Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thought I had a unanimous consent to do a series of modifications in the managers' package. I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed now for 10 minutes, to take care of this managers' package?

Mr. STEVENS. With the understanding that the Senator has 2 minutes, I then have 10 minutes, and then the 6 minutes starts before the 7:30 vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have managers' package No. 3 before the Senate. This includes a Grassley amendment No. 2002 for the multipurpose utility vehicle; a Voinovich amendment No. 1986 for the Millennium Gun System, as modified; a Graham amendment No. 2028 for moldable armor; a Feingold amendment No. 1906 for civilian linguists, which contains a modification; an Akaka amendment No. 1899, transition assistance programs, which contains a modification; and a Cantwell amendment No. 2008 for infrared countermeasures improvement. I ask the Chair lay those amendments before the Senate for consideration en bloc.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for their consideration, please.

Mr. STEVENS. I thought the Senator had.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. What we have here is a situation where it is critical that we finish this bill this week. Let me tell you why. This bill is the supplemental appropriations bill for Defense for activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror. We are in a continuing resolution period. There is no money in the continuing resolution for that part. I hope the Senate will understand that this authorization bill has no place in this bill as a bill to become amended by the processes of the Senate in the future.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I also have before the Senate a managers' package No. 4. Has the Senator from Arizona seen this? This contains Senator Allen's amendment, No. 1989, for operational gasification with a modification; Senator Snowe's amendment, No. 1911, for New England manufacturing with a modification; Senator Kerry's amendment, No. 2027, for expeditionary fighting vehicle, with a modification; Senator Reed of Rhode Island, No. 2010, for shipboard automated reconstruction; Senator Cornyn, No. 1947, for activated factor VII, as modified; Senator Talent, No. 2030, on the C-17, as modified. I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be considered en bloc as presented to the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I failed to mention Senator Boxer's amendment on mental health. It is amendment numbered 2012. I include that and repeat my unanimous consent request for consideration.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a managers' package No. 5 before the Senate. Senator Kennedy's amendment, No. 1991, for basic research programs, as modified; Senator Salazar, colloquy on system controls; Senator Murray, No. 1964, for transition assistance programs, as modified; Senator Coburn, No. 1948, on placing directives in the bill; Senator Alexander, No. 2029, for heat pumps, as modified; Senator Warner, No. 1927, for electron source program, as modified. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc by the Senate, as modified.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for consideration of the amendments.

Mr. STEVENS. A vote against this position of the Senator from Virginia would not be overturning the Chair, would it?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 6 minutes equally divided before the Senate's consideration of the Warner amendment. Senator Warner seeks a Senate vote on whether his amendment is germane to the bill. But before that occurs, it is my understanding the leaders may want to use some of their leadership time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me begin by saying, very succinctly, a vote against this issue of germaneness is not a vote against defense. This is the Defense appropriations bill. It is meant to carry the money to the Department of Defense and all of those involved in defense. It is not meant to carry the authorization. That is what rule XVI is all about. What we are looking at now is the Defense authorization bill being brought to this bill in part. This is not the whole bill. This is just part A; B and C were left out. This is not going to finish debate on the authorization bill. It will only take up a part of it. There are a whole series of amendments that have been offered to the authorization bill, and, as a matter of fact, Senator Warner has offered now two packages of amendments that have been approved by himself and Senator Levin. But they have not been considered, as far as we are concerned, as amendments to the appropriations bill. But that is what they want. They want us to accept their portion of the bill plus their amendments to the bill without any consideration for anybody. This is 108 amendments en bloc, not agreed to by the managers of this bill but agreed to by the would-be managers of the Defense authorization bill. Offering the authorization bill to this bill without an agreement is an enormous precedent. I have been involved now 38 years, almost. It has never happened in my career, that a bill was brought to the appropriations bill and offered and then subject to amendment. Often, we have taken whole bills at times and taken them to conference. Even that has been objected to by some. But normally we have taken omnibus bills. The authorizers are trying to make this an omnibus bill. There are also other bills waiting in the wings that haven't been heard. What are we going to do with them if this process is to be followed? But again, I want to note that a vote to find that this is germane-- and I think I understand the question of what Senator Warner said about what the Parliamentarians have done. I make a parliamentary inquiry: Has the Parliamentarian ruled that this amendment is germane or just that it is subject to being found germane by the Senate?

Mr. STEVENS. Defense of germaneness is available to the Senator?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on a recent trip to Iraq, we saw the up- armoring taking place in country. They are doing it now in specially created circumstances there. But beyond that, we have funded the total capacity of the plants in the United States to produce up-armor. We have done everything we can. If we can find additional capacity, we have another supplemental coming in the spring, we will join the Senator in urging more money. But we have used every dollar we can for up-armoring in the plants and in facilities. You should see the Oshkosh plant over there. They are up-armoring trucks and all sorts of vehicles now in country. I urge the Senate to understand this amendment is duplicative. We already provided the maximum amount before us that we can possibly spend with the existing capacity of the system now, $240 million for humvees, $150 million for the Army tactical wheeled vehicle. In addition to that, we are sending strikers now. We visited strikers in the Mosul area. They are enormous systems, and they are already armored. They don't have to be up-armored. We need more strikers, more armored vehicles, but we are doing the best we can. And we are using every bit of capacity the system has. This amendment will be duplicative of that funding. I oppose the Senator's amendment despite my admiration for him and insistence that we do the maximum possible in armoring our vehicles.

Mr. STEVENS. I am compelled to speak in opposition to this amendment, although I wholeheartedly agree with what the Senator from Arizona has said. It was a marvelous statement made by a man who has every reason to say exactly what he said. I support what the majority leader has said, but there is a classified annex to the Army Field Manual that is not spelled out in this amendment, and there are people who are not in uniform who may not even be citizens of the United States who represent us in very strange and dangerous places, whose lives may be put in jeopardy by the process that is spelled out in part of this amendment. I speak for them. I honor all service men and women, and I really believe they should absolutely follow the lifestyle of the Senator from Arizona, as well as his statement tonight. But as the leader has said, there are some changes that have to be made if we are to be faithful to those people who live in the classified world and will be covered by the classified annex that, if one reads the amendment, is not covered here. I have to do my best to make sure that when we get to conference people understand that there is that problem. Therefore, I shall oppose the amendment and try to straighten it out in conference. I know it would pass. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. STEVENS. May I ask the Senator from Arizona, would he allow us to adopt this by voice vote?

Mr. STEVENS. I ask the Senate proceed to consider this by voice vote.

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

Mr. STEVENS. What is the pending business. Amendment No. 2033

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, because we had a time agreement that gave each side time before a vote, the point of order I made is subject to that time agreement, as I understand it. But now we will be faced with two votes. Does the Senator wish to have two votes on this amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the vote to table and that we proceed on the motion to waive the point of order.