic production on defense. Of that money, a 
majority is spent on personnel costs and benefits. Relatively little is 
spent to modernize or sustain the equipment, weapon systems, and 
logistic capabilities of NATO militaries.
  Many NATO countries cannot generate sufficient forces or sustain 
their deployment outside of the European theater. They lack the 
weapons, the aircraft, the logistics, transportation, and supply 
capabilities the United States has. Because of these limitations, many 
nations have decided to contribute to Iraq's future by providing 
economic, humanitarian, or other forms of assistance to the liberated 
Iraqis. According to the Department of the Treasury, the 10 largest 
donors to Iraq have offered nearly $8 billion in assistance. In 
addition, 29 donors have offered hundreds of millions more in financial 
aid, and 16 more have offered in-kind assistance.
  Even if significantly more international troops could be deployed to 
Iraq, their deployment would not be a substitute for the long-term 
security needs of that country. These needs can only be met by Iraqi 
security forces.
  There are clearly problems and challenges. The Iraqi security forces 
need training, they need equipment, and we will be providing it. We 
will be recruiting, training, and equipping Iraqis to defend Iraq from 
external attack and from internal subversion. These Iraqis, far more 
than foreign troops, will determine the future of that country.
  The long-term solution to Iraqi security does not lie with the U.S. 
military. It does not lie with the U.N. or with NATO. It lies with the 
Iraqi people. We must be committed to supporting them and their efforts 
to bring stability and security to their own country.
  I commend the soldiers of the U.S. military and those 32 other 
nations currently serving in Iraq for their brave efforts to bring 
peace to a troubled land.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are all grateful for the participation 
of other countries around the world in Iraq. But the facts remain, when 
all is said and done, the estimate by the Defense Department is that 
96.9 percent of the casualties are U.S. forces and 97 percent of 
nonhostile casualties are U.S. forces. We are grateful for the 
other countries, but the burden is on the U.S. forces.

  I will mention what the difference is between the amendment of the 
Senator from Kentucky and my amendment, our amendment. There are only 
two basic differences. One is the number of reports. We have three 
reports. He has one report. And the timing of that report. The other 
difference, the major difference, is we are asking for estimates of the 
number of American troops that are going to be there. The American 
families are entitled to that information. The families who have 
service men and women over there, whether they are in the Regular Army, 
Reserves, or Guard, are entitled to an estimate. They ought to be able 
to get an estimate. It is amazing that the Senator from Kentucky will 
not even include an estimate about the number of American troops that 
are going to be there. Not even an estimate.
  Mr. Wolfowitz stated yesterday, when he testified in the House, in 
response to Mr. Skelton, that, No, we are not stuck. The U.S. strategy 
in Iraq is clearly to develop Iraqi forces.
  The Senator from Kentucky and I agree, we are asking for progress and 
estimating the progress in developing the security force and the police 
force. We agree with that. But he said the U.S. strategy in Iraq 
clearly is to develop an Iraq that can take over security from U.S. and 
allied troops. That is the policy.
  What is wrong with asking the estimated time? What in the world is 
wrong with asking how long will it take, and get us a report 30 days 
after this bill? If that will not be accurate, give it to us 6 months 
after that. If that does not help, give us 6 months after that. Why in 
the world is there a reluctance to level with the American people about 
the amount of forces we are going to have over there?
  The Senator from Kentucky includes reporting on the amounts of 
resources that will come from other countries. He includes in his 
amendment the training of the personnel, the security personnel, the 
police force. He gets a report on that. Why in the world do we prohibit 
the families who are serving over there, and the American people, from 
having an estimate about the amount of troops going over there?
  Now we had that. We did that before. This is not something that is 
enormously new. In the 1995 Defense authorization bill, Congress 
required a report that had to include 11 elements, including: estimates 
of the total number of forces required to carry out the operation, 
estimates on the expected duration of the operation, an estimate of the 
cost of the operation, and an assessment of how many Reserve units 
would be necessary for the operation.
  That was passed here. I do not know whether the Senator from Kentucky 
voted against that. I do not hear him saying: We had that in 1995, and 
I voted ``no'' because we can't do that sort of thing here.
  We have done that before in Bosnia. Is Iraq less important than 
Bosnia? We were prepared to do that in Bosnia, and it got the virtual 
unanimous support of the Members of this body at that time. And we are 
not prepared to do it in Iraq? I am confused. I do not understand.
  What possibly is the justification for not leveling with the American 
people on the best estimate this administration has on the number of 
troops we

[[Page S7210]]

are going to have over there? We are not saying: Give us a number, and 
then withdraw our troops; give us a number and then come back to 
Congress and tell us if you are going to need more troops. We are not 
asking that. Estimates, estimates, estimates.
  We have the President who is going over to meet with NATO, with 
allies abroad. He is going to obviously, hopefully, ask others to 
participate because they clearly have an interest. They clearly have 
some responsibility. They have not recognized it. I wish they would. 
But clearly they have to understand they have an interest in the 
security of that part of the world, and they ought to be participating.
  We know the French were all too interested in finding out and 
participating in the oil issues, and it was obviously indicated to 
American representatives at the U.N. that they did not think we were 
transferring sovereignty unless we were going to transfer over to the 
Iraqi ministers the ability to have independent European oil 
participation in the development of the oil resources over there.
  We want them to be in there with regard to offloading the burden on 
American troops and helping and assisting in terms of developing the 
security and the police. We ought to know, and the American people 
ought to know, whether they are willing to do that.
  The President is headed over there. All we are asking for is 
estimates. It is amazing to me, given the past precedents, that we are 
unwilling to share that kind of information with the American people. I 
think the American people are entitled to it.
  That is what our amendment does. It is the principal difference with 
the McConnell amendment. When you come right down to it, that is the 
principal reason we have an alternative out here, because the 
opposition refuses to share with the American people estimates, 
estimates, estimates on the number of troops. I think the American 
people are entitled to it.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If neither side uses time, time will be yielded from both sides 
equally.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a minute and a half.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself the minute and a half.
  I would mention, in his May 24 speech on Iraq, President Bush said:

       [W]e'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as 
     long as necessary.

  On May 4, General Swartz, of J-3 Operations, said: ``the current 
plan'' and ``what we're working toward'' is to keep the current level 
of deployments ``through '05.''
  General Abizaid, on May 19, before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, said:

       [T]he force levels will stay about what they are, I think, 
     until after the elections in Iraq.

  Those elections are scheduled in Iraq for December or January.
  We have had estimates by individuals. Why not share and give official 
estimates to the American people? That is the principal difference. I 
am still stunned by the unwillingness to share that kind of information 
with the American people.
  I reserve any time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I once again wish to emphasize to our 
colleagues, in the past the Committee of the Armed Services most 
particularly, and I think the Congress in general, has refrained from 
requiring the Department of Defense to provide detailed planning, 
manpower, or cost estimates for future military operations.
  The very nature of any military operation is such that the planners 
do their very best. They establish parameters. There are some great 
quotes, which I cannot bring to mind, but in war is the unexpected. You 
never can know for certain what your requirements will be. Certainly in 
trying to project that into the future, much less the immediate days or 
weeks or months ahead--force level projections and cost projections or 
estimates based on assumptions--conditions can change so quickly, for 
better or worse, rendering such estimates of very little value.
  So the Senator has put forth an amendment. In the course of our 
deliberations with the committee staff and this manager, and with the 
Senator and others, much of it is very useful and beneficial. There was 
a lot of thought given. We wanted to accept the amendment with slight 
modifications.
  We have now, for example, at 3 o'clock this afternoon the Secretary 
of State coming up to brief the Senate. That is consistent with how the 
executive branch is trying to be very forthcoming, and the Department 
of Defense, the Department of State, and others, in providing 
information in briefings about the stabilization and reconstruction 
efforts in Iraq over the past year, providing numerous updates in a 
variety of areas, at least on a weekly basis. General Abizaid has been 
very clear about his force requirements for the next 6 months, reducing 
the need for what we call a sort of quick-fix report as proposed by the 
amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The McConnell amendment requires a comprehensive, balanced report 
within an appropriate and feasible time period that enables the 
Congress to perform its oversight responsibilities. Therefore, I think 
this is a question of reasonableness, and that reasonableness is 
predicated on forthcoming estimates and forthcoming briefings by the 
administration on a broad range of issues that relate to the operations 
our military forces are courageously performing worldwide.
  Therefore, I strongly urge our colleagues to support the McConnell 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in the fiscal year 1995 Defense 
Authorization Act, we did precisely the same thing Senator Kennedy is 
asking. I am going to quote section 2(B)A. This is relative to Bosnia 
at that time.

       The report must include an estimate--

``an estimate''--

     of the total number of forces required to carry out such an 
     operation, including forces required for rotation base.

  There is good precedent for precisely what Senator Kennedy is doing 
in terms of requiring an estimate. The troops deserve it. The Nation 
deserves that estimate.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my colleague from 
Michigan, how well you, and having been privileged to serve these many 
years together, recognize that the Balkan situation was one that had a 
measure of predictability that in no way parallels the complexity of 
the mission we are carrying out in the Central Command AOR. There are 
stark differences between those military operations.
  So, Mr. President, at this time I urge colleagues to vote for the 
McConnell amendment, which we think is very reasonable. It could be 
viewed as a reinforcing of the Senator's desire to get the information 
we share with him in many respects--important to the Senate.
  I yield back the time and ask the Chair to move to the next 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators wish to order the yeas and 
nays on both pending amendments?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. By arrangement of the managers, there will be side-to-
side votes. The McConnell amendment first, followed by the Kennedy 
underlying.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are now ordered on both 
amendments.


                           Amendment No. 3353

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S7211]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I believe Senator Reed controls the time on his side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  My amendment would condition the acquisition of interceptors 21 
through 30 for the ground-based midcourse national missile defense 
system on the implementation of operational evaluation and testing 
under the auspices of the director of testing in the Pentagon.
  I will try to give a brief explanation of where we are with this 
system that is to be deployed. It is a combination of existing elements 
and some brandnew technology. The existing elements, first, the defense 
support system, a satellite system, is a cold war system designed to 
pick up the initial lift-off of missiles. That is in place. Then there 
is a group of Aegis ships that are out around the potential threat area 
of North Korea. That is a relatively new application of these ships. 
They were designed to intercept and detect cruise missiles and 
aircraft. Now we are attempting to expand that to track, at least 
partially, the flight path of an ICBM coming from a threat, 
specifically North Korea. Then there is the Cobra Dane radar, an older 
radar system. It is not particularly well adapted at discriminating, so 
it is therefore not the best radar we could have. The administration 
has canceled the X-band radar system, which is better. Then there are 
the interceptors with the kill vehicles on top.
  The subject of this amendment is the interceptors. For many years, 
this ground-based system was designed to deploy 20 interceptors. Today, 
we are taking five for this deployment. But 20 was a rather significant 
number for technology that has not yet been proven. What the 
administration did this year is say, well, we want to go beyond that 
20; we want 40. We want to buy 10 more, 21 through 30, and have long 
lead-time acquisition funds for 31 through 40. Well, the Congress in 
its wisdom already terminated the long lead time for 21 through 40, but 
we still have to budget this money for 21 through 30.
  I don't propose to take that money away. I want to simply fence it, 
make as a condition to spend that money that this system will begin 
testing and evaluation. We had a vigorous debate about imposing this 
operational testing scheme. The result was now the Secretary of Defense 
is required to promulgate some criteria for operational testing and 
conduct these tests by October of 2005.
  My amendment differs, and I think significantly so. It says we cannot 
depend upon the Defense Secretary's criteria and evaluation--a self-
evaluation by the Missile Defense Agency. We need to get this program 
back into the traditional system of operational testing and evaluation, 
which is conducted by an independent agency in the Pentagon which 
designs, supervises the tests, and makes sure the tests will do what we 
want to do: deliver to the field a system that actually works. I don't 
think it is unreasonable. In fact, I think it is entirely appropriate 
to say that before we buy these additional interceptors--10 more--we 
are at least in a situation where this rudimentary system has 
been entered into operational testing.

  Let me specifically highlight the issue of the interceptors. The 
operation of the interceptor and kill vehicle is brand new. Neither has 
been tested in an interceptor test. We have not tried to fly them with 
a kill vehicle even against a target. Yet we are buying 10 more of 
them. It would be prudent to say let's wait and at least do a few tests 
with these new interceptors and kill vehicles. The new version of the 
kill vehicle, by the way, where the warhead would actually impact the 
incoming enemy missile, has never even been flight tested. We don't 
know what it will look like. In fact, problems with the kill vehicle 
have delayed the scheduled flight test from March until July 31 of this 
year; and, frankly, we are weeks away from that and it is entirely 
plausible that this would be delayed even further. So we are deploying 
a system in which we have not yet even tested in flight one of the most 
critical aspects of the system, let alone the fact that the rest of the 
system has been cobbled together by existing pieces of technology being 
used in new ways.
  That is a strong argument, in my mind, to say how serious are we 
about saying this is deployment. But it is more compelling, in my mind, 
to say at some point we have to get operational testing and 
evaluation--not some improvised form by the Secretary of Defense being 
implemented by the Missile Defense Agency but a traditional system 
where the director of test and evaluation at the Pentagon does 
evaluation and testing. This amendment would do that. It would take no 
money away. It would simply say we cannot spend the money on the next 
10 interceptors--21 through 30--until we have entered the traditional 
mode of operational test and evaluation. This amendment makes a great 
deal of sense. There are examples of how useful operational testing is.
  The Patriot PAC-3 system--probably the closest analogy to this, even 
though it is a theater missile system--is designed to go against 
targets that are not as fast and don't leave the atmosphere. But it is 
the same hit-to-kill technology. In fact, I was bemused years ago when 
they would show the film clips of how successful we are in this new 
technology, and they would use PAC-3 film clips about the hit-to-kill 
technology.
  The PAC-3 system was being tested developmentally. Then it went into 
operational testing and it failed four consecutive operational tests 
against a realistic target, one in which you try to simulate the 
conditions of battlefield use. Even though it was successful in the 
developmental tests, it failed four consecutive operational tests.
  Why are we buying missiles today that have the potential of 
duplicating the PAC-3 experience? Frankly, we could be in the 
unenviable position where the first time we try to fly this against a 
potentially real target, it fails. We have to have operational testing 
and the PAC-3 is a very good example. These operational tests are 
extremely useful in finally coming up with a system that is much more 
reliable.
  So, as a result, I urge my amendment strongly. It doesn't take the 
money away. It simply lays out as a condition that we not spend it 
until we at least have operational testing. By the way, we are already 
buying 20 missiles.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I must say I am fortunate to serve on the 
Armed Services Committee with Senator Reed and Senator Levin. 
Throughout the many years we have served together, we have had our 
honest differences of opinion. I don't mind sharing them. I enjoy our 
debates. It is constructive for the Senate. There is a process by which 
we go about it.
  At some point, there has to be finality reached with regard to 
issues. I say, most respectfully, to my good friend from Rhode Island, 
the Senate has voted not once but twice, basically on the same issue 
raised by this amendment. I am reminded of Winston Churchill, one time 
in the depths of World War II, the early part of it in the Battle of 
Britain, when he went back to his old prep school and gave the famous 
speech saying, ``Never, never, never give in.''
  Well, at some point, the Senate has to get on with its business. I 
think we have more than adequately debated the issues raised by this 
amendment. Nevertheless, I will take the time of my colleagues to 
carefully review it.
  The Senate has already spoken on every single issue raised by this 
amendment. First, the testing. The Senate adopted the Warner amendment 
to require ballistic missile defense testing in 2005. That is the first 
Reed amendment. It rejected the testing approach which the Reed 
amendment puts before the Senate once again, an approach, I remind my 
colleagues, that the Pentagon's own chief testing official described as 
premature and not helpful to the program.

  If the Reed amendment is adopted, it is just another prohibition in 
the program, possibly a gap in the production line, and all of those 
things end up in costly bills for the American taxpayers and 
disruption. We all know what happens when you break down and develop a 
system whereby you cannot predict with certainty as to how and when the 
units would be completed on production lines.

[[Page S7212]]

  It comes down again to, Do you want to deploy a missile defense 
system or don't you? If you do, I suggest most respectfully to 
colleagues, let's accept the judgments that you have rendered and get 
on and not come back and back again and again on these same issues.
  The Senate already rejected the Boxer amendment which would have 
halted the development. Do we want to halt production of missile 
interceptors for an extended period of time, a path that would increase 
costs, technical risks, and leave us vulnerable again to this threat 
where America stands defenseless to protect itself from an accidental 
or an intentional firing of a ballistic missile on to our territorial 
50 States? That is the issue.
  The Senate yesterday, after very thorough and, I thought, one of the 
better debates on this bill, presented by my distinguished colleague, 
the ranking member, Mr. Levin, rejected the Levin amendment which would 
have done basically the same thing as the Reed amendment. It would have 
resulted in a disjointed, disrupted program.
  I suggest the Senate should not now adopt an amendment that would 
fence 2005 funds for additional missile defense interceptors until a 
testing requirement is completed, when it has already imposed a 
realistic testing requirement in 2005, explicitly rejected the kind of 
testing proposed in this amendment, and explicitly rejected the delays, 
costs, and disruptions that would result from withholding the funding 
needed to proceed with the testing and fielding of missile defense 
interceptors.
  I most respectfully urge my colleagues to sustain the decisions that 
have been debated and voted on within the past few days by this 
Chamber.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Reed 
amendment.
  The amendment before us covers ground that was considered and already 
rejected by the Senate in the three missile defense amendments offered 
by Senators Boxer, Reed, and Levin.
  The amendment Senator Reed offers today uses the same approach to 
testing proposed in his amendment that we considered last Thursday and 
that the Senate rejected. But his amendment today has the additional 
disadvantage of imposing a very significant cost--to the missile 
defense program and to our ability to defend the Nation from long-range 
missile attack. These costs are identical to those that the Senate 
rejected yesterday when we defeated the amendment proposed by Senator 
Levin.
  Senatore Reed's amendment would prohibit expenditure of fiscal year 
2005 funds for ground-based interceptors until initial operational test 
and evaluation is completed.
  I would remind my colleagues that the Senate has already voted in 
favor of a Warner amendment to require realistic testing of the 
ballistic missile defense system in 2005. Yet Senator Reed is 
proposing, again, an approach which would require operational test and 
evaluation of the BMD system and prohibit the use of fiscal year 2005 
funds to acquire additional missile defense interceptors until such 
testing is completed. This is precisely the approach that the Senate 
has already rejected and precisely the approach that even the 
pentagon's own chief testing official believes is premature and 
unhelpful. The Senate has already spoken on the testing issue.
  Furthermore, the amendment we are considering, if adopted, would do 
serious harm to the Nation's ability to defend itself from long-range 
missile threats. Just as with the Levin amendment yesterday, the Reed 
amendment would cause a break in production line for missile defense 
interceptors and unacceptable delays in the effort to defend our Nation 
from known and serious long-range missile threats.
  Planning and conducting operational testing and completing the 
evaluation of such testing would take at least a year. During that 
year, no funding for the next 10 interceptors could be spent. Key 
manufacturing personnel would be lost, subcontractors would be lost, 
and knowledge of manufacturing processes would be lost. When a 
production line is broken, it has to be restarted. Rehiring and 
retraining workers, requalifying subcontractors, and reestablishing 
manufacturing processes would take additional time and a great deal of 
money. A production break would also increase technical risk to this 
program, since quality depends in significant measure on well-trained 
and experienced workers and well-qualified subcontractors and stable 
manufacturing processes.
  Loss of these funds for just a year could result in a delay in 
fielding these interceptors of nearly 3 years and a 4- to 5-year gap 
between fielding the 20th interceptor and 30th interceptor. Restarting 
the production line would incur a cost to the taxpayer of more than 
$250 million. Some Senators may argue that fencing funds is not a cut, 
but I would suggest that if the funds are lost for at least a year, 
there is not much difference between this fence and a substantial 
budget cut.
  The threat more than justifies the need for additional GMD 
interceptors. That threat is here today. It was confirmed last year by 
the Director of Central Intelligence, in testimony before the Armed 
Services Committee, when he testified that the North Korea has a 
missile that can reach the United States.
  The need for additional interceptors is based on the threat and all 
the evidence I have seen fully and clearly justifies the acquisition of 
the 10 interceptors in the budget request. Any significant slowdown in 
this effort would leave the ground-based midcourse defense element with 
a severely reduced inventory of interceptors by 2007 and would leave 
our Nation vulnerable to North Korean and, potentially, Middle Eastern 
threats. Unfortunately, Senator Reed's amendment, if adopted, will 
cause just such a serious slowdown.
  Mr. President, the Senate has spoken already on all the issues raised 
in this amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to be consistent and 
to oppose this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island 
will yield 2 minutes to me.
  Mr. REED. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I wish to ask the Senator from Rhode 
Island a question. The Patriot PAC-3 experience he described where I 
believe there were four failures, did that not, in fact, lead to 
changes in that system?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Rhode 
Island is recognized to respond.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, it actually did lead to changes in the 
operational use of the system, and those changes were very valuable 
once deployed in a combat situation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the question again is whether this Defense 
Department is going to obey the law or do they believe they are above 
the law. The law is very specific. It reads:

       The Secretary of Defense shall provide that a major defense 
     acquisition program may not proceed beyond low-rate initial 
     production until initial operational test and evaluation of 
     the program is completed.

  That is the law. This Defense Department too often has decided it is 
above the law; it is beyond the law; it is not going to abide by the 
law. We have written a law for a purpose. Operational test and 
evaluation is required by law, not by the Secretary of Defense, but by 
the independent office that was created to do this testing.
  That is the definition of initial operational test and evaluation. No 
exception has been made for that. We deployed some UAVs, but we did not 
exempt them from independent test and evaluation. We deployed 
airplanes, but we have not exempted them from this requirement. This 
would be the first system that would be allowed to proceed beyond low-
rate initial production without that evaluation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Twenty minutes 
was allocated and equally divided.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we grant 1 additional minute over and 
above the time.

[[Page S7213]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. One final point in this minute. According to the agency's 
own papers, disclosures, the production rate capacity of these 
interceptors is one per month. That is the capacity. They are there. 
This is full-rate production. They are not at low-rate initial 
production anymore. The capacity is one per month. That is what they 
are doing now. That is their plan. Their plan is for one per month. The 
law says they cannot go beyond low-rate initial production without this 
independent evaluation.
  That is what this amendment is about. It provides the money but says 
abide by the law, obey this law, there is a purpose for it--to make 
sure our weapons systems work.
  I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for this amendment. It is 
quite different from any amendment that has been voted on before.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls an additional 5 minutes 
20 seconds.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to 3 minutes being yielded 
from the majority? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator 
from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have to agree with my colleague from 
Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We have had 
this issue before us not only this year a number of times but last year 
a number of times, and even the year before that to one degree or 
another.
  Whether it is intentional, the net effect of these types of 
amendments is it delays the programs and it adds to extra costs.
  We have had a lot of debate on all these issues that have been in 
this particular amendment. I think it is time for the Senate to move 
forward.
  I will point out in response to the question that was raised by my 
colleague from Michigan that we had testimony in the full committee 
from the chief tester who says he believes we are in full compliance 
with the law. I do not think anything else needs to be said. We have 
that testimony. It is on the record in the committee.
  I urge my colleagues again to join both Senator Warner and myself in 
opposing this particular amendment.
  We do have some different testing procedures. That is because this is 
a different program, unlike the many other programs we have had. So we 
have to deal with it a different way.
  The bottom line again is the chief tester is happy with the way it is 
progressing. He has had access to the program that has been 
unprecedented. He is satisfied with the cooperation between the program 
office and the test community. I have a letter, again, that I submitted 
for the Record in the past that indicates he is fully satisfied. I will 
read specifically from the letter. It says:

       My office has unprecedented access to GMD, and I am 
     satisfied with the cooperation between the program office and 
     the test community. I will continue to advise the Secretary 
     of Defense and the Director of MDA on the BMDS test program. 
     I will also provide my characterization of system 
     capabilities and my assessment of test program adequacy 
     handling as required by Congress.

  In my view, it is time we move on. In effect, when we go for the 
formal testing that is being advocated in this particular amendment, we 
add an extra year of delay. It breaks up the manufacturing lines.
  We have had this discussion at a previous date. The net effect is 
subcontractors have to be requalified, workers need to be retrained, 
and then the manufacturing process has to be relearned. It takes time, 
up to 2\1/2\ years, and money--some have estimated as much as adding 
$250 million to the cost.
  So I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Warner in opposing this 
Reed amendment. It has the net effect of adding costs to the program, 
delaying the program unnecessarily, and we do have adequate testing 
now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Virginia controls the remainder of the time of 1 
minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has been recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I will accommodate the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I respect the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee 
who have engaged in this debate. The question to me is: Will this 
system work? We really do not know if it will work. If we do not know 
it is going to work, why are we buying 10 additional interceptors at a 
price of about $500 million?
  So this is not the same amendment, the amendment written over and 
over again. This is an amendment about scarce resources--will we devote 
them to these interceptors that are untested or will we devote them to 
other issues?
  I point out that there is nothing in this amendment that slows up the 
program. There is nothing in this amendment that would take away funds. 
It simply says, let us get into an operational testing mode before we 
buy these additional systems.
  Final point. This system has been plagued by delays, but they are 
technological delays. The reason we are not having a test--we did not 
have one in March, and we are having it in July--is because this kill 
vehicle is not ready for such testing. There is nothing about our 
amendment or about our procedures. This is a hard technology, but let 
us make sure it works.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the indulgence of the Presiding Officer. The time 
remaining on this side is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining is 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. I believe our case has been made very clearly to 
our colleagues that these issues raised by the Senator from Rhode 
Island have been passed upon by the Senate in the preceding 3 or 4 days 
after very careful, conscientious, and deliberate debate. The issues 
are settled. We must come to resolution, no matter how strong our 
differences may be, and accept the judgment collectively rendered by 
the Senate in these votes.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REED. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will now proceed to the next amendment 
which Senator Levin will offer on behalf of a colleague, but I would 
like to ask for a brief quorum call so I can consult with the majority 
leader because we are making considerable progress in beginning to 
define what remains to be done and a course by which this bill can be 
completed today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time on the 
previous amendment has expired.


                           Amendment No. 3423

  Amendment No. 3423 is now pending, and under the previous order 20 
minutes has been allocated, 10 minutes on each side.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have on the floor now our distinguished 
and esteemed colleague, the former President pro tempore of the Senate, 
Mr. Byrd of West Virginia. My first request would be a unanimous 
consent to extend the time of this amendment from the current, as I 
understand it, 20 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. That we extend that to 40 minutes, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7214]]

  Mr. WARNER. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is no secret that America's military forces are 
stretched thin across the globe. The relentless fighting in Iraq has 
exacted a heavy toll on the U.S. military, forcing thousands of 
American troops to face extended tours in a dangerous war zone. Stop-
loss orders have prevented thousands more from leaving the military 
when their obligations have been fulfilled. America's men and women in 
uniform have gone far beyond the call of duty to meet the increasing 
demands that have been placed on them, and we owe them a great debt of 
gratitude.
  In the face of such hardship facing America's military personnel, 
this is hardly a propitious time to arbitrarily expand U.S. military 
obligations overseas, and yet that is exactly what the bill in front of 
us does. In an effort to help the Government of Colombia launch a new 
offensive in its civil war against guerrilla insurgents and the drug 
trafficking that funds them, the Defense authorization bill 
substantially increases the number of U.S. military and civilian 
personnel authorized to support the operations of Plan Colombia in 
Colombia.
  Plan Colombia is a 6-year antinarcotics initiative authorized by 
Congress in fiscal year 2000 to combat cocaine production and 
trafficking in Colombia. From the outset, many Members of Congress 
worry that United States intervention in Colombia's drug wars--even 
noncombat intervention--could serve to draw the United States into the 
thick of Colombia's longrunning civil war. In an effort to preserve 
congressional oversight and prevent mission creep in Colombia, Congress 
placed a cap on the number of U.S. personnel who could participate in 
Plan Colombia. Current law limits the number of U.S. personnel in 
Colombia in support of Plan Colombia to 400 military troops and 400 
civilian contractors, for a total of 800.
  This is a part of my statement. I believe it was in the year 2000 
that we placed a limitation. Originally, the 800 was divided into 500 
military and 300 contractors, making a total of 800. That limitation on 
the number is current. This bill, however, would double the number of 
military personnel authorized to participate in Plan Colombia, raising 
the troop cap from 400 to 800.
  That troop cap is being doubled. The cap on civilian contractors 
would be increased by 50 percent, climbing from 400 to 600. This bill 
says let us put in a little more. Let us lift the number.
  The increases reflect the number of military and civilian personnel 
requested by the administration to carry out a 2-year training and 
support operation in relation to an aggressive new counterinsurgency 
offensive being undertaken by the Government of Colombia called Plan 
Patriota. With the stroke of a pen, just like that--just a stroke of 
the pen--this bill would increase the number of U.S. civilian and 
military personnel authorized to be in Colombia to support Plan 
Colombia from 800 to 1400.
  So we are just inching along, just inching along. That may seem like 
an insignificant increase to some, but I expect it looms large in the 
minds of U.S. forces who have seen their tours in Iraq extended or who 
have been prevented from leaving the military when their obligations 
have been fulfilled. The 800 military personnel who could be sent to 
Colombia under the proposal are 800 military personnel who would not be 
eligible to relieve American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. 
Before signing off on such a measure, the Senate should consider very 
carefully the ultimate goals of Plan Colombia and the amount of 
oversight Congress should maintain on the program.

  I am offering an amendment. The amendment I am offering is an effort 
to address these considerations. My amendment provides a reasonable and 
sustainable level of support to continue Plan Colombia and to support 
Plan Patriota, but it limits the support to immediate needs, not 
presumed needs a year or two from now. Under my amendment, the cap on 
both U.S. military and civilian personnel would increase from 400 to 
500 each, for a total limit of 1,000.
  My amendment conforms with the House-passed version of the Defense 
authorization bill. The House bill caps the number of military 
personnel in Colombia at 500. The House bill does not address the 
civilian caps, but the State Department has determined it needs fewer 
than 100 additional contractors next year to support Plan Patriota.
  Plan Colombia remains a volatile and dangerous mission. Three 
American civilian contractors operating in support of Plan Colombia 
have been held captive in the jungle by Colombian insurgents for more 
than a year. Five other U.S. civilians were killed as a result of 
aircraft crashes. Additional cocaine fumigation flights have been fired 
on, and since August 2003, two planes have been downed by hostile fire.
  This is not the time, colleagues, and Colombia is not the place for 
the United States to ramp up its military commitment so sharply. 
Although the numbers may be relatively small, the mission in Colombia 
has been constantly increasing.
  That is the problem. The mission in Colombia has been constantly 
increasing, evolving from a strictly antinarcotics campaign into an 
operation encompassing antiterrorism, pipeline protection, and an air-
bridge denial program to intercept drug trafficking flights in 
Colombia.
  A major infusion of additional U.S. personnel into Colombia will 
place more American personnel at risk and will increase the prospects 
of the United States being drawn ever deeper into Colombia's civil war.
  The State Department has confirmed that it needs fewer than 100 
additional personnel next year to accomplish its goals. The Defense 
Department has estimated that it needs no more than 158 additional 
personnel to support the second phase of Plan Patriota next year. 
Defense Department officials have also said they do not need a total of 
800 personnel and do not anticipate a time when 800 military personnel 
would be in Colombia in support of the initiative. The Department is 
asking Congress to provide broad flexibility through an unnecessarily 
large troop commitment at a time when both human and financial military 
resources are severely limited.
  I think Congress should take a more conservative approach to Plan 
Colombia and particularly to the involvement of U.S. forces in Plan 
Patriota. I am willing to authorize a modest increase in the number of 
military and civilian personnel for next year, but I believe Congress 
should review the progress that has been made a year from now before 
determining what the final number should be.
  If the Pentagon cannot tell Congress how many troops it will need in 
Iraq a year from now, how can it say with such certainty how many 
forces it will need in Colombia 2 years from now?
  The United States has spent the past 4 years training and equipping 
Colombian troops and flying cocaine crop eradication missions for the 
Government of Colombia. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, U.S. funding for Plan Colombia, since fiscal year 2000, totals 
approximately 3.7 billion bucks.
  The administration has characterized the next 2 years as a ``window 
of opportunity'' to assist Colombia with its war against the 
insurgents. Now, that may or it may not prove to be true, but the 
burden of securing that window has fallen on--guess who?--Uncle Sam. 
That is where it lies, in the lap of Uncle Sam.
  If the Government of Colombia is as committed to eradicating the drug 
crops and defeating the guerillas as the administration contends, then 
the Government of Colombia should take the lead in seizing this 
opportunity. Four years and $3.7 billion into Plan Colombia, the United 
States should be on the verge of tapering down its commitment to 
Colombia, not sharply increasing it. Where are we going here? When is 
this going to come to an end?
  Plan Colombia has ample flexibility built into it to allow the 
military to surge, if needed, to respond to emergencies such as search 
and rescue or evacuation of operation.

[[Page S7215]]

  In addition, at the request of the administration, Congress has 
agreed to broaden routine exemptions to personnel-counting procedures, 
giving the Defense and State Department even greater flexibility in 
managing the number of personnel in Colombia.
  Routine exceptions now include such activities as port calls, DOD 
civilian visits, certain military exercises, aircrew overnights as 
needed for weather, maintenance, or crew rest overlapped during 
deployment location, headquarter staff visits, and traditional 
commander's activities, just to name a few.
  Instead of the United States committing more troops and more civilian 
contractors to Colombia than are actually needed, the Government of 
Colombia should increase the resources it is committing to Plan 
Patriota to mitigate the burden on the United States.

  My amendment increases U.S. support for Plan Colombia, but it does so 
at a prudent level that allows the Defense and State Departments to 
commit the minimum number of additional U.S. personnel needed to assist 
the Government of Colombia in prosecuting Plan Patriota while 
maintaining necessary congressional oversight on Plan Colombia.
  In recognition of the current sacrifices this Nation is demanding of 
its men and women in uniform, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and to resist unwarranted and excessive increases in a level 
of military and civilian personnel that may be deployed in Colombia.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from 
Virginia has, under his control or his designee, 20 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I will take a minute or two and ask unanimous consent 
that the Senator from Alaska be recognized for such time as he may 
wish, followed by the Senator from Alabama, and then the distinguished 
Senator, Mr. Coleman, chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who will manage the 
remainder of the time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I will yield to Senator 
Coleman ahead of me.
  Mr. WARNER. Very well. But I wish to speak for a few minutes.
  I must oppose the Byrd amendment and urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  The provision in the underlying bill to raise the troop cap in 
Colombia from the current limitation of 400 military personnel and 400 
contractors to 800 military personnel and 600 contractor personnel was 
recommended by GEN Hill, Commander, U.S. Southern Command, with the 
endorsement of the Department of Defense, Department of State and the 
National Security Council. This provision was unanimously approved 
during markup by the Committee with no dissenting discussion.
  The United States has been assisting the government of Colombia--
through Plan Colombia--for several years as Colombia continues its 
struggle against narcoterrorists.
  During the course of this assistance, we have asked the Colombians to 
develop a comprehensive strategic plan for taking back their country. 
They have developed and begun implementing this plan, with our help.
  During the course of this assistance, we have urged the Colombians to 
modernize their armed forces and become more decisive in their pursuit 
of the drug-financed insurgents who have terrorized their country for 
decades. The Colombian armed forces have gained confidence and stature 
and are forcefully and decisively carrying out increasingly 
sophisticated military operations with successful results.
  Over the years, we have asked the Colombians to invest more of their 
own national treasure in defense, reduce drug cultivation, respect the 
human rights of their people. They have done so with very promising 
results. The Colombian armed forces are now the second most respected 
institution in Colombia, behind the Catholic Church, according to 
recent polling.
  During the course of our assistance, we have asked the Colombians to 
be forthright about their future plans, requirements, and needs for 
additional assistance--they have been and that is why our regional 
commander and the administration asked for a modest increase in the 
troop cap, at the request of the Colombian government.
  The regional commander has developed a prudent plan to provide 
additional planning and training assistance that will enable the 
Colombian armed forces to carry out the sophisticated, coordinated 
military operations that will allow them to successfully defeat the 
terrorists and end decades of terror and violence in Colombia.
  Troop strength will not automatically double in Colombia, it will ebb 
and flow depending on progress in Colombia's overall strategy and the 
availability of U.S. troops to provide assistance.
  U.S. troops will not be involved in combat operations. They will 
continue to work from secure sites, help train additional Colombian 
military units and help them plan and coordinate military operations.
  We have a clear window of opportunity to help President Uribe and the 
people of Colombia help themselves and end this conflict, but we need 
this slight increase in assistance to help them realize this goal. 
Colombia has made great progress, by all measures, and deserves our 
support.
  The Byrd amendment would limit our ability to provide the assistance 
Colombia has requested and our military commanders have recommended. A 
modest increase in troops and assistance now does not foreshadow an 
endless commitment of troops, money and sacrifice--quite the opposite--
it offers the opportunity to help Colombia end this conflict in the 
near future. Defeating the narcoterrorists in Colombia, as quickly as 
possible, is clearly in the national security interests of our Nation.
  The Byrd amendment will complicate the ability of our military 
commanders and our diplomats to help Colombia end this terrorist 
insurgency as soon as possible.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  I assure my colleagues that the discussion by the Armed Services 
Committee to raise these caps was one we did not take lightly. We 
considered it with very deliberate care. We feel we did so consistent 
with General Hill, commander of the southern command, who came up and 
specifically briefed the committee on the needs.
  The bottom line is the nation Colombia has come a long way in the 
past few years to reestablish itself as a pillar of strength in that 
Central American band of nations where there is such fragility in the 
stability of these governments. It stands out as the courage of a 
government overcoming the insurgents in their countries, beginning to 
have success. For a very modest increase in our military presence and 
contractor presence, we can ensure the forward momentum of this 
success.
  It is an enormous force multiplier of benefit to the United States of 
America. Were this nation to slip back into a situation which enabled 
more and more exporting of drugs from that region, possibly through 
Colombia, the consequence would be a weakening of that government, and 
there would be multiple degrees of negative impact on our economy, much 
less crime and death associated with drugs. So for a small number of 
additional military personnel which the military carefully crafted, the 
United States benefits greatly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I support the Armed Services Committee 
recommendation. It was also the administration's position that this cap 
on military personnel in Colombia be increased to 1,400. Senator Byrd's 
amendment reduces that to 500.
  There has been dramatic success in the war on drugs in Colombia. I 
have spent a great deal of time trying to keep up with this. The 
President of Colombia, Mr. Uribe, deserves a great deal of credit. We 
should support his continued efforts. His efforts have caused terrorist 
organizations to come to the peace table.
  If we were to reduce our support now, they would have no reason to 
stay at the peace table. More U.S. personnel will only move the process 
forward.
  I do not think we should go back to limiting our assistance to the 
Government of Colombia, as suggested by my good friend from West 
Virginia. I personally spent time with the commander of the U.S. 
Southern Command, GEN James Hill, as did the

[[Page S7216]]

chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We were briefed, as were 
other members of the subcommittee, on the situation there. He has 
strongly urged us to support the administration's request to raise this 
cap.
  It is my hope, depending on the circumstances here in the Senate, 
that a group of us can travel to Colombia this year and examine 
firsthand what is going on down there.
  This country could be a beacon now against terrorism in South 
America. It is something we should support. We should not retreat from 
the war on terrorism. The increase to 1,400 is necessary to support 
this Colombian President, who has done so well, particularly against 
narcoterrorism.
  I urge the Senate to support the request as it is stated in the Armed 
Services Committee bill, which is also the request of the 
administration. It certainly is the request of this Senator, who spent 
a great deal of time considering the problems in Colombia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the esteemed and greatly respected Senator from 
West Virginia concerning military and civilian personnel strength in 
Colombia.
  I have been to Colombia, I have been to Bogota, and I have had a 
chance to personally visit with some of our troops that are doing 
training, and to visit with President Uribe on a number of occasions.
  As chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western 
Hemisphere, I believe the situation in Colombia is of paramount 
importance to the entire region. I must state very clearly this is not 
a civil war in Colombia. Colombia is not engaged in a civil war. 
Colombia, today, is engaged in a fight against narcoterrorists. That is 
what this is about. It is not about ideology anymore. It is about 
money. It is about drugs that are being used to fuel the insurgency. 
But this is not a civil war. I think that is important to understand.
  If you reflect a little bit on the history of what has happened in 
Colombia, President Pastrana did everything in his power to try to 
negotiate a settlement. He even set aside a parcel of land, known as a 
``despeje,'' as a token of good faith, but it was to no avail. You see, 
the narcoterrorists had no interest in negotiating a political solution 
because, again, it is not a civil war. Their objectives were and remain 
to intimidate the public and to make money through criminal means.
  Let me be perfectly clear, all three of the groups--the FARC, the 
ELN, and the paramilitary AUC--are all terrorist organizations in the 
eyes of the United States and must continue to be treated as such by 
the Government of Colombia.
  During my last visit to Colombia, I was speaking to the Ambassador 
from one of the Scandinavian countries who has been involved in trying 
to create some opportunities for peaceful negotiation. I said to him: 
Historically, in the past, there may have been a civil war here. There 
may have been those in some of these organizations who were carrying 
some ideological belief and fervor that somehow they could change the 
system of government in Colombia. But today you have a democratically 
elected President with overwhelmingly high approval ratings, I think 
around 80 percent. Anybody in this body would like to have those kinds 
of approval ratings. You have a very active opposition party, a very 
active democracy in Colombia.
  Speaking to this Ambassador, he admitted: Yes, today it is about 
drugs, and it is about money.
  That is what we are dealing with today. That is the passion. That is 
the common link of those who are engaged in a battle with the 
government. The top fundraising enterprise of all three of these 
organizations is drug trafficking. They also are involved in extortion, 
kidnapping, and intimidation. There are few, if any, legitimate 
political objectives. They are narcoterrorists.
  In fact, this Senate has voted to treat the guerrillas as such. 
Expanded authorities passed by this Congress allow the U.S. to support 
the Colombians in their efforts against the insurgents, not just for 
the purpose of fighting drug trafficking, but also for opposing the 
terrorist insurgent threat. All three of these groups appear on the 
State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
  As I said before, President Uribe, who enjoys a great deal of 
popularity in Colombia, was elected with a clear mandate--that the 
narcoterrorists can be dealt with only from a position of strength. 
They must be weakened militarily to the point where they abandon their 
enterprise.
  Under the leadership of President Uribe, the tide has begun to turn. 
Kidnappings are down. Murders are down. The terrorists in many 
instances are laying down their weapons. Coca eradication has reached 
record levels. But the task is not yet finished.
  It is important. It is not a matter of: Well, we have put resources 
into Colombia; when are we going to get it done? As we well know, in 
this country the battle about drugs and narcotics is an ongoing battle. 
It is something where what we have to do is maintain the pressure, 
maintain the commitment, maintain the consistency, and not send a 
signal that somehow we are putting a cap on it.
  Again, the numbers we are talking about here are very minimal, 
whether it is the Armed Services Committee recommendation of increasing 
the military cap from 400 to 800 and the civilian cap from 400 to 600, 
with a total increase of 600, versus the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia talking about 500. But the message is not minimal.
  The understanding of this body of the importance of what we are doing 
in Colombia, and continuing to build upon success, is important. That 
is not minimal. What we do here will be heard in Colombia. It will be 
heard around the world. We have to do the right thing.
  Under the Colombian Constitution, President Uribe is limited to one 
term in office. What this means is during the final 20 months of 
President Uribe's term, there is a limited window of opportunity to 
seriously weaken these groups and to move beyond this conflict that has 
devastated the Colombian people for decades.
  That is why I believe the time is right to increase the cap, again 
slightly increase the cap, on the number of United States military and 
civilian personnel in Colombia who are assisting the Colombians. We are 
not talking about lifting the cap entirely. We are talking about 
increasing the number of military personnel who can be in Colombia at 
any one time to 800 and civilians to 600. I applaud the chairman for 
including this necessary provision in the underlying bill.
  This is not a blank check. Human rights protections are still very 
much in place. The United States Government works only with Colombian 
security forces who have been thoroughly vetted. I am a strong believer 
in human rights, and in each and every one of my meetings with 
Colombian officials I raise the human rights issue. I talk about the 
importance that human rights has in this country and has for our 
support of what is going on in Colombia. Human rights protections must 
remain essential to our involvement in Colombia, and the Colombians 
understand that. President Uribe understands that.
  Moreover, the activities of U.S. troops are limited. They are there 
to train the Colombians. Our troops will continue to operate from 
secure sites only and will not be exposed to combat.
  United States activities in Colombia and the region will continue to 
deal with the nonmilitary facets of Colombia's crisis as well. We are 
supporting programs for internally displaced people. We are encouraging 
alternative crops so farmers are not growing coca and they can make a 
living for themselves and their families. We are supporting human 
rights and rule-of-law efforts across the board.

  For anyone familiar with the situation in Colombia, it is clear 
President Uribe is bringing security, stability, and law and order to a 
country that so desperately needs it. Plan Colombia is a Colombian 
strategy to retake the country from the grip of narcoterrorists. United 
States support for Plan Colombia is predicated on a mutual 
understanding of what is at stake in Colombia, and a belief that the 
United States and Colombians can work together to address the crisis. 
We have a critical window of opportunity here to make a major push 
against narcoterrorists in our own hemisphere

[[Page S7217]]

during these final 20 months of President Uribe's term.
  When President Uribe was elected and sworn in, there were mortar 
attacks on his life. I think there have been about 10 to 15 attempts on 
his life. He is an extraordinarily brave individual. So often we look 
around the world and say: America will be there to support you, but you 
have stand up for yourselves. Colombians are standing up. They are 
saying they want to win this battle against narcoterrorism.
  Ninety percent of the cocaine in this country comes from Colombia. We 
Americans--our kids, our families--have a stake in the success of what 
happens in Colombia. Again, this is the time. This is the place to send 
a strong signal that we will strengthen our efforts against 
narcoterrorism.
  The risk is the risk of doing nothing, the risk of sending a signal 
that somehow we are going to cap this and limit our effort, that 
somehow this battle against narcoterrorism is a short-term, we-are-in-
it-this-week and we-are-out-next-week approach. This is not about that. 
Again, we are not talking about a civil war. We are talking about 
working hand in hand with a government that is deeply committed, that 
has put its own troops on the frontline, that personally has made the 
commitment not just of fighting narcoterrorism but to economic reform, 
pension reform, a commitment to human rights, to the rule of law.
  The right thing to do is to support the Armed Services Committee 
recommendation. The right thing to do is to reject the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
Senator Byrd's amendment to Section 1052 which would cap the number of 
U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors operating in Colombia 
at 500 and 500, respectively. I support the current committee language 
that increases the caps to 800 and 600, respectively, because it will 
enhance our efforts to help the Uribe administration stop the flow of 
drugs from their country and into ours.
  The situation in Colombia is at a critical point. We must ensure that 
it continues to move in the right direction. Colombia is a strong ally 
and major trading partner of the United States and is critical to the 
stability of the Western Hemisphere. It is also the home of three major 
terrorist organizations that derive about 70 percent of their funding 
from the production and distribution of cocaine, nearly half of which 
ends up on our streets. Their violent activities are a result of the 
need to maintain their narcotics trade, which has resulted in the 
social and economic instability of the country and the region.
  President Uribe has shown a strong commitment to ending the drug 
trade in Colombia by the end of his administration in 2006. I am 
extremely encouraged by his successes in drug eradication and his 
efforts to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. In 2003, coca 
production was down 21 percent and opium poppy was down 10 percent from 
the previous year. So far this year, the number of hectares of coca 
eradicated and the number of drug seizures are up from last year. We 
must continue this success that is needed to maintain domestic and 
international support for the eradication program.
  In Colombia, narcotics trafficking and terrorist acts have made it 
one of the most dangerous places in the world. Last year, Vice 
President Francisco Santos-Calderon testified before the Senate Drug 
Caucus that more than 8,000 acts of terror were committed against the 
Colombian people over the previous 5 years, including over 30,000 
violent deaths during each of those years. However, since the vice 
president's testimony, there have been significant reductions in the 
numbers of homicides, assassinations, kidnappings and other terrorist 
acts. I am encouraged by these numbers and know that these changes are 
very encouraging to the people of Colombia.
  Our counter-narcotics efforts in Colombia include military funding 
for equipment, training and education programs for Colombian military 
personnel. Raising the existing personnel caps will allow additional 
U.S. personnel to be made available to train Colombian personnel, and 
will enhance their ability to conduct their counter-narcotics missions. 
We have a window of opportunity here that we need to take advantage of. 
The United States must be willing to help the Colombian government 
reach this goal. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment 
and ensure an adequate number of U.S. personnel available in Colombia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia would yield me 
4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if he would yield me 2 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the full 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend 
from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd.
  The Byrd amendment allows for increases. That is the most important 
single point to make. There has been a suggestion that somehow or other 
if the Byrd amendment is adopted, that would reflect some kind of a 
decrease in support for what we are doing in Colombia. The Byrd 
amendment provides for an increase from the current level both on the 
military side and on the civilian side. The current military level is 
400. The Byrd amendment allows for an increase to 500.
  On the civilian side, the current level in law is 400. The Byrd 
amendment provides for an increase to 500. So both on the military and 
the civilian personnel, the cap is raised by the Byrd amendment--not as 
far as the bill before us raises it. The committee raised it by more 
than that. But the question is by how much will we raise the cap, not 
whether we are going to raise the cap.
  The Byrd amendment is a more modest increase. It is a more gradual 
increase. It is appropriate in terms of the circumstances in the world 
today. We have our troops spread all over. There are great needs, 
including in Colombia. I happen to agree with my good friend from 
Minnesota that we have successes in Colombia. I have been there, too. I 
have witnessed some of these successes. I support our efforts in 
Colombia. But given the kind of commitments that we have around the 
world, given the kind of demands on our troops around the world, it 
seems to me that a modest increase is called for at this time.
  Again, we are not talking about reductions, we are talking about 
increases. The House of Representatives did not allow for an increase 
on the civilian side at all. They would retain the current cap of 400. 
The Byrd amendment would allow for that to go up to 500.
  An increase, yes; an endorsement of what is going on in terms of the 
efforts in Colombia, yes, because if we raise the cap, that does 
reflect an endorsement of those activities. But given the requirements 
for our troops around the world, the demands upon us, this kind of a 
modest increase is appropriate.
  Finally, it is unlikely that they will be able to use this many 
additional forces in any event. According to the State Department, the 
dates for increases in personnel are not just going to depend on our 
approval but also on program developments, personnel availability, and 
circumstances that exist on the ground.
  The Byrd amendment represents a very proper, cautious, modest 
increase in flexibility for our Defense Department and State 
Department. It is appropriate that there be an increase but not as 
large as is currently in the bill.
  I support the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5\1/2\ minutes on your side.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the recommendation of the Armed Services 
Committee is a proper, cautious, moderate increase. That is what we are 
talking about. The numbers are not that great, but the message is 
significant. The message is significant. What we have is a 
recommendation, developed by General Hill from SOUTHCOM, saying this is 
what we need to make sure we are living up to our commitment and to 
modestly strengthen our commitment, that we have seen success. Let's 
reward success. Again, in a proper, cautious way.
  I agree with my distinguished colleague from Michigan. That is the 
kind

[[Page S7218]]

of increase we need. But we are seeing success with murder down, 
kidnapping down. We are seeing great courage from President Uribe. We 
see Colombians step to the plate. We have to maintain the pressure. We 
are not talking about civil war. We are talking about a battle against 
terrorist organizations. Winning this battle will have a direct impact 
on the lives of Americans. It will have a direct impact on slowing the 
flow of cocaine and narcotics into this country.
  On both sides of the aisle our colleagues are seeking the same 
outcome; that is, to have a proper, cautious, moderate increase in 
strength. But it would be wrong to send a signal to reject the 
recommendation, the thoughtful, reasoned, rational, proper, cautious 
recommendation of the Armed Services Committee on this issue. Let us 
send the right message and let us do the right thing by upholding the 
judgment of the Armed Services Committee, by not stepping back, not by 
placing the caps that this amendment would place.
  Let's reaffirm our commitment to Colombia, to the world, about 
fighting narcoterrorism and winning this battle.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 19 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.


                Amendment No. 3384, As Further Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending 
amendment is Bond amendment No. 3384 on which there is no time limit.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3384 and ask 
unanimous consent to incorporate the modifications that are at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle D of title XXXI, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3146. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN FORMER NUCLEAR WEAPONS 
                   PROGRAM WORKERS IN SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT 
                   UNDER THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS 
                   COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Energy workers at the former Mallinkrodt facilities 
     (including the St. Louis downtown facility and the Weldon 
     Springs facility) were exposed to levels of radionuclides and 
     radioactive materials that were much greater than the current 
     maximum allowable Federal standards.
       (2) The Mallinkrodt workers at the St. Louis site were 
     exposed to excessive levels of airborne uranium dust relative 
     to the standards in effect during the time, and many workers 
     were exposed to 200 times the preferred levels of exposure.
       (3)(A) The chief safety officer for the Atomic Energy 
     Commission during the Mallinkrodt-St. Louis operations 
     described the facility as 1 of the 2 worst plants with 
     respect to worker exposures.
       (B) Workers were excreting in excess of a milligram of 
     uranium per day causing kidney damage.
       (C) A recent epidemiological study found excess levels of 
     nephritis and kidney cancer from inhalation of uranium dusts.
       (4) The Department of Energy has admitted that those 
     Mallinkrodt workers were subjected to risks and had their 
     health endangered as a result of working with these highly 
     radioactive materials.
       (5) The Department of Energy reported that workers at the 
     Weldon Springs feed materials plant handled plutonium and 
     recycled uranium, which are highly radioactive.
       (6) The National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
     Health admits that--
       (A) the operations at the St. Louis downtown site consisted 
     of intense periods of processing extremely high levels of 
     radionuclides; and
       (B) the Institute has virtually no personal monitoring data 
     for Mallinkrodt workers prior to 1948.
       (7) The National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
     Health has informed claimants and their survivors at those 3 
     Mallinkrodt sites that if they are not interviewed as a part 
     of the dose reconstruction process, it--
       (A) would hinder the ability of the Institute to conduct 
     dose reconstruction for the claimant; and
       (B) may result in a dose reconstruction that incompletely 
     or inaccurately estimates the radiation dose to which the 
     energy employee named in the claim had been exposed.
       (8) Energy workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (also 
     known as the Burlington Atomic Energy Commission Plant and 
     the Iowa Ordnance Plant) between 1947 and 1975 were exposed 
     to levels of radionuclides and radioactive material, 
     including enriched uranium, plutonium, tritium, and depleted 
     uranium, in addition to beryllium and photon radiation, that 
     are greater than the current maximum Federal standards for 
     exposure.
       (9) According to the National Institute of Occupational 
     Safety and Health--
       (A) between 1947 and 1975, no records, including bioassays 
     or air samples, have been located that indicate any 
     monitoring occurred of internal doses of radiation to which 
     workers described in paragraph (8) were exposed;
       (B) between 1947 and 1955, no records, including dosimetry 
     badges, have been located to indicate that any monitoring 
     occurred of the external doses of radiation to which such 
     workers were exposed;
       (C) between 1955 and 1962, records indicate that only 8 to 
     23 workers in a workforce of over 1,000 were monitored for 
     external radiation doses; and
       (D) between 1970 and 1975, the high point of screening at 
     the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, only 25 percent of the 
     workforce was screened for exposure to external radiation.
       (10) The Department of Health and Human Services published 
     the first notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the 
     Special Exposure Cohort on June 25, 2002, and the final rule 
     published on May 26, 2004.
       (11) Many of those former workers have died while waiting 
     for the proposed rule to be finalized, including some 
     claimants who were waiting for dose reconstruction to be 
     completed.
       (12) Because of the aforementioned reasons, including the 
     serious lack of records and the death of many potential 
     claimants, it is not feasible to conduct valid dose 
     reconstructions for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant facility 
     or the Mallinkrodt facilities.
       (b) Inclusion of Certain Former Workers in Cohort.--Section 
     3621(14) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program Act of 2000 (title XXXVI of the Floyd D. 
     Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398); 42 U.S.C. 
     7384l(14)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(C) Subject to the provisions of section 3612A and 
     section 3146(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2005, the employee was so employed for a number 
     of work days aggregating at least 45 workdays at a facility 
     operated under contract to the Department of Energy by 
     Mallinkrodt Incorporated or its successors (including the St. 
     Louis downtown or `Destrehan' facility during any of calendar 
     years 1942 through 1958 and the Weldon Springs feed materials 
     plant facility during any of calendar years 1958 through 
     1966), or at a facility operated by the Department of Energy 
     or under contract by Mason & Hangar-Silas Mason Company at 
     the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (also known as the Burlington 
     Atomic Energy Commission Plant and the Iowa Ordnance Plant) 
     during any of the calendar years 1947 through 1975, and 
     during the employment--
       ``(i)(I) was monitored through the use of dosimetry badges 
     for exposure at the plant of the external parts of an 
     employee's body to radiation; or
       ``(II) was monitored through the use of bioassays, in vivo 
     monitoring, or breath samples for exposure at the plant to 
     internal radiation; or
       ``(ii) worked in a job that had exposures comparable to a 
     job that is monitored, or should have been monitored, under 
     standards of the Department of Energy in effect on the date 
     of enactment of this subparagraph through the use of 
     dosimetry badges for monitoring external radiation exposures, 
     or bioassays, in vivo monitoring, or breath samples for 
     internal radiation exposures, at a facility.''.
       (c) Funding of Compensation and Benefits.--(1) Such Act is 
     further amended by inserting after section 3612 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 3612A. FUNDING FOR COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR 
                   CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Labor for 
     each fiscal year after fiscal year 2004 such sums as may be 
     necessary for the provision of compensation and benefits 
     under the compensation program for members of the Special 
     Exposure Cohort described in section 3621(14)(C) in such 
     fiscal year.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Use for Administrative Costs.--(1) No 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) may be 
     utilized for purposes of carrying out the compensation 
     program for the members of the Special Exposure Cohort 
     referred to in that subsection or administering the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a).
       ``(2) Amounts for purposes described in paragraph (1) shall 
     be derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 3614(a).

[[Page S7219]]

       ``(c) Provision of Compensation and Benefits Subject to 
     Appropriations Acts.--The provision of compensation and 
     benefits under the compensation program for members of the 
     Special Exposure Cohort referred to in subsection (a) in any 
     fiscal year shall be subject to the availability of 
     appropriations for that purpose for such fiscal year and to 
     applicable provisions of appropriations Acts.''.
       (2) Section 3612(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7384e(d)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Subject''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Amounts for the provision of compensation and 
     benefits under the compensation program for members of the 
     Special Exposure Cohort described in section 3621(14)(C) may 
     be derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 3612A(a).''.
       (d) Offset.--The total amount authorized to be appropriated 
     under subtitle A of this title is hereby reduced by 
     $61,000,000.
       (e) Certification.--Funds shall be available to pay claims 
     approved by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
     Health for a facility by reason of section 3621(14)(C) of the 
     Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 
     Act of 2000, as amended by subsection (b)(2), if the Director 
     of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 
     certifies with respect to such facility each of the 
     following:
       (1) That no atomic weapons work or related work has been 
     conducted at such facility after 1976.
       (2) That fewer than 50 percent of the total number of 
     workers engaged in atomic weapons work or related work at 
     such facility were accurately monitored for exposure to 
     internal and external ionizing radiation during the term of 
     their employment.
       (3) That individual internal and external exposure records 
     for employees at such facility are not available, or the 
     exposure to radiation of at least 40 percent of the exposed 
     workers at such facility cannot be determined from the 
     individual internal and external exposure records that are 
     available.
       (f) It is the sense of the Senate that all employees who 
     are eligible to apply for benefits under the compensation 
     program established by the Energy Employees Occupational 
     Illness Compensation Act should be treated fairly and 
     equitably with regard to inclusion under the special exposure 
     cohort provisions of this Act.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are not going to take much time, although 
I see my colleague from Iowa is here. This is a measure designed to 
compensate the former energy workers at the Mallinkrodt site in the St. 
Louis, MO, area and the Iowa atomic energy workers at what was known as 
the Burlington Atomic Energy Commission plant and the Iowa ordinance 
plant.
  We have gone through many iterations trying to work it out to make 
sure that all sides are comfortable. I appreciate the courtesies of the 
New York Senators who have issues. We look forward to working with them 
on solving their issues. There has been a great deal of work put into 
this. Some people may think it is small, when it is less than a couple 
hundred million dollars, but let me tell you, this is huge to the 
former workers and their families who are directly affected.
  I went back to Missouri last Friday, after we had talked about this 
on the Senate floor. I met with some of the workers and some of their 
families. The young woman who has been the leader in this effort, 
Denise Brock, was there. She told me how much this meant to her mother, 
who lost her husband several years ago as a result of the cancers 
brought on by excessive radiation. She also told me that when I spoke 
last Thursday about Jim Mitalski, a former Mallinkrodt worker who had 
gone into the hospital and slipped into a coma--he lost a foot, had 
multiple cancers--she said she made a recording of the floor remarks I 
made, took it down and played it next to Mitalski's bedside where he 
seemed to be in a deep sleep. She said as she played it and we 
mentioned his name, she saw a smile come over his face, and she 
believed that he did know that we were going to do something. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Mitalksi has since died.
  That is happening to workers in Iowa, in Missouri, and all across the 
country. Yes, they were on the forefront. They were the atomic 
warriors, and they made what nobody knew at that time were great 
sacrifices of their health so we could win World War II.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank all of the people who 
worked on this issue.
  I thank all parties for their assistance. I urge adoption of this 
after the appropriate comments are made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN . Madam President, my colleague from Missouri, Senator 
Bond, and I have been working very hard on this amendment to address 
the very serious situation faced by former Department of Energy workers 
in Iowa and Missouri. I thank Senator Bond for his leadership on this 
issue, and for working very closely to address this very problematic 
situation. We have also worked very closely with the chairman and the 
ranking member in reaching an agreement enabling us to get this 
amendment done. I thank both Senator Warner and Senator Levin and their 
respective staffs for all of their help in reaching this agreement.
  This amendment authorizes adding workers who were employed in nuclear 
weapons facilities in Missouri and Iowa who are suffering from serious 
cancers to the group of workers who are already eligible for automatic 
compensation. The groups of workers eligible for automatic 
compensation, a ``special exposure cohort, as it is called'', already 
exists for workers from Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska, and Tennessee.
  But since this original legislation was passed in 2000, we have 
learned a great deal more about the facilities in Iowa and Missouri 
that makes it necessary to include the Iowa and Missouri workers in the 
special exposure cohort as well.
  In Iowa, over the last 4 years, we have discovered there are 
virtually no documents that exist that show what workers at the Iowa 
Army Ammunition Plant were exposed to between 1947 and 1975. This makes 
it almost impossible to estimate radiation doses received by the 
workers, a required step before they can be compensated.
  Almost 4 years into this program, only 38 Iowans have received 
compensation. Of the people who worked at these plants assembling 
nuclear weapons, working with very highly radioactive materials, some 
are still alive and are elderly, but they are ill and they are dying.
  My friend from Missouri spoke about visiting some of his workers in 
Missouri. I, too, have had that experience over the last several 
years--visiting my fellow Iowans who worked at the Iowa Army Ammunition 
Plant during those years after World War II, up until about 1975. They 
are ill and they are dying and far too many of them are suffering from 
very painful cancers.

  In fact, it is most poignant that this is happening right now because 
the individual who first brought this to my attention several years 
ago, Bob Anderson, is once again ill himself. In 1997, Bob wrote me a 
letter and said that he and some of the former workers at the Iowa Army 
Ammunition Plant had contracted cancers. Many were dying and he knew 
they had been exposed to radiation, and he asked was there anything I 
could do about it because they were not getting any medical help 
whatsoever.
  I, then, wrote a letter to the Department of the Army to inquire 
about this. I received a reply from the Department of the Army that 
said basically there were no nuclear weapons ever assembled there. 
Well, we just took the answer from the Army and sent it back out to Bob 
Anderson. This upset him greatly. He came back into my office in Iowa 
and said: Wait a minute. They are wrong; we assembled nuclear weapons 
there for almost 30 years.
  So we started looking at it further, and we found that the Department 
of the Army was wrong. We had gotten misinformation from the Department 
of the Army. We finally dug back through the DOE and the old Atomic 
Energy files and found out that, in fact, they had assembled nuclear 
weapons at IAAP for close to 30 years. This was all very confusing. We 
finally got it straightened out. These workers were exposed to 
radiation, they weren't told what they were being exposed to and they 
were told at the time this was top secret that they could not discuss 
it with anyone, that they could receive prison terms if they were to 
talk about this with anyone.
  Many of these people became sick and many died without ever having 
breathed a word that they had worked assembling nuclear weapons because 
they were loyal, patriotic citizens. They had taken an oath and were 
sworn to secrecy that they would not talk about it. Even today some 
still will not speak about the work they did.
  Well, for those who are left, we finally got it cleared that they 
could

[[Page S7220]]

talk about it openly with their doctors, their health care 
practitioners. But Bob Anderson is the one person singularly 
responsible for highlighting and bringing to the public attention what 
happened at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, the person who started the 
ball rolling, so to speak, to get us to understand that there were all 
these workers who had been exposed but who are unaccounted for.
  Bob Anderson is the one who was responsible for us and for the 
Department of Energy now looking at the Department of the Army trying 
to find the records, and now understanding that there are no 
records. There are no dosage records for these people.

  Several years ago, when he first contacted my office about this, he 
had been diagnosed with lymphoma. He has struggled with it ever since. 
As we speak today, Bob Anderson is in a hospital. He had his thyroid 
taken out. I spoke with his wife the other day on the phone while he 
was undergoing surgery. Later on, after he had gotten out, the doctor 
told her that his cancerous thyroid was the largest swollen thyroid he 
had ever seen in his life.
  We are now waiting for the biopsies. We are hoping it has not spread. 
But as we stand here today, Bob Anderson lies in a hospital bed waiting 
to find out if he now has a second kind of cancer, thyroid cancer, on 
top of his lymphoma. Bob Anderson who side by side with other IAAP 
workers spent many years assembling nuclear weapons, who had been 
exposed to radiation, who had not been told what he was exposed to, and 
who did not wear dosage badges. All Bob Anderson is asking for is fair 
treatment, and that is what we are accomplishing today. That is what 
the managers of the bill have agreed to.
  So I would like to extend a big thank you to Senator Warner and 
Senator Levin and their staffs for helping us get this through. These 
are people who are suffering, they are dying. They need help, and they 
have no place to turn other than us in the U.S. Congress.
  As I said, some people were put into that cohort in 2000. We 
recognized then that there would be people out there for whom there 
were no records, and for whom fairness would require that they should 
be put into that special cohort. That is what this amendment does. This 
amendment is an important step in that direction: to get these people 
put into that special cohort to provide them automatic compensation.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Missouri for his leadership and help 
on this issue. I also again thank Senator Warner and Senator Levin and 
their respective staffs for helping us work this out. I thank Bob 
Anderson for his courageous stand, for over the last several years 
never giving up, for his advocacy, not just on his own behalf but for 
thousands of his fellow workers in Iowa and, I daresay, in Missouri and 
other places. Even as he lies in the hospital, I want him to know we 
are doing everything we can to right this wrong and to get compensation 
to those former nuclear weapons workers.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3384, as further 
modified. Is there further debate? The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Madam President, I appreciate the chance to offer a word 
or two on the amendment. My friend from Missouri and my friend from 
Iowa have covered the ground very well. In part, I rise to compliment 
them on their dogged tenacity on behalf of these workers who deserve 
this compensation and now have a chance of receiving it because of 
their hard work.
  I also compliment the managers of the bill who, even though in their 
States they do not have people directly involved in this, have seen the 
plight of our Missouri workers and Iowa workers and have worked with us 
to get this amendment adopted.
  It simply means workers in Iowa and Missouri are going to have the 
same opportunity to get this compensation under expedited rules and 
procedures that already exist in other States so they will actually 
have some recourse and some compensation for the illnesses they have 
suffered because of this overexposure, and they will get it before they 
pass away because of the cancers that have resulted.
  There have been many tragic instances where people have fought for 
this compensation, have waited for what the law says they are entitled 
to, and have never gotten it. This amendment holds out hope now that we 
will be able to do justice in these cases.
  I compliment my friend from Iowa and my colleague from Missouri for 
their very hard work, and I join them in offering and supporting the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I commend the Senators who have been 
involved in again bringing this issue to the forefront, fighting the 
hard fight that was necessary for this to be accomplished.
  As far as I know, there are no other Senators at this point who wish 
to talk about this modified amendment. As far as we are concerned, it 
can be adopted.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge Senator 
Warner and Senator Levin for their efforts on this legislation, which 
is vital to the men and women of our military and our national 
security. At this time, I, along with my colleague Senator Clinton, 
would like to engage Senators Warner and Levin in a colloquy regarding 
the needs of employees who worked in Department of Energy, DOE, and 
DOE-contractor facilities on atomic weapons-related production in New 
York and throughout the United States.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I also wish to recognize the efforts of my friends from 
Virginia and Michigan on this bill and their willingness to engage in 
this colloquy in order to discuss the needs of New York's former 
nuclear workers and the necessity of providing them with prompt access 
to the compensation they have earned through service to this country.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senators from New York for their remarks, and 
would be happy to engage them in a colloquy.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am also happy to engage in this colloquy with the 
Senators form New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my esteemed colleagues, Mr. Warner and Mr. 
Levin, for recognizing the common plight among sick workers throughout 
our great Nation. In my home State of New York, thousands of nuclear 
workers labored for decades during the cold war in hazardous conditions 
at DOE and contractor facilities unaware of the health risks. These 
workers helped to create the huge nuclear arsenal that served as a 
deterrent to the Soviet Union during the cold war, but many paid a high 
price in terms of their health. It is now our obligation to assist them 
in all possible ways, so that their sacrifices do not go unrecognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I wholeheartedly agree with the senior Senator from New 
York. Our State's contribution to America's security throughout the 
cold war was large and important. New York is home to 36 former atomic 
weapons employer sites and DOE facilities--more than any other State in 
the Nation. Fourteen of these facilities are located in the western New 
York region alone.
  Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 
2000, Congress made a promise to the people who worked at these sites 
and others like them across the country that they would receive 
uniform, timely compensation under the act under certain conditions. 
But to date, NIOSH has completed just one of the many needed site 
profiles in New York that are needed to administer the program.
  One of the provisions of that act provides for what is known as a 
special exposure cohort. The act named facilities in four States that 
would be added to the special cohort, which in essence results in 
prompt payment of benefits under the act without the need to go through 
a dose reconstruction process.
  The Bond-Harkin amendment would, under certain conditions, add 
several facilities in Missouri and Iowa to this special exposure 
cohort. I am very sympathetic to the plight of these

[[Page S7221]]

workers, but I am even more concerned about the workers that I 
represent. Many of the New York workers are in very similar plights as 
the workers in Missouri and Iowa who might be helped by the Bond-Harkin 
amendment.
  I am encouraged that the amendment recognizes this fact, in that it 
includes a sense of the Senate declaring that all eligible employees 
deserve fair and equitable consideration under the act's special 
exposure cohort provisions.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I agree, and hope that when the Bond-Harkin amendment is 
discussed in conference, the Senators from Virginia and Michigan will 
take into consideration the workers in New York and throughout the 
country who share a similar set of circumstances to those workers in 
Iowa and Missouri. In particular, I would ask that they look at how the 
special exposure cohort issue can be addressed in the most equitable 
way possible, and contemplate options that would provide for equitable 
access to the special exposure cohort for New York's workers.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I echo the request of my colleague from New York. I 
would also ask whether the Senators from Virginia and Michigan share 
our understanding that the Bond-Harkin amendment to the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2004 does not in any way reflect the view 
that New York's workers or those of any other State are less deserving 
of access to special cohorts than those named in the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleagues from New 
York for their dedication to this cause. We indeed recognize the 
sacrifice workers made throughout our country in the nuclear arms 
buildup of the cold war and will endeavor to take into account the 
similar situations that exist for nuclear workers throughout our great 
Nation. I agree with their assessments of the Bond-Harkin amendment and 
assure the Senators from New York that I will take their concerns into 
consideration when conferencing the House and Senate bills.
  Mr. LEVIN. I join my friend from Virginia in recognizing the 
commitment of the Senators from New York to finding a solution to this 
critical problem. I share their understanding regarding the scope and 
intent of the Bond-Harkin amendment, and will do our best to address 
their concerns when conferencing the House and Senate bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3384, as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 3384), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
calling of the quorum be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2507

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 580, S. 2507; 
that the Cochran amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as 
amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have 
spoken with the distinguished junior Senator from Michigan, Ms. 
Stabenow. She has some problems with the way this piece of legislation 
is written. She thinks there should be more attention focused on fruits 
and vegetables. She would like to have further discussion with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi.
  As a result of that, I hope something can be worked out on this. I 
reluctantly note my objection on behalf of my friend from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the managers of the bill, in 
consultation with the leadership, are making progress, I assure 
colleagues.

                          ____________________