Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Levin pertaining to Wurtsmith Air Force Base.

Mr. STEVENS. This directs that funds available to the Department be used for certain proposals on that Air Force base. We have examined it, and we are prepared to recommend the adoption of that amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Conrad and ask that it be adopted.

Mr. STEVENS. This earmarks up to $7 million for a project the Senator supports from funds available within the bill. It does not increase funds. I ask for its adoption.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS

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 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.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3423

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't know the situation regarding this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor because I am worried about the Defense appropriations bill. This bill that has been prepared by primarily Sid Ashworth and Charlie Houy of our Defense Subcommittee, under the direction of my cochairman Dan Inouye and myself, was considered by the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations and reported to the full committee in 17 minutes. We took it to the full committee and we had a debate on that bill. It was reported to the floor in 25 minutes. The reason for that is, as we all know, there is in this bill an amount of $25 billion requested by the President for a reserve for Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror. We know if there is a development in Iraq, in particular, which will give rise to a need for money, this bill must become law before we leave for the conventions in August, or really late July, before the August recess. Some of us in this body have served overseas, particularly in wartime. It was my privilege to do that in World War II. I was thinking just now about what is going on here on the floor, and how I used to feel as a young man when we were told our supplies had not come over the hump into China, that we were going to have to reduce our rations, maybe live a little more on local food than on the food we brought into China from a long distance from our country. I thought about the time Colin Powell, as a young assistant to the then-head of the National Security Council, came before a Senate subcommittee on appropriations, and he told us at the time, when he was a young captain in Cambodia, he had the duty to take out a whole Vietnamese battalion, and the U.S. troops along with him had to go into Cambodia on a drop mission. They parachuted in. They were given a 2-week supply of food. He told us when you get up on that 14th day and open up the last bit of your rations, that is when you start thinking about the people who are in Washington that you trust. That is when you start thinking about whether the people who run the Government know what they are doing when they send you into foreign countries, like Cambodia, in wartime. As I speak now, there are men and women in the armed services in our U.S. uniform in 120 countries. Managing the Department of Defense is an overwhelming job right now. The money we are spending is enormous, but the cause we are on is just. Whether you feel it is just or not, the problem is, we now know that when we leave for the conventions, there is a great possibility the Department of Defense and Commander in Chief will have to have more money available than is currently available in fiscal year 2004. Our committee, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and the Appropriations Committee, has worked long hours to bring this bill before the Senate so we can pass it before we leave on this recess for the Fourth of July, and be able to come back and be ready to conference it, because staff conferences during the recess, and bring it back to the floor so both the House and the Senate can pass the bill and get it to the President and have it become law before we leave before the end of July. I hear a lot of comments from people about the problem of the debt ceiling. I have checked and, in all probability, we will reach the debt ceiling in August. There is a debate on how to handle that. The House has decided to put it in the Appropriations bill, and I have been asked, as manager of the bill, to commit that I will not bring this bill back from conference with a debt ceiling in it. I can make no such commitment. Neither the Senator from Hawaii nor I can make that commitment. We are committed to doing our job as Senators, carrying out our oath to support and defend the Constitution and the people who support the Constitution. I, for one, am getting a little impatient about getting this bill done. The current bill, I was told, would be done last night, and we would be on our bill now. We are not on the Defense bill now. We should be on the Defense appropriations bill now. I hope and pray every Senator in this body will search his soul about delaying this bill, because I mean what I say: there is no possibility of getting this bill to the President, in my judgment, in a matter of 10 days after we get back unless we pass it now, and the President has time to go through the bill to determine if he is going to sign it. I implore the Senate to finish this bill. Either the Senator from Hawaii or I have been chairman of the Defense Subcommittee since 1981. We have never found a situation where we would even consider cloture on the Defense appropriations bill. I cannot imagine a Member of this Senate voting against cloture on an appropriations bill for defense when there is a war going on. I say to the Senate, it is time to come to our senses and get this authorization bill done tonight so we can get on the appropriations bill tonight and finish it tomorrow or, at the latest, Friday morning. If we can get this bill through the subcommittee in 17 minutes and 25 minutes in the full committee, this Senate can get through this bill in 36 hours. I guarantee, if there is any thought of delay, we will stay in session 36 hours because I am going to see to it this bill is passed and goes to the President this week. Some people say it is not going to happen, but if I have to embarrass every Member of the Senate to get it done, I am going to do it. This bill must be passed. We are at war. We are at war. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to strongly oppose the Levin amendment. This amendment would realign critical funds for the ground-based midcourse interceptors. The consequences of that decision, in my judgment, would be devastating. By reallocating those funds, Congress would effectively cripple the deployment and testing of the interceptors in Alaska. Let me hasten to add, that decision to go to Alaska with these interceptors was not a political decision. It was made by the scientists. But I support that decision, and I believe Alaskans do also. Ballistic missiles are a serious threat to the United States, and our interests, forces, and allies throughout the world are threatened by them. The missiles our enemies possess are growing in range, reliability, accuracy, and number. A missile carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons could inflict damage that would make the tragedy our country experienced on September 11 pale by comparison. We cannot afford to ignore this threat. We must confront it, if we want to address the challenges that characterize our Nation's new security environment. The new security challenges of the 21st century require us to think and act differently. With that in mind, the decision was made to field the ground-based midcourse system in Alaska. Alaska's location gives us a strategic advantage. Interceptors launched from Alaska will be capable of protecting all 50 States. If Congress rejects Senator Levin's amendment and remains committed to the ground-based midcourse program, the United States will be able to meet any potential threat from a rogue nation or terrorist group. The Fort Greely interceptors are the centerpiece of our integrated, layered, national missile defense system. The funding contained in the 2005 budget is a downpayment on additional interceptors that will enable us to conduct additional flight testing and maintain industrial base production lines for key components of the ground-based system. Senator Levin's amendment cuts this funding. The amendment also disregards what years of experience have shown-- that it is wise to move into a deployment phase before the testing phase of a program has been completed. I remind Congress of the gulf war, when we fielded a number of systems that were under development at that time, including JSTARS. I personally witnessed that test in the deployment phase, in the testing phase, and early deployment of JSTARS in the gulf war. The Patriot missile was also tested in this way. Over many years we enhanced the Patriot batteries that first saw action by 1991, by implementing a follow-on enhancement program and replacing the original missile with a completely new interceptor. Similarly, the B-52 bomber that first flew in 1952 is hardly the same aircraft that dropped the bombs over Afghanistan in the war against terror. The original B-52 gave us early intercontinental bombardment capability, and it was enhanced over time with hardware and software improvements that helped us meet evolving operational challenges. These examples are reminders that a requirement written into a system's development phase can quickly become irrelevant or yield a dead end. That is a lesson we must keep in the forefront of our minds as we confront today's dynamic security environment. The time to move forward with the deployment of a ground-based midcourse operational capability is now. We must continue to improve the system. It must be allowed to evolve over time and take advantage of the breakthroughs in technology as they occur. Congress should follow the proven wisdom of experience and resist the urge to build to perfection a national security strategy that has never served us well. That is exactly what this amendment would have us do--turn our backs on the proven wisdom of experience and wait until there is a tragedy to confront the national security threats we know are emerging now. I urge the Senate to support the ground-based midcourse system and oppose Senator Levin's amendment. Again, this system has been deployed in my State already in the test phase. We should continue that concept. I yield back any time I have not used.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record today pursuant to section 304(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1383(a)).

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks Senator Kyl be recognized and then Senator Brownback.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate today to join others to remember a good friend and a great American leader. In 1977, I was elected to the Senate leadership and served as Assistant Minority Leader until the 1980 election. I don't think anyone at that time could have predicted the sweeping changes that were about to take place. When Ronald Reagan was elected, he ushered in a new era of government so profound it became known as the ``Reagan Revolution.'' That was an exciting time in Washington. As I became assistant majority leader and began a new life--Howard Baker was the majority leader. The day before I was to marry my wife Catherine, Howard called and asked me to replace him on a trip to China because Deng Xiaoping wanted to understand what ``Reaganism'' meant. My wife Catherine and I were married on December 30, and we left for China on December 31. To prepare for those talks, I reviewed all of President Reagan's actions as Governor of California and his promises made during the election. I was honored to be offered the opportunity to explain and defend his record. When Congress convened in 1981, those of us in the Senate leadership went down almost weekly for meetings at the White House. Occasionally, President Reagan came up to Howard Baker's office as Majority Leader to meet with us. I don't think any other President has done that as often as Ronald Reagan. President Reagan always tackled very serious subjects in these meetings, but he kept us relaxed. He usually began our discussions in the Cabinet room with a joke or a story. His leadership brought out the best of all of us. During his administration we were able to accomplish a lot for the American people and set the Nation and the world on a new course. Much has been said already about the mark President Reagan left on our national defense and foreign policy. Those were his greatest contributions as President, and I viewed those decisions from a unique advantage point. I was sworn in as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee just days before President Reagan took the oath of office. He immediately began to move toward a 600-ship Navy, new aircraft development, and space-based missile defense systems. President Reagan understood that the first thing we had to do was restore our military capability. The Soviets were outspending us at that time and stealing our secrets. The President took control of that situation, and in the years since President Reagan left office, either Senator Inouye or I have been chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Each of us has carried forth the vision President Reagan had for our military. History has overlooked President Reagan's personal commitment to arms control, however. In 1985, the President supported the creation of the Arms Control Observer Group in the Senate, a group of Senators that served as official observers at any arms control negotiations involving the United States. I co-chaired that group along with Senators Lugar, Nunn, and Pell. Our goal was to avoid the problems we faced in the 1970s when three successive arms control treaties were unable to achieve ratification in the Senate. Our group went to Geneva 3 or 4 times a year and came back and briefed the President, Secretary Shultz, and the Senators who were involved in arms control matters. The President encouraged the Soviets to decrease the size of their arsenals and to reduce the size of our nuclear forces. This was one of the most significant parts of the Reagan agenda, the overall concern with arms control. The President also created a revolutionary new approach to defense space research. He brought down the walls between isolated research projects and advocated a more comprehensive approach. A lot of the aspects of the missile defense system, which he called Star Wars, were based upon the research he put into effect then. When President Reagan passed away on Saturday, I noted that his death coincided with another sad day in American history: On June 5, 36 years ago, another great American leader, Senator and Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, was struck down by an assassin's bullet in Los Angeles. Although they were from different generations and different political parties, Robert Kennedy and Ronald Reagan had a lot in common. Both men were leaders who did more than just point the country in the right direction. In the words of Bobby Kennedy, they inspired Americans to envision a ``world that never was and ask `Why not?' '' On June 12, 1987, President Reagan inspired all of us to envision a new world when he gave his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate. I will never forget the image of President Reagan standing before that gate demanding that Gorbachev ``Tear down this wall!'' Weeks before he gave that speech, the President learned that his remarks would be carried in East Germany over the radio, and in one part of the speech he spoke directly to the people of East Germany. One can only imagine the hope the people on the other side of that wall must have felt when they heard the President of the United States declare in their native tongue: ``There is only one Berlin.'' Here at home, President Reagan built, as he called it, a ``shining city upon a hill.'' He borrowed that phrase from John Winthrop, an early Pilgrim who used it to describe the kind of America he envisioned. For Reagan, the idea of a ``shining city'' was: A tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get there. I will always be grateful to President Reagan for teaching us to believe in that shining city and for opening its doors so Alaska could finally enjoy full citizenship. Under President Ronald Reagan, the freeze on the transfer of Alaskan lands to our new State and to the Alaskan Native people was finally lifted, and we began to receive the land that rightfully belonged to us under the Statehood Act that admitted Alaska into our Union. President Reagan instructed the Department of the Interior to move quickly as possible on that. I do not believe it would have happened that fast had he not been elected. Under President Reagan, the Village Built Clinic Program began, and we set out to establish Indian health service clinics in every Native village in Alaska. Under President Reagan, we finally addressed the injustice of Aleut internment during World War II by awarding reparations to Aleuts who had been taken from their homes and sent to what were called ``duration villages'' in southeastern Alaska for the duration of the war. President Reagan understood Alaska's military and geopolitical significance better than any other President. The modernization of Alaska's military bases accelerated during his administration. What most Alaskans probably remember best about President Reagan is how well he understood our State and our way of life. When he came to Fairbanks to meet Pope John Paul II, he told the crowd that every time he came to Alaska he thought of the poet Robert Service and threatened to recite ``The Shooting of Dan McGrew.'' In fact, he did that just that one night when Catherine and I were attending a dinner in Chicago. We had just flown in from Fairbanks, and I told the crowd that was present that the 20-degree weather in Chicago could not compete with the harsh weather back home, where the temperature was 50 below. Ronald Reagan got up to give his remarks, and he recited Robert Service's poem ``The Shooting of Dan McGrew'' from memory. I distinctly remember him saying this phrase from Service's poem: When out of the night, which was fifty below, and into the din and the glare, there stumbled a miner fresh from the creeks, dog-dirty, and loaded for bear. On the plane ride home, the President told my wife Catherine that his mother had kept a first edition of Robert Service's poetry by his bedside and read those poems to him as a child. Catherine later sent him a first edition of Robert Service that she found in a bookstore in New York, and he wrote her a nice letter back telling her he planned to memorize ``The Cremation of Sam McGee'' once more. I tried many times to get the President to come back to Alaska, but, unfortunately, he decided, as the years went by, that he wanted to go back to California to ride horses. We understood that, and honored him for it. Alaskans took comfort in knowing that even if his heart belonged to California, he was raised on the words of Robert Service, our favorite poet. One of my fondest memories of President Reagan is, strangely enough, a phone call I received from him as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. The President called to ask me if I had placed funding in the Defense bill that year to procure a new pair of Air Force I airplanes. I told him that I had. President Reagan told me that he had not requested that funding and would veto the bill. He said: ``Ted, I'm the President.'' I said: ``Sir, I understand that, but you won't be President by the time the new planes arrive.'' There was silence on the other end of the line, and when he finally spoke, the President said: ``Ted, do you have a design for these planes?'' I will never forget that because the first time a President flew in those new planes was when one of them took the retired President and Nancy back to California in 1989. This week, President Reagan will fly back to Washington for the last time. Thousands of Americans will pay tribute to him in the Capitol Rotunda and millions more will reflect on his life. Catherine and I extend our deepest sympathies to Nancy and the Reagan family, as all of us will mourn the loss of a true American hero. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am humbled to be among the Members who have been mentioned by the leaders. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, items 1, 2, and 3 be printed in the Record. Item 1 is a list of Senators known to have served in World War II. The second item is a list of the eight Senators who have received the Congressional Medal of Honor. On that list is the name of Danny Inouye, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I will read once again to the Senate the citations my friend received. Citation from the President of the United States, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of the Congress the Medal of Honor to: Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye, United States Army, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty: Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on 21 April 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy. While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force. Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at a close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army. I ask unanimous consent that the third item being his citation of the Medal of Honor be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. There are few among us who deserve the honor the Senate is according us, and Daniel K. Inouye is the first. Exhibit 1 [From the Senate Historical Office, 2004] United States Senators Known To Have Served in World War II Abdnor, James (army); Akaka, Daniel (army); Allott, Gordon (army air corps); Andrews, Mark (army); Bartlett, Dewey (marines); Bass, Ross (air corps); Bentsen, Lloyd (army); Boggs, James C. (army); Brewster, Ralph Owen (marines); Brewster, Daniel (marines); Brooke, Edward (army); Brown, Ernest S. (army); Bumpers, Dale (marines); Byrd, Harry F., Jr. (navy); Cain, Harry P. (army); Cannon, Howard (army); Carroll, John A. (army); Chafee, John H. (marines); Church, Frank F. (army); and Clark, Joseph S. (army air corps). Cook, Marlow (navy); Cooper, John Sherman (army); Cranston, Alan (army); Daniel, Marion Price (army); Dole, Robert (army); Dominick, Peter H. (army air corps); Douglas, Paul H. (marines); Edmondson, James (army); Evans, Daniel (navy); Exon, James (army signal corps); Fong, Hiram (army air corps); Ford, Wendell (army); Frear, J. Allen (army); Gibson, Ernest (army); Glenn, John (marines); Goldwater, Barry (army air corps); Goodell, Charles E. (navy); Gore, Albert Sr. (army); Gorton, Slade (army); Griffin, Robert P. (army); Gurney, Edward J. (army); and Hart, Philip (army). Hart, Thomas C. (navy); Hartke, Rupert Vance (navy/coast guard); Hatfield, Mark (Navy); Heflin, Howell (marines); Helms, Jesse (navy); Hendrickson, Robert C. (army); Hennings, Thomas C. (navy); Hollings, Ernest (army); Huddleston, Walter D. (army); Hughes, Harold (army); Humphrey, Hubert H. (army); Humphreys, Robert (medical corps); Inouye, Daniel (army); Jackson, Henry ``Scoop'' (army); Javits, Jacob (army); Jenner, William E. (army air corps); Johnson, Lyndon B. (navy); Keating, Kenneth (army); Kennedy, John F. (navy); Knowland, William (army); and Kuchel, Thomas H. (navy). Laird, William R. (navy); Lautenberg, Frank (army); Laxalt, Paul (army); Lodge, Henry Cabot, Jr. (army); Long, Oren E. (Hawaii defense volunteers); Long, Russell (navy); Magnuson, Warren (navy); Martin, Edward; Mathias, Charles M. (navy); Matsunaga, Spark (army); McCarthy, Joseph (marines); McClure, James (navy); McGovern, George (army air corps); Melcher, John (army); Metcalf, Lee (army); Miller, Jack (army air corps); Morton, Thruston (navy); Moss, Frank (army); Moynihan, Daniel P. (navy); and Muskie, Edmund (navy). Nelson, Gaylord (army); Neuberger, Richard L. (army); Nixon, Richard (navy); Payne, Frederick (army air corps); Pearson, James (navy); Pell, Claiborne (coast guard); Percy, Charles (navy); Potter, Charles E. (army); Proxmire, William (military intelligence); Reynolds, Samuel (army); Roth, William V. Jr. (army); Salinger, Pierre (navy); Saxbe, William (national guard); Schweiker, Richard S. (navy); Scott, Hugh D. Jr. (navy); Smathers, George A. (marines); Smith, Benjamin A. (navy); Spencer, George L. (navy); Stafford, Robert (navy); and Stevens, Ted (army air corps). Taft, Kingley (army); Taft, Robert Jr. (navy); Tamadge, Herman (navy); Thurmond, Strom (army); Tower, John (navy); Tydings, Joseph D. (army); Warner, John (navy, marines); Welker, Herman (air corps); Wyman, Louis C. (navy); Yarborough, Ralph (army); and Young, Stephen (army).

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor to support the amendment offered by my good friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner from Virginia. This amendment will authorize appropriations for a $25 billion contingent emergency reserve fund. It is an amendment I am proud to support. It is not often, I might add, that the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee comes to the floor of the Senate to support an amendment from the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but maybe we will set a new trend this year and I will welcome his support when we get to the floor. But, in any event, this amendment is in direct support of our ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is limited to that. It should be adopted. It covers emergency concepts in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is important that the Congress act on the President's request for this reserve fund. It will ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to have the resources they need. We have worked very hard to make certain that was the case in the past. This serves as a clear, unambiguous signal that while our troops are deployed and in harm's way, they will have the unequivocal and unwavering support of the Congress. I believe it is important to support the President's request. It is a different type of concept. I want to be sure Members understand. It is not a blank check. It is one that is well defined, in a request that came to the Armed Services Committee and to the Appropriations Committee. The Armed Services Committee held a hearing on this issue with both civilian and military witnesses from the Department of Defense and the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the chairman is commended for holding that hearing. The bill now before us is the result of the Armed Services Committee's consideration. This morning, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee also held a hearing to fully consider the President's request for this contingency emergency reserve fund. I was pleased to point out to our committee that this is a continuation of what we call the IFF that we created before both in 2003 and 2004. This amendment is for the 2005 appropriations. We intend to include some form of a reserve fund as part of our fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations bill. Although this has come as a supplemental request, we will add it to the 2005 appropriations bill, and our subcommittee has agreed to that, in effect, this morning. The exact form of the reserve fund is being reviewed by our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, but I assure the Senate that our Appropriations subcommittee will provide our armed services the funds they need, as requested by the President. Second, we will provide adequate and reasonable financial flexibility. Third, we will provide for full and fair congressional oversight. We have developed, I believe, bipartisan support for this request of the President's this morning in our hearing before the Appropriations Committee. Certainly, the developments on the ground in Iraq make it plain that there is an absolute need to plan for contingencies. Our military commanders have prudent operational plans, but they must be prepared to respond to the dynamic events that are going forward now in Iraq. We can expect nothing less of our military leadership, and the Congress must give them the tools they need. This reserve fund will do that. It is a fund that is available for emergencies. They have funds available for the predictable needs of the military. These funds are for the unpredictable needs of the military over the period beginning in 2005. The troops that are there are doing hard work. They must not find that fiscal issues might impede their doing the job they have to do in Iraq at this time. They should not be constrained in any way by the availability of money. The last thing I--and I believe all Senators-- would want would be for an operational commander to be concerned about whether there is enough money to do the job he has to do in an emergency. This is an emergency fund. It does not mean they can add to the money they have automatically through regular appropriations without finding first--and the President must find--that there is an emergency for this money to be released. But it will be there. It will be a means where the President, on request, can notify the Congress with 5 days' notice that he intends to put some of this money to work. I pointed out to our committee this morning, there have been 33 times that IFS funds have been released by the Department of Defense before on request of the President. Now we must provide this same kind of contingency emergency reserve fund because the alternatives available are too risky. The alternative would be we would have to meet and pass a separate bill, another supplemental. We want the reserve fund to be there for emergencies that could occur. I point out to the Senate, it may be that we would be out of session during that period. I hope we are out of session after the election. I have to stop and say that. I do think the concepts of the past, whereby the President has used the food and forage concept to dip into funds that were available for training for the next year or dip into funds for procurement, the President has that power. He can go to any fund that is available to meet an emergency. This is to foresee that, to foresee the interruption of plan development, plan utilization of our forces, training of forces in order to get moneys for an emergency. That practice should be avoided. I don't say it is wrong, but to borrow money from the third and fourth quarters to pay for urgent bills of the first and second quarters is not the way to do business. We set up a fund and say, if there is an emergency, tell us what you are going to use the money for and use it, unless we say no. I applaud the decision of the President to ask for these resources now. I am one who went to the President and the administration and asked them not to send a supplemental for 2005 because I believe we should not have that until the first quarter of the next year. We thought we had enough money to go through this calendar year, but because of the turn of events in Iraq, that is not the case. The President decided the option of waiting was too risky, and he has asked us to provide this fund as a reserve fund. The President made the right choice. It was not an easy decision. The people who have reviewed this so far in both committees, Armed Services and Appropriations, have agreed that the armed services need this flexibility to have funds available in an emergency and for use only in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a good concept. I applaud the Senator from Virginia in offering the amendment, and I urge the Senate to adopt his amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Daschle amendment which would provide TRICARE benefits for reservists and their family members while in a non-active status, and direct the DoD to pay private insurance premiums for reservists when ordered to active duty. Under the Graham/Daschle proposal, if enrolled in TRICARE, Reserve members would pay 28 percent of the annual premium and the Department of Defense would pay the remaining 72 percent. The benefit is cost prohibitive. CBO recently estimated the benefit would cost $700 million in fiscal year 2005, $5.7 billion over 5 years; and $14.2 billion over 10 years. The Department of Defense estimates are much higher, at $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2005 and $11.6 billion over 5 years.--About $2 billion a year. In future years, this enhanced benefit will carve out essential funding that DoD needs to maintain readiness, meet procurement needs, transform the Armed Forces and continue the Global War on Terrorism. The Senate is already making significant investment in our Guard and Reserve forces. In the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriation bill, we provided: $15.1 billion for pay and allowances, $14.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance funding for training, education and support, and about $2.5 billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment--in total, an investment of about $31.9 billion for the Guard and Reserve. A substantial portion of this investment is within the active component accounts for equipment and weapons that go directly to our Guard and Reserve forces. These items include: HUMMWVs, LITENING Targeting Pods for Aircraft, Construction Equipment, Heavy Trucks, and Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures to defeat shoulder fired missiles--LAIRCM. If the proposed amendment is adopted, there should be great concern that this enhanced entitlement program will come at the expense of other Guard and Reserve requirements for training and equipping the force. The chairman's bill already offers several permanent provisions to enhance the medical readiness and ensure continuity of care for reserve members and their families, including a provision that provides the opportunity for Reserve members and their employers to participate in TRICARE while the member is in a non-active duty status--a cost shared by the Reserve member and his or her employer. The chairman's bill also provides for a demonstration program to determine the need for, and feasibility of providing TRICARE benefits to members of the Ready Reserve who are eligible for unemployment compensation or ineligible for employer-provided health care coverage. In a September 2003 report, GAO found that DoD data does not identify a need to offer TRICARE to reservists and their families when members are not on active duty. Many of the unknown factors include: the effect on recruiting and retention, the impact on active duty personnel, the impact on the TRICARE system and the military treatment facilities, and the number of reservists that might participate. The proposed demonstration program and enhanced benefits included in the chairman's bill will clearly enhance the medical readiness and ensure continuity of care for reserve members and their families. The Department of Defense and Congress should take the time to further study the appropriate level of health care benefits for our Guard and Reserve, and allow the enhanced benefits included in the chairman's bill to be implemented and studied before we commit to spending billions of dollars on a new entitlement program. The Department is in the process of appointing an advisory committee on military compensation to review these types of issues. I believe it is prudent to conduct these studies before Congress acts on this legislation. Due to the high cost of the proposal and because of the enhanced benefits already contained in the chairman's bill, I must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Collins and Senator Carper as an original cosponsor of S. 2468, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. In 2002, the President formed a Commission to evaluate the operations of the United States Postal Service. Earlier this year, the President's Commission issued a comprehensive report filled with suggestions on how to improve the Postal Service. Senator Collins became actively engaged on the issue of postal reform and held a series of hearing this year on postal reform. This bill is the product of the postal reform hearings held before the Government Affairs Committee. I expect I will have suggestions on this legislation as the bill moves through the legislative process. However, I support Senator Collins's commitment to postal reform. I look forward to working with her and Senator Carper in Committee and on the Senate floor to ensure the success of this legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Collins and Senator Carper as an original cosponsor of S. 2468, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. In 2002, the President formed a Commission to evaluate the operations of the United States Postal Service. Earlier this year, the President's Commission issued a comprehensive report filled with suggestions on how to improve the Postal Service. Senator Collins became actively engaged on the issue of postal reform and held a series of hearing this year on postal reform. This bill is the product of the postal reform hearings held before the Government Affairs Committee. I expect I will have suggestions on this legislation as the bill moves through the legislative process. However, I support Senator Collins's commitment to postal reform. I look forward to working with her and Senator Carper in Committee and on the Senate floor to ensure the success of this legislation.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to share with my colleagues and the American people a genuine success story coming out of Iraq. It is a story that demonstrates how American ingenuity, coupled with common sense and commitment, is leading to immediate, visible and valuable improvements in the lives of the Iraqi people. I am speaking of the Commander's Emergency Response Program. This is a program that allows our troops on the ground to fund low-cost, high- impact humanitarian and small reconstruction projects that benefit the quality of life of the Iraqi people and contribute to our country's stabilization efforts in Iraq. The Commander's Emergency Response Program, or CERP, is a program that has generated significant success and one that deserves to be told and told and told. With the wave of bad news coming out of Iraq in recent weeks, it is easy to lose sight of the progress we have made in that country and of the many accomplishments our Armed Forces have already reached. Our men and women in uniform have performed magnificently, and the Commander's Emergency Response Program gives them a tool to fund small- scale projects that have an immediate, visible, and high-value impact on the lives of the Iraqi people. We are literally talking about repairing homes, painting schools, restocking hospitals, and restoring freshwater supplies to villages. No project is too small; no task is too trivial. To date, our commanders on the ground have spent over $250 million through the Commander's Emergency Response Program, funding over 21,000 projects at an average cost of less than $7,000. That is right, $7,000. Our local commanders have used the CERP to reopen hospitals and clinics all across Iraq to administer over 22 million vaccinations. They have distributed new textbooks to 5.9 million students who are attending school, some for the first time. Our commanders have funded over 1,000 water and sewer projects, bringing clean water to farmers and to villages. In Rutba, CERP funds were used for electrical and plumbing repairs to the local youth center. The repairs, which cost less than $9,000, were completed within 10 days. In Baghdad, the 30th Medical Brigade used the CERP funds to purchase inspection equipment for seven slaughterhouses. The list of small, yet meaningful, projects could go on and on. Most importantly, the CERP lets our troops act quickly without becoming entangled in redtape or bureaucracy. Individually, these small-scale projects contribute to the improvement in the daily lives of Iraqi citizens step by step. Collectively, these thousands of projects become something larger, like pieces of a puzzle that join together to reveal a larger picture--a good picture. Collectively, these projects illustrate the concern of the U.S. military for the Iraqi people, the commitment that our men and women in uniform bring to improving the lives of Iraqis every single day, and the creativity in our approach to ensuring security and stability in Iraq. We do not read much about these kinds of activities, but collectively these projects give our troops on the ground an opportunity to reach out to Iraqi citizens and to build a bond of mutual trust and good will. BG David Blackledge, the commander of the 352nd Civil Affairs Command in Iraq, said one of the reasons the Commander's Emergency Response Program has been so successful is that it is administered by the local battalion or brigade commander on the ground who is living and interacting with the citizens of his or her area of responsibility on a daily basis. Who can better identify the immediate needs that can be addressed through low-cost, high-impact projects than the soldiers right there on the ground? With all due respect for the policy people here in Washington, they cannot see the potholes in the roads, they cannot see the dilapidated buildings and infrastructure that has degenerated for years under the tyrannical dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Our troops on the ground see these obstacles every day, and the Commander's Emergency Response Program lets them address these problems immediately and effectively with the cooperation and assistance of the Iraqi people. Let me be clear--very clear: In most cases, the actual work is done by Iraqis themselves, so that in addition to yielding immediate and visible results, projects funded from the CERP provide jobs to Iraqis who are eager to rebuild their country and to stimulate the Iraqi economy. Some people might be concerned that our commanders are walking around Iraq and Afghanistan with thousands of dollars of cash in their pockets, spending it without congressional oversight. Let me assure those people that is not so. The coalition has instituted strict controls to ensure complete accountability of the funds from the Commander's Emergency Response Program. The Commander's Emergency Response Program is a low-cost, high-impact program, the effects of which will be felt throughout Iraq. It has been instrumental in gaining the confidence of the Iraqi people and in generating a tremendous amount of good will toward our troops on the ground. Sometimes all it takes to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens and to build relationships is to repair a door that was damaged in a raid, or to provide a power generator to a factory so its Iraqi employees can get back to work. These are the types of small, yet meaningful, projects our commanders can tackle with the Commander's Emergency Response Program. These projects do not cost much in terms of dollars, but the return is tremendous. It is critical we continue to incorporate this approach into our reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Our commanders need reasonable, sound financial flexibility to match the speed of their operations and the dynamic nature of our battlefields. The Commander's Emergency Response Program provides our commanders with a flexible tool to respond quickly and decisively to humanitarian problems. If fixing a well quickly solves a local problem and shows a neighborhood the coalition is improving their lives, then that is an important tool for our troops to have. Initially, this program was funded from seized Iraqi assets. I am proud to say we gave the Department of Defense the authority to continue the Commander's Emergency Response Program in the current fiscal year 2004 supplemental appropriations bill. I look forward to again supporting the Department as we pass the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense appropriations bill. I close with a final thought. Our men and women in uniform liberated 25 million Iraqi people in a military campaign with swiftness, precision, and success--success unparalleled in history. We can attribute this success to the foresight and creativity that allowed us to prepare and equip a total force the world has never seen. Now we are applying that same foresight and creativity as we tackle the difficult task of reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq. The Commander's Emergency Response Program provides visible, high- impact support to the Iraqi people so they can create a foundation for a free and stable society. It is a true success story in Iraq. I am proud of the troops who use it to help the Iraqi people every day, and I am proud to support this very important program. Kate Kaufer and Sid Ashworth of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense prepared these remarks for my presentation. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak in morning business, to be followed by Senator Murkowski, provided that following our remarks, the Democratic time be extended by an equal amount of time that we use.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished deputy minority leader. The family of our lost officer is in attendance, and I did wish to speak at this time.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened last Christmas evening to learn that Alaska had lost a true hero. Officer John Watson, an 18-year veteran of the police force, was the Kenai Police Department's longest-serving officer. He served with distinction, earning numerous commendations and citations throughout his career. He was a dedicated public servant, taken from us in the line of duty. He will be missed by his family, friends, and the community he served. The stories I have heard since his passing have demonstrated his strength of character and his impact on the community. Nearly 2,000 peace officers, emergency personnel, State officials, and community members remembered Officer Watson at a service held in his honor. I think John's pastor said it best when he remembered Officer Watson as someone who ``throughout his life walked the talk, protecting and serving.'' Officer Watson is the first Kenai police officer to be taken from us in the line of duty. Understandably, our community has been stunned by this loss. But it is my hope we can reflect upon John's life and renew our commitment to the causes he defined and that defined him: particularly, his dedication to public service and his willingness to help his fellow citizens. That will be a most fitting tribute to the life he spent protecting others, if we remember him in that way. I extend my deepest sympathies to John's wife Kathy, his daughter, and six stepchildren. They have been, and will continue to be, in our thoughts and prayers, and in all Alaskans' prayers, since he has passed.