John Warner

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my colleague from Michigan, how well you, and having been privileged to serve these many years together, recognize that the Balkan situation was one that had a measure of predictability that in no way parallels the complexity of the mission we are carrying out in the Central Command AOR. There are stark differences between those military operations. So, Mr. President, at this time I urge colleagues to vote for the McConnell amendment, which we think is very reasonable. It could be viewed as a reinforcing of the Senator's desire to get the information we share with him in many respects--important to the Senate. I yield back the time and ask the Chair to move to the next amendment.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WARNER. By arrangement of the managers, there will be side-to- side votes. The McConnell amendment first, followed by the Kennedy underlying.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I must say I am fortunate to serve on the Armed Services Committee with Senator Reed and Senator Levin. Throughout the many years we have served together, we have had our honest differences of opinion. I don't mind sharing them. I enjoy our debates. It is constructive for the Senate. There is a process by which we go about it. At some point, there has to be finality reached with regard to issues. I say, most respectfully, to my good friend from Rhode Island, the Senate has voted not once but twice, basically on the same issue raised by this amendment. I am reminded of Winston Churchill, one time in the depths of World War II, the early part of it in the Battle of Britain, when he went back to his old prep school and gave the famous speech saying, ``Never, never, never give in.'' Well, at some point, the Senate has to get on with its business. I think we have more than adequately debated the issues raised by this amendment. Nevertheless, I will take the time of my colleagues to carefully review it. The Senate has already spoken on every single issue raised by this amendment. First, the testing. The Senate adopted the Warner amendment to require ballistic missile defense testing in 2005. That is the first Reed amendment. It rejected the testing approach which the Reed amendment puts before the Senate once again, an approach, I remind my colleagues, that the Pentagon's own chief testing official described as premature and not helpful to the program. If the Reed amendment is adopted, it is just another prohibition in the program, possibly a gap in the production line, and all of those things end up in costly bills for the American taxpayers and disruption. We all know what happens when you break down and develop a system whereby you cannot predict with certainty as to how and when the units would be completed on production lines. It comes down again to, Do you want to deploy a missile defense system or don't you? If you do, I suggest most respectfully to colleagues, let's accept the judgments that you have rendered and get on and not come back and back again and again on these same issues. The Senate already rejected the Boxer amendment which would have halted the development. Do we want to halt production of missile interceptors for an extended period of time, a path that would increase costs, technical risks, and leave us vulnerable again to this threat where America stands defenseless to protect itself from an accidental or an intentional firing of a ballistic missile on to our territorial 50 States? That is the issue. The Senate yesterday, after very thorough and, I thought, one of the better debates on this bill, presented by my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Levin, rejected the Levin amendment which would have done basically the same thing as the Reed amendment. It would have resulted in a disjointed, disrupted program. I suggest the Senate should not now adopt an amendment that would fence 2005 funds for additional missile defense interceptors until a testing requirement is completed, when it has already imposed a realistic testing requirement in 2005, explicitly rejected the kind of testing proposed in this amendment, and explicitly rejected the delays, costs, and disruptions that would result from withholding the funding needed to proceed with the testing and fielding of missile defense interceptors. I most respectfully urge my colleagues to sustain the decisions that have been debated and voted on within the past few days by this Chamber. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we grant 1 additional minute over and above the time.

Mr. WARNER. I will accommodate the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the indulgence of the Presiding Officer. The time remaining on this side is?

Mr. WARNER. Fine. I believe our case has been made very clearly to our colleagues that these issues raised by the Senator from Rhode Island have been passed upon by the Senate in the preceding 3 or 4 days after very careful, conscientious, and deliberate debate. The issues are settled. We must come to resolution, no matter how strong our differences may be, and accept the judgment collectively rendered by the Senate in these votes. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will now proceed to the next amendment which Senator Levin will offer on behalf of a colleague, but I would like to ask for a brief quorum call so I can consult with the majority leader because we are making considerable progress in beginning to define what remains to be done and a course by which this bill can be completed today.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have on the floor now our distinguished and esteemed colleague, the former President pro tempore of the Senate, Mr. Byrd of West Virginia. My first request would be a unanimous consent to extend the time of this amendment from the current, as I understand it, 20 minutes?

Mr. WARNER. That we extend that to 40 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. WARNER. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from Virginia has, under his control or his designee, 20 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. I will take a minute or two and ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska be recognized for such time as he may wish, followed by the Senator from Alabama, and then the distinguished Senator, Mr. Coleman, chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who will manage the remainder of the time.

Mr. WARNER. Very well. But I wish to speak for a few minutes. I must oppose the Byrd amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. The provision in the underlying bill to raise the troop cap in Colombia from the current limitation of 400 military personnel and 400 contractors to 800 military personnel and 600 contractor personnel was recommended by GEN Hill, Commander, U.S. Southern Command, with the endorsement of the Department of Defense, Department of State and the National Security Council. This provision was unanimously approved during markup by the Committee with no dissenting discussion. The United States has been assisting the government of Colombia-- through Plan Colombia--for several years as Colombia continues its struggle against narcoterrorists. During the course of this assistance, we have asked the Colombians to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for taking back their country. They have developed and begun implementing this plan, with our help. During the course of this assistance, we have urged the Colombians to modernize their armed forces and become more decisive in their pursuit of the drug-financed insurgents who have terrorized their country for decades. The Colombian armed forces have gained confidence and stature and are forcefully and decisively carrying out increasingly sophisticated military operations with successful results. Over the years, we have asked the Colombians to invest more of their own national treasure in defense, reduce drug cultivation, respect the human rights of their people. They have done so with very promising results. The Colombian armed forces are now the second most respected institution in Colombia, behind the Catholic Church, according to recent polling. During the course of our assistance, we have asked the Colombians to be forthright about their future plans, requirements, and needs for additional assistance--they have been and that is why our regional commander and the administration asked for a modest increase in the troop cap, at the request of the Colombian government. The regional commander has developed a prudent plan to provide additional planning and training assistance that will enable the Colombian armed forces to carry out the sophisticated, coordinated military operations that will allow them to successfully defeat the terrorists and end decades of terror and violence in Colombia. Troop strength will not automatically double in Colombia, it will ebb and flow depending on progress in Colombia's overall strategy and the availability of U.S. troops to provide assistance. U.S. troops will not be involved in combat operations. They will continue to work from secure sites, help train additional Colombian military units and help them plan and coordinate military operations. We have a clear window of opportunity to help President Uribe and the people of Colombia help themselves and end this conflict, but we need this slight increase in assistance to help them realize this goal. Colombia has made great progress, by all measures, and deserves our support. The Byrd amendment would limit our ability to provide the assistance Colombia has requested and our military commanders have recommended. A modest increase in troops and assistance now does not foreshadow an endless commitment of troops, money and sacrifice--quite the opposite-- it offers the opportunity to help Colombia end this conflict in the near future. Defeating the narcoterrorists in Colombia, as quickly as possible, is clearly in the national security interests of our Nation. The Byrd amendment will complicate the ability of our military commanders and our diplomats to help Colombia end this terrorist insurgency as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I assure my colleagues that the discussion by the Armed Services Committee to raise these caps was one we did not take lightly. We considered it with very deliberate care. We feel we did so consistent with General Hill, commander of the southern command, who came up and specifically briefed the committee on the needs. The bottom line is the nation Colombia has come a long way in the past few years to reestablish itself as a pillar of strength in that Central American band of nations where there is such fragility in the stability of these governments. It stands out as the courage of a government overcoming the insurgents in their countries, beginning to have success. For a very modest increase in our military presence and contractor presence, we can ensure the forward momentum of this success. It is an enormous force multiplier of benefit to the United States of America. Were this nation to slip back into a situation which enabled more and more exporting of drugs from that region, possibly through Colombia, the consequence would be a weakening of that government, and there would be multiple degrees of negative impact on our economy, much less crime and death associated with drugs. So for a small number of additional military personnel which the military carefully crafted, the United States benefits greatly. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senators from New York for their remarks, and would be happy to engage them in a colloquy.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleagues from New York for their dedication to this cause. We indeed recognize the sacrifice workers made throughout our country in the nuclear arms buildup of the cold war and will endeavor to take into account the similar situations that exist for nuclear workers throughout our great Nation. I agree with their assessments of the Bond-Harkin amendment and assure the Senators from New York that I will take their concerns into consideration when conferencing the House and Senate bills.

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

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the managers of the bill, in consultation with the leadership, are making progress, I assure colleagues.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. At this point in time, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go into a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 8 minutes each, with the right to petition for other time if there is no objection by others waiting, and the Senate resume consideration of the authorization bill at the hour of 1:40.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank so many who made possible the next vote. First, our leadership and the members of our committee, our committee staff, and particularly my distinguished ranking member, with a special thanks to both the Democratic whip and the Republican whip for their special time on the floor. I ask for the third reading of the bill.