Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I raise this subject of combat pay, or pay for imminent danger. Having received such combat pay in World War II, I have been interested in this issue. During the gulf war in 1991, when combat pay was $110 a month, we raised that to $150 a month. Right after that war, the imminent danger pay was made permanent at $150. It has gone up 40 percent since 1991. We suggest it go up 50 percent to $225 a month. With regard to family separation and allowance, it is currently $100. We recommend it go up 100 percent to $200. That is an expensive proposition. The cost of this for the balance of the year is $375 million, and the cost for a full year will be $650 million. This is a reachback amendment. It covers everyone from the time they were exposed to imminent danger. For family separation, it is the same, from the time they were separated. I know there is a controversy, and I have had a little discussion with the Senator from Illinois. As I told the Senator, there are probably--I believe this is the case--more families in Alaska connected with the military than any other State in the Union, as the current occupant of the chair knows. On the other hand, the moneys we have to have for modernization, for munitions, and for many other items come out of the same account. This is the operations and maintenance account. This bill already contains a massive amount, $30.3 billion, to replace in that account what has already been spent in mobilizing the military, including, by the way, the amount that has been spent so far for paying imminent danger pay at the rate of $150 a month. It is an issue we should address, but we ought to keep in mind that what is going to happen after this war is this will become permanent. It is a new base and it is a staggering increase in cost for personnel. I fully support it. As a matter of fact, I wish I could say we have nothing but billionaires in this country, and we could pay these people what they really deserve for being overseas, what their families really deserve when one or both parents are overseas. As a practical matter, there has to be a reasonable balance in what we are doing. This subject can be reviewed by the Armed Services Committee later. We have the 2004 bill coming, and we can have this discussion again. I believe we ought to take this action and be as reasonable as possible in doing it. I know there is a difference of opinion. I hope the Senate will agree to this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be added as an original cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there is a typing error in the first line of amendment No. 436. It should be ``chapter 3,'' and it appears ``chapter 2.'' I ask that the typing error be amended.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside. I will discuss it soon. I have another amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I want the Senate to be on notice--this is an issue we have to face. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, before we start this supplemental, these are difficult times so I will take this opportunity to recognize all of those in uniform who are serving our country both at home and abroad during these wars, the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. I especially want to ask the Senate to keep in mind those who have given their lives in the defense of our country and in our opposition to these terrible scourges that beset us now. We do have a war going on, and the President, as our Commander in Chief, has asked for our help to provide vitally needed funds in the most expeditious manner possible. I have spoken to each of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they tell me that their money will start running out. For most of them, that will start in May. For the Navy, it will start in June. In any event, the only way to ensure these funds will be available and get to the services in time to meet their needs is to send this bill to the President before we leave Washington for the usual Easter recess. If we do not have it done before then, I am going to do my best to insist we stay here and forego the recess until we get this bill done. I believe that will not be necessary, and so far I have seen good bipartisan support to meet the objective of getting this bill to the President so that funds will be available to our troops. I hope that attitude will continue on the floor. The House Appropriations Committee completed its work on the version of this bill yesterday. They will begin consideration on the floor very soon. We all know that they act first on a bill of this type so we will have to wait. It is my hope I can ask the Senate to get this bill to third reading by no later than tomorrow evening so it will be ready and our staffs can work over this next weekend to get ready for a conference. I will propose that the Senate actually take this bill to the point where it is actually sent to conference as soon as the House has passed its bill so we can go to conference early next week. It is my sincere hope the Senate and the House will act together to get this bill, as I said, to the President as quickly as possible. The President of the United States asked for $74.7 billion in new budget authority in the supplemental request he sent to us. The bill before us provides $76.7 billion in new authority. It also contains an aviation relief portion that will provide both new budget authority and other benefits. The budget authority is $2.025 billion, and other benefits are $1.475 billion. The total for this bill, including the airline relief portion, in both new budget authority and other benefits then totals $78.7 billion. This supplemental responds to the immediate needs of the troops in the field, provides important international assistance to our allies, and tries to deal with the most vital homeland security and defense needs facing our Nation. We fully funded the President's request of $62.6 billion for defense efforts in prosecuting the war with Iraq. These funds will be used to conduct military operations in Iraq, support our coalition partners, and replenish crucial munition and other vital military procurement funds that have already been consumed in getting our troops to the war zones. The President's request included $30.3 billion for costs that were already committed or incurred. The sealift, the airlift, and equipping our combat forces has come at great expense. Last week in our hearing with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Senator Byrd and others raised concerns with respect to the Department's request that these funds be appropriated to what we call the Defense Emergency Response Fund. We will hear the acronym DERF on the floor. That means Defense Emergency Response Fund. In developing the bill before the Senate, Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, and I have tried to strike a proper balance between congressional oversight and providing the Department with the necessary flexibility to prosecute the ongoing war in Iraq. Senator Byrd, I am sure, will speak for himself with regard to the flexibility in this bill. There is some flexibility for the President. In this bill we provided $11 billion to the Defense Department in the Defense Emergency Response Fund. It can be spent in response to the Commander in Chief's directions. It is an account to give them the enhanced flexibility they need to manage the conduct of the war. The House has provided a larger amount. I am sure we will meet in conference to decide what is the proper amount of flexibility necessary for the present Department of Defense. We also are proposing that the great majority of the defense funds, totaling nearly $51.5 billion, be appropriated into specific accounts for the services so that wherever possible they meet the needs directly. We have provided $35 billion for operation and maintenance activities; $13.7 billion for military personnel to maintain critical operation capability and readiness; and $3.7 billion to replenish munitions expended in combat operations. We have also included $500 million for the Defense Health Program to provide adequate care for both Active and military Reserve personnel and their families. There is another $550 million for fuel costs and $489 million for the Department's efforts to combat the oil well fires started by the Iraqi forces so far. This bill appropriates $1.7 billion to cover costs associated with classified activities undertaken in Iraq and in the global war on terrorism. We have also responded to the President's full request for $7.8 billion for international relief and recovery efforts in Iraq, international support for allies in the region, and other critical needs to continue the fight on global terrorism. The committee's recommendation includes $2.4 billion for the Iraqi relief and reconstruction fund. That is over $2 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Program, which we call FMF. The bill also provides up to $9 billion in loan guarantees to Israel, $300 million in assistance to Egypt, and $1 billion in assistance for Turkey. It includes the request for $150 million for the U.S. emergency fund for complex foreign crises, a new account that enables a quick response to unforeseen global challenges. Finally, the bill reimburses fiscal year 2003 foreign assistance accounts that Congress authorized the President to borrow from to pre- position humanitarian assistance for Iraq. The bill also reflects the commitment of Congress to address homeland defense requirements by providing $4.6 billion, roughly $400 million above the President's request, for key homeland security requirements. We have provided the President's request of $2 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness to assist State and local governments in federally coordinated terrorism readiness and other security enhancements during this time of heightened threats. The committee recommendation also included $1.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for counterterrorist activities. Secretary Ridge has given the flexibility in this account to allocate funds both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security for terrorism preparedness and response. The bill also includes $580 million for the Coast Guard operations to enhance the protection of our ports and borders and in support of the Department of Defense activities in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Liberty Shield. We have also supported the recommendation of $34 million to provide compensation to individuals who have sustained injuries due to our smallpox vaccination program. As I mentioned earlier, the bill includes a package of targeted relief to address the dire situation facing the aviation industry. I highlight the main provision in that package and I will speak at greater length later. In this bill is a total of $2.9 billion in relief for air carriers, the airlines. Specifically, the bill suspends the fee that both passengers and carriers pay for the 6 months of the balance of this current fiscal year. It will suspend this fee that is currently charged on the ticket taxes, but it is actually currently being borne by the industry because the cost of flying is so low due to competitive factors of the economy. It also provides $1 billion to reimburse the carriers for the costs incurred with the new security mandates of the Transportation Security Administration imposed following the terrorist attacks on September 11. These were unfunded mandates, and in this bill we fund those that have been completed since September 11 until the end of this fiscal year. The bill extends for 1 year the war risk provisions included in our bill in previous years. Specifically, we passed last November a bill to establish the Department of Homeland Security or specific insurance provisions for war risk in that bill. The result of this provision in this bill is we anticipate will save the airlines about $800 million. The package also includes $375 million to address security-related costs at our airports. I congratulate my colleague from Washington for bringing up this issue. Those are also unfunded mandates. They were funds expended by the airports to meet the requirements of the Transportation Security Administration, and the funds in this bill should reimburse airports for security readiness operating expenses and provide additional funding for the modification of airports necessary to the installation of bomb detection equipment for the balance of the fiscal year. Finally, this bill also extends unemployment benefits for an additional 26 weeks for qualifying aviation workers who have lost their jobs because of the downturn in the economy that affected the airlines. I see my friend is here. I don't want to speak too long, but I believe this bill is very important. There is no question we need the funds to sustain our vital military operations around the world. There are really three wars still going on: The war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. This is a very serious problem for those overseas and for those who manage our Department of Defense. I think the worry over where funds are coming from to meet the increasing demands in the three different wars is pressing upon our military commanders and civilians in charge of the Department of Defense. It is my hope the Senate will be considerate in the number of amendments that are offered and the issues before the Senate. I thank the former chairman from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for the insight and advice he has given to me. I do not represent that this bill reflects entirely his point of view, but he has been a partner, once again, in working with me as I tried to work with him. I do think he has been very instrumental in seeing to it that this bill is before the Senate at this time. I have stated to others, and I say it again publicly, one of the reasons I am trying to get through this bill tomorrow night is I hope to be with my good friend from Hawaii when he receives the recognition he deserves in his home State on Saturday. I recommend the bill to the full Senate. I urge Senators to come forward and identify their amendments so we can see what we can work out, if there are subjects that can be worked out. I admit readily there may be some items we have not addressed in this bill so far. I would very much like to do that. I do hope as the Senate proceeds with this bill, we keep in mind the fact that within instantaneous communication, I am informed that some of the forces that are overseas in both Afghanistan and in the Iraqi war watch us almost as much as we watch them. This is one bill they are going to watch. They are very astute young people. They understand this country. They understand the risks they are taking. They understand in particular they want this country's economy to be healthy when they come back. We must keep in mind what we are doing, continuing the expenditures that are extraordinary expenses brought upon this country by the events of September 11. During this period, I will recite some of those amounts that we put forward already. There has been a tremendous strain on our economy because of these three different types of wars, but they are wars that I personally believe we must fight. We must provide those who are fighting those wars everything they need to be successful and to be safe. I recommend this bill to the full Senate and hope we will finish it by tomorrow night. 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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I now ask that this be deemed the original amendment before the Senate, that it be the Stevens-Durbin amendment, plus any other Senators who wish to add their name to it.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the Senate cast a unanimous vote in support of this raise of combat pay and family allowances for our men and women who are in harm's way.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I would like to make sure we show this was a unanimous vote. Beyond that, I have a letter I received from the Boeing Company which is relevant to what we have just done, because some of the people who are covered by this amendment are men and women of the National Guard and Reserve. The Boeing Company has notified me it has 2,000 valued employees who serve our Nation in the military as members of the National Guard and Reserve. They state: Over the last 3 years, some 950 men and women have proudly stepped forward for differing periods of military duty in support of the September 11-related operation. To date, 371 Boeing teammates have been activated for Operation Iraqi Freedom, with many more receiving notice of impending call- up. To stress our commitment, Boeing has extended the benefits we provide these citizen soldiers because we want them to be able to focus on their military mission--with no worry that their families are provided for in the interim. For a period of up to 60 calendar months, we will make up the difference between their military and Boeing pay, plus maintain their medical, dental and life insurance benefits. We have also extended reemployment rights to these talented teammates for up to five years of military service. Boeing's long-standing policy provides these benefits for 90 days. I am not doing this to blow up Boeing, although I think it is a tremendous gesture. I ask unanimous consent that the letter, in full, be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. This shows much of the problem that the Senator from Illinois has been trying to handle, the problem of people who have been called up who are not regulars. Theirs is a problem that is more acute than those who are in the military and are called up and they have their full military pay continue. The civilian pay of those who have been called up is many times quite a bit in excess of what they get in the military. We have very complicated problems in a period of the callup cycle we are in right now because our country has called up people for the war on terrorism, called up people for the war in Afghanistan, and are now calling up people for the war in Iraq. Sometimes there have been multiple callups in the same calendar year. It is a very difficult problem to deal with, and I urge the Armed Services Committee to work on it and give us a comprehensive package so we do not have to deal with it in regard to appropriations bills. That is my point I make now. I prefer that not be the case.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. STEVENS. I ask that that may be set aside for the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. STEVENS. Set them both aside, I assume. Amendment No. 440

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am grateful to my friend from South Carolina for the way he has put this amendment. Unfortunately, it is part of a large stream of amendments. If this were the only amendment offered for Coast Guard expenses and to homeland security in addition to this bill, as manager of the bill, I would have no difficulty in dealing with it. But we expect a whole series of amendments during this period. I want to point out this bill came to us as a defense supplemental for the purpose of meeting the needs of the conduct of three separate war operations. We have a war on terrorism, a war in Afghanistan, and a war going on in Iraq. Of the total that we have coming out on the committee bill, we have $78.7 plus billion. It is really $78,736,600,000. Even Everett Dirksen thought that was a lot of money. But when you look at this, what was asked for, for the total for homeland defense, $4,676,000,000, that is on top of what has already been appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security in the omnibus bill we just passed and what will be appropriated in the fiscal year 2004 that is coming. I know many people, including myself, believe there should be more money allocated to homeland security. But what should we do? If I were to say I would accept the Senator's amendment, but behind it there is a total of $6.5 billion that I have been told so far dealing with homeland security amendments, another $6.5 billion will lead this bill to being assaulted in the House and severely questioned by the President. We don't have the emergency procedure available. We don't have a budget. So this can't be dubbed an emergency under the Budget Act and just sent downtown and ignored by the President, which is something we have done in the past. This either has to be in the bill or it is not going to be in the bill. I want the Senator to know, as I have said, we believe there is money here. Requests are going to come at us for purchasing of community- oriented policing policies, interoperable equipment problems, the problem of firefighters and emergency medical service teams in terms of their equipment that is currently not interoperable. We have money I certainly think is needed in terms of the screening equipment and new technology screening at ports. That is another $110 million. Once you start down this line, you have to ask yourself, why aren't these being raised in the 2004 bill. None of them are going to be spent this year. This isn't money for the immediate emergency. This is money that should be addressed in the 2004 bills. They are still pending out there. We will have this same debate on the 2004 bills. These same amendments will be offered then. Why don't we wait until then? That is my advice to the Senate. Let's wait. We know these are pending requests. We know many of them are very important, and some of them I shall join in urging we try to get money. But right now we are trying to get money for the President so he can handle these wars. This is not port security. It is not interoperability of equipment. It is not money for Guard and Reserve equipment. It is not money that is going to be spent next year. (Mr. CORNYN assumed the chair.)

Mr. STEVENS. This is money for this year--not only this year, but within the next 8 weeks it has to be to the armed services. I say to my friend, very respectfully, when the time comes, I am going to have to move to table this amendment, although I hate to do it because I agree with it in many ways. But it is not the only thing coming at us. Every one of these, like another straw on the camel's back, will take more time to deal with in conference with the House and with the President, and meanwhile we don't get the money out there for the troops. I hope the Senate will stay with us. Let's restrict this bill to the emergencies related to the war effort, and the homeland security money in here is related to the war effort. It is nuclear security, it is a transfer of treasury for homeland security. One of the items is a smallpox amendment which is already in the bill. Those moneys can and will be spent before September 30 of this year. They must be. We don't have an extension on them. They are all money to be spent this year. This money the Senator seeks is money that could be spent over the next 2, 3 years. Who knows how long it will be before we identify the tracking systems that can track and monitor vessels in U.S. waters that are better equipment than we have now. We have some, but it is not good. We know that. It is not up to date. In particular, I seek to join in trying to check the backgrounds of transportation workers. I would very much like to be involved in finding ways to finance the screening equipment that deals with containers coming into our ports. But this isn't the place to do it. I told the Senate before this morning--I have asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the individual service chiefs when this money is needed. They started in early May and continued through June, so this money has to be there. It cannot be there if we get items to continue this bill and carry us into a period beyond the recess we intend to take for Easter. I say respectfully to my friend, it is just not something we can handle. The administration takes the position that the 2003 bill and 2003 supplemental and the 2004--those are all fiscal years--appropriations bills have started the process of providing money for port security, customs, transportation, law enforcement, domestic preparedness, and other items. The bill we have in place--the 2003 Appropriations Act--contains the largest increase for Coast Guard in the history of the United States, over $1 billion more than 2002. The Senator from South Carolina and I were partially responsible in that. We joined together in that fight on the omnibus bill. At 2004, the discretionary funding of the Coast Guard will be increased by another billion and a half, another 36 percent over 2002. That will add to the Coast Guard in excess of $2.5 billion for the period of 2004. Now, we are moving toward these things, but we cannot do them all in this bill, which is designed to be a supplemental for 2003. By the way, I am very concerned about the container security initiative. The Senator from New York and I have worked on that. We are continuing to try to push and push and push to identify the type of technology that could give us the ability to increase the surveillance on containers as they are placed on ships destined for the U.S. We want to reach out and put them on the foreign ports. We don't have to wait until they are in our ports before we discover things dangerous to us. I commend the Senator from New York and the Senator from South Carolina for working on this, but we don't need more money now. We need some results, as far as the basic investments in technology. The President's budget has $375 million in the 2004 budget for just that--initiatives and technology investments, radiation detection, x-ray machines for cargo containers. That is not even available yet. We don't have the state-of-the-art equipment to do what some of these amendments insist we must do--and things I want to do in the long run. This Senator still represents more than half of the coastline in the United States. Everything we eat and consume and put on our backs comes to us from outside of our State. We are the one State totally dependent upon transportation, particularly marine transportation. I will work night and day with my friend to see we can get there when we develop the technology that we can approve. But we cannot put the money out in front of the technology. I think we have to have more money for assessments, portal monitors, maritime safety, and response teams--I support those--automated identification system, long-term security programs, transportation worker IDs. But these are not wartime-related costs. We are in three wars at one time. Please, let me ask the Senate to remember that. That is what my job is--to try to get the bill passed as quickly as possible to address wartime-related costs at the request of the President of the United States. That is what I intend to do. This amendment should not be included in wartime supplemental funding. I regret that when the time comes I shall move to table my friend's amendment. I don't know whether he wants to respond or not. I don't know whether we want to vote at this time or not. A lot of things are going on in the building. I will rely on the leadership. I ask my friend if he wishes me to allow him to respond.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret the problem we have with regard to the funding for these items. I call attention to the fact that we are trying to get a supplemental appropriations bill to deal with the costs of the war primarily, not just one war but the war against terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan. I know of no other way to do it than to say we have reached a limit as far as what we are going to do. This thought just came to my mind. We have gone beyond the President's request to deal with the most pressing need, and that is the aviation industry relief. We have some benefits for that industry, almost $4 billion, that deal with trying to give that industry the ability to rejuvenate the economy. If they come back, the whole economy comes back, in my judgment. In any event, the more we put in the supplemental, the more we will have a situation where we will not get that either. The aviation industry relief, I am told, needs to be finished almost immediately. Some of these companies are going into chapter 11 right now. Others are indicating that they may cease operation. I really believe the major factors in this bill are defense, homeland defense and aviation industry relief. I urge the Senate to think about it and confine it to that. I move to table the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, and I ask that the vote on that amendment take place following the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I further ask that prior to Ms. Landrieu, the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Arkansas share 15 minutes on the amendment they have, which it is my understanding we are in the position now where we will adopt that amendment. I do not know the final status of the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana so I will not move to adopt it, obviously, since it is not before us yet. But that will be my intention when we finish. My friend from Nevada and I are trying to estimate when these votes would take place. I want 5 minutes to respond to the Senator from Louisiana after she offers her amendment. So it would be 5:15 that we would be voting.

Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, I think we should go back and forth.

Mr. STEVENS. I certainly have no objection to the Senator's unanimous consent request.

Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that there will be no second- degree amendments to the Landrieu amendment or to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. STEVENS. That does not apply to subsequent amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Colorado is first. He and the Senator from Arkansas share 15 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. What is the pending measure? The first vote will occur on the amendment of the Senator from Colorado?

Mr. STEVENS. But under the unanimous consent request, we vote first on the Hollings amendment; is that correct?