Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from New York.

Mr. STEVENS. The problem has come up in connection with the unanimous consent agreement. There was no time allocated to those who might want to oppose the Specter amendment. And, as I understand it, a Senator on the Democratic side wishes to oppose the Specter amendment. In fairness, I ask unanimous consent she be given 5 minutes to speak; and if it raises additional items the Senator has not spoken to that he wishes to speak to, I would allocate an additional 5 minutes to Senator Specter, so there would be a comment back and forth. All right. I make that request.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to interrupt for a problem that has come up.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have asked for a portion of the time of the Senator from Pennsylvania because we had worked to try to reach an agreement between the two amendments so that they would be put together and have an amendment we could adopt. We are unable to do that. I am compelled to state I will oppose the first-degree amendment of Senator Schumer. It is a situation where, as far as I am concerned, there is ample money in the House bill, if we are compelled to raise the amount that is in our bill. But it is the kind of situation where we prefer to have this amendment not be adopted now, so we can find a way to work the matter out with the House. We have $100 million in the bill. The Schumer amendment, as I understand it, as drafted, now adds $600 million. I oppose going to that height. That would, in effect, take it to the level of the House. And the administration opposes the level in the House bill. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Senator, I don't think the Schumer amendment is there yet. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. We can't do it because we are still reviewing the managers' package.

Mr. STEVENS. We will do everything we can to shorten the time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are doing everything we can. I thought we were going to finish by 5:30 but we are having votes that we might otherwise not have had, if we proceeded with the agreements we had previously. But we are doing our best to be finished. My feeling is this vote will take place at about 7:30, between 7:30 and 7:35. After that, we are inquiring to see how many more votes. There are two votes, actually. If it would be in order, I ask the second vote be 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the second vote on this sequence to come be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Schumer offers his first-degree amendment regarding first responders, upon the reporting of the amendment it be set aside and Senator Specter be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment on the same subject; that the amendments be debated concurrently with a total of 30 minutes of debate to be controlled by Senator Schumer and Senator Specter-- actually, I asked my colleague to yield me 5 of those minutes--or their designees, and that no amendment be in order to either amendment prior to a vote in relation to each amendment; upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Specter amendment to be followed immediately by a vote in relation to the Schumer amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I now yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have asked Members to stay who have amendments they might wish to consider. If the Senator from Nevada is prepared, we could go through some of those and see what the time constraints may be in getting the bill finished tonight.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Regular order. Amendment No. 494

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I remind Senators we are going to come up on a series of votes soon. This bill is a bill the President asked us to move quickly on to provide moneys for the ongoing events in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. We are now being besieged by amendments for homeland security. As a matter of fact, we have been besieged by homeland security amendments as long as I can remember. The problem is, apparently there is an assumption here on the floor that the Federal Government is responsible for every single dime spent by any city or county or State in the interest of security. I always thought this was a mutual security society, and the cities and States and counties did what all they could do, and we would follow up and do the balance. Now it seems we are getting to the point where we are asked to provide each city, each State, each county with the full cost, not only of their systems for security against terrorism, but for their overtime. I again ask the Senate, how much overtime are the people out in the desert in Iraq getting? How much overtime are the people right here on the floor, who are going to be working late tonight, getting? And they are going to be working over the weekend. It is high time people realized, I will not support financing every city, every town, every county, every State for every dime they say they need for homeland security. I think we should wake up. There is just so much that can be put on the Federal taxpayer. We are running an enormous deficit. On the one hand, my colleagues on that side of the aisle are beating on this President every day for a deficit, yet there isn't one amendment here that doesn't go billions above the request the President made. What for? For war. Not for homeland security. There is a very small amount for homeland security. It was associated with moneys that were necessary to prosecute the war. Now we are going to the total concept of homeland security, whatever it may be. Politically it may be good. I expect to read about these in 2004 in every single spot combating anyone over here who voted with me to table these amendments. I hope the American public wakes up to what is going on. I don't think the average person working for wages expects their money they pay into the Treasury is going to be used to pay overtime money in every city, every State, every village in this country. When I inquired about several of these amounts, I was told they were to pay overtime. We have not accepted those amendments. We will continue to oppose them. Any campaign I hear about in 2004 where any of our people are attacked for votes made here, I will pay my own expense and go defend them. I will defend them and tell the American public what is right. Everyone ought to be part of homeland security. There ought to be volunteerism. There should be people paid by the cities, by the counties, by the States, and by the Federal Government. We are providing the money for the Federal people. This bill is full of money to pay those who are in Federal employment to increase the level of homeland security. But what we are hearing now is that every city wants more. Every State wants more. It is time we realize we ought to have a debate about this in terms of what is the Federal policy. I remember we used to have debates about federalism and what it means. It doesn't mean the Federal taxpayer pays every dime everyone wants in order to get ready for a potential terrorist attack. I have said this before. I had one mayor from a very small village in my State ask me to help him to get a new fire truck for homeland security. When I looked into it, I found out they didn't have a fire station. As a matter of fact, most of the roads weren't paved. This concept that everybody is going to get part of the money we put up for homeland security, I believe, is wrong. As we vote, I hope the Members on my side stand up and be counted in terms of protecting this bill that the President wants. I keep hearing we have a war going on. Well, I see three wars out there, and I don't know how long any one of them is going to go. The President deserves our support. Our people in uniform deserve our support, and the people fighting in Iraq are not the primary concern of homeland security. This bill is. This is a bill for supplemental assistance for national defense and a very small amount for homeland defense--$4.6 billion out of almost $78 billion. Yet we are spending most of our time on the floor debating adding to the $4.6 billion. I hope that does not go on much longer. As a matter of fact, it isn't going to go on much longer because I am not going to continue to accept amendments that are directed toward just beefing up homeland security for political purposes. I accepted the amendment of the Senator from Florida when he cut it down to five-sevenths of what he wanted, and we fund it after the balance of this year. PFC Jessica Lynch This gets to the point where I would like to talk about something else for a minute. I mentioned before today that I read in this morning's paper the tremendous story of one of our brave young soldiers, PFC Jessica Lynch. I asked my staff to look up more about her. As we all know from reading the papers, she is 19 years old. She is a supply clerk with the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company supporting the 3rd Infantry Division advancing toward Baghdad. I am sure Senator Byrd knows that PFC Lynch is from Palestine, WV. I know he joins me in recognizing this brave young woman. I remember so well standing on the floor of the Senate years ago, when we had the draft, urging that we extend the draft so it covered everybody who was 19, male and female. That was defeated. People thought that young women should not be in combat at all. This young woman shows what happens when a brave, young American woman is in combat. She was taken captive, as we all know, by Iraqi forces on March 23, after her company was ambushed near the southern city of Nasiriyah. She was rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital after 8 days in captivity. It was obvious that the hotel had been used as a military command post. She suffered two broken legs, a broken arm, and at least one gunshot wound during her ordeal. They found her at her position and the magazine on her gun was empty. Most of the people in her detail had been killed. She survived. I think this is a tremendous example of the young people who are involved in this war. She is the first POW to be rescued since World War II, Mr. President. I believe it is something I would like the Senate to think about for a moment. We commend the outstanding work of our Special Forces and the other units involved in the joint operation, including Marines and Army Rangers, who rescued this young woman. I think their efforts are a demonstration of our military's commitment to never leave a soldier behind. We have invested a great deal in the Special Forces. Just recently, I flew to Tampa and visited with Special Forces Command. We will continue to rely on their expertise. This recent success is proof that our investment is paying dividends in saving American lives, and it demonstrates the critical need of Congress to continue to support America's Special Forces and to support this bill and get this bill to the President as soon as possible. Above all, I want to commend Jessica Lynch for her commitment to this country, her patriotism, her courage, and to thank her for her outstanding service. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. No second-degree amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. The custom, as the Senator from Nevada says, is 20 minutes on your side, 10 minutes on this side on amendments we didn't intend to work out, with the understanding the vote will be delayed. I ask unanimous consent there be 30 minutes, 20 minutes for the Senator from Louisiana and 10 minutes under my control, and with the vote to occur at a time to be specified after consultation with my friend from Nevada.

Mr. STEVENS. I asked if the Senator would be willing to discuss a time agreement on his amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire if the Senator is willing to have a time agreement for his amendment?

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

Mr. STEVENS. With due respect, we are still negotiating with several people, including Senator Kohl. I urge not putting that amendment in yet. If we are going to make the deadlines some want to meet, we will have to work some amendments out. I suggest the absence of a quorum.