Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nominations on the Executive Calendar.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate act favorably upon nomination No. 688 and No. 691, all military nominations reported by the Armed Services Committee during today's session.

I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I inquired of that and I was told I could proceed. I just saw the Senator momentarily.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in order to address the Senate on a procedural matter, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 5 minutes.

I see the distinguished Senator from Nevada is on the floor. On behalf of the majority leader, I wish to put this following unanimous consent request before the Senate relative to S. 2724, small business technical corrections. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2724 which was introduced earlier today by Senators Snowe, Kerry, and Talent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements regarding this matter be printed in the Record.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I respectfully request if the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Inhofe, would engage in a colloquy with me on the impact of the several Surface Transportation extension bills on the so-called ``donor'' States. As the chairman is well aware, TEA-21 contains a fundamental principle of fairness for donor States which guarantees that no State will receive less than a 90.5 percent rate of return of their gas tax contributions to the Highway trust fund. In the preceding extension bills for fiscal year 2004, this matter was not addressed because it was expected that a full surface transportation reauthorization bill would be enacted this year. I know my chairman has worked tirelessly to pass a new transportation bill, but regrettably we have not completed our work.

As we face the end of the fiscal year, the multiple highway extension bills have not followed the TEA-21 Minimum Guarantee program and the result is that, to date, many States will not receive the 90.5 percent guarantee in fiscal year 2004. I am particularly concerned because again this temporary extension bill does not follow the TEA-21 formula.

I appreciate the chairman's diligence on this matter and I am aware that some funding remains in fiscal year

2004 which may be used to correct this problem. I would like to ask the chairman if my understanding of this situation is correct, and would be grateful for the chairman's view of this matter.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager. I commend him, Senator Kennedy, and many others who have worked on this legislation which I wholeheartedly support.

We are privileged to have, in my State, a number of tobacco farmers who are enduring extraordinary economic hardships. Also, I serve on the committee on which serves the distinguished manager of this legislation, the Health Committee, as it relates to the Federal Drug Administration.

I understand you have coupled the two together.

That has been the objective of our committee some several years now during which we have looked at this, and the two will be put together. I once again indicate my support and accommodation to those who made it possible.

Mr. President, I speak today with a great deal of anxiousness and anticipation. As a result of the World Trade Organization's finding of U.S. noncompliance with international trade obligations, retaliatory tariffs have been exacted on U.S. exports. Each month these tariffs will increase until Congress passes the FSC/ETI bill. The costs to the American economy can be avoided. I am pleased that we can pass this bill today and am hopeful that it can move swiftly through conference.

Oftentimes things move at a glacial pace here in the U.S. Senate. But if there is one thing I have learned in my many years as a Member of this institution, it is that there are rare instances that the pace becomes so swift that one could miss something if he or she were to blink. The announcement that we would return to consideration of the FSC bill with an amendment on tobacco may have struck many of us as an indication that today was to be one of those days. However, today is just the next step in the long journey for many of us in this room.

For a number of years I have worked with many of my colleagues in the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives to address an issue of vital importance to the rural communities of the South. We have met with our farmers, drafted numerous pieces of legislation, consulted with experts in economic and agriculture policy--and we have done it over and over again. Today, the Senate finally stands poised to speak as a body to end the outdated tobacco quota system.

Our tobacco-growing communities, long dependent on the cultivation of tobacco, have been devastated by foreign competition and the quota system that keeps the price of leaf artificially high. The amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio contains language from a bill crafted by a coalition of members from the tobacco farming States of Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia. The Tobacco Market Transition Act will end the current tobacco quota system, provide compensation to growers and owners of quota, and provide grants to States and institutions of higher education to reduce

community reliance on the production of tobacco.

I have been a member of this body for 26 years and can say without equivocation that for the farm communities of southside and southwest Virginia there is no more important national policy. I can also say that not much is more controversial and polarizing than tobacco legislation. There are concerns with a buyout that ``makes farmers instant millionaires,'' or that it raises taxes, or that it imposes a cost to the general treasury. I am pleased to say that this amendment does none of those things.

Still, many have stated that a buyout will not pass the Senate without being coupled to legislation specifically giving the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products. While these two policy goals have for years seemed mutually exclusive, sometimes in the legislative process major national needs that appear to be in conflict come together to forge a comprehensive national policy. Such is the case today, as we consider both a tobacco quota buyout and FDA regulation of tobacco as part of one amendment.

While many tobacco farmers vehemently opposed FDA regulation of tobacco not even 10 years ago, the issue has evolved since then. Today, the simple fact today is that most tobacco farmers support FDA regulation so long as it is coupled with a tobacco quota buyout. That has certainly become the predominant view of Virginia tobacco farmers who I have spoken with over the last several years. And, that is clearly the view of several groups who represent growers in my State. The Virginia Farm Bureau; the Virginia Tobacco Growers Association; the Virginia Sun-cured Growers Association; the Virginia Dark-Fired Growers Association; the Virginia Agricultural Growers Association; Allies for Tobacco, Inc.; and Concerned Friends for Tobacco all have signed on to a set of core principles stating that it is in the best interests of the public health community and the tobacco producer community for the FDA to have authority to establish fair and equitable regulatory controls over tobacco products.

But not only has the farm communities' position on FDA regulation of tobacco evolved over the years, so has the position of the largest tobacco company in the United States, if not the world. Less than 10 years ago, Phillip Morris actively opposed efforts to grant the FDA authority over tobacco. Today, that same company, now known as Altria, which is headquartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia, is actively supporting legislation to grant the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco.

What we have seen over the last 10 years is an amazing coming together of public health advocates, tobacco farmers, and a major tobacco company. Many in the Congress have helped lead the way. The amendment that stands before us is the culmination of the hard work of many, including Senators Frist, McConnell, Kennedy, DeWine, and the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, who always helped keep this issue on the committee's agenda. My colleague from Virginia, Congressman Tom Davis, also played an important role.

The compromise that has been reached in the Senate is an important one not only because, as I stated earlier, it will provide the help that our tobacco farmers so desperately need. It is also important because it will improve our public health. And that second point is an important one to me.

You see, my father was a doctor. He was a surgeon gynecologist, and he dedicated his life to medical research. Much of his research was spent on efforts to eradicate cancer. Ironically enough, though, it was ultimately this same devastating illness that my father worked so hard to find a cure for that ultimately took his life.

So, as I think about my father today, I know that he is smiling down because the Senate is about to pass a bill that could help reduce the cases of cancer and reduce the number of premature deaths in this country related to tobacco.

We know that smoking is one of the foremost preventable causes of death in the United States. It is estimated to cause over 400,000 deaths in America each year. That is why we have warning labels on cigarette packages and public awareness campaigns against smoking. The dangers of smoking are clear.

The bill before us today will help us reduce those dangers in many ways. Most notably, in my view, is the modified risk section, which I believe is the hallmark of the FDA portion of this amendment. This section provides the FDA the authority to approve modified risk tobacco products that reduce harm of tobacco-related disease and benefit the public health. With the imprimatur of the FDA, current users of high- risk tobacco products could be encouraged to use these reduced risk products. And, as they move down the continuum or risk with the products they use, we should see a corresponding decrease in the number of tobacco related illnesses as well.

While the public health benefits of this amendment are strong, it is also very important to make clear that the FDA legislation before us today is balanced. I worked extensively with Senator DeWine and Senator Kennedy to make sure of that. For example, this legislation will in no way restrict the rights of adult Americans who wish to smoke or use other tobacco products. At my request, and the request of others, Senator DeWine and Senator Kennedy modified their original legislation to make it clear that the FDA would not have the power to ban all cigarettes and other tobacco products. Under this amendment, that power is reserved to Congress, where it properly belongs.

Today we take a great step to protect the public health of all American citizens and the economic health of our tobacco farmers, their families, and their communities. The passage of this amendment is a great triumph for this body and represents the spirit of legislative cooperation and compromise that has long been the cornerstone of this institution. It is my sincere hope that we can soon celebrate the final conference report for this bill and the inclusion of the amendment on which we vote today.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, did the distinguished Democratic whip wish to be recognized?

Ten minutes.

I thank my distinguished colleague from Colorado. I commend him, as well as the Senators from Texas, Pennsylvania, and Alabama, and so many who have worked on this important constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 40.

I have listened to the debate the past several days. I have actually gone back, together with my staff, and reviewed the Congressional Record of Friday and Monday. I feel obligated to indicate to the Senate my own views with regard to this resolution and what I intend to do.

First, I intend to vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to the Federal Marriage Amendment, S.J. Res. 40. I feel very strongly that the Senate should be accorded the opportunity to debate in full and to amend, if it is necessary, and I think it is necessary, S.J. Res. 40.

For that purpose, I hope cloture prevails and that we can, as a body, continue to address this very important legislation. It is of utmost seriousness.

My greatest concern throughout this process is the heavy weight that rests on all of us when we go to amend that document which has enabled this Republic--each morning we open the Senate by our Pledge of Allegiance to this Republic, which I think historians will agree is the longest continuous surviving republic in the history of the world. It is a remarkable document, the wisdom that is incorporated in our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights.

Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to proceed with the utmost care when amending our Constitution. I think that should be brought out in the ensuing debate if cloture prevails, and I hope it will, and I lend my support.

The proposed constitutional amendment reads as follows:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman. . . .

I unequivocally support that part of this resolution. The second part, which reads:

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any

State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the

legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other

than the union of a man and woman.

Therein rests a concern that I have with S.J. Res. 40, and one I will work with others to address in the event hopefully that this Senate will continue its debate and the amendment process. I unequivocally support the first sentence, as I said. The time-honored tradition of marriage between a man and a woman ought to be protected in light of the attacks by certain opportunists in the judiciary on this time- honored part of our culture and heritage, a culture and heritage that our Nation, a young nation, shares with nations far older than ours.

Again, the second sentence gives me this pause, despite the statements by many of my colleagues to indicate what they believe the intent is. I do not think it speaks to the clarity that the public is entitled to and wants, and this could lead to a great deal of confusion among the American public, and I do not want to create that confusion. It could lead to considerable litigation.

Perhaps of the greatest concern on my part, it could lead to some measure of hindrance of the ability of the several States, all 50 of them if necessary, to work their will through their legislatures on the very important issues that remain; namely, whether to recognize or not to recognize those other forms of relationships, particularly the domestic partnership relationships. For these reasons, I intend to align myself post-cloture with those Senators who seek to modify the resolution to retain only, and I repeat to retain only, the first sentence:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the

union of a man and a woman.

I see in the Chamber the distinguished Senator from Utah. I wonder if I might pose a question. As I look at this language which gives me pause and I have spoken to, the second sentence, ``Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require,'' suppose a State wishes to enact those laws they deem necessary on behalf of the people of that State, either to recognize or not to recognize the domestic partnership. Suppose they wish to put that in as a part of their constitution subject to the passage of this amendment. How would this amendment then be construed? Would it overrule a state's subsequent amendment to its own constitution?

Suppose they wish to do it not by statute but actually by an amendment to their constitution? The Senator and I understand that a constitutional amendment has a greater longevity than a statute because what the legislature does via statute one day they can undo the next day.

I understand very clearly the intent of this in the minds of many. The State legislatures can take such steps. I believe there is a measure of confusion that causes me to pause. But it reads that ``neither the Constitution nor the constitution of any State,'' and what the Senator says is they wish to but legislation not in the form of State law, but that constitutional provision would not then be overruled by this.

I yield the floor.

I rise today in support of the nomination of former Senator James Danforth to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I can think of no person better qualified to fill this critical position during the war on terrorism.

Senator Danforth is a true statesman, and is one of my closest friends over my 26 years of service in this Chamber. During this time in the Senate, our friend was a valued colleague and an even more valuable servant of the people of Missouri. He was first elected in 1976, 2 years before I came to the Senate, and served 18 years in this body. The fact that he was elected to three consecutive 6-year terms from the ``Show Me'' State of Missouri illustrates his remarkable wisdom and his ability to listen to his constituents in deciding important issues of the day.

After leaving the Senate, our colleague remained in service to his country, chairing a committee that reviewed the Federal response to the Branch Davidian activity in Waco, TX. More recently, Senator Danforth served as special envoy to the Sudan--an area of the world experiencing a particularly difficult and tragic humanitarian situation. In this capacity, he continued to demonstrate the compassion and goodwill that we became so familiar with in this body.

Senator Danforth left the Senate to answer a calling to the Episcopal priesthood. Even while he served among us in the Senate, our colleague volunteered on occasion as a pastor at the National Cathedral, where my own uncle served as rector in St. Albans Parish nearly three-quarters of a century ago. I was baptized and confirmed there on the Cathedral close, and was married at a chapel of that Cathedral just this past year. Senator Danforth and I not only were close friends; we shared a special bond of affection for that great Cathedral, which played such an important role in both of our lives.

And most recently, our good friend did such a magnificent job officiating in that same Cathedral at the funeral of President Ronald Reagan. Hearing our colleague's voice at that historic and difficult occasion gave comfort to each of us who were humbled to attend that ceremony. He did us proud: and we expected no less.

Now our dear colleague opens the next chapter of his exemplary career in public service. In these most difficult of times, when our relations with our allies are so critical to our fight against a new enemy, I am confident that our good friend will carry himself with the same distinction--the same wisdom and thoughtfulness--that he demonstrated, over the years, next to us, in this very Chamber. Mr. President, each of us, as Americans, is fortunate that our colleague will once again be by our side in this critical public role.

I wish our dear friend all the best in his important new post.

Mr. President, I am available for the colloquy.

Mr. President, he spoke to me about it, and I expressed a willingness to indicate to both colleagues that the Senate bill contains a provision coauthored by my two distinguished colleagues on a subject that is of great importance to the men and women of our military. And it is the intention of the Senator from Virginia, as a conferee, to support the Senate positions as we proceed through the resolution of such differences as the House and the Senate may have.

Mr. President, as always and customary with the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, you have spoken to the situation factually. Historically, that is the way we have dealt with those matters in the Senate. I appreciate you respect my position as a conferee. I cannot make ironclad commitments, other than I have always gone into a conference to try to support the position as taken by this collective body in its decisionmaking process.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of the bill. I appreciate that. This is a matter that is of great importance to the U.S. Navy. I am happy to do it.

Mr. President, I join in that request.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I see the proponent of the first amendment on the floor, and we are prepared to engage. So at this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I might just speak personally, I served in the Reserves some 12, 14 years and we knew what we had as our obligation when we signed up. That is the way it has been throughout our contemporary military history.

I share with the Senator how the Reserves and the Guard with their families have borne the brunt of battle in the same way as the regular forces, but bear in mind that the regular forces, which are given an option for early retirement, have to put in a minimum of 20 full years of obligated service. If we continue to narrow the differences between the pay and benefits for the Reserves and Guard and the Regulars, pretty soon people will say, let's opt for the Reserve or the Guard rather than spend 20 years of our lives to gain those benefits that Congress accords our people.

For that reason, I intend to raise a budgetary point of order with respect to Senator Corzine's amendment on that very point. The amendment would allow eligible reservists to be able to collect retirement pay at age 55 instead of age 60. That would be an extremely costly change to implement. CBO has estimated it would increase mandatory spending in 2005 by $1.7 billion. It would cost $8.2 billion in mandatory spending over the coming 5 years and $16 billion over the coming decade. Those are very major costs.

I bring to the attention of my colleagues that already in this bill we have added, by way of amendments, an additional $1 billion in direct spending, and discretionary spending is at $10 billion. So this bill goes up and up and up, and it is going to the point where it might well become so top heavy we cannot persuade our colleagues to support it and/or the administration as they look at the overall budgetary aspects of our financial projections for defense.

Keep in mind there are additional costs that are incurred--I did not hear the Senator address these--regarding health care for retired reservists that would be caused by this amendment. The amendment would have the effect of lowering to 55 the age at which a reservist retiree or his or her dependents would become eligible for medical coverage under TRICARE.

The Department of Defense estimates that the added costs to the defense health care program could be as high as $427 million in the first year should this matter be enacted, and $6.8 billion over the coming 10 years. So both the retirement costs as well as the health care costs have to be added in if the Senate wants to look at the total financial impact of the initiative by my friend from New Jersey.

The Senate considered this identical amendment less than a year ago. Senator Corzine once before introduced it during debate on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Iraq and Afghanistan in October of 2003. The amendment fell on a budgetary point of order failing to achieve even 50 votes.

The Department of Defense has voiced strong objection to the amendment, citing studies and experience showing that lowering the Reserve retirement age to 55 would not help the services meet recruiting, retention, or force management objectives. DOD advises that, in fact, 80 percent of those who would benefit from this amendment have already retired.

Let me be clear that my opposition to this amendment does not reflect any implied criticism of the patriotic service being rendered by the Reserve and the Guard. Once again, however, we are seeing a proposal to change a well-established condition of military service, one all of those who go into the Reserves fully understand at the time they commit to service. Should this amendment be passed, we are incurring an enormous financial impact on this bill and the outyear budget of the Department of Defense.

In response to the claim that the greater reliance on the Reserve component calls for increased rewards, please keep in mind the enhanced health care benefits included in this legislation already as a result of the work of Senator Graham of South Carolina. Consider also Senator Harry Reid's amendment on current receipt and Senator Landrieu's pending amendment, should that be adopted, that would enhance the Survivor Benefit Program. That is a broad range of benefits going to the Reserve and Guard and others. These amendments equally benefit the Guard and Reserve retiree population, the same individuals who would benefit from the pending amendment of the Senator from New Jersey.

As I say, we currently added over $10 billion in discretionary spending to this legislation on top of benefits we also increased in the underlying bill itself in committee.

In response to the assertions that the role of the Guard and Reserve is changing and the enhanced retirement benefits are needed, let me point out there is in the underlying bill a requirement for a commission on the National Guard and Reserve that would have the responsibility of examining the roles and missions of the Guard and Reserve, and specifically to ``assess the adequacy and appropriateness of the compensation and benefits currently provided for the members of the National

Guard and reserve components'' and ``to assess the effects of proposed changes in compensation and benefits on military careers in both regular and reserve components.''

I anticipate that this commission will provide important insights to the Congress in the continuing debate over these issues.

In summary, the Department of Defense simply cannot continue to absorb mandatory spending directives that drive the cost of military personnel, both Active and Reserve, to levels we simply cannot support at the same time we are trying to modernize, and also the operational costs of the military today.

I urge you to reject this amendment on the point of order.

At this point in time, the pending amendment offered by Senator Corzine increases mandatory spending and, if adopted, would cause the underlying bill to exceed the Armed Services Committee's section 302 allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I realize that. I thought all time had expired on the other side. I was about to yield back my time. Is that not correct?

The pending amendment offered by the Senator increases mandatory spending if adopted and would cause the underlying bill to exceed section 302. Therefore, I once again raise the point of order against the amendment, pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.

I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

That is correct. And the votes, again, for colleagues who might not have followed the majority leader and Democratic whip's comments, are to be stacked at approximately 11:30, at which time we will proceed to all votes.

Will the Chair advise the Senate with regard to the next amendment in order and the time allocated to each side?

Mr. President, I did not hear. I was unable to hear the Presiding Officer. Will he repeat it.

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 3472

Mr. President, I am going to ask the Senator to yield momentarily to the managers for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, which is concurred in by the leadership, without charging the time against the debate of this amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I submit the following request: Currently, we are debating five votes with the understanding that at the conclusion of those votes, and possibly yielding back some time, a sequence of five votes will commence. I am now asking unanimous consent that sequence of five votes be delayed until 1:45 and that at the conclusion of the debate on the five scheduled votes, pursuant to regular order, we return to the first pending amendment at the desk, which is the Bond amendment, and proceed to debate that amendment.

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

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.

That is correct.

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

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

I will accommodate the Senator from Rhode Island.

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

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. 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. 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?

That we extend that to 40 minutes, equally divided.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

I have no objection to that.

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. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Amendment No. 3353

Mr. President, I say to colleagues, in all candor, this is the third vote on the same issue. They have addressed the issues in this amendment on two occasions, and by significant margin we have decided to reject in any way taking the Missile Defense Program and changing it at this time. They voted on the Levin amendment and rejected it. They voted on my amendment, which was to an earlier Reed amendment on much the same principle, and rejected the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.

I say to my colleagues we have to have some consistency. Regrettably, we are asked for a third vote on the same issue. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I urge colleagues to give the most careful consideration to this amendment. How well each of us knows the fragility of

the Central American band of countries. Colombia has shown the fortitude, the courage, the strength, the sacrifice to take on adversity and they have met with success. This is a very modest number increase in troops, essential at this time to keep that forward momentum going. I strongly urge that you vote against the Byrd amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is here. Senator Allen and I need to have a few minutes together.

There is no greater responsibility as a Senator than selecting for recommendation to a President our nominees to the Federal judiciary. I have known Mr. Kelley for many years. He graduated cum laude from my alma mater, Washington and Lee University. After working for a year as a press secretary to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he returned to Washington and Lee and earned his law degree magna cum laude.

Subsequent to law school, Mr. Kelley served as a law clerk to a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City. We are fortunate that when he completed his clerkship, Mr. Kelley returned home to Norfolk, VA, where he practiced law with great distinction.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides the President with the authority to nominate, with the ``Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' individuals to serve as judges on the Federal courts. Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the power to render ``Advice and Consent'' on the nomination.

In fulfillment of this constitutional responsibility, after Judge Morgan of the Eastern District of Virginia bench took senior status, Senator Allen and I had the honor of recommending Walter Kelley to President Bush to fill that vacancy. After reviewing our recommendations, President Bush nominated Mr. Kelley.

Mr. Kelley's nomination was subsequently received by the Senate, and in a timely fashion, the Senate Judiciary Committee provided its unanimous approval of this nominee. I am grateful to Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy for their hard work in moving this nomination forward. And, I am grateful to the leadership on both sides of the aisle for bringing Mr. Kelley's nomination before the full Senate.

When Senator Allen and I first learned of the vacancy on the Eastern District of Virginia bench, we began our search to find the most qualified and well-respected individual to fill that vacancy. During that process, one name repeatedly was brought up. That name was Walt Kelley.

Walt Kelley graduated with his bachelor's degree, cum laude, in 1977 from my alma mater, Washington & Lee University. Then, after working for a year as a Press Secretary to a member of the United States House of Representatives, he returned to Washington & Lee and earned his law degree, magna cum laude.

Subsequent to law school, Mr. Kelley served as a law clerk to a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York City. We are fortunate in Virginia that after he completed his clerkship, Mr. Kelley returned to his home town of Norfolk, VA to practice law.

Since then, for the past 22 years, Walt Kelley has practiced law for two of Virginia's best law firms, Wilcox & Savage PC, and Troutman Sanders LLP. During these two decades plus of his legal career, his practice has focused primarily on complex business litigation before the Federal courts.

Moreover, during these 22 years, Mr. Kelley has earned a reputation for not only being one of the best lawyers in Virginia, but also being one of the best lawyers in America. Each year, since 1997, he has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America for business litigation. This is a publication that lists the ``best'' lawyers in America based on the recommendations of other lawyers all across America.

But, not only is Mr. Kelley dedicated to his family and to his legal career, he also has taken the time to give back to his community. In addition to other community activities, he is a member and the former rector of the Old Dominion University Board of Visitors in Norfolk, VA, and he is a member of the Virginia Business Higher Education Council.

Mr. President, Walt Kelley has my strong support and the strong support of Senator Allen. In addition, he has the support of Virginia's legal community. The Virginia State Bar; Virginia Bar Association; the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys; and the Norfolk & Portsmouth Bar Association all support Mr. Kelley's nomination. Furthermore, the American Bar Association has unanimously rated Mr. Kelley as ``well qualified'' for this judgeship.

I know that Walt Kelley is a fine nominee. If confirmed, he will serve on the bench in Virginia with distinction.

I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Yes, Mr. President, I am seeking the floor at this point in time.

We have reached a juncture in the bill where the majority leader and the distinguished minority leader, together with the two managers, are trying to resolve what further business may occur on this bill. At this point in time I can only suggest to colleagues we are very close, hopefully, to resolving this matter. But until such time as we get an indication on my side of the aisle of the ability with regard to the other side to reach constructive resolution of this matter, I am going to have to ask that a quorum be put in.

Reserving the right to the floor, I yield for a question from my colleague.

Mr. President, my good friend and I have done many things together. At this point in time, I think, in good faith, the leadership of the Senate, together with the two managers, has developed a construct. Until such time as that construct is put in place, I must say with due respect I will have to maintain the quorum call.

I think you yielded to me.

Mr. President, I hope this is not a matter of courtesy. It is a matter of pure management of the bill. There has been a clear understanding between both sides, and I am abiding by the understanding on this side. I think this side has, in good faith, lived up to its commitments. From all I know, the manager on this side and the leadership on that side is doing everything to live up to their commitments.

Until that time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.