Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. That means other than the managers' package, the only amendment in order to this bill would be Senator Byrd on a 30-minute timeframe, 20 minutes for Senator Byrd and 10 minutes for myself; that will follow the 10 minutes of debate on the circuit court judge and the vote on that confirmation. I, again, renew my request for unanimous consent that following the disposition of those amendments and the circuit judge this bill be read for the third time and the Senate vote on final passage of the Defense appropriations bill with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Kennedy amendment No. 1280 be withdrawn.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have another portion of the managers' package. The amendment I send to the desk has been agreed to on both sides. I ask for its immediate consideration and adoption.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it was necessary to handle it separately because it was already a pending amendment, and it had to be withdrawn. I now ask for its consideration and adoption.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send a further amendment to the desk and state that this is separate and apart from the managers' package. It is an amendment I submit on behalf of Senator Hatch. It has not been cleared by my friend from Arizona. When the title is read, it will be apparent to the Members why.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a prisoner of war provision offered by Senator Hatch. We have agreed to start the process of dealing with claims of these individuals. Since our good friend from Arizona was in fact a prisoner of war, he did not want to participate in the adoption or consideration of this amendment. We are honoring his request. I ask for the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Hawaii who has the Democratic portion of the managers' package. Amendments Nos. 1301 through 1316, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. I would like to thank my colleagues for their remarks regarding the M1A2 System Enhancement Program. I understand their concern with the need to provide resources to allow for the modernization of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment tank fleet, and I look forward to working with them as we begin conference with the House to address this important matter. netrp program

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an important platform for SOCOM, as we have clearly demonstrated by our support in this bill. These modifications are important to the mission of SOCOM and the reason for inclusion of $10 million of additional funding in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee also approved funds that could be used for these modifications in the Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, before the Senator leaves, I wish to say categorically that had I been the Vice President of the United States, based upon the intelligence briefings that I have participated in now for over 20 years, I would have made exactly the same statements the Vice President made. I believe sincerely that the record of history shows clearly that Iraq has tried to acquire and did acquire nuclear capability in the past. The Israelis destroyed it once. We know he was trying again to reestablish them. There is no question that he had weapons of mass destruction. He used them on the Iranians. He used them on the Kurds. Gas is a weapon of mass destruction. There is also no question at all that he had the vehicles to transport weapons of mass destruction. Why did he build the vehicles if he didn't have them? This nit-picking at the language that was used--it was used, we now know, in error in terms of veracity as far as the reliance upon the concept of what the British had because it was later disclosed that one of the things they had was a forged document. Why did the United Nations, 17 times, ask to examine that country to find the weapons of mass destruction if the world did not believe he was after weapons of mass destruction, after he used them on the Iranians more than 15 years ago? They bombed the plant that absolutely had the reactor in it. And we knew he had weapons then. I have to say that when we look at what has happened, when our troops went into those barracks after the war commenced, they found that the Iraqis had special masks to protect them against weapons of mass destruction. We don't have those kinds of weapons. The Senator is a member of the Intelligence Committee. I am reliably informed that at a classified session yesterday he asked CIA Director George Tenet the very questions which he has asked on the floor, and he received the answers. Some of the Members don't like the answers, but they received them. Had Director Tenet took responsibility for a mistake in his agency--clearly he had problems about the way that document was handled and in terms of the speech. This is the third time this has come up now on this bill. This amendment would fence the Community Management Agency of the CIA, one of the most important and vital works of the agency. It would take $50 million from them. I am not going to do it now, but sometime in the future I am going to ask the Senator whether he believes that he never had weapons of mass destruction. Does he believe Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction? Does he believe there was no reason to go in there and do what we did? The problem is this amendment standing alone would deny the following programs funding: Assistant Director of the CIA to allocate their collection efforts against terrorists and other high-priority target activities. This is their central community program. Talking about the intelligence community, one of them is the National Drug Intelligence Center's Analysis of Information for Narcotraffickers--a vital concept that deals with counterterrorism activities. The second is the National Counterintelligence Oversight Analysis Assessment of Vulnerabilities to Foreign Intelligence Services. The next is efforts to improve the intelligence community's expertise in foreign languages. This was identified as the key unmet need by the joint inquiry that investigated the 9/11 activities. Each of those programs is essential to our national security. In order to make his point on this concept, the Senator again seeks to fence off $50 million for those vital activities. I hope the Senate listens to us about what he is willing to do in order to make this statement again. I shall move to table this amendment. But, again, I have been asked this question many times personally at home by the press and by family friends. Some of us are exposed to intelligence at a very high level of Government. We can't come out and talk about it. I noticed in the paper yesterday that some of our people because of this issue are starting to ``lip off'' about intelligence matters that should be classified. The Senate and the Congress should come back to order on that. We are allowed access to classified information--and to have us, because of some question about one phrase in the President's speech, suddenly decide that classification means nothing, is wrong, and it is not in the best interest of the United States. Now, Senator Inouye and I have been involved in extremely classified information for years. As a matter of fact, at our request, there was what we call a ``tank'' built in our building so we could have those people come visit us and we would not have to go out and visit the CIA or the other intelligence agencies. And we do listen to them. Based on everything I have heard--everything I have heard; and the two of us have shared the chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which is defense intelligence related, since 1981-- everything I have heard convinces me, without question, that Iraq tried to develop a program of weapons of mass destruction, and did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. And we were justified--just as the Israelis were over 15 years ago when they went in and bombed one plant--we were justified to go in and just absolutely disestablish that administration because it had rebuked the U.N. 17 times in terms of the attempt to locate those weapons of mass destruction and to do what Saddam Hussein agreed he would do after the Persian Gulf war. He agreed to destroy them. He admitted he had them. He agreed to destroy them. And we tried to prove he destroyed them. Now, what is all this question about whether he had them? Because he admitted he had them. It is time we settle down and get back to the business of providing the money for the men and women in uniform around the world, and to ensure that the people who conduct our intelligence activities have the money to do what they have to do. The extended debate on this floor about intelligence activities because of that one 17- or 16-word--I don't remember--the small phrase in the President's State of the Union message is starting to really have an impact on the intelligence-collecting activities of this country. We do not want to besmirch that. We have the finest intelligence service in the world. If someone made a mistake--and now it has been admitted there was a mistake; not in whether or not he was trying to put together his nuclear weapons program--the mistake was in reference to what the British did have; and it was later found that the foundation for what the British thought they had was a forged document. Intelligence is absolutely essential to a nation that bases its capability to maintain peace on force projection, and we have to rely on many people to provide us information. Human beings make mistakes. God forbid that anyone would ever say because of one mistake we should harness the core efforts of our intelligence efforts and deny them the money this bill has for them to proceed until this commission, which the Senator wants to create, reports. I cannot believe we would delay the release of these funds for those reasons. The ongoing efforts of the Intelligence Committee are known. The Senator is a member of the Intelligence Committee. We who are members of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations have access to everything they have access to, because we manage the money that finances the agencies they investigate. So there is a whole series of us here who have access to extremely classified information. We classify it primarily because there are so many people involved that many lives might be in jeopardy if we disclose the sources of that information or we disclose the impact of that information in terms of the relationship to some of the programs we are funding today. I urge the Senate to settle down. I urge the Senate to settle down. We do not need this continued debate about the words in that State of the Union message. That is history, and it is going to be examined in terms of politics in the future. Now we had arranged the schedule this morning so we could conduct our business and still start the markup of four separate appropriations bills. I must be absent now as chairman of the committee for a period of time. I move to table the Senator's amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the vote on that occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the minority leader. At the time of the stacking of votes on this and other amendments, I shall seek approval for a recorded vote on this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have a motion to table. Has the motion to table been accepted by the Chair?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for that vote be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the minority leader.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware is a pilot and I am a pilot, and we are quite interested in this subject. We have had fairly long discussions about C-5As and C-5Bs. As I have told my friend from Delaware, I have conferred at length with the Air Force, and the Air Force just does not want to have money earmarked solely for C-5As. They will agree, if we want to do so, to specifically state that this money we have in the bill can be used for C-5As or C-5Bs for the kits. Some of the C-5As may, in fact, be eligible for such new kits, making them, as the Senator would say, 21st century capable. The Air Force, however, objects to this amendment because this amendment--the Senator from Delaware has not offered it yet, but the Senator from Delaware is considering it, and I have reviewed it--would take money from the overall account. It would, in fact, diminish the moneys that are available for C-17s and other procurement of aircraft. We are more than willing to allow the Air Force to make the determination which C-5As should be modified by these kits, but, again, I have to state to my friend, we must oppose the concept of having this money taken from the procurement account for the purpose of modernizing the C-5s against the wishes of the Air Force. There is a study underway, as I understand it, which may identify C- 5As that would be kept. I would even be willing to specify the money could be used for any of those planes that were designated in that mobility study to be eligible for the kits. But the Senator's amendment is still not acceptable. I hope he will work with us and work with our staff in the remainder of the afternoon and see if we can work out something that is agreeable. We have deterred from the regular order to which we agreed last night, and that was that Senator Byrd would offer the next amendment. So I hope my friend from Delaware will allow a distinguished senior Member of the Senate to proceed with his amendment, and we will try to work out some kind of accommodation with regard to the amendment of the Senator from Delaware. I know Senator Biden is also very much involved. Perhaps between now and the time we return from the address to be given to us by the distinguished leader of the British Parliament, we can come to some satisfactory agreement with the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with regard to the question of the Senator from Maryland, does the Senator from West Virginia know that yesterday I pointed out the report we have from the Congressional Research Service is that no President has ever asked for funds for war in advance? No Senate has ever appropriated moneys based upon contingencies, predictions of how much would be spent for war. In the Balkan situation, President Clinton did send money for the peacekeeping operations following the conflict in the Balkans. But I am really informed--does the Senator realize no President has ever conducted war financing the way the amendment of the Senator would require the President to do it, if it were a legislative mandate? Parenthetically, as part of that question, though, I wonder if the Senator understands, we are prepared to accept the Senator's amendment because it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which would indicate a request from the Congress that the President consider, in effect, to change that policy and submit a budget request in this instance which we are perfectly willing to support, to send to the President. But does the Senator realize, the statement of the Senator from Maryland indicates he thinks we should have before us now to include in the 2004 budget an amount that someone predicts will be necessary to fight a war when we don't know what the contingencies are, we don't know what the requirements are? I wonder if the Senator heard the distinguished Senator from Hawaii yesterday when he explained his position as a platoon leader, and as a platoon leader if he had been asked how many grenades he was going to use in the next engagement, or how many rifle bullets he would need in the next engagement, or whether he could tell how much he would need for the next engagement so it could be passed on up to the President of the United States as to how much money we would need to conduct the war in Italy, it couldn't have been done. It can't be done now. Does the Senator understand why we are opposing this? It is contrary to the tradition of the United States. And it is contrary to common sense to ask for a contingency budget request in the budget itself for operations considering what is going on in Iraq today. This could expand tomorrow or cease the next day. The contingency concept for a war like this cannot be predicted for a Presidential budget to be presented to the Congress. And it is presented 9 months before it goes into effect. We are saying the President, in his submission in January, should give us a budget to tell us how much we will spend in a war and that the spending would commence at the start of the following October. With due respect, does the Senator not agree that the problem we have here is to understand the President submitted this 2004 budget before the war began? How in the world can we expect the President to include in this 2004 budget request a request for expenses that may occur after October 1 of this year in terms of Iraq? Every President has financed those in the same way. Every single war has been financed the way this President is trying to finance this war.

Mr. STEVENS. I am asking that question of my friend from West Virginia. He has the floor. I would like to get into this debate some kind of a balance with regard to how we are doing it. The Senator has the right to send a request to the President saying it ``should'' be done in a different way. But to say it ``must'' be done a different way, we oppose.

Mr. STEVENS. The only question to the Senator is that I would respectfully ask if he understands that we are willing to take the amendment as the Senator has drafted it because it seeks a change in policy and it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We are seeking that change in policy. Again, parenthetically, I believe the time may come when we have wars or postwar engagements of such magnitude that we should find a new way to budget contrary to past procedures. But, again, I urge the Senator from Maryland to understand that history goes against the policy he has suggested. I hope the Senator from West Virginia understands my feeling in terms of the way we are handling things now. Does the Senator realize there is $32 billion left from what we provided in the supplemental for the war in Iraq? It is no-year money. It is not money that would cease to be available after September 30. We gave the President $62.6 billion, and it was no-year money. It did not have to be spent by the end of September. We have, in fact, appropriated money which, if this afterwar resistance--whatever it is--diminishes, should be enough money. We should not have to have another request. That is the position this Senator takes. Does the Senator understand my position on that?

Mr. STEVENS. This will be my last interruption. Will the Senator yield to me for one other question?

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator recall that in the 2003 budget request President Bush asked for $10 billion for contingency operations for defense emergency response funds for Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, and the activities that were going on at that time, and that he and I joined together in denying that request? We denied the request because we did not believe we should appropriate moneys based upon a contingency request.

Mr. STEVENS. No. We turned it down in the omnibus, also.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the reliance of the Department of Defense on supplemental appropriations for contingency and peacekeeping operations began with the end of the last Persian Gulf War, and the introduction of United States military forces into the Balkans. Excluding the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the incremental costs of U.S. peacekeeping and contingency operations from fiscal year 1991 to 2003 total $36.8 billion. Congress has debated and passed a supplemental appropriations bill for the Department of Defense every year from fiscal 1991 to the current fiscal year. The Congress has debated funding these operations from offsets within other discretionary programs, or from within the defense topline. Beginning with the supplemental request of the Clinton Administration for fiscal year 1998 Congress has provided defense spending as an emergency or provided funding without offsets. The Appropriations Committee attempted to mitigate the need for emergency supplementals by creating the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund in the defense bill, and the Clinton Administration still found it necessary to request emergency supplementals. In March of fiscal year 1998, the Clinton Administration sought $1.9 billion for ongoing operations in Bosnia and Southwest Asia. In fact, the Senate considered an amendment to strip the emergency designation from those funds. That amendment was defeated 92 to 8. Since the 105th Congress, supplemental defense appropriations have been provided as emergencies or without offsets. The Congress passed two supplemental defense bills in fiscal year 1999 totaling $19.1 billion. The Senate will recall that the President requested a $10 billion contingency fund for the global war on terrorism as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget request. The Congress rejected that request until the Administration could better define the costs of contingencies. Those funds were appropriated as part of the Omnibus Bill passed earlier this year. The Clinton Administration was aware that operations in Southwest Asia and the Balkans were ongoing, yet chose not to fund fully those operations in the budget request. As I stated earlier, the Congress passed emergency supplementals for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The Congress has passed nine consecutive supplemental emergency defense appropriations without offsets. Funding from the fiscal year 2003 supplemental was used to offset the difference between the President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 and the discretionary total in the budget resolution. As operations progress in Iraq the Administration will better define contingency costs. That is the position taken by the Congress last year--and the approach to funding used by the Clinton Administration to fund peacekeeping in the Balkans. The Appropriations Committee will examine the costs of operations in Iraq as they are identified. The Senate will have the opportunity to consider those costs in any necessary supplemental. That has been the approach to funding contingencies taken by this body for 6 years.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to try out a unanimous consent request. There is pending my motion to table the Durbin amendment and there is pending the Byrd amendment. The Senator from West Virginia wishes to have a rollcall vote. Senator McConnell would like to have 5 minutes to speak before these votes commence. I ask unanimous consent that we vote on the Durbin amendment following Senator McConnell's statement of not to exceed 5 minutes, and that is on or in relation to the amendment. I have made a motion to table that. After that, I ask that we have a vote on Senator Byrd's amendment, which I shall support. That will have everyone here in time to go and listen to the Honorable Tony Blair, if we can get started in a few minutes. I support Senator Byrd's amendment because it is a sense-of-the- Senate resolution saying that any request for funds for the fiscal year for the ongoing operations in Afghan and Iraq should be included in the annual budget and that any such funds provided should be provided in the Appropriations Act for such fiscal year to appropriate specific accounts for such acts. I support that concept. I do say what it really says to me is that the President's budget would contain an estimate of the costs for an ongoing operation and we would allocate the funding to the specific accounts subject to our approval of the estimates based upon specific hearings before our committee and listening to the representatives of the various services of the military. I think that makes eminent sense. It is a change of policy, in my judgment, and therefore it is a sense- of-the-Senate resolution seeking the President's concurrence in that policy. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky be recognized for 5 minutes and, following that, we vote on the amendment of Senator Durbin; and I ask that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on my motion to table the Durbin amendment.