Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the pending business on this bill?

Mr. STEVENS. Is the Kennedy amendment still set aside following that amendment?

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I cannot support this amendment. It is not enforceable. It establishes policies that may in some situations dangerously restrict the options available to our commanders on the battlefield. I do share the Senator's concern about potential use on the indiscriminate manner of these antipersonal weapons. Protecting innocent civilians from the violence and destruction of war is our goal. It is a laudable goal. Of course, the consequences of using cluster munitions must be carefully considered before such weapons are engaged. This is a complex policy area. It deserves comprehensive review by the relevant policy committees, not only the Committee on Armed Services but also the Foreign Relations Committee. As the Senator has said, it has already been reviewed on a secretarial level several times in the Department of Defense. This amendment is just not acceptable. It legislates the rules of engagement for an entire class of weapon. The task of settling the rules of engagement properly belongs to the military and to the commander and ultimately to the Commander in Chief. In an extreme situation the commander must be able to use all options to shape the battlefield to protect our forces and those allied with us. Restricting the deployment of cluster munitions could severely hinder aviation and artillery capabilities and reduce the commander's capability to wage war successfully. It could severely degrade our allies' capability to defend themselves in threatening situations. The Department of Defense already has guidance and target methodologies that emphasize minimizing dangers to civilians in or near the zone of conflict. This amendment requires that prior to the sale or transfer, the Department ensures that munitions will not be used in or near populations, including villages, camps, and groups of refugees, evacuees, or nomads. This could be obtained at the point of sale. Once the weapons are transferred, it would be impossible to enforce. They place a burden on the military that is impossible to achieve. The Arms Export Control Act already has broad guidelines on the use of weapons sold by the United States, and press reports indicate the State Department has opened an investigation into use of cluster bombs by Israel against Hezbollah to determine if those guidelines were violated. If it has, the United States may impose sanctions. This was done in 1982. The Department of State already has tools to enforce the humanitarian considerations and sanction wanton use of cluster munitions. The Senate should recall the use of cluster munitions is consistent with the convention on certain conventional weapons and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva and Hague Conventions. I recommend the Senate refuse to accept this amendment. I do support the Defense appropriations bill as drafted. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I reiterate my opposition to this amendment. The rules of engagement properly belong with the Department of Defense and the Commander in Chief. This amends and sets forth restrictions on the ability of our military to use these munitions to protect our people in the future. It also would put on our military and our executive branch the duty of trying to determine how weapons might be used in the future, should they sell these weapons to other countries. We have been informed that this amendment is opposed by the Department of Defense. It is their determination that once the weapons have been transferred to a country under a sale that is permitted, it would not be possible to enforce this restriction. They point out the Arms Export Control Act already has broad guidelines on the use of weapons sold by the United States. And if that act is violated, the United States may impose sanctions and deny sale or transfer of weapons in the future, and has, as it did in 1982, sanctioned a country for misusing such weapons, not these in particular but the weapons that had been sold. The Senator from California said if anyone wants to stand up and talk about using these munitions, they ought to defend them. Some of the instances which the Senator from California mentioned were years ago when the areas were not occupied by civilians at all. And later the civilians moved into the areas, areas that had not been cleared properly by the country involved. I think that is a dangerous situation. Obviously, it is a difficult situation. But I would urge her to go back to the countries she mentioned and reconsider the reason for the use of these weapons in the past--in Korea, in Vietnam. I do not think we used them in Spain. But they were used in Spain after having been sold to Spain. The concepts here are impossible for our commanders to protect our forces with the prohibitions that are involved. It is impossible for us to enforce. We have a population of approximately 300 million people. We are involved in situations throughout the world and have been. Just remember the ``Marines' Hymn: From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.'' We have been doing this for years, protecting our system abroad and protecting freedom abroad. It is not the province of the Senate to enact rules of engagement. We authorize people to do it, and we review them--if you want to have a hearing on it and review the rules of engagement, I will be pleased to participate in such a hearing--but we do not write them. And we should not attempt to restrict them. I think this would place a dangerous restriction on the options available to our commanders, as I have said. If the issue is a relatively high rate of existing inventory, as the Senator indicates, then the solution is to replace these munitions with improved items, many of which are not possible to manufacture now because of existing restrictions on such manufacturing. I do not believe it can be shown we have used these weapons indiscriminately in civilian areas. I believe civilians have moved into areas where they have been used in defense of our country and defense of our people. So under the circumstances, I oppose this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, it is my understanding this is the time set for the vote on Senator Feinstein's amendment. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I thought we had an agreement to stand in recess at 12:30.

Mr. STEVENS. Was there an order for the recess at 12:30?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? I thought the amendment had been offered.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have no objection to offering the amendment and making comments about its introduction. The Senator wants 10 minutes?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I still have the floor. I am happy to yield. I want to have the consent entered into. If the Senator from Illinois is willing to enter into the agreement, we can go back and forth across the aisle. I am happy to agree to that unanimous consent with that understanding.

Mr. STEVENS. Another speaker on our side is coming. I wish to not make a statement in that queue, so to speak. I just want to speak as a manager of the bill. I was under the impression we would be able to get through this discussion prior to the submission of this resolution and be able to go ahead with the votes we have. We have at least three votes left tonight, and we have assurance that we are going to pass this bill tomorrow, and there are still quite a few other amendments out there. So I would like to know--can I inquire, may we get a time agreement from the other side of when this bill will pass tomorrow? I would like to know what is going to happen to this bill now? We had the understanding--I agreed we could not finish it on Wednesday, as we initially agreed--that is today--and that we would finish it tomorrow. But we had not anticipated this prolonged discussion about a resolution that hasn't even been introduced yet. Is the distinguished deputy leader willing to enter into some discussion about this?

Mr. STEVENS. I would suggest then--is the Senator from Delaware going to speak next?

Mr. STEVENS. Pardon me. It is my eyes. I am sorry. Let's just skip this space and we will have a speaker come and follow him when he is finished.

Mr. STEVENS. No. We are alternating speakers on each side, and Senator Inhofe is coming.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, you may.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask my comments not interrupt the Senator's speech in the Record. Could the Senator yield to me? We have a time agreement following the disposition of this.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent following the disposition of the Reid amendment there be a period of 30 minutes equally divided in relation to the Kennedy amendment, No. 4885, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; provided further, following the vote, there will be 10 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment, No. 4895, with no second-degree in order prior to that vote.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. STEVENS. And how much time on Senator Kennedy's side?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against this resolution on the basis of precedent of the Senate of May 17, 2000. It is not appropriate to raise this amendment as a sense of the Senate on this bill.