Liberated Text -> Congressional Record -> Nine Senators of Shame

---

Amendments Nos. 1895, 1996, 2017

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I have sent modifications to the desk on amendments 1895 for Senator Bingaman, 1996 for Senator Mikulski, and 2017 for Senator Bennett. I didn't know the amendments had already been sent to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent these amendments, as submitted, be agreed upon and not the modifications I sent to the desk.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment (No. 1895) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of September 29, 2005.)

The amendment (No. 1996) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of October 4, 2005.)

The amendment (No. 2017) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of October 4, 2005.)

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 1970

Mr. Warner: I commend our distinguished colleague from Connecticut. I would say, knowing him through these many years and enjoying a warm and cordial friendship, his indignation was in full control and modest in comparison to other periods, but he is absolutely right. Were I in his position, I would be indignant about the fact that you have tried assiduously to urge the Department to follow the law which I was privileged to work with you in putting into effect last year. That law was Section 351 of the Defense bill last year. It set forth, as the Senator has in this bill, much the same relief for the men and women of the Armed Forces who, on their own initiative, have gone out and expended, and indeed their families have contributed, sums of money.

I am very much in favor of this. I hope the managers of the bill will see fit to accept it. But I do urge upon the managers and my colleague from Connecticut that consideration be given to a clause which was in the law last year. I will read it:

The protective safety or health equipment was purchased by the member during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on July 31, 2004.

That enables some period of time within which we have an understanding of what was involved in the expenditures. We, in the legislative body, call that a sunset provision. It is not found in the pending amendment.

Having had modest service myself, as a sailor and so forth, inconsequential though that be, I know a little bit about the life of a service person. The modern GI, this generation, I guess as great as any generation we have ever witnessed in the history of the country-- believe me, leave it to them and they can figure out a lot of things that presumably are better than provided by the military.

The Senator pretty well restricted himself to those essential things with which I agree. But if we leave this open, we enable these young men and women, proudly wearing the uniform today, to buy a whole lot of things. Next thing you know we are going to have an open door for a lot of things to be purchased.

A wrong, in my judgment, was done in the early procurement system of this equipment, failure to have it, failure to deliver it in a timely way to some of our troops, and you have made that clear today, as have other Senators on the floor. But I say, I do believe consideration should be given to some terminal date--maybe through 2006--in which to give the military the chance to make certain that everything that can protect the life is there, and there is no requirement for these young people to go out and purchase it on their own.

Mr. Dodd: If my colleague will yield.

Mr. Warner: Yes.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. Dodd: I thank my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for his support. You were tremendously helpful. At a time when the Pentagon was resistant, the chairman of the committee and others stood up and said we should do this--regrettably, we should be doing this.

We have done two things a little differently in this amendment. The chairman pointed it out. One, we removed the decision from the Pentagon to the field commander to make a decision on what is reimbursable or not, on the theory, as a squadron leader or platoon leader, field commander, they are in a better position to decide whether or not an item a soldier may purchase should be reimbursable, rather than someone at the Pentagon who would not have a firsthand knowledge of the kind of equipment.

Second, we limit the amount that can be collected. This is not an unlimited amount. Some of these items would be in excess of the limitations we put in the amendment. That is what we had last year.

Third, I am willing to consider some outlying date. The reason we limited it last year was because of the assurances we had been given that, in fact, the problem no longer existed. In fact, it still exists. I am prepared to accept an appropriate time, 2006 or something.

I hope we do not have to come back to this amendment, but the idea of having some outside date as a parameter, I am willing to accept that.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, if I could regain the floor?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. Warner: I urge the adoption of the amendment in hopes that the distinguished colleague from Connecticut, with two extraordinary veterans of military life, can sit down and work this out in a mutually satisfactory manner.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, we have been recognized, the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan, to conduct a colloquy?

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, we would like to dispose of this amendment if it is possible.

The Presiding Officer: Does the Senator from Virginia yield?

Mr. Warner: We yield for the parliamentary desire.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Mr. Stevens: I am constrained to say that even back in World War II we bought some of our own stuff and thought the Government should pay for it. No one did. The question is, How much should we be able to spend? We will work it out. I urge the Senator to allow us to adopt this now by voice vote so it will not be involved in the cloture process tomorrow.

The Presiding Officer: Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1970) was agreed to.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Dodd: I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

Amendment No. 1955

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

During the course of yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, Mr. Stevens, and myself participated in a parliamentary situation, whereby the Senator from Virginia sent an amendment to the desk. It was actually filed. I asked it be called up and it was.

At that time, there was an objection interposed by the Senator from Alaska, referring to the Congressional Record of today, at page S10967.

We went through the parliamentary situation, whereby I desired to have the amendment considered. The Senator from Alaska objected. Whereupon, I raised the question of germaneness to the amendment, and it was referred to the Parliamentarian.

I would like to read exactly what the Parliamentarian stated on this occasion. I stated: "the Parliamentarians have advised," and I stress that word "advised"--"the Parliamentarians have advised" that in the Parliamentarians' opinion "there is sufficient language in the House bill to permit Senator Warner to assert the defense of germaneness with respect to his amendment numbered 1955."

I ask, at this moment in time, a parliamentary inquiry. Has the Senator from Virginia correctly stated what was put forth to the Senate through the Chair? And, if so, what is the nature of the vote that is now before the Senate?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator has adequately stated the statement that was made with respect to that issue.

The Senate will vote whether or not the amendment is germane under the provisions of rule XVI.

Mr. Warner: Would that be as requested by the Senator from Alaska?

The Presiding Officer: That is correct.

Mr. Warner: I thank The Presiding Officer. I thank the Parliamentarian.

I took this action, frankly, on behalf of the men and women in the Armed Forces. Our Nation is engaged in war--a war on terror with two very major engagements, one in Afghanistan and the other of larger proportions in Iraq.

We have men and women in far-flung posts all over the world, men and women on the high seas, men and women back here training, and the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families look to the Congress of the United States to provide for their needs. That is clearly set forth as our responsibility in the Constitution.

The Committee on the Armed Services was established by this body for the purpose of examining the President's budget, examining a wide realm of other issues that come before us, and preparing each year a bill known as the authorization bill for a certain year--in this case it is 2006. Our committee did that and unanimously reported out favorably to the floor that bill. That bill was taken up by this body and debated for a series of days. Some 30 amendments by colleagues were accepted. They are part of the amendment that is now pending and is the subject of this vote this evening.

There came a time when it was the judgment of the majority leader and the Democratic leader that this bill would be taken down to give a higher priority to appropriations bills. That is a leadership decision. Thereafter, Senator Levin and I worked with our leadership in an effort to get our bill back at a specific place on the calendar so that it could be considered by the Senate. It had been our hope that that opportunity would have been given to us prior to the appropriations bill. All of us who have been privileged to work on these bills through the years--this is the 27th year in which I have been privileged to work. The same number of years of my colleague--recognize the value of the authorization bill being passed prior to the enactment of the appropriations bill.

Given that situation, realities are such that we were not able to get it up. We are now faced with the need to exercise every option under the rules to get our bill considered. Although it is an extraordinary procedure and it has only been done once in 1988, I think we at this juncture, given the indefinite time in which our bill could be taken up, and the short period in which, presumably, the Congress is going to remain in session, have to seize this opportunity at this time to have our bill considered in conjunction with the appropriations bill.

For that purpose, I filed the amendment, amended it to take out section B which relates to the Department of Energy, and section C which relates to MILCON, leaving section A which is those provisions which dovetail and support many provisions of this appropriations bill which is pending here today.

I have heard the distinguished managers of the appropriations bill time and time again in previous years, as in this year, explain the desirability of having the authorization bill acted upon prior to the appropriations bill.

I readily acknowledge to the managers of the appropriations bill the essential requirement to get passed as quickly as possible--hopefully, before this recess--the requirements for the ongoing financial needs of the Department of Defense. They are critical.

I have not put this on to that bill as a dilatory measure. And to expedite consideration of the authorization bill, I carefully selected a series of amendments, originally numbered 110 amendments, and filed them at the desk in two managers' amendments, the purpose of which was to say to our colleagues they are your amendments. Senator Levin and I have reconciled such differences as existed such that we both now agree--the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia--that they are ready for enactment on our bill through the vehicle traditionally used of a managers' amendment requiring just one single vote, if necessary. We can perhaps incorporate them into the underlying bill--but one vote on these packages.

Given the changes in circumstances of germaneness, it was necessary for the Senator from Virginia to prepare a third amendment, which I will now file with the clerk. It is permissible under the unanimous consent, and I send to the desk about 100 amendments, which, in the judgment of myself and others, are germane to the bill. Therefore, I send that to the desk.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not sure that is in order. I would like to reserve the right to object to this when the Senator is finished.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, at this point in time, parliamentary inquiry: Does not the standing unanimous consent allow a Senator to file an amendment in the second degree?

The Presiding Officer: The amendments in the second degree may be filed. They are not subject to----

Mr. Stevens: Parliamentary inquiry: I thought we had an understanding that there would be no amendments filed after a specific time. This is a second-degree amendment. We did not permit second-degree amendments at that time.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I have to say in fairness that I have checked with the Parliamentarian each step of my procedure yesterday and today. I have checked, and it was the interpretation given to me, as frequently given to Members of this body by the Parliamentarians, that the unanimous consent did not prohibit, as the Chair just announced, the filing of second-degree amendments.

Mr. Stevens: That was not my understanding.

The Presiding Officer: The Chair advises that the transcript will be reviewed, and the Chair also advises that he is not aware of a prohibition of filing second-degree amendments at this time.

Mr. Warner: Could the Chair repeat that a little louder, please?

The Presiding Officer: The Chair advises the Senator from Virginia that the transcript will be reviewed, and the Chair, as of this moment, prior to reviewing that, is unaware of the prohibition on second-degree amendments.

Mr. Warner: I thank The Presiding Officer:

The Presiding Officer: Against the filing of second-degree amendments.

Mr. Warner: Yes. That is precisely what I asked the Presiding Officer to accept, and I think your ruling is consistent with the request of the Senator from Virginia.

We can proceed.

Mr. Levin: Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. Warner: Yes.

Mr. Levin: In terms of the content of the package----

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan is recognized.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I yield for a question.

Mr. Levin: Without losing his right to the floor, I want to see if I can clarify what I understand to be in the package which was sent to the desk. My understanding is on the underlying amendment which the Senator filed and which I cosponsored that the sections of our Defense authorization bill relating to energy and to military construction have been removed.

Mr. Warner: That is correct.

Mr. Levin: And that the purpose of this package is to remove any amendments relating to those two subjects from the managers' package.

Mr. Warner: The Senator is correct. I would add that it was for the purpose, at a subsequent time if the Senate enables this amendment of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan jointly put up, which is our annual authorization bill, that we would then ask this amendment be brought up of 101 amendments by our colleagues and be attached to our authorization bill by having one vote, if necessary, on one amendment, which encompasses by management procedure 100 amendments by our colleagues.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia is still recognized.

Mr. Warner: I yield for a question.

Mr. Stevens: There is still a unanimous consent request before the Senate.

Mr. Warner: No. I have not made one, I say to The Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer: There is a unanimous consent request before the Senate. The Senator from Alaska is reserving the right to object, and that unanimous consent is asked for. Is there objection to the unanimous consent by the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. Stevens: I still reserve the right to object because I don't understand what the Senator is doing. The Senator filed a portion of the Defense authorization bill as an amendment. He then filed a separate package of amendments--some 80 amendments--to that amendment. Now he has filed another set of amendments--as amendments to what?

In any event, we thought we had an understanding that there would be no second-degree amendments filed under this procedure.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, if I may try----

Mr. Stevens: I would prefer the Chair rule.

Mr. Warner: I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska that the Chair has ruled that the----

Mr. Stevens: Then I object. I just object.

Mr. Warner: If I could clarify what I am trying to do----

Mr. Stevens: Does the Chair understand that I object to the unanimous consent request?

The Presiding Officer: The Chair's understanding is that the Senator from Virginia has the right to file amendments for printing and that they be called up.

Mr. Warner: The Chair is correct.

The Presiding Officer: He is not proposing those amendments at this time. Therefore, it does not require unanimous consent to have that done.

Mr. Stevens: What the procedure is doing is making sure that an amendment is offered by every Senator in the place. The two Senators who are not managers of the present bill are offering their package as managers of their bill in order to get support of the Senate to attach this amendment in the first place. It is a procedure I have not seen in my 38 years here in the Senate, and I object to their procedure. But I may not be able to be heard on it. I believe this is a very odd procedure. Now the two Senators are saying they are the managers of the bill and they are going to accept 108 amendments to our bill. We haven't even read them. We don't know what they are. We don't know how many more amendments will likely come to these amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Levin: Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an inquiry without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. Warner: Yes. I yield for a question.

Mr. Levin: I wonder if I could inquire----

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia has a perfect right to submit amendments to be printed. They have not been called up. Therefore, they are not in order at this time to be offered, but they may be submitted for printing.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, that is the request of the Senator from Virginia. I thank The Presiding Officer.

Mr. Levin: If the Senator will yield for a question without losing his right to the floor, my understanding of the amendments which have just been printed is those are amendments to the Senator's amendment, not to the bill.

Mr. Warner: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Levin: Is my understanding correct that the amendment which was just sent to the desk to be printed are amendments to Senator Warner's amendment, not amendments to the bill itself?

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, that is correct. In the event the Senate concurs in the position of both of us with regard to the forthcoming vote and the Senate agrees as to germaneness, it is my intention to call up my amendment, which is the 2006 armed services bill, and at that time to put on it a managers' amendment--jointly, the two of us-- which is the third pending amendment at the desk. We will discard the other two amendments because this third amendment has been carefully drawn to have those amendments, as the Senator from Michigan said, those amendments relative to part A, which constitutes the amendment at the desk at this time. It will be the subject of a vote, and not parts B and C.

Mr. Stevens: Parliamentary inquiry: Are not these amendments that the Senator struck from the amendment as he offered it--there is a section B and C now of the authorization bill, which was struck from the amendment? That was the understanding. They would not be offered.

The Presiding Officer: The Chair has no knowledge of the substance of the amendments.

Mr. Warner: Fine.

This third amendment I have filed is simply a consolidation drawing from the first amendment of 80-some amendments, and the second, I think, was 18 to 20. Only those amendments in this third filing are ones relative to part A. All amendments relative in the earlier packages--the first and the second I filed--basically were part A, but there were some relevant to parts B and C, so I removed those. Because if there is a challenge at the time I bring it up--assuming the Senate in its vote sustains the judgment of the Senator from Virginia and others that there is germaneness in our underlying amendment--then I seek to amend that with this third package which constitutes only amendments related to part A, such as if there is another challenge on germaneness I will not be burdened down by sections B and C.

In no way does this third filing in any way try to restore parts B or C. To the contrary, it takes out all amendments which are related to B and C, so hopefully if I have a further challenge on germaneness, it can be sustained, that they are germane.

Mr. Levin: Will the Senator yield?

Mr. Warner: Yes.

Mr. Levin: To try to clarify this, what the Senator from Virginia calls part 3 is a skinned-down version of 1 and 2, eliminating from 1 and 2 those provisions which might violate the understanding which existed that there would not be any provisions in this package that related to the energy piece and to the MILCON piece. The effort being made by the Senator from Virginia, as I understand it, is not to add something into this part in violation of an understanding, but is to make sure that parts 1 and 2--that this modification complies with the understanding that the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Virginia had; is that correct?

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, the statement is correct.

I would not use the word "understanding."

Mr. Levin: I apologize for that statement.

Mr. Warner: The Senator is exercising his rights in a very courteous way throughout.

Mr. Levin: But in terms of the representation of what was in the package, it did not contain in packages 1 and 2 anything relative to the Energy and MILCON bills. The effort of this printed package is to make sure the proposed amendments to your amendment comply with your representation.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, that is correct. The third filing consists of amendments only relative to part A in the hopes--if we have another challenge at the time we try to amend it. So now the Senate is faced with a tough call on this vote. I fully appreciate for my colleagues the difficulty of trying to evaluate how Members should vote.

In all fairness, this Nation is at war. The men and women of the Armed Forces are watching ever so carefully what the Congress is doing. I am fearful if we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity to put our bill on--which has been done once before--and hopefully add those amendments which are very important to many Senators, that this could be misconstrued not only at home, not only abroad by the men and women of the Armed Forces, but indeed there could be some puzzlement throughout the world as to where is the Congress in supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces.

This is a critical time. We must do it. I say to my good friend, it is not an effort in any way to undermine the Senator's efforts to get this appropriations bill through. By the incorporation of these 100 amendments, together with the 30-some amendments which have already been adopted by the Senate the previous time we had this bill on the floor, there will not be forthcoming a massive number of amendments which in the end could result in a further drawing out of the time needed to have this body exercise its judgment on the appropriations bill.

I plead with my colleagues to have an understanding of the imperative nature to act upon this bill promptly. It underlies much of what the Senator is trying to do in the appropriations bill. It is needed authorization language.

I see my colleague who has joined me in this, if the Senator wishes to go ahead. Does the Senator have a question?

Mr. Levin: I thought the unanimous consent request would be a colloquy.

Mr. Warner: That is what we have, a colloquy.

Mr. Stevens: How long will the colloquy go on? It has been going on 30 minutes--20 minutes, anyway.

The Presiding Officer: No time has been offered.

Mr. Levin: I assure the Senator from Alaska I will be brief. I simply join in the plea.

The Presiding Officer: Does the Senator from Virginia yield the floor?

Mr. Warner: Yes.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan is recognized.

Mr. Levin: I join the Senator from Virginia in making a plea to our appropriators here, the managers on the bill, to understand the situation in which we find ourselves. That is, we had a bill in the Senate which the Republican leader decided for reasons which were very clear at the time that the bill would be pulled down. It was left in limbo. And the request is whether we will now have an opportunity to vote on a bill which does so much for the men and women in the military. We cannot think of any other way we can bring up the authorization except by offering it as an amendment to the appropriations bill, which is pending.

It has met the threshold of germaneness, we are assured. The Senate will decide whether it is germane. But the Parliamentarian has advised the Senator from Virginia that it meets the threshold.

So now with the provisions in this bill--the pay provisions, the special pay provisions, the bonuses, the death gratuity enhancement, the increased life insurance, the health care provisions, the TRICARE provisions--we could go on and on--there are critically important provisions in this bill to the men and women in the military.

We have men and women in the military with their lives at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan and now we have an additional responsibility in the gulf. We have so much at stake. Usually appropriators and the authorizers have been able to work together. I hope that will continue now. Somehow or other I hope we will be able to figure out a way----

Mr. Stevens: Will the Senator yield?

Mr. Levin: If I can finish the sentence.

I hope we can find a way consistent with the wonderful relationship which has existed between appropriators and authorizers in the defense area, that we can find a way to get this authorization bill before the Senate. We have tried to get it freestanding, without success. This is an opportunity to bring this bill to the Senate.

As the Senator from Virginia said, we have over 100 items which have been cleared. That is not done for any sinister reason. That is done for a very simple way to expedite this bill so that the appropriators are not confronted with 100 amendments. The appropriators should not be confronted with an authorization bill where there are 150 amendments pending.

The Senator from Virginia and this Senator have tried very hard to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle so we could help the appropriators, so we could represent to the appropriators that we would not be confronted with 100 or 150 amendments, but that a managers' package would be able to resolve most of those amendments. That has been done. It has been done in good faith.

I hope that somehow or other the managers of this bill can find a way to help us bring this bill to the floor. There will not be more than perhaps a dozen amendments that would be offered to this bill, we think, because we believe we can work out most of the other amendments. That is my plea to the appropriators and to our good friends, the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii.

Mr. Warner: I will be glad to yield for a question.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan maintains the floor.

Mr. Levin: I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. Warner: I thank my colleague.

We have worked these many years together and we have tried to work in the spirit of what is best, as our managers of the appropriations bill, for the men and women of the Armed Forces. I plead, give not just the managers a chance, but give the Senate, I say to our managers, the chance to show that they are not going to come up here with a whole lot of amendments to drag this appropriations bill down, trying to attach those amendments to our amendments.

We have worked hard for weeks to compile this list of 100 amendments. We do not know of any others out there--there are some, but not massive numbers--that are going to come in and literally capsize this appropriations bill. Give it a chance. After a day or so here, if the leadership finds factually that the Senate is taking steps, and is within their right to try and put second degrees on, and that is an impediment to finishing the bill by Friday, I am sure we can sit down with the two leaders and work out a solution.

I simply say, give us not just a chance but give the Senate as a body a chance to show responsibility to enact the annual authorization bill.