Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

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

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the amendment that the Senator from Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has offered is still the authorization bill from the Armed Services Committee, as modified. May I inquire of the Senator, is that correct?

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I should notify the Senator from Indiana that these are amendments offered to the Armed Services Committee amendment, and we do not intend to support any amendments to the amendment until we can determine if there is going to be a time agreement on the basic underlying amendment. The full Armed Services Committee bill contains some 80 amendments already and has some 240 other amendments pending. I object, and I hope the Senator will confer with us on procedures so we might be able to work this out. The amendment is subject to rule XVI. I do not believe we should take the time of the Senate to agree to the amendments on which we are going to raise a point of order under XVI unless there is a time agreement on the overall amendment offered by the Armed Services Committee. We will object to any amendments to this amendment, and we will further, at the appropriate time, raise this point of order under rule XVI to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Indiana would confer with us, I find that one of the amendments he has offered is not an amendment to the Armed Services Committee amendment but is, in fact, an amendment to the bill itself. We will be happy to discuss that with the Senator. I again urge him not to pursue this at this time. Amendment No. 1933

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I inform the Senator from Indiana that we would oppose this amendment in any event because the bill already contains an additional $390 million, $30 million more than is already proposed by this amendment, for armored tactical wheeled vehicles. This bill before us now has $240 million for the up-armored HMMWVs or the armored light tactical vehicles and has $150 million for the armored tactical wheeled vehicles. The Senator's amendment is duplicative of the amendment we have already accepted to the bill, and we cannot add that much more money to the Senator's amendment which is before us, No. 1933. I urge the Senator to take a look at the Record and withdraw the amendment because there we are adding too much to that one section and we could not accept this amendment. It would earmark funding for tactical wheeled vehicles if armory funds are not needed for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not think we should earmark critical force protection equipment funds. Some of this work is done in one place, some in another. I indicated that we already have added $30 million more than the Senator proposes to add to the bill. We agree with the Senator in terms of the need, and that is why we have already added money, as I mentioned before. I hope the Senator will look at what we have already done.

Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to do that. During the past recess the first part of September, along with Senator Warner and Senator Kerry, I went to Iraq. We saw the vehicles there being up-armored, and we saw, as a matter of fact, some of the trucks that are being up- armored. We have, as I have indicated, since that time increased the amount of money that is available. Further, we are asking the Army for a detailed list of equipment requirements that are needed. The Army submitted a $6 billion list of requirements, and the funding sought with this amendment was not included in the list. We have already reprogrammed more money which far exceeds the Army's validated requirements. We did that before the end of September. I believe this amendment is unnecessary. Further, it would be subject to a point of order, I am informed, under section 402 of the budget resolution that allows $350 billion for contingency operations spending for the year 2006. Title IX of this bill uses that entire $350 billion. Any funding in excess of that amount for the contingency operations would score and subsequently would add appropriations to title IX which would be subject to a point of order under section 302(f), far exceeding the committee's 302(b) allocation. I urge the Senator to again confer with us because we have allocated money twice in this area since the trip we took to Iraq. I think we have provided more money than is necessary, as a matter of fact.

Mr. STEVENS. What is the status of the amendments at this time?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a difficult situation. I have great respect for the Senator from Rhode Island. We know his background as a graduate of West Point and his role on the Armed Services Committee. Our subcommittee doesn't disagree with the intent of the Senator's amendment. It is our feeling that right now it would cause much disruption because of the way we have handled these funds since the beginning of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the war on terror. Senator Reed's amendment would move funding for additional Army and Marine Corps end strength from the emergency portion of this bill to the regular portion of the bill, and it would not have a corresponding offset. Over the years we have been involved, we have, for both the Army and the Marine Corps, requested temporary increases in their end strength to fight the war on terrorism, which to me includes both Afghanistan and Iraq. But we have done so because of the argument from the Department that these increases should be provided from supplemental emergency funding rather than regular appropriations because regular appropriations tend to invade the money that is necessary to maintain the regular forces and the total confirmation of the Department. If we force the DOD to pay these war-related bills out of regular appropriations, the net result, unless there are some changes, would be to punish the Army and Marine Corps because it would have to be offset from other moneys. Only moneys in the bill of this large amount and of this magnitude would be from the acquisition programs, and that right now would be very disruptive. We can't take the money from O&M because that is where the regular end strength is. I am sure that we can't offset on the one hand and add on the other. It would just balance out. So we feel this money should come from the reserve fund. That was the recommendation to us from the Armed Services Committee in the bill last year. Again, this year, the bill contains emergency funding for the global war on terrorism. Our current bill is consistent with the budget resolution for 2006, which Congress approved, and provides $50 billion in emergency spending to cover these costs involved in the wars we are carrying out today. The additional soldiers and marines that are needed to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan should be in our bill and are paid from those supplemental emergency funds. We have a bill that is very tightly put together, very carefully done. We realigned $3.9 billion to pay for war-related military end strength and associated operations and maintenance, and if we have to take that out of the bill itself, as I said, it is the acquisition programs that would be affected immediately. That would be a major reduction. We would have to take it from Navy shipbuilding accounts or from the Army's future combat system or the Air Force fighter aircraft or the space satellite programs. Just a few of those major programs, and it would take almost $4 billion from those programs in the bill. As much as we agree with the Senator, and we have provided the funds, the Senator from Rhode Island and I aren't disagreeing over the funds or over the end strength. It is really how to pay for them at this time. This is something we have argued since the beginning of these engagements that we have been involved in. I remind the Senate that I made those arguments in connection with President Clinton's move in Bosnia and Kosovo. But that is the way Presidents have done it. They want us to pay for these funds out on an emergency basis. And, in some instances, past administrations have borrowed money from the current fiscal year and forced us to have a supplemental later in the fiscal year. Under this President, we have had supplementals at the beginning of the fiscal year, and that is where we are today. We have $50 billion in this bill to pay for these costs. I urge the Senator not to pursue this amendment. We are not in disagreement over principle. We both support the end strength. It is a question of how to pay for it, and the bill now before us pays for that additional end strength out of the supplemental reserve account. I urge him to continue to support that basis. As I said, the Armed Services Committee ended up supporting it once again this year. We hope we will find a way to come to an end of that process and not have to use emergency moneys to pay for end strength. It is a temporary increase in end strength; it is not a permanent increase. Therefore, it should be paid for out of the contingency funds that are set aside on this bill on an emergency basis. I again want to say how much we appreciate the Senator's interest in the manpower situation--manpower requirements of the services. We look forward to working with him on that. I hope he will not pursue this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that bill offered to this appropriations bill is a massive authorization bill offered as an amendment and, as such, it amounts to legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for not to exceed 10 minutes each.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii and I understand full well the problems facing the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. We want to work with them to the maximum extent possible. However, as we have informed the chairman, the Senator from Virginia, we feel that bringing that bill here without a time agreement, to call it up without a time agreement, would mean that we would face some 100 to 200 amendments, as the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee have faced in the past. In my conversations with Department of Defense officials, particularly the uniformed members of that Department, it is clear that we must have this bill to the President and signed before the middle of November. The Appropriations Committee had a series of reprogramming of 2006 moneys, done just before September 30, to assure that liquidity was there to maintain our forces in the field. Under the continuing resolution, we have no such flexibility now. The flexibility that comes from having a full year's bill out in front of the Department is absolutely necessary at this time. We are at war. We are involved in a global war on terror. If anyone heard General Abizaid's briefing for us and the one that was done publicly, we have to realize that we are facing what looks like the beginning of a new crusade by militant terrorists of the Islamic world. We cannot afford to delay this bill. I say to my good friend--and it is not just a word of art here on the floor; we have been friends for many years--we cannot take on this burden unless we get a time agreement. The Senator's bill, as an amendment to our bill, is subject to a point of order. We will not raise that point of order because it should be before us. And the Senate should know it is possible to complete both of these bills by Friday, if we would work together. But we need to complete this bill by Friday in order that when we are not in session, due to the holidays of the following week, our staffs can pull together the conference report documents and be ready to go to conference when we come back on October 17 or 18 of this month. It will take some time to conference just the Appropriations subcommittee bill. I am certain it will take substantial time to conference the Armed Services bill in conference. What worries me is, if that Armed Services bill becomes part of our conference, then we have an extremely difficult time if the House and Senate Armed Services Committee cannot complete their conferences in the same period of time that we would complete the conference on the appropriations bill. But we are all in this together. We know that there are provisions in the appropriations bill that require authorization. A substantial part do not. A substantial part are under general authority of appropriations for people in the field, for the armed services and for the operation and maintenance items that are in the bill and also those that are involved with continuing authorizations for various types of acquisitions and equipment. We look forward to working with the Senator from Virginia. He does an excellent job as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We are delighted that he is pressing hard for his bill because it is necessary. For instance, the size of the pay raise, the size of the COLA, the size of various adjustments made between the various functions of the Department, all are necessary. The annual items in this bill require authorization. Those that are a continuing part of defense operations, we can and should fund, notwithstanding the Armed Services bill might not have passed by the time we get this bill to the President to sign. Above all, money for Afghanistan and Iraq is a supplemental attached to our bill. It is within our bill. It is $50 billion that is absolutely necessary to continue our operations there at a very critical time with the election coming up over there to approve their constitution and then, following that, the election of their officials. We have had to send additional people over there--not as many as we did for the first election over there, but there has been a flow of people over there. That money will come out of the $50 billion that is in this bill for operations for the future in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan and that portion of the war on terror. I do believe the Senator from Virginia understands our situation. Does the Senator from Hawaii wish to make any comments? I think we are in agreement on this position. We welcome the Senators' initiative and hope it works.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS. It is not for a question but for a statement.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii and I have opposed filing cloture on the Defense appropriations bill in the past. It has not been necessary. As a matter of fact, in the past years, this bill has taken from 3 to 5 hours on the floor because it is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that comes out of our subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations unanimously. Our staffs work tirelessly to make sure we cover every single possible objection or concern. But this year, it appears to me, because of the timeframe I have mentioned, I am constrained to consult with my friend from Hawaii to seek the filing of cloture on Wednesday because if we do not vote by Friday, we are going to be into November before we even get this bill off the floor. We just cannot do that now. I hope the Armed Services Committee members and all those who have amendments will keep in mind the timeframe. The way these holidays are coming at us, and because of the schedule, we must get this bill to the House for conference before the first of November. It is going to be very difficult to do unless we finish the bill by October 7. I want the Senate to know, despite a longstanding policy of opposing cloture on the Defense bill, the timeframe that is involved in the consideration of this bill now, because of many things that are not under the control of anybody--two vacancies on the Supreme Court and various other matters that we have taken up that have taken prolonged time on the floor--we are very late in considering this bill. I know the Senate understands the problem of funding when we have men and women who are overseas, particularly in a time of war. There is no way we can possibly consider taking off on Friday and not coming back until a week from the following Monday if this bill has not been passed. I urge the Senator to keep that in mind. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. It is to October 18. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. STEVENS. November 18? I apologize. That happens to be on my birthday.

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

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

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, pending the arrival of the Senator who wishes to offer an amendment, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business in order that the Senator from North Dakota can speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this will ensure, once our Defense bill is passed, that this glitch in the community services block grants will be eliminated. I hope everyone understands that the sooner we get this bill to the President, the better off this program will be. In the meanwhile, this is assurance that the Senate stands behind the total figure that is in the Senate bill as reported out from the Senate today. I ask for adoption of the amendment.

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