Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, today, I offer this amendment for myself and currently 46 Members of the Senate. This amendment will change the status of the Chief of the National Guard. Our amendment promotes the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a 4-star general and will include that position as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now, the Joint Chiefs are the senior leadership within our military. This position for the Guard would rotate between the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. I know this will become controversial with the members of the Armed Services Committee and members of the committee here in the Senate. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent Senators Gregg, Roberts, Campbell, McConnell, Faircloth, Boxer, Murray, Craig, Baucus, Hutchison, Daschle, Dorgan, Sessions, Lautenberg, and any other Senator who wishes to become sponsor, be listed as original cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the basis of this amendment is our belief that members of the National Guard are an essential part of our national security team. They are active participants now in the full spectrum of operations from the very smallest contingencies to the major actions we have been involved in. Theater wars, such as the Persian Gulf, no major military operation can be successful today without the National Guard. There are now 474,673 men and women in the National Guard. They are approximately 20 percent of our total Armed Forces and they represent participants from all 50 States and the 4 territories. These guardsmen truly embody our forefather's vision of the American citizen soldier. Guardsmen in uniform come in contact with the members of their community on a daily basis. As part of their community they attend their church, they serve on the PTA, they are actively involved in community and regional and State activities, they have civilian jobs in their communities. But they are citizen soldiers and they report for duty immediately. As a matter of fact, in my State, we now have an Air National Guard refueling unit that serves as the refueling unit for the whole Pacific theater. It is a National Guard unit. It is now fulfilling the complete functions of its predecessor, which was an active duty unit. Many Americans form their impressions about our people in military, particularly those in uniform, from their contact with members of the Guard. As we continue to downsize the active forces, I believe it is critical we maintain this strong communities-based military presence in every community. That citizen soldier is our link to the future, as far as support of military activities in this country, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have served now for many years on the Defense Appropriations Committee. One of my great privileges was to serve with Senator John Stennis who, at that time, was chairman of the Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Appropriations Committee. That can't happen again under our changed rules in the Senate. But in those days, we talked very long and often about the National Guard and the way we might integrate the National Guard into the active forces so that they would get, during peacetime, the type of exposure they need to be very proficient and efficient members of our team when we are at war. We pioneered the concept of sending to Europe, to NATO, and to our forces in Europe, guardsmen who actively performed the roles of our military in that theater, even though they were National Guardsmen on temporary duty. That is a few years back now, but that proved to be very cost-effective, Mr. President. At a cost of about 25 percent, we can maintain a person who is able and ready to perform military duties as a guardsman, compared to the active duty force. I am not saying they can ever replace them; that is not the idea. But the purpose of our amendment is to assure that there is recognition now of the role, on a constant basis, of the citizen soldier in the formulation of military policy in this Nation. The National Guard is not consulted now on a regular basis on major force structure decisions, or on matters concerning resource allocation and priorities. During the Quadrennial Defense Review, it is my judgment that the National Guard was not fully considered, as far as the deliberations concerning defense strategy, force readiness, and the allocation of funding. There were important decisions made concerning the future of the Guard within the military structure, without the Guard having any participant there. I think the Guard represents such a significant portion of our forces that the rank now held by the highest member in the National Guard, a three-star general, should become a four-star general, and that person representing, at times, the Army National Guard, and at other names the Air National Guard, rotating, as I said, should have a seat at the table where the decisions are made that vitally affect the future of the participants in the National Guard. Now, these Joint Chiefs--and I have a high regard for them --are the senior military advisers to the President, and they are the decisionmaking body of military strategy, as far as our system is concerned. Within the Department of Defense, they speak for those in uniform. But the National Guard, who constitutes 20 percent of our total military and one-fifth of the people who could be called into any crisis to come forward and participate in the defense of our Nation, are not represented at that table. It is my strong view that they should be part of that Joint Chiefs of Staff. The National Guard Bureau has no access to the chain of command directly to that staff, or to the Secretary of Defense, or to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I believe our amendment would correct that situation. And if it is not corrected, it could impair our future readiness and the survival of the Guard itself. Now, I want to state very clearly, I know that Secretary Cohen, who is not only a great Secretary, but he is a personal friend, and General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are not particularly pleased with this suggestion. Their counsel, I am sure, will come to the Congress with regard to this. But I remember that at the time we suggested that the Guard start performing regular duty functions, the Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were opposed to that, too. Yet, when it came to the Persian Gulf, Mr. President, when we had to send our forces there to restrain the forces of Saddam Hussein, the call was answered by almost 75,000 National Guardsmen. Almost, as I understand it, about 25 percent of the thousands and thousands that were on active duty there were National Guardsmen. Now, it is high time, I believe, that the Guard forces who were called upon to serve our Nation have their interests fully considered on a day-to-day basis when the decisions are made that affect their future. That is what this amendment is all about. I believe this is an amendment that must become law. It will take some time to work it out. I am not saying this will happen overnight. But I do believe it is our role, as members of the Appropriations Committee, to raise this issue. A cost-effective military for this country in the 21st century requires the participation of the National Guard. We are constantly faced with decisions to reduce our force structure. The way to increase our force structure is to bring more citizen soldiers into the Department of Defense structure now. We will do that if they realize that we are going to emphasize their participation, we are going to emphasize their role, and we are going to do that by having a member of the Joint Chiefs be a representative of the National Guard of the United States. I consider this to be one of the major changes that must be made in the realignment of our forces and the command of our forces in this country. And I am hopeful that others will speak very forcefully on it. I might add, Mr. President, I see that the cochairmen of the National Guard Caucus are here. I am delighted that they support this proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Todd, of the staff of the current Presiding Officer, be granted access to the floor during consideration of this measure.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Massachusetts. I would like to finish our amendment. It is my understanding that the rule established by the late Senator Pastore prevents introduction or speaking of nongermane matters during this period of consideration of this bill. I would like to finish this amendment. It is going to be accepted, I might say to the Senator from Massachusetts. I would like to finish the business. Will the Senator permit us to finish at this time so I would not have to make that point of order?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I might have a few.

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, did the leader say we must bring forth the amendment tonight and file it or something? Did I misunderstand?

Mr. STEVENS. We don't have to file them tonight?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I join the majority leader in supporting the Dorgan amendment. I do so because, in our recent trips overseas, we have found a new military base, a U.S. military base in Kuwait; we have a new one at Prince Sultan in Saudi Arabia; we have been expanding a new one at Aviano, in Italy. The Hungarians believe we are going to continue to maintain their base once they join NATO. It will take no Base Closure Commission for the administration to start closing bases overseas. I would rather see them stop building new bases overseas. But, certainly we need a report like this to try and get some idea about what is going on. Last, I would say this, almost 40 percent of our military personnel today who are combat personnel are overseas. I do not believe we should have a Base Closure Commission to decide how many bases to close here at home until they return. It is not time to have a new base closure commission.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield a minute-and-a-half to me?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw that.

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

Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding there is 1 minute on each side before it is voted upon.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 444

Mr. STEVENS. What is the pending business, Mr. President? Amendment No. 428

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

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. President, I am authorized to yield back the remainder of the time on the other side and ask for adoption on the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 445

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum until the floor leader arrives.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I am committed to working with the chairman, and the administration regarding the levels of funding assumed in the bipartisan budget agreement that are within purview of the Appropriations Committee. It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education has been working with the Office of Management and Budget with regard to the proposals you have mentioned.