Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a chart that shows the reset requirements of the Army and Marine Corps. Again, I say to the Senate, the Defense Department identified a $23.7 billion requirement for resetting the force, bringing it back up to operational capability. The amount included was $17.1 billion for the Army and $6.6 billion for the Marine Corps. The fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill which we have presented to the Senate included $10.6 billion that would directly address these needs. The remaining need was $13.3 billion. That was addressed in the amendment Senator Inouye and I presented last evening. I ask unanimous consent the chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are prepared now to offer the first managers' package. This includes Senate amendment 4758, as modified, for Senator Cochran, requiring a report on depleted uranium. It includes Senate amendment No. 4759, for Senator Menendez, regarding the New Jersey National Guard. It includes Senate amendment 4770, for Senator Lugar, regarding man overboard ID systems, and Senate amendment 4772, for Senator Carper, regarding contractor award fees. I send these amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent this managers' package be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if Senator Sessions is prepared to consider his amendment No. 4775, the managers are prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Senator Kennedy had the floor when I interrupted him. When he is finished, we will be happy to proceed with your amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl second-degree amendment be agreed to; further, that the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Sessions amendment, as amended, at 2 p.m. today, with no further second-degree amendments in order.

Mr. STEVENS. 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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 that the Senator from Texas would like to offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so that he might offer that amendment, keeping in mind we do have a vote set for 2 o'clock on the pending business.

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

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, at 2 p.m. there will be a vote on the Sessions amendment, as modified?

Mr. STEVENS. The yeas and nays have not been ordered?

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator permit us to have a managers' package first?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Inouye, I will present another managers' package. This contains amendment No. 4778, for Senator Smith, regarding airships; No. 4773, for Senator Dayton, regarding postdeployment support; No. 4766, for Senator Inouye, regarding a military history exhibit; No. 4760, as modified, for Senator Lott, regarding airdrop systems. Mr. President, I withdraw the package. Amendment No. 4802

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment remains the pending business?

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that request.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think I can say with assurance, I am probably the only Member of the Senate who has had a traumatic brain injury in connection with a jet crash in 1978. I have deep respect for the researchers who are involved in this area. But really, this is an amendment to give the University of Chicago's research team $2 million. The NIH has a substantial number of programs. I am told that through the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a whole portion of NIH has an extensive traumatic brain injury program that supports basic, translational, and clinical research through grants and contracts through over 100 research teams and investigators. In addition, we have $45 million in this bill that can be used. It is called the Peer Review Medical Research Program. This amount can come out of that $45 million if the Department of Defense needs it. It is up to them. To stay within our allocation, we had to notify Members who brought us requests for medical research that we had established this $45 million program, and from that the Defense Department can pick these suggestions that come from Members of the Senate, the Congress, too. The House will be involved in it obviously. This is not a neglected area. We spent over $1 billion in research grants for studies in this area, particularly funding long-term research in traumatic head injury, head and spine injury, and epilepsy. This amendment deals with epilepsy and its connection with brain injuries. In the past 3 years, an average of $430 million a year has been awarded for grants, contracts, and research by the National Institutes of Health clinics for epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and injuries to the head and spine. In the last 3 years alone we spent $1.29 billion in those specific efforts in this area. In this current fiscal year Congress encouraged and directed the National Institutes of Health to expand basic and advanced research in brain injury rehabilitation. As I said, they told us they have an extensive program there. This is where this money should be taken, in the final analysis. We have been using over three-quarters of a billion dollars for research not associated with military programs in the past. We have at least 20 amendments of the same kind that have also been suggested to us. The Senator from Pennsylvania has one. A whole series of people have come and said they want to have earmarks on the money we have in that fund. We have not done that because we believe the Department should take the money and spend it on research that is related to the demands of the military today. Further brain injury research through the Department of Defense will reduce the funds available for military readiness and will ignore the valuable contributions made by NIH and other nondefense research entities. I say to the Senator from Illinois, as we discussed in the committee, there is no question it is a good program. There is no question the University of Chicago should compete with other universities for the money that is available. For this to be earmarked here now means they no longer have to compete. As I said, NIH said there are currently over 100 separate contracts out there right now in addition to the $45 million we have in this bill. NIH has an enormous amount of money and the expertise of NIH and their clinical trials. The program they have for allocating money, I think, should not be obviated by an earmark here on the floor. If it happens, if the Senate wants to adopt this amendment, then I can tell them in all fairness we are going to have to bring forth the amendments of the other Senators. Several of them, as a matter of fact, are from Senators who are up for election. We told them no. So I say to the Senate, if you want to adopt this amendment of the Senator from Illinois to give the University of Illinois priority on this money, then that is the judgment of the Senate. I oppose it, as I did in committee. I do think we have to stop using Defense money for contracts with universities and basic research at the suggestion of a single Senator. It is not something that should be done. We have adequate money in this bill to cover this if the Department wants to do it. We have an overwhelming amount of money in the NIH area, if NIH wants to pursue having the University of Chicago do this epilepsy research, but this is not a military requirement. All the Senator said about injuries that are coming from current military involvement is correct. But they are being met. Not one member of the military society came to us and said we need more money for brain research--not one. This is not something to be handled with an amendment on the floor, to give one university priority over all others in connection with the research money that is available under this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? I will be pleased to have you point that out to me.

Mr. STEVENS. We have had $3 billion requested of our subcommittee for medical research. It is the largest growth area in this subcommittee's jurisdiction. More and more money for medical research was requested. We put $45 million into this program. I want to see that earmark.

Mr. STEVENS. Does this require unanimous consent?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, those 1,700 or however many you have, soldiers, aren't going to the University of Chicago. This is simply a provision to take $2 million of the defense money for the University of Chicago for epilepsy research. As I said, we had a total of $3 billion in requests from this subcommittee for medical research from other Senators. We turned them all down. The Senator from Illinois wouldn't take ``no.'' I understand his position. His position is he now wants to say other items we allowed him to earmark in other portions of the bill would be changed in order to have this go to the University of Chicago. Every Senator who asks for that money is going to come wanting to do the same thing. In other words, it will not make any difference. The money will be going to medical research instead of going to the needs of the military. I didn't say it was for readiness. I said we could not have any more money going out of the Defense bill to take care of medical research when medical research is basically a function of NIH and the subcommittee that deals with Labor, Health, and Human Services. It is not our business. I confess, I am the one who made the first mistake years ago. The Senator just reminded me. I am the one who suggested that we include some money for breast cancer research. It was languishing at the time. It was back in the 1980s. Since that time it has grown to $750 million that was involved, I think it was, in the last bill we had, dealing with medical research that had nothing to do with the Department of Defense. With the shortage of money we have now, we are now over the budget by about $78 billion in emergency money. Don't tell me I am objecting to brain research. As I said, I have been the subject of brain research. But there is plenty of money there for it. I notice the occupant of the chair suggests maybe I need a little bit more. But as a practical matter, we cannot do this just for one Senator, and I have been a whip and I understand what it means to have access to the floor and make a demand. But this is not right. I say to the Senate, if we are going to vote this $2 million, I am going to go back and tell each one of the other Senators they should come and offer their amendments, too. They are very well-meaning amendments. I have to tell you, we have back injury. We have problems with regard to a whole series of items. Among the amendments proposed were tissue engineering; another traumatic brain injury study for a long-term concept of a study of that; vaccine health care centers; eye refractive surgery; hypothermia; hemostatic agents; traumatic brain injury research at several other universities. One of the reasons we turned this one down is we could not in good faith take the one from the University of Chicago in Illinois and take down the others. We had neuromuscular research. I could go on and on. The things all added up to $3 billion. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is $2 million, but it leads into, Why should we take this amendment of the Senator from Illinois and turn down all these other amendments? We turned them down, not because they were not worthy. We didn't turn them down because they were not necessary. We turned them down because this is not the place to fund them. It is my position that the suggestion we are going to turn around and take it out of another provision in the bill that says why did we agree to that other provision, if it is not necessary? Why did we add it to the bill? As a matter of fact, I don't recall those items where we did, but we did handle several amendments for the Senator from Illinois. We treated them the same as we did every other Senators with regard to research for medical purposes. This is the only one out of all of them where we said, no, that has been presented to the Senate. I do not want to be accused of being against brain research or ignorant of the fact that there is an enormous number of brain injuries to our military people. As a matter of fact, I went out to Walter Reed to see one of our young people from Alaska who had a brain injury. But no one, again, has told me we need money in this bill for brain research beyond what is there already and beyond what is being made available by NIH. I do say again, this amendment should not be adopted.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that Senator Salazar's amendment No. 4776 be placed before the Senate.