Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Mr. David Bann, a detailee with Senator Gregg's office, during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Donnie Walker, a fellow serving in Senator Cochran's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of the consideration of fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy CDR Shawn Grenier, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 2863.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Andrew Schulman, a legislative fellow on Senator Domenici's staff, be given floor privileges for the duration of the debate on H.R. 2863.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want the Senate to know I welcome the attention of Senators to the problem of the avian virus. In 1997, because of information I discovered concerning what Senator Obama just mentioned--the intersection where wild birds come to Alaska from the Chinese mainland and other places in the world, including Russia--we began a series of funds in the Agriculture bill to study the process of this virus being transmitted. As Senator Obama has mentioned, so far it has always been bird to bird or animal to animal. There has been no transmutation to take it from human to human or bird to human. It is one of the dangerous problems of the world, no question about it. When I first heard of Senator Harkin's amendment, I said I might--I said I would cosponsor it. As I read it, it is not just about the virus. It is reversing the President's decision with regard to State and local public health agencies. It is starting an addition to the domestic vaccine infrastructure. All of that, I understand, was part of the briefing some Senators had yesterday and I am informed others will soon get. There is a BioShield group working in the administration, particularly in the agencies that are dealing with disease control and various other subjects. There will undoubtedly be a presentation by them to the Congress. There has not been such a presentation yet. The briefing the Senators got was for the information concerning what those people are doing who are working on that plan. This is an amendment that sort of short circuits the concept of dealing with it and asks for some of the money they ask for, but I am told the amendment will not distribute the money the way the BioShield proposal will distribute it. It is brought to us as an emergency measure. It may well be that the BioShield people bring us a bill that is partially emergency and partially funded. We do not know yet. But very clearly we do know there is no current human-to-human transmission that has been known of in the world. For us to say this is the greatest problem we have and is superior to some of the things we are doing, particularly in Iraq or in the war on terror, I think is a totally misplaced comparison, as far as I am concerned. I am just back from Iraq. I have seen some of the dangers over there and have talked to some of the people who have been injured over there. To compare the money we have in this bill to fund them with funding a proposal to deal with a virus, for something that has not yet become a threat to human beings, I believe is wrong. The BioShield proposal will be before the Congress, I am told, in this Congress. I want to announce now that I will ask the chairman of the Budget Committee to raise a point of order to this amendment. It is an emergency declaration. It is not the recommendations of the BioShield group who briefed the Senator last night. It is a premature attempt to bring it to the floor on the Defense bill where it does not belong. So I hope the Senate will agree with us and not make this an emergency appropriations at this time. Now, there is no question in my mind this could well develop into a political argument. I have been on this floor now since 1981 as one of the managers of this bill. I cannot remember a time when we had a political argument on a nongermane amendment to this bill. This is a bill to fund the people in uniform overseas. It is not the authorization bill where there are amendments from time to time offered which are nongermane. We have had a policy of no nongermane amendments on this bill. I intend to pursue that policy. This is not a germane amendment. This is an amendment that is premature in terms of avian flu. Again, I say no one has a greater interest in this avian flu than I do. When I go home on weekends and I go to a restaurant I love, I know I am sitting next to people who have just come back from Russia. We go to Russia daily from my State. We go to China daily from my State. We have pilots who fly planes throughout China, throughout Russia, living right there in the community in which I live. We know there is an avian flu potential over there. The birds that come from over there intersect with our birds. We know that. We have been studying that since 1997. Just yesterday, I talked to a doctor about avian flu vaccine and when we would be able to get it for Alaska. I was told we will get it in time. But now I come out here and I have an amendment to be offered when we take up the bill that makes it an emergency to appropriate almost $4 billion, and not on the basis of recommendations of the experts but on the basis of some Senators who were briefed yesterday, prematurely, at their request, of studies that are going on at the administration. Now, I am not one who takes lightly bringing subjects to this bill that do not pertain to protecting people in uniform. We had a similar situation once with regard to anthrax and other studies, and we acted very promptly because that did apply to people in uniform. But this is not something that pertains to the defense of the United States. It could very well be in the future a very vital issue to our Nation and to the world, but right now we ought to wait for the scientists to come and tell us what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, where it needs to be done, and who is going to do it. But this is throwing money at a wall. I will oppose that.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I will not consent to that. Under the rules, he is entitled to offer an amendment. I have asked unanimous consent.

Mr. STEVENS. Along with the Senator from Hawaii, I am pleased to present the Defense appropriations bill for 2006. This bill reflects the bipartisan approach that my cochairman, Senator Inouye, and I have always maintained regarding the Department of Defense. It is, once again, a pleasure to work with him on this bill and with other members of our subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee through this process. This bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee yesterday by a unanimous vote of 28 to 0. We have worked hard to make certain the bill reaches out and is understood, is appreciated, and supported by every member of our Appropriations Committee. As we will be debating this bill, there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform forward deployed and serving our country in over 120 countries and also throughout the United States. Their bravery and dedication to our country are extraordinary, and their sacrifices do not go unnoticed. Each year, the Department of Defense faces critical challenges. The Department must ensure that we can maintain high levels of readiness and we are able to respond to the call of duty wherever and whenever it is necessary. And it must ensure we are simultaneously invested in the resources which will enable us to meet the threats of tomorrow. This bill, which Senator Inouye and I will present I hope today, reflects a prudent balance among those challenges. It recommends $440.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense. This funding includes $50 billion for contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of the concurrent budget resolution on the budget for 2006. While this bill is a $7 billion reduction from that provided in the President's budget request for 2006, it still meets the Defense Subcommittee's allocation for both budget authority and outlays, and it is consistent with the objectives of this administration and the recommendations contained in the Senate national defense authorization bill for 2006 as it was reported. We have sought to recommend a balanced bill to the Senate. We believe this bill addresses key requirements for readiness, quality of life, and transformation of the force. This bill will honor our commitment to our Armed Forces. It helps ensure they will continue to have first-rate training, modernized equipment, and quality infrastructure. It also provides the funds needed to continue the global war on terrorism. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Inouye and I met with GEN John Abizaid, Commander of the U.S. Central Command, and GEN George Casey, the Commander of the multinational force in Iraq, to discuss the global war on terrorism and the current situation in Iraq. The central command, with its responsibility for the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, parts of south Asia, and central Asia, has the lead in fighting this war on terrorism. It is a war that some envision may last for several generations. I am not talking about the war in Iraq. I am talking about the overall war on terrorism. And I repeat, we are informed that is a war that many envision will last for generations. The terrorists we face view this war as a worldwide crusade for their ideology, a war that they are willing to win at all costs, at least try to win at all costs. In fact, they see that inflicting suffering on innocent civilians furthers their cause. In my view, the United States has to lead the world in fighting this terrorist movement. We must remain resilient. We must set the example. We must stay the course. Our meeting with Generals Abizaid and Casey was both insightful and disturbing, but I am convinced our country has entrusted this global war on terrorism to two very capable leaders. They understand the challenges we face and are committed to successfully prosecuting this war on terrorism. We also talked about the strategy in Iraq and agreed that building local Iraq military capacity is a central tenet to our success there. General Abizaid and General Casey informed us that Iraqi security forces are already in charge of large parts of Iraq. Fourteen of the country's 18 provinces are now in charge of their own force. Last year, before the Iraqi elections, we deployed an additional 12,000 troops to maintain stability throughout the countryside. This year, our senior commanders have only requested 2,000 troops for that same purpose. Let me repeat that. When they had an election last year, it was believed that 12,000 troops, our troops, in addition to the forces there, were needed to help maintain stability throughout the countryside. This year, senior commanders have only requested 2,000 troops for that. Although this is a small metric, it is tangible proof of forward progress and tangible proof that the Iraqis can, will, and are taking over substantial responsibility to meet the problems in their own country. Currently, our military leaders have assigned 8 to 10 military personnel to each and every Iraqi unit as advisers. They are helping Iraqi units leverage their strength and shore up their weaknesses. There are those who say we should accelerate this process, training more Iraqi forces faster so we can bring U.S. troops home sooner. this sounds like a straightforward solution, but the situation is not so simple or clear-cut. Earlier this month, along with Senators Warner and Kerry, I traveled to Iraq, and I repeatedly asked two questions: Can we speed up the training and equipping of Iraqi forces? And even more fundamentally, I asked of those there, both Iraqis and Americans, what do they think about our mission in Iraq. On the first question, the unanimous feedback from U.S. civilian and military officials was that we cannot be rushed in the process of training Iraqis. It must be done in a careful and measured way. The U.S. Government is not only helping to build Iraqi forces, we are building capacity both within the Iraqi ministries and the security forces within the Government itself. The Iraqi Government must assume responsibility for these forces, which means after the United States equips and trains these people, the Iraqis must pay their way and sustain them. This may lead to a drawdown of U.S. forces at an appropriate time in the future, but a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces would be disastrous for the Iraqi people and for the world. We must continue to demonstrate our commitment that we will stay in Iraq until our mission is complete and remain engaged in a mission so that we are certain that the Iraqis will complete that and be able to sustain their new Government. The second question I asked was: What do you think of our mission in Iraq? The response I received was unanimous. U.S. civilians, our men and women in uniform, told me they believe we are doing what is important, that we should stay the course and get the job done, do our job. I was impressed with the fact that so many young military people, when I asked them how long they had been there, told me they had been there two and three times, and they had asked to come back so they were sure they had a part in finishing the job we undertook in Iraq. Senator Inouye and I are part of a different generation. We are what is left of the World War II generation in the Senate. Our generation had no doubt about our duty. I believe the young men and women of today's Armed Forces share our commitment to preserve and protect freedom. Our visit with them was inspiring, and many times it left tears in my eyes. These young men and women make me proud to be an American. Every one of them volunteered to enter the armed services. There are no draftees in Iraq. I promised them that I am going to be back again to make certain they have the materials and the support they need. On this same trip, we traveled throughout the region to Kuwait, Turkey, and other countries where we visited with senior NATO officials. They, too, talked about the broad problem of the world, the threat of international terrorism. These military leaders from other countries, as well as ours, and NATO highlighted the need for the United States to take the lead on the global war on terrorism and to continue to assist our friends and allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and Europe, to make sure this crusade does not take root, that it does not gather steam. The bill we will place before the Senate will enable us to maintain our commitment and our support of these troops. I am proud again to thank my cochairman, my friend for so many years, for his support and invaluable counsel on this bill. I thank Sid Ashworth, who has worked with me, and Charlie Houy, who has worked with Senator Inouye, and recognize them for their tremendous efforts on this bill. We have all worked together for a long time now, and I believe this is as good a bill as we have ever brought before the Senate, represented by the vote I mentioned. Every member of the full Appropriations Committee voted that we should be allowed to bring this bill to the floor. I hope that sometime today that will be possible. I hope my friend understands the circumstances under which we are making statements. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that the classified annex that accompanies the 2006 Defense appropriations bill is available in S407 for all Members and those staffs who have appropriate clearance. There has been a request that we distribute this to Members' offices. That is prohibited. We must keep these documents in a classified area, and only those who are cleared may have access to them. This annex is available in S407. We will make arrangements for that room to stay open whatever time the Senators and their cleared staff wish to have access to it, but it is not possible for us to distribute. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there have been so many legislative fellows and interns requesting to have seats on the floor, I am not sure there will be room for any regular staff soon. So I am going to start refusing to agree to floor privileges unless we are sure that there is going to be space for those staff who are assigned to work with members of the committee on this bill. It is our hope we will be able to get to a vote on the Harkin amendment soon. I want to make a short statement, and that is, we have had some information from the Department of Defense. May we go back on the bill now? We are back on the bill automatically?

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the Harkin amendment the pending amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the Leahy amendment be set aside and the Harkin amendment be brought before the Senate.

Mr. STEVENS. We have had some conversations about this amendment. It is an amendment that raises the subject of the way the Government is going to approach the great problems associated with Asian flu. Under the circumstances, it has been my recommendation that we take this amendment to conference because then the subject will be in this bill. If the agencies involved can come together with an appropriate plan and request for money, we would then be able to do this in conference. Although I have had some question about this amendment, we have discussed this now with the author of the amendment. As I indicated to him, if it would pass, I would cosponsor, and I ask that my name be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. The pending amendment is the Leahy amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Is that the Leahy-Bond amendment?

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate is now the Leahy-Bond amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. I have a modification at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. STEVENS. There was one problem. The number of the Congress has been changed.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for consideration of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.