Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The current unanimous consent provides after an hour debate on my amendment we would vote on my amendment with no intervening first-degree or second-degree amendments.

Mr. LEVIN. Where does the Senator want to include this?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is very important to keep in focus what Senator DeWine spoke about. There has been much too little focus by all of us on this subject. The leadership of Senator DeWine in reminding us of what is going on is critically important, and I thank the Senator for it. For close to two decades, the nation of Sudan has been ravaged by a civil war that has claimed over 2 million lives. This civil war, which is the longest running conflict in Africa, shows few signs of abating as many efforts to negotiate peace agreements or cease-fires have failed. What is particularly troubling is the fact that this conflict has shifted and spread to the Darfur region in Western Sudan. Historically, this civil war has pitted Northern Sudan, which is largely Muslim, against those in the south who are predominately Christian or animist. The conflict is not only religious in nature; while setting those who would force a program of Islamization upon the entire nation against unwitting supplicants, this conflict also draws upon disputes over oil, water rights, and the future shape and form that Sudan will take as a nation. Given the nature of this conflict, the recent announcement by the Government of Sudan that it would disarm the Janjaweed--militias supported by the government of Khartoum--is a welcome sign. The ethnic cleansing undertaken by the Janjaweed has claimed tens of thousands of lives and has created over a million internally displaced persons as well as hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled across the border to Chad. Furthermore, the United Nations has noted that the conflict in the Darfur has claimed over 30,00 lives. according the International Crisis Group, as many as 350,000 more lives will be claimed in the next 9 months if conditions do not improve. It is imperative for the international community to take clear and decisive steps to halt the violence and to provide humanitarian aid to refugees and displaced persons. The Government of Sudan has a long history of denying aid to those in need. Their tactics have been developed through decades of practice and have included refusing to allow U.N. chartered planes with relief goods to land in Sudan as well as instituting delays for trucks carrying relief items. Camps that serve as home to over a million Internally Displaced Persons are in woeful condition, and only exacerbate the spread of disease and illness. It is imperative that medical supplies and foodstuffs become available immediately. Further delays only mean that more lives will be lost. Just as there cannot be a delay in the distribution of aid, the international community must take steps to provide the needed funds for this aid. The United Nations initially appealed for over $170 million in aid for Darfur and Chad. Only $50 million, the bulk of which has been provided by the U.S., has been provided while the amount of funds needed has increased to $250 million. Food and medical aid can save lives immediately, yet steps must be taken to ensure that a lasting a sustainable peace can be reached. To that end, rebels must be disarmed. Given that these rebels operate with the approval and support of the Sudanese Government and military, this is an undertaking that can occur immediately if the political will to do so can be mustered. Disarming the rebels is a good step, but it is not sufficient. The rebel groups cannot be subsumed into the military and police forces. All those involved in the perpetration and support of ethnic cleansing must be prosecuted so that justice can be administered. None of this will occur without the leadership of the international community. Thus far, for two decades, the world had done too little to address this threat. The United States and the United Nations must take steps to ensure that the international community is empowered to effectively and efficiently ensure that a peace resolution is reached and that it is implemented immediately. Unfortunately, the cry of ``never again'' has been used all too frequently when lamenting the propagation of conscious, deliberative, and genocidal actions. It is imperative that decisive action is taken to help bring peace to Sudan.

Mr. LEVIN. In terms of launching interceptors from that test bed in Alaska, that would be a stunning change in terms of the safety of the people of Alaska. I am sure if that plan has been made, there is a plan to launch missiles from that test site as part of a test, not in response to some accidental launch--and I could not agree more with the Senator from Arizona, if we had missiles in the ground and if we saw a launch come at us, we would use them in the hope that they might work. I have no doubt about that. I would hope they would work. It would be useful to take the time, expend the energy and the money to make sure they work. Nevertheless, I have no doubt if we thought they would work 1 in 10, 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 2, we would try.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think this is a very vital amendment. As I understand it, what the Senator from Virginia is saying is there is opposition that he knows of, or there is not.

Mr. LEVIN. I have to check. Offhand, I don't know of a reason, but I have to see if there is a reason I don't know of.

Mr. LEVIN. I will do my best to clear that.

Mr. LEVIN. I don't think there is an issue on this side in terms of voting in the morning, but Senator McCain wanted to speak on that.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will be very brief, given the hour. First, as to our friend's comment that this amendment suggests that we never build, only research, this amendment doesn't touch the 20 missiles slated to go into those silos in Alaska. It is my understanding, by the way, that those missiles in the Alaskan silos are not going to be launched as part of a test. I wonder if the Senator from Arizona would disagree with that. He talked about the necessity of those missiles being placed in silos in Alaska in order that they be realistically tested. I am wondering if the Senator from Arizona would agree that the DOD has determined, due to safety considerations, that no tests are currently planned to launch interceptors from the operational missile fields; is that his understanding also?

Mr. LEVIN. We agree on many things, and that would surely be one of them. I think we would also agree that it would be nice if we could expect they would work. I think the Senator from Arizona would agree with that. The greater likelihood they would work, the greater good it is for our Nation.

Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. It is my understanding there are no tests planned to launch interceptors from those missile fields. If there is any change in that, I think we will find out tomorrow morning. This amendment does not touch those 20 missiles. I want to reiterate that point. It does not touch the money. It does not cut the missiles. Those missiles will be there. They are not going to be launched from there. Nonetheless, they are going to be there. How that leads to realistic testing beats me, but nonetheless that debate is passed. What has not passed is the most unmet emergency threat to the United States. This is according to the Russia task force of the Secretary of Energy advisory: The most unmet national security threat to the United States today is that the danger of weapons of mass destruction or weapons usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home. That task force was cochaired by Senator Baker, our former colleague, and a former White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler. The Baker-Cutler task force also concluded that the limited mandate and funding falls short for what is required to address adequately the threat. Looking at those nonproliferation programs in the Department of Energy, that task force concluded that the funding falls short of what is required to address adequately the threat. Then we have the Department of Energy making an announcement that it has become clear, the Secretary of Energy said, that even more comprehensive and urgently focused effort is needed to respond to emerging and evolving threats, referring here to the Russian fissile material, saying the Global Threat Reduction Initiative announced by Secretary Abraham at the International Atomic Energy Agency at the end of May would ensure that nuclear and radiological material and equipment did not ``fall into the hands of those with evil intentions'' by ``securing, relocating, or disposing of these materials or equipment.'' There is supposed to be $450 million that would go into this effort. There is nothing, or virtually nothing, in the 2005 budget to address that threat. The Senator from Arizona is correct that we have given the administration what they asked for in their budget request. Despite the words saying this is a major threat to this country, they have asked for nothing. We should correct that deficiency and address the most serious threat we face in terms of terrorism by using some of the money for these extra 10 missiles--not the first 20 but the extra 10 that are now being requested--in order to address the most real, the most dangerous threat we face. Madam President, I yield the floor. I do not know if that unanimous consent request relates to this matter or not.

Mr. LEVIN. They have proven they do not leak the information. They perform--I agree with the good chairman--a very valuable service as to what they do. But what it seems to me the chairman is saying is there is less confidence the legislative branch will protect the classification of this material than the executive branch will protect it. I do not think we can accept a premise that we are more likely to leak classified information here in the Congress than the executive branch is likely to leak it. As a matter of fact, recent history----

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield--and I guess I have the floor, but, in any event, this information the Senator from New Mexico is talking about is information we have which the executive branch has. Now, I believe the fear the Senator from Virginia just expressed is not that the Red Cross would leak it--because they do not----

Mr. LEVIN. That is the question by the Senator from New Mexico. It seems to me that makes good sense.

Mr. LEVIN. This is really a question for the sponsor of the amendment. I say to the Senator, I understand what you have just suggested is that the information which we provide to the Red Cross be shared with Congress, not that the information which the Red Cross gives to us be shared with the Congress; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield.

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Virginia would consider this possibility as we explore ways of bridging the differences; and I, like our good friend, Senator Bingaman, very much appreciate, as always, the chairman's willingness to look for common ground. It seems to me the one sensitive area the executive branch has and that is in this amendment has to do with the name of the person. For instance, it seems to me, if there is a number which is assigned to every prisoner--which I understand is true for every prisoner of war, every enemy combatant, or every civilian, for that matter, who is held in detention--it seems to me, if the number is given rather than the name, the rest of this information is very appropriate and will help in the oversight process. The failure, it seems to me, to make clear to the world that we are going to abide by international conventions and that we are going to make sure our people are treated properly by our treating other people properly, that failure has cost us greatly. The purpose of the Bingaman amendment is clearly to get us back on track in terms of what our responsibilities are by giving Congress the ability to perform our oversight responsibility. We do not have that ability now. We do not have this information. Without this information, we cannot perform the essential oversight which has been missing here, and I believe if it had been in place early enough perhaps it would have persuaded the administration to get back on course earlier than it has been persuaded. But my specific question to the chairman would be--and I have not consulted with the sponsor of the amendment; I don't know whether he would be in an accepting mood--but if the number of the prisoner or the civilian who is being detained were substituted for the name, would that have the same problem?

Mr. LEVIN. When the chairman does that I would perhaps propose that one other consideration be looked at, and that is, I understand we are obligated to provide the names to the Red Cross now, and those names go back to the families in order that the families can find their loved one, if that loved one is alive, or that brother, or father, or whoever. Now, I may be wrong in that, but it seems to me the purpose of the----

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman. I believe we ought to try to work this out. This is really moving in an essential direction for our Nation and our troops. I commend the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership and thank the chairman. I think maybe we ought to lay this amendment aside temporarily. I do not know if----

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this week people all across the Nation are engaging in the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. It was in June of 1865, that the Union soldiers landed in Galveston, TX with the news that the war had ended and that slavery finally had come to an end in the United States. This was 2\1/2\ years after the Emancipation Proclamation, which had become official January 1, 1863. This week and specifically on June 19, we celebrate what is known as ``Juneteenth Independence Day.'' It was on this date, June 19, that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Although passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in January 1863, legally abolished slavery, many African Americans remained in servitude due to the slow dissemination of this news across the country. In recognition of Juneteenth, I would like to call my colleagues' attention the Juneteenth Creative Cultural Center and Museum founded in Saginaw, MI by Lula Briggs Galloway on June 19, 2003. The Juneteenth Creative Cultural Center & Museum will be celebrating its first year anniversary with the Juneteenth Independence Day Celebration on Saturday, June 19, 2004, hosted by its founder and volunteers. They are proud to present the ``Tuskegee Airmen'' and the ``Triple Nickles'' who will be performing as part of the Juneteenth Independence Day Celebration. Many years before ``black pride'' became a popular slogan, a small group of black soldiers gave life and meaning to those words. This is their story. Born within an army that had traditionally relegated blacks to menial jobs and programmed them for failure, the 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion, or ``Triple Nickles'' Succeeded in becoming the Nation's first all-black parachute infantry test platoon, company, and battalion. The Tuskegee Airmen, a black Army Air Force unit, were dedicated, determined young men who enlisted to become America's first black military airmen, at a time when there were many people who thought that black men lacked intelligence, skill, and courage to become pilots. Although the Tuskegee Airmen flew more than 15,000 combat missions, once home, they had to give up their seats on the bus to Nazi prisoners of war who were being transferred to holding camps. Since that time, men like Chuck Simms Sr., John Weldon, and Toney Muzon, have continued the legacy for the Triple Nickles and the Tuskegee Airmen. This celebration will honor them, and their fellow soldiers and airmen, who have since passed away. The Triple Nickles' and the Tuskegee Airmen's families can be proud of their dedication to their country, and their great commitment to honor the values and principles of democracy and freedom. We as a nation have benefitted from the extraordinary contributions--and sacrifices--of these veterans who bravely went off to war, despite turmoil and racism at home. I am sure that my Senate colleagues join me in recognizing and honoring the Juneteenth Creative Cultural Center and Museum's first year anniversary, and the Juneteenth Independence Day Celebration honoring the Triple Nickles and Tuskegee Airmen veterans.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. At these sites, they are not going to be fired. So you want to deploy before you test. Do not deploy because you think that is where you are going to be testing from. We are not. That is according to the Department of Defense. Now another reason we are given is that will work against the real North Korean missile threat. That is what we are told. Yet on March 11, the Pentagon's own chief tester, Tom Christie, testified in front of the Armed Services Committee and Senator Jack Reed asked him whether it was true that at this time we cannot be sure the actual missile defense system would work against a real North Korean missile threat, to which Mr. Christie replied, ``I would say that's true.'' Now, there are good arguments to test a missile defense system which will work. It seems to me to say that a missile defense system which may or may not work, which we have not tested operationally or realistically, is a deterrent against some potential threat, is totally inaccurate as well. It is wishful thinking. Something is not deterred with a system which may not work. There is testing to get a system which does work and then deterrence may be possible, because if there is going to be a missile attack against us, we always have to remember that the people who would shoot at us, No. 1, would destroy themselves, not us. They may or may not destroy us depending on how accurate the missile is, but they would destroy themselves because the retaliation would be swift, clear, certain, and massive. That is the deterrent that works and has always worked in the area of missiles. Nonetheless, if one wants a defense against such an attack, if they do not think they can deter an attack by the certainty of massive retaliation, if they think some country is going to shoot a missile at us even though it will lead to their own destruction, then the value of that system would be ``if it works.'' But no operational testing here. Senator Boxer's amendment would prevent deployment of the administration's national missile defense before the capabilities of the system have been confirmed by operationally realistic testing. This amendment does exactly the right thing. The administration currently plans to deploy a national missile defense before the capabilities of the system have been confirmed by operationally realistic testing. This violates the entire spirit, if not the letter, of the ``fly-before-you- buy'' laws, because these laws are intended to prevent the purchase and deployment to the field of billions of dollars of military equipment prior to it being adequately tested to show that it would work in actual combat. Sometime in September of this year, the Bush administration will declare a national missile defense system deployed and operational, probably with much fanfare. However, the system has never been realistically tested, against targets that actually look like an enemy missile. Instead, the targets have had beacons on them, telling the national missile defense where they are, instead of using the national missile defense radars to do that. An enemy missile will not have a beacon on it. Yet, the DoD has never yet tested this system without the target having one. Nor has the system been tested against targets that look like a threat missile might look, with the simple countermeasures that any ICBM-capable country would almost certainly have. The Pentagon's chief test official, who is required by law to independently oversee and approve all operational testing of major weapon systems, has not been given any authority over the missile defense test plans. This chief test official is the only true independent judge of the Pentagon's weapon system. The law established his position to ensure that political or other pressures did not result in a weapon system being deployed before it was ready. But the Bush administration has consistently tried to marginalize the role of the Pentagon's test official in missile defense. The result is that the testing for the national missile defense system has remained unrealistically simple. The tests have been designed to ensure test success, and ``rack up the score,'' not to ensure the system actually works in wartime. Despite the artificial simplicity of the tests, the last major test of the system was a failure. That was back in December of 2002, and the DoD has not conducted another such test in the 18 months since then. This long delay has been due to a number of developmental problems with the system's interceptors. The Pentagon still has not fixed the developmental problems with the system, which is why the next test, originally scheduled for March, has been delayed by 4 months. Yet despite these continuing problems, test failures, and the substantial delays, the administration still plans to deploy the system in September, as it has for more than a year. This is putting perceived political advantages of a Presidential election-year before technical reality, and fiscal responsibility. Senator Boxer's amendment would require realistic operational tests, under the control of the Pentagon's chief tester, prior to deployment of a national missile defense. I support Senator Boxer's amendment, which would put common sense ahead of missile defense politics, and would reinforce the intent of existing ``fly-before-you-buy'' laws which protect men and women in uniform, the taxpayer, and our national security. I urge others to support this amendment as well.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. These amendments have been cleared, I believe, on both sides.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, can we just do this one step at a time, before we agree to any amendment? If there is going to be a second- degree amendment as part of a unanimous consent, I think we better withhold that piece. We didn't realize there was going to be a second- degree amendment. Is it to the Brownback amendment? If this is in the form of a unanimous consent request, we can't at this moment agree to it.