Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment take place at 6:15, with no second-degree amendments being allowed.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't recall a time I have had a dispute with Senator Sessions on defense policy but I do on this issue. In the first place, the Committee on Armed Services provided an authorization for the money but told us it cannot be spent until there is a study. I don't support this amendment because I do not agree with the urgency to commit to this solution and commit funds for it when we lack a full understanding of the requirement and a thorough review of the alternatives. What we needed and what the Defense appropriations bill before us now provides is a comprehensive analysis. This follows the path of the Committee on Armed Services, a review that considers the military factors as well as the political and international factors of what is needed--not money upfront. Our Defense appropriations bill contains language for such a review and report. The Senate Committee on Armed Services was concerned about this capability. They included the extensive report language, as well. Our Appropriations Subcommittee has gone one step further, and we have withheld funds for the fiscal year 2007. Given the concerns raised by some Senators, our committee does not agree we must fund this initiative now. Funding for defense is very tight, as the Senate knows. Given the serious concerns about prompt global strike and the limited fund for defense this year, the Committee on Appropriations--in particular, our subcommittee--has carefully decided to fund only those programs that have been fully explained and justified. There are three principal reasons why I am concerned about pursuing the conventional Trident missile, or CTM, solution. I have reservations about the international political opinion and the potential for misinterpretation of our actions. A country that picks up or identifies a CTM launch might legitimately worry whether the weapon carries a nuclear or conventional payload. This could be a provocative action, if taken. This issue is larger than the Defense Department. There are serious international implications that the State Department should be more involved before we go forward with CTM capability. Second, the demand for a prompt strike capability is not well supported by the timeliness of our intelligence or its decision-making processes. It takes time to validate intelligence information, and the decision to strike takes time. It should be carefully analyzed before making that decision. This capability would offer the opportunity for risky, even reckless strikes, rather than deliberate, clearly thought- out action. Congress needs to thoroughly understand the implications and uses of the concept of prompt global strike. My third concern with CTM is my preference to do more with our forward-deployed conventional strike assets which may be called back and under positive control under the combatant commanders until final commitment. Our committee recommended the Defense Department look again at how and where our conventional strike forces should be deployed to develop a more responsive means to meet the need for a faster strike capability. The facts are that Congress does not have sufficient information to make a decision on a conventional Trident missile today. This missile is not something that is needed in the near term. Therefore, I recommend the Senate not approve this amendment and support our Defense appropriations bill which calls for further study. Is there a time set for the vote?

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if we can get order, I can inform the Senators of what I know of the schedule. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has an amendment he wishes to discuss. It has been cleared on both sides. I understand he will take about 20 minutes. We have another managers' package, and I will continue to work on packages. After Senator Kyl has his amendment adopted by a voice vote, we will turn to the amendment to be offered by Senator Stabenow, which I understand will take some time. I tell the Senate, after those two, I know of no other Senator who has asked to call up an amendment. If there is no amendment to be offered and debated, I will move for third reading.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, do I have the floor? I thought I had the floor. I am pleased to hear the distinguished minority leader mention this fact. Let's be sure: Senator Inouye and I have managed this bill now, one or the other of us, since 1981. We have never been on this floor longer than 3 days for the Defense bill. All I said was I am going to move to third reading if no one is here to offer an amendment. I didn't block anybody's amendment. All it takes, if I do move to third reading, all it takes is someone to ask for the floor or offer an amendment. Let me tell the Senate this, though: We know what is happening. When we get back, we will have other business that will come ahead of this bill. We have to get this bill passed and to the President before the end of this fiscal year. When the House comes back, we can't get to conference if we don't finish it tonight or tomorrow until about the third week of September, and it takes time to confer on a bill such as this. It takes a lot of time, staff time. It is an enormous bill now because we have added considerable moneys to it that the House hasn't even considered. When we come back, this bill has to be to the President before September 20. What the Senator is suggesting, as I understand it, is that we will take a couple days after we finish whatever is carried over from this session, if cloture is voted tomorrow, and this bill goes back on the calendar; do you know that? It would take unanimous consent to call it back up. All I am saying is we manage this bill with the idea o protecting these people in uniform. Anyone can raise an amendment. I am prepared to stay all night tonight, all day tomorrow, all the next night. If you want to debate, debate. That is what we used to do in this society is be a debate society. It is not society. I take umbrage with the fact that the good Senator said I threatened him. I didn't threaten anybody. I said I was going to offer a motion or make a request to go to third reading if no one has an amendment to debate. I say that again. It is not a threat; it is a promise, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that action.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't want to be disrespectful to anybody, and I consider every person--at least I consider every person on this floor my friend. I am old enough to know that I have outlived most of my enemies. As a practical matter--I don't want to get a little maudlin about this, but these men and women overseas, they are not taking August off. They are not in a rush to get on an airplane. We could finish this bill. My notice of going to go to third reading if there were no amendments is normal. Filibusters started around this Senate when people didn't want to go to third reading so they offered amendment after amendment after amendment so the leader could not take us to third reading. We developed a procedure, a family thing here now, that now we do it like Marcus of Queensbury rules. I remember being on this floor overnight for two and three nights in a row, and so does my friend from Hawaii. I don't disagree with this procedure--it is a more humane procedure--but I do think we have a job to do, and the No. 1 job to do is to get this Defense bill to the President before the fiscal year starts. Now, I understand we can get a commitment that we will finish by Wednesday night. Wednesday night means we can't get the papers to the House until Thursday or Friday, and it will be the next week before we confer, and then we will confer at least a week with the House, and that would be reasonable because both the House and Senate have other things to do than just confer with each other. We are going to get back here with this bill sometime around I would say the 21st, and then guess what. Then we would probably go home--it is just before the election--and we probably wouldn't get around to this bill because first we have to wait for the House to get it to us, as a matter of fact, because it is an appropriations bill. So we are looking at getting this bill back sometime around the 26th or the 27th, if everything goes right--if everything goes right. I would prefer to have a time agreement for Wednesday night and that we would vote at a time certain, but I will take our friend's point of view and say: OK, we will commit as Senators that we will finish this vote on Wednesday night. I wish we could do a lot better. I think we are going to be criticized, every one of us, for deciding to go home rather than finish this bill. Now, I have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side during this year. You have not had that kind of rhetoric from me so far this year, but if people want to keep it going, we can debate whether we should get this thing done and if we can get it done. I can guarantee you the Senator from Hawaii and I could finish this bill tonight if we had cooperation. There is not one amendment I know of that will take all night--nothing in this bill requires something that would take all night. So again, I am not the leader. You two are leaders. You make up your minds. But I am going to be super critical of this Senate if this bill doesn't go to the President in time to have this bill become law by the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, from what I understand, if the Senator would defer for a moment, we are checking one item pertaining to that amendment. I have another managers' package, Mr. President. I will present it later. I thank the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. I think someone should explain the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am told it has been cleared by leadership on both sides, and under the circumstances I would ask for a voice vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Michigan would allow me to, I will present a managers' package including amendment No. 4767, for Senator Sessions, regarding body armor; amendment No. 4867, as modified, for Senator Byrd, regarding Camp Perry; amendment No. 4757, for Senator Santorum, regarding electromagnetic guns; and amendment No. 4868, for Senator Clinton, regarding families of the Guard and Reserve. I send these amendments to the desk, having been cleared on both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing me to go ahead.

Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to author along with the Senator a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the administration should proceed as rapidly as possible to use the funds which are in existence now and, if they are not sufficient, to submit a request for those funds. I am not against the funds, but I believe that bill is coming along. The Appropriations Committee is coming along. It has a substantial amount of money in it this year. I don't see the need to add it to this bill. If this amendment were agreed to, it would mean that we would have to confer with even another committee when we get back in September in order to satisfy the necessity to get a conference report to the President in time. I reluctantly raised this point of order.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bilateral assistance account has $4 billion in it. The Economic Support Fund has $12 billion in it. I am talking about in the fiscal year we are in right now. There is no shown need for additional moneys to assist the State Department. The State Department has an enormous amount of funds set aside for such cases. It has an international disaster and famine assistance account, the emergency refugees and migration assistance account. We have no reports at all that the administration and all of the people involved in all of these activities have run out of money. Even if they did, if they are close to that, the foreign assistance bill will be before us in September that deals with these various sums. The Stabenow amendment causes the bill to violate its 302(b) allocation by providing $200 million, if the emergency designation is not removed. This is a rule XVI problem. This is not authorized. There are specific accounts already authorized, as I have said. There is existing for this fiscal year alone $6 billion involved in the area which could provide assistance. I raise a point of order that this violates rule XVI.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think we have to have some time to notify people when the vote is going to take place. I ask the cloakrooms to tell us what time to have this amendment voted on. There have been 114 amendments filed on this bill so far. We have taken care of five of them in the managers' packages and several of them in the form of colloquies that have satisfied the issue raised by the amendments. Seven have been voted on or have been withdrawn because of a point of order under rule XVI. I believe we have about 20 active amendments still pending before us. I still say it is possible that we could finish tonight, if we wanted to. It is a leadership decision. I am not the leader. If the leaders make the decision that we will not finish tonight, that is fine for me. But for now, we are prepared to accept this amendment. I have no debate against it. I ask that the rollcall commence at any time the leader says it should be. I would say we ought to have at least 10 minutes of debate before we vote on it. I know some people are having dinner and will have to come back. I ask unanimous consent that the vote commence at 8 o'clock.

Mr. STEVENS. I agree to that, and I make that request.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. STEVENS. Any other pending amendments?

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Waste Management on Military Bases

Mr. STEVENS. Again, I agree with my colleague. I understand the Department of the Army has covered the costs of operating all these centers, even though some are located on Air Force and Navy installations. It is my hope that the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs for the Office of the Secretary of Defense can provide that plan and look at how to support and maintain the vaccine health care centers in a joint setting. It was the committee's understanding that these centers would be fully funded and kept intact pending the report from GAO.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. I share my colleagues' interest in ensuring that our active military and veterans receive the best health care possible. I am hapy to work with them as we move this legislation through conference.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree with the senior Senator from Alabama. Our warfighters need air refueling tankers to ensure that the United States can keep both our military and humanitarian commitments abroad. It is critical that our armed forces have the equipment to respond quickly and in force. However, the Defense Subcommittee's allocation was $9 billion less than the President's budget. Tough choices had to be made. The Tanker Replacement Program was deemed to have sufficient funds from previous years, given the schedule delays that will impact fiscal year 2007.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from New York is correct. This disease has been listed in the program by the Congress for priority consideration.