John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Oregon. The fact is I have never had a direct conversation with the Senator from Oregon on this issue. He knows it and I know it.

Mr. McCAIN. I didn't think he would.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? Has the Senator ever said a word directly to me about his amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. I have already yielded the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. We have probably wasted way too much of the Senate's time on this issue. One, the administration opposes it. And the Army opposes it. The Army says, you are taking the money out of the U.S. Army's operating funds, which they badly need. According to them, insufficient infrastructure funding decreases readiness. They do not have enough money. And now you are going to take the money out of operations and maintenance for our active duty men and women--active duty men and women--in the military, and you are going to move it to the Guard. All we are saying is--if you and your colleague would have allowed us--take the money out of the Guard units; shift it around to your own priorities in the National Guard. That seems eminently fair to me. The Guard is very well funded. You are talking about the overall funding. The Guard is very well funded as well. I am not going to take too much more time on this. The administration opposes it. The Army opposes it. We oppose it. It is something, frankly, that is unnecessary. To have this kind of transfer of funds, when our active duty military is already very short of funds, I think is a mistake. Again, I think we could have solved this very easily with a second- degree amendment, if it had been allowed, that the money would have been taken out of existing Guard funds. Then you could upgrade it or do whatever you wanted to with Guard funds instead of taking it away from the men and women in the military. I will tell the Senator from Oregon, there are too many people living in barracks that were built during the Korean war. There are too many people who are on active duty who have insufficient housing, lifestyles, quarters, and other basic amenities of life. And we are an all-volunteer force. You are taking the money from the active duty personnel in order to satisfy what your perceived needs are of the Guard in the State of Oregon. I do not think that is fair to the active duty men and women in the military. I yield the floor. And I don't think we have any further debate.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret Senator Wyden chooses to take what I think is an unwise course because I have to tell Senator Wyden now that I will fight in the conference--and I will be a conferee--to have it either amended as we want it done or to take it out completely. I think I may have the support of my colleagues because it really is unreasonable of Senator Wyden to object because it was clear, and everybody is clear, that we were under the impression that the amendment was nongermane. We would have filed a second-degree amendment if it had been germane. I do not question the choice of the Senator from Oregon, but I can assure the Senator from Oregon that, No. 1, Senator Kyl and I could care less whether it went to Arizona or Alaska or New Jersey. I have steadfastly opposed micromanaging any of the services. By the way--Senator Kyl is going to want to talk about this a little bit--it is up to $69,000 per person we are going to expend on this, which is quite a remarkable expense that they have. Second, if the Oregon National Guard wants to spend money, let them take it out of their existing funds. They are perfectly capable, under their budgetary and decisionmaking process, to make a decision that they want to upgrade their aircraft with the existing funds that they have. I do not think Senator Kyl and I would demand a vote on this. I will leave it up to Senator Kyl. But I assure Senator Wyden I would not have treated him in the same fashion. But I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. We were seeking that because we were under the impression, clearly a false one, that the Wyden-Smith amendment would be ruled, postcloture, nongermane. The Wyden-Smith amendment is germane so we had wanted to propose a second-degree amendment. If one of the Senators from Oregon objects, then obviously we hear the objection. Could I be recognized, Mr. President?

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, I say to Senator Reid we are going to have to, because of a previous unanimous consent agreement, get unanimous consent to allow a second-degree amendment to be considered. That would have to be the first order for us, to be able to get that.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent a second-degree amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl, to the Smith amendment, be taken up at this time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about one of most colorful, to put it mildly, elected officials in contemporary American politics. Recently, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura announced he would not seek a second term in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Governor Ventura took an unusual career path to arrive at his current position. After high school, Jesse Ventura volunteered for one of our Nation's toughest military assignments, the SEALs. He served 4 years in the Navy before eventually taking center stage in the wrestling ring and then as mayor of Brooklyn Park, MN for five years. Jesse continued his unconventional ways by challenging the political system and, against all odds, winning his gubernatorial race in 1998 against two well-established opponents. Now, he is exiting the political arena. As I look back, there were many comments made by the Governor that I disagreed with, as I did with some of his public policies. But Jesse Ventura's run 4 years ago was about more than who would run the State of Minnesota. As my hero, Theodore Roosevelt, said nearly a century ago, ``It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.''

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, less than 2 weeks ago America marked the historic demise of the ABM Treaty. We did so in accordance with the treaty's terms, and with the consent of Russia, acknowledging that the strategic rivalry that dominated our relationship for three decades is a thing of the past, in word and in deed. I find it remarkable that removal of the legal and diplomatic constraints formerly placed on the development of America's missile defenses has been replaced by political constraints imposed by members of the Armed Services Committee. As my colleagues know, the committee bill slashed the President's budget request for missile defense programs by $812 million. I appreciate that missile defense was a controversial issue when it was viewed by some as a threat to United States-Russia relations. These critics argued that the strategic stability we enjoyed from the cold war-era ``balance of terror'' would be put at grave risk by President Bush's support for missile defense development unconstrained by treaty limitations. These critics were wrong. I did not then agree with them, but I understood their position. Today, however, we live in a post-ABM Treaty world, forged with the cooperation and explicit consent of the Russian Government. No longer does this arms control agreement regulate our development of anti-missile systems. No longer does America's diplomatic relationship with Russia require us to pay allegiance to an arms control relic of an adversarial past. The President has consistently stated that the development of effective missile defenses is a priority of his administration, and a requirement in an age of proliferation. Most Americans support the construction of missile defenses, especially if it is done in a way that doesn't violate our treaty commitments. Rather than alienate our friends overseas, America's missile defense development, some of which will be coordinated with the Russians and our allies, will one day help protect allies in Europe and Asia from missile assault. If properly managed, our international alliances will be strengthened, not weakened, by these systems. I believe they will enhance, not undermine, strategic stability. It is troubling that the committee bill would deny the administration the resources and flexibility to aggressively pursue a range of missile defense programs, at a time when diplomatic and treaty constraints on that development no longer restrict our freedom of action. One motivation of missile defense critics is their belief that effective missile defenses are no more than a Reagan-era fantasy, a political project that disregards daunting technological obstacles to achievement. But by slashing nearly a billion dollars from missile defense development in the coming fiscal year alone, critics create a self-fulfilling prophecy. By definition, their denial of requested resources makes it nearly impossible for the administration to meet its objective to deploy missile defenses as soon as possible. I would remind my colleagues that only 3 years ago, 97 United States Senators voted to deploy ``as soon as technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense System capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack.'' Expert studies show that political and funding constraints have in fact impeded progress on developing and deploying missile defenses. Of the many missile defense programs, one of the most cost-effective and, if properly executed, most readily deployable would be a sea-based program using the Navy's existing Aegis fleet air defense assets. If accorded the proper priority and resources, populated areas along America's coasts, forward-deployed U.S. forces, and U.S. allies could begin to come under a limited missile defense umbrella before the end of the President's first term. Indeed, had the advice of many defense experts been followed since 1995, when a blue-ribbon commission first called for withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and pursuit of Aegis-evolved missile defenses, such protection would likely have been put into place before now. We are a nation at war. The administration is seriously contemplating a military campaign against Iraq, a nation armed with short-range ballistic missiles that took their toll on American troops and Israeli civilians during the Persian Gulf war. Saddam Hussein is also known to be pursuing more sophisticated missile systems. In any military campaign, our forces and our allies would be at risk from Iraqi warheads containing biological or chemical agents. Iran is pursuing an ICBM program and could test it within 3 years, according to our intelligence community's consensus estimate. Iran is also aggressively pursuing a nuclear capability. Our intelligence community assesses that North Korea today possesses the capability to hit the United States with a nuclear weapon-sized payload. Many experts believe the North Koreans already possess enough weapons-grade plutonium for several nuclear weapons. America faces the risk of strategic blackmail from nations such as these whose possession of sophisticated missile technology puts them in a position to restrict our flexibility to deploy military forces where and when they are needed. Much of the missile defense debate has focused on defense of the U.S. homeland, and this is important. But development of effective missile defenses is critical not only to protect America, but to preserve our military options overseas, by allowing us to meet threats to our interests around the world. Effective missile defenses will allow American forces the flexibility to operate in regions where the presence of a dangerous regime armed with ballistic missiles would otherwise unacceptably constrain American military operations. America's defenselessness to missile attack, and the vulnerability of our overseas forces and our allies to rogue regimes with advanced missile capabilities, are the Achilles' heel of American foreign policy. Preserving our ability to deploy military forces across the globe requires us to protect against threats of missile attack that, left unmet, could one day cause us to acquiesce to acts of aggression overseas in order not to expose ourselves to attack. Missile defenses will reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue regimes. The threats are real. The diplomatic foundation has been laid. The potential of missile defense technology is clear. The implications of rendering America defenseless as a strategic choice are morally troubling. The case for missile defense is compelling. The threat of terrorism is grave, but the rise of this clear and present danger does not diminish the menace that rogue regimes that cavort with terror and aggressively pursue weapons of mass destruction pose to America. I urge my colleagues to support the Warner amendment to restore the President's requested funding for missile defense programs.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, our Nation lost a true champion on June 22, when Justin Dart, Jr. passed away in his sleep at the age of 71. Afflicted with polio at a young age, Justin Dart didn't let his wheelchair get in the way of fighting for the rights of the disabled for more than five decades. Today, millions of disabled Americans have more opportunities and better access to public facilities because of the tireless work and dedication of Justin Dart. From 1988 to 1990, he served as Chairman of the Congressional Task Force on the Rights and Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities and was instrumental in getting the Americans with Disabilities Act signed into law in 1990. To ensure its passage, Justin literally visited all fifty states to educate Americans about the barriers people with disabilities face every day in their lives, and he spent countless days on Capitol Hill to make the ADA a reality. In 1998, to honor his lifelong public service, President Clinton awarded Justin Dart our Nation's highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom, and told those who gathered to honor him that Justin had ``literally opened the doors of opportunities to millions of our citizens by securing one of the Nation's landmark civil rights laws.'' Such tremendous desire to help secure the rights of others defined the life of Justin Dart. America is a better place because of his great work. I know that I speak for all Americans when I say that we will miss you, Justin, but a day will never go by without us seeing the doors you opened for so many with disabilities.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation with Senators Breaux and Grassley that would expand the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement to recognize Turkey's critical role as a key American partner in the Middle East conflict, the war on terrorism, and the NATO alliance. Turkey has a deepening strategic relationship with Israel, with which it has enjoyed military cooperation since 1994. It is a force for stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Today, it assumed command of the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan. It is one of our best NATO allies. Turkish troops have fought alongside U.S. forces from Korea to Kabul. Turkey's support was instrumental during the 1991 gulf war; it hosts operation Northern Watch, in which American and British aircraft patrol the no-fly zone over northern Iraq; and it will be central to any American military campaign against Iraq. As a Muslim nation and a secular democracy that has embraced modernity, Turkey puts to rest the myth that America's war on terror is a war on Islam. Turkey's economy shrank by over 8 percent last year. Its ability to contribute to the war effort in Afghanistan and elsewhere faces serious economic constraints. Turkey has shown a strong commitment to economic reform and to working with the International Monetary Fund. A Qualified Industrial Zone for Turkey, under the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, would help Turkey attract foreign investment, diversify its exports, and boost trade. It would also help Israel and Turkey develop the economic dimension of their strong security relationship, which is unique in the region. I know this issue is important to the administration and to the Governments of Turkey and Israel. I am sorry we were unable to pass legislation authorizing a QIZ for Turkey as part of the TPA package last month. I am confident that the measure we have introduced today will enjoy wide bipartisan support and will make a tangible, substantive contribution to Israeli-Turkish cooperation and to American interests in the region.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak on behalf of the pending amendment. I strongly support it and would like to finally see this issue brought to a successful conclusion after many years. I first introduced legislation on concurrent receipt back in 1992, again in 1993, again in 1995, and again in 1999. In 1999, I introduced legislation that became law as a compromise measure that paid special compensation pay for severely disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 percent. Here we are in 2002 with an opportunity to finally rectify a problem that has plagued our veterans, and to rectify it once and for all for all military retirees who have become disabled during their military service. We have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to these brave men and women who are serving our Nation as we speak in a time of war that all of us agree may be of very long duration. The existing law, as it stands, is simply discriminatory and wrong. Concurrent receipt is at its core a fairness issue. Present law simply discriminates against career military people who have been injured or disabled in the conduct of their duties while in defense of this Nation. I want to emphasize the important aspect of this issue to all of my colleagues. Retired veterans are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. I want to repeat that. This record must reflect the importance of this legislation to correct a gross and unfair discrimination against our veterans. Retired veterans are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. In my view, the two pays are for very different purposes: one for service to the country and the other for physical or mental pain and suffering which occurred in that service to the country. When I first drafted concurrent receipt legislation as ranking member of the Personnel Subcommittee, it was cosponsored by my dear friend, and former chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator John Glenn, in 1992. If he were here today, he would speak as passionately as he did during those years in favor of this legislation. The Retired Pay Restoration Act has received strong bipartisan support in Congress with 396 cosponsors in the House and 82 cosponsors in the Senate. The Military Coalition, an organization of 33 prominent veterans' and retirees' advocacy groups, supports this legislation, as do many other veterans service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, and Disabled American Veterans. For the brave men and women who have selected to make their career the U.S. military, they face an unknown risk. If they are injured, they will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks. We have a unique opportunity this year to redress the unfair practice of requiring disabled military retirees to fund their own disability compensation. Sixty percent is not enough. We need full funding for all military retirees. It is time for us to show our appreciation to the men and women who have suffered so much for our great Nation. If we went back and looked at the legislative history of the legislation we passed in 1999, I think a review of the debate and discussion of that legislation would show that we wanted to cover all veterans, but there simply was not enough money. So we drew the line at severely disabled military retirees with disabilities greater than 50 percent, with the full intention of expanding that to all veterans. Why did we select 50 percent? It was an arbitrary selection because we knew that over time we would expand it. The reason why we drew the line where we did was simply for budgetary reasons. Again, it seems to me, the argument against it is only one; that is, we cannot afford it because it is too large a hit to the budget. I would argue that perhaps we have our priorities a bit skewed if we are not going to take care of our veterans as our first priority. So I hope we can convince the administration of the justice and fairness behind this proposal. I hope we can get it resolved to the benefit of our men and women who have served. I point out that this is an issue not only for veterans who have retired and feel inequity, but the active duty members of our military are also aware of this situation. So I speak strongly on behalf of the amendment, as one who has been involved in it, as I said, for nearly 10 years. We have achieved partial success now. I hope we can achieve complete success and make all veterans eligible for this program and they not have to give up their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability compensation. I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act. I want to take this opportunity to explain my opposition to making permanent the repeal of the Federal estate tax. Last year, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-16) repealed the Federal estate tax by 2010. It accomplished this by gradually raising the ``unified credit'' which is the amount of the estate exempt from taxation, from $675,000 in 2001, to $1 million in 2002; $1.5 million in 2004; $2 million in 2006; and $3.5 million in 2009 and finally repealed the estate tax by 2010. However, the estate tax will be reinstated in 2011 as it exists under current law. The Death Tax Elimination Act removes the sunset on repeal and makes the repeal of the estate tax permanent from 2010 onwards with no cap whatsoever. I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest income taxpayers in the country. A Treasury Department study found that almost no estate tax has been paid by lower and middle-income taxpayers. But taxes have been paid on the estates of people who were in the highest 20 percent of the income distribution at the time of their death. It found that 91 percent of all estate taxes are paid by the estates of people whose annual income exceeded $190,000 around the time of their death. During this time of increasing deficits, we should also be mindful of the very high cost of providing those benefits and our ability to pay for them. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that removing the 2010 sunset and making permanent the repeal of the estate tax would cost $99 billion between 2003 and 2012. But more than half of this cost or $56 billion would occur just in 2012. The long-term costs of permanent repeal are much larger. In the decade after 2012, permanent repeal would result in a revenue loss of $740 billion assuming that the cost which the Joint Tax Committee estimates for 2012 will remain the same after 2012, when measured as a share of the economy. Another concern I have is that repeal of the estate tax will cause a significant decline in charitable giving. I fear that eliminating the estate and gift tax would remove an enormous tax incentive for the wealthy to make charitable gifts. The research on the effect of the estate tax on charitable giving has consistently shown that levying estate taxes increases the amount of charitable bequests. A recent study found that eliminating the estate tax would reduce charitable bequests by about 12 percent overall. Taking these issues into account, instead of repeal of the estate tax, I support increasing the ``unified credit'' to allow up to $5 million worth of assets to be exempt from taxation. I believe this cap is a reasonable amount. For example, according to data from the IRS, more than 93 percent of taxable estates in 1999 were valued at less than $5 million. Farm and family-owned business assets accounted for less than three percent of the total value of these estates in 1999. In most estates that are taxable and include a business or farm, the business or farm does not even constitute the majority of the estate. In fact, the American Farm Bureau Federation has acknowledged that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes. These facts belie the argument that we must repeal the estate tax to save family businesses and farms to assure that they do not have to be liquidated to pay estate taxes. Responsible estate tax reform, instead of outright repeal, would ensure that small and family-owned businesses and family farms will not be taxed out of business in the event of the death of an owner or when passed along to the owner's children. Responsible reform would alleviate individuals and businesses from being forced to spend time and money on estate planning. Even some of the Nation's wealthiest taxpayers such as Warren Buffet, Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, and Bill Gates, Sr., father of the billionaire Microsoft founder, have gone on record as opposing the effort to repeal the estate tax. And in calling for the inheritance tax in his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.'' We have no idea what our financial or economic situation will be ten years from now. We may be at war. We may be in the process of putting Social Security on a sound financial footing. We may want to have the flexibility to provide significant tax relief for lower and middle- income taxpayers. Other unforeseen issues may arise. The point is that we must think beyond the horizon. Making the repeal of the estate tax permanent fails to take these new circumstances into account. We will need resources to deal with national security, general government funding, the coming baby boom retirement and the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare, and responsible tax reform that benefit lower- and middle-income taxpayers. But we must fund these priorities within our constrained budget situation. Reforming the estate tax rather than committing ourselves to full repeal is the more sustainable and responsible approach.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. And the Senator has never seen anything like this in those 24 years?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple remarks about the process we are going through right now as we are finishing up. We should not be doing this. This is a managers' amendment. A managers' amendment is intended for technical amendments. Now the Senator from Texas and I are causing heartburn for everybody around the Senate who has an amendment they think is worthy. The amendment should have been brought up and voted on and put in the normal process. Instead, because of the egregious practice that has been going on, I pointed out many times last year, when I said, What is in the managers' amendment? Nobody knew. There were 32 specific earmarked projects in an appropriations bill. The Senator from Texas and I decided we wanted to see what was in the managers' amendment. I have forgotten how many there were--90 to start with, somewhere around 90 amendments to start with. Some of them were $10 million; some, $20 million; some, $50 million; some were $120 million out of the highway trust fund--all in ``managers' amendments.'' I don't like staying here late at night any more than any of my colleagues do. Why don't we try going through the normal process? An amendment that is worth $120 million is worthy of debate and voting on, on the floor of the Senate, and not to be included in a managers' package. Then we have to get our staff, the Senator from Texas and I, and make everybody mad because we object to them. If these amendments had been brought up in the normal procedure, nobody would have been angry because then we would have voted these amendments up or down. Instead, we have now a practice where there is a managers' amendment which in anybody's definition includes technical amendments to the bill where there are huge changes, and many of them policy changes. I am sympathetic to the Senator from Oregon who wants to keep the search and rescue in the State of Oregon. It is an important issue to him. Where is it? It is in the managers' package, a policy change where we are going to dictate to the U.S. Air Force. What I hope my colleagues have learned from this, at 20 minutes to midnight on a Thursday night, is that we would go through the normal process, have the amendments considered, vote up or down, the managers' package being purely technical amendments as they are intended, and we wouldn't have this problem that we are in today. There is enormous heartburn here on the part of some of my colleagues. I understand that. These are important issues to them. I say to the Senator that this is an important issue, whether search and rescue is available in the State of Oregon at Mount Hood where a disaster took place. Instead, we are supposed to decide the situation on the basis of germane or nongermane. We should not be doing this. I hope the lesson is that we take up amendments and vote on them up or down, and not in a managers' package from now on, which is how it is supposed to be. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Point of parliamentary personal privilege since my name was used.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. I am in sympathy with the Senator. I voted against cloture. It was your leader who filed cloture and we voted on it long before I wanted cloture to be invoked. You would not have that problem if it had not been for your leadership that filed cloture at the earliest I have ever seen on an appropriations bill. I am in sympathy and would like to work with the Senator to get this worthwhile technical amendment approved.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I guess there is no point in me responding as to whether I should smile or not smile. The reason why I objected to this amendment was not because of frivolous reasons. This amendment was going to expand the eligibility of the airline loan guarantee program to include the manufacturers of small jet turbo fan aircraft. I am proud to be a member of the Commerce Committee and proud to have worked with Senator Hollings as we, working with the administration and the airline industry, came up with the airline and airport security bill, which was an important piece of legislation, a very vital piece of legislation following September 11. We considered extending the small airline guarantee program to include manufacturers of small jet turbo fan aircraft at the time of the consideration and the hearings in the authorizing committee, and we rejected that idea. So I certainly objected because we had gone through scrutiny of this issue in the proper authorizing process. I objected to an expansion of the program without authorization or without a hearing, and I will continue to object to changes in authorizing legislation on which we worked very hard in the committee of jurisdiction. That is the reason why I objected to an expansion of the program which was unwarranted by the legislation that was passed by this body by a vote of 98 to 0. It has nothing to do with my feelings toward Senator Domenici or any other Senator in this body. If I have offended Senator Domenici, obviously I deeply regret that. I do have a higher obligation to do what I can to make sure the people I represent are adequately represented and according to my best judgment. I thank the Chair and Senator Reid for allowing me to respond.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at a time of bipartisan agreement that the Colombian government must pursue a unified campaign against the narco- trafficking and terrorist threat to Colombia's democracy, the Senate Appropriations Committee has chosen to deny the Administration's request for the authority to support our Colombian ally. As my colleagues know, our assistance to Colombia is channeled through both the State and Defense Departments. To the President's credit, American policy has dispensed with the illusion that the Colombian government is fighting two separate wars, one against drug trafficking and another against domestic terrorists. The democratic government of Colombia has long insisted that it is the nexus of terrorists involved in the drug trade that threatens Colombian society. American policy now recognizes that reality, and abandons any fictional distinctions between counter-narcotic and counter-insurgency operations. Our government properly allies itself with the Colombian people against the narco-terrorists who threaten the government they elected, and the system of government that rejects the violent and absolutist aims of those who would overthrow it by force of arms. We in the United States have a considerable stake in the Colombian government's success, for the narcoterrorist state the enemies of the Colombian government would establish would present a compelling national security threat to the United States in our own hemisphere. Congress has shown an admirable commitment to supporting the Colombian government's campaign to bring basic security to its people. But America's commitment has been limited to providing training and assistance to combat drug production and trafficking. The Administration has requested not new money but new authority to use appropriated funds to combat narco-terrorism. Yet this Supplemental Appropriations bill grants that authority only to the Department of State, and places overly restrictive and burdensome constraints on that authority. Our amendment would provide the Administration the authority it has requested, in consultation with the Congress, to use appropriated funds to support a unified campaign by the Colombian government against drug trafficking and terrorist insurgency. The House-passed version of this bill provides both the departments of State and Defense with this authority for the current fiscal year. The Senate bill would leave in place existing restrictions prohibiting use of Department of Defense assistance in the war against the FARC and the ELN. Our amendment mirrors the President's request to provide the Department of Defense the authority to use funds already appropriated for this purpose to support our Colombian ally. I hope the conference committee to this bill will provide the Administration with this authority. In a presidential election last month, the Colombian people gave their leadership a clear mandate to defeat narco-terrorism by electing Alvaro Uribe as President. President-elect Uribe campaigned on a platform of decisively defeating the FARC terrorists, who have shown little interest in a negotiated, peaceful solution to the war they have been waging against Colombia's government for four decades. This is not an authoritarian regime located in a far-off corner of Central Asia. This is a democratic government, one of the longest- standing in our hemisphere, that has allied itself with the United States in order to defeat the threat to our common values posed by the FARC and the ELN terrorists, as well as by AUC paramilitary forces whose abysmal human rights record rivals that of their opponents. Under existing law, human rights conditionality and restrictions on the American military presence in Colombia remain in effect on all U.S. assistance to that country. Our amendment would ensure that existing American funds appropriated to support American policy in Colombia reflect the reality that the Colombian government is not simply fighting a drug war. It is estimated that one million would-be voters in Colombia could not express their preference at the ballot box last month due to FARC violence and intimidation. The number of political candidates who have been intimidated, abducted, or murdered for their ambition to serve their people is staggering. One presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, remains a hostage to the FARC, who abducted her on the way to a campaign rally in February. On May 2, 2002, a rocket fired by FARC guerrillas killed 117 civilians taking refuge in a small church. Forty of the dead were children. Colombian officials call it the worst single loss of civilian life in the nation's 38-year civil war. President-elect Uribe has been given a clear mandate by his people to give them back their country. Our values and our interests require us to support our ally. There is an important role for the United States, not only to provide assistance and technical support to the Colombian police and armed forces, but also to exercise our influence to ensure that our values triumph over both terrorist violence and paramilitary brutality. These values are worth fighting for. We should stand proudly with the people of Colombia in their struggle. To reiterate Mr. President, the situation in our own hemisphere in regard to Colombia is a very serious one. We are understandably worried about events between Pakistan and India, Afghanistan, et cetera. The situation in our own hemisphere as regards Colombia is of the utmost seriousness because that is where the drugs come from that destroy the minds and bodies of our children. On May 2, 2002, a rocket fired by FARC guerrillas killed 117 civilians that were taking refuge in a small church. Forty of the dead were children. Colombian officials call it the worst single loss of civilian life in the nation's 38-year civil war. It is estimated that 1 million voters in Colombia couldn't express their preference at the ballot box last month due to FARC violence and intimidation. The number of political candidates who have been intimidated, abducted, or murdered for their ambition to serve their people is staggering. One Presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, remains a hostage to the FARC who abducted her on the way to a campaign rally in February. I understand the reluctance of Members of this body to relax certain restrictions that are associated with our assistance to Colombia. I hope all of my colleagues will review the situation as it exists today--a direct threat to the security of the United States of America--if Colombia collapsed in a civil war between different parties. There is the ELN, the paramilitary, the FARC, and there is the Government. They are all fighting amongst one another, and the FARC recently being rejected from the sanctuary they were granted, I believe, is a mistaken policy on the part of the Colombian Government. We now have a new President, Alvaro Uribe, who is committed to using whatever sources and means necessary to bring peace and stability back to its country. Again, I don't want to take the time of the Senate at this late hour. It is in our national security interests to see some kind of Government peace and stability restored to Colombia because that is where the drugs are coming from that are killing our kids. I hope in the days ahead we will devote some of our attention to the country of Colombia and see what the United States can do not only to help these people who are literally afraid to leave their own homes, but to try to combat the great threat of narcoterrorism and the flow of narcotics, which is another aspect of our war on terrorism that we need to do whatever is necessary to combat. I thank Senator Graham not only for his amendment but for his continued involvement in the affairs of our hemisphere. Mr. President, I yield the floor.