Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to agree with my colleague from Vermont on the importance of maintaining the defense investment in advanced lithography, including proximity x-ray lithography. In particular, the research and development that would be undertaken at this LAST Center should provide advanced electronics manufacturing capabilities, which are essential to our national defense. uh-60 air ambulance companies for the national guard

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

Mr. STEVENS. I appreciate the Senator coming to the floor to share his concerns on this issue with his colleagues.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I concur in adoption of this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sharon Dunbar be permitted privileges of the floor during consideration of this bill.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Washington has identified that immediate attention be paid to this activity. We support his position that it should be maintained at the current level, and urge adoption.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, unfortunately, this is one amendment that we have to disagree with the Senator from Arizona on in regard to his proposal. It would prohibit the obligation of any congressionally approved funds, by definition, funds approved by the President, too, unless those funds were in the President's original plan. The budget resolution that we have adopted in the Congress is $27.5 billion more than the President's plan. That is the 5-year plan. I stood here listening to the Senator from Arizona, and I was remembering battles that this Senator has been involved in. Three times other committees zeroed out the C-17, and the President did not request it. Our committee insisted on it. Our committee insisted on upgrading the Patriot missile when it had not been requested, was not in anyone's authorization bill. We believed it should have been upgraded. It had a significant role, I think, in the Persian Gulf war. On the V-22, the Osprey, it was never recommended by the President or by the Secretary of Defense. We had met with the Marines, and they gave us their concept of a new order of battle, really, if they could have this new system. And our subcommittee again battled. I remember the battles here on the floor with some of my former friends about our adding money to the bill that was not authorized or requested. Today the V-22 is the signal part of our defense effort. I think this will be one of the few items of new technology, really innovative technology, in the overall field of aviation. I predict that within 20 years, it will be a significant part of commuter airline transportation throughout the world. I do not disagree with the Senator from Arizona that we do at times agree to money that has not been requested that could be considered in a subsequent year. But I do not believe we should abandon the total flexibility that Congress has. Congress has the authority to initiate spending in areas where it feels it is necessary to meet the national defense requirements, our national security requirements. Our obligation is to provide for the common defense under the Constitution. I keep repeating that here on the floor. I must oppose the Senator's amendment because we would have no flexibility whatsoever. Under the current budget resolution, we have programmed even this year $266.362 billion for defense. The President asked for $255.1 billion for defense. Over the period of 5 years, as I said, we asked for $27.5 billion more than the President. Senator McCain's amendment would say, even if we provided it, the Secretary of Defense would uniquely have impoundment authority, the authority to prioritize spending. In our opinion, it is not the right thing to do. So at the appropriate time, I will make a motion to table the amendment. This language, as I understand it, would require that the Secretary of Defense, after Congress has passed an act and the President has signed it, that the Secretary of Defense must certify that the program meets valid military requirements. The Osprey stands out in my mind, Mr. President. No Secretary of Defense that I knew ever supported the Osprey, V-22. I do not wish to give the Secretary of Defense a veto power that I would not give to the President of the United States. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we amend the unanimous consent agreement to include that it not be subject to an amendment in the second degree.

Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to enter into that agreement. That means this amendment will be voted on at quarter after 2.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on the next amendment, I understand the Senator from Arizona would like a time agreement. Will he state that again, please?

Mr. STEVENS. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Michigan that our flexibility in this bill is hampered by the earmarking in the authorization bill. I am not sure that we will survive conference so long as the authorization bill insists on pinning down the limited amount of money. It will lead to demands from both the House and Senate appropriators to challenge that. I agree with the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. President, but we have to have it in both committees in order to succeed. I do urge acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment, it will require the President to submit to Congress the request of the Chiefs of the National Guard Bureau and respective Reserve components which was submitted to the Secretary of Defense that year, in order to assist the Secretary in preparing the defense program. I might say to the Senator from Arizona, there is not a similar provision with regard to the Marines or the Air Force or the Army or the Navy. They all submit requests, really, to the President through the Secretary of Defense. I do believe that the Senator from Arizona is right about his assertion that the Congress does respond to the requests of the National Guard Bureau and the Reserve components in a unique way. I do believe they are closer to the people and they are closer to the Members of Congress because, when we all go home we see our Reserve components, we see the members of our National Guard, and they tell us what they have asked of the National Guard Bureau. When we come back, we inquire what is in the budget. We find it is not there, so we seek it. He has a point there. But the same point might be valid as to the requests that the Chief of Naval Operations made to the Secretary, or to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force or the Army. I do not argue with the Senator about his proposition. I am prepared to take the amendment to conference and see what the will of the House will be in that regard. I think we will probably work out something that will require an annex to the report, to have all of the requests of the various Chiefs be provided to Congress. Let us explore that, if the Senator will, but I am happy to recommend we take it to the conference.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4444, as Modified (Purpose: To provide $14,000,000 for anti-terrorism activities of the Department of Defense)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we concur in this amendment.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now move to table the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, the pending amendment, and state, again, that the Senator from Hawaii and I have opposed this amendment at the request of the Department of Defense, the defense industrial base and on our own behalf based on our analysis of this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was very pleased to accommodate my colleague's request on RAID. I agree with my colleague from Vermont on the importance of providing adequate funding for the National Guard Governors' State Counterdrug Plans and will keep his request in mind when the House and Senate go to conference on the Defense Appropriations bill. Amendment No. 4591

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, nothing in this bill will prevent the Army from using funds in the operations and maintenance account. These funds are not earmarked because the committee frowns upon earmarking this account. However, I will bring this issue to my House colleagues during conference to gain their support for this initiative.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from North Carolina is correct. In the current fiscal environment, it is important that each service seek innovative, cost-saving ways to provide support for our men and women in uniform. The Army Airborne has experienced an increase in training requirements. While the T-10R reserve parachute modification work has been successful, the Army is required to repack the parachutes after the modifications are performed and, as a result, the repair and maintenance of personnel and cargo parachutes has fallen behind. Therefore, I agree that repair and maintenance work, as well as cargo parachute repacking, would be excellent candidates for contracting out.