We are hopeful to get off to a vigorous start this afternoon. In consultation with the leadership on both sides at a later time, we will confirm the likelihood of at least one, and possibly two, votes occurring sometime after 5 o'clock. We…
We are hopeful to get off to a vigorous start this afternoon. In consultation with the leadership on both sides at a later time, we will confirm the likelihood of at least one, and possibly two, votes occurring sometime after 5 o'clock. We will address that later.
At this time, the distinguished Senator from Colorado is going to lay down an amendment which could result in a second degree; then colleagues on the other side, and the distinguished Senator from Nevada, will lay down an amendment. We will have a flurry of activity for a little while.
I congratulate the distinguished majority leader for a very fine set of remarks regarding his trip. For those Senators who were not able to hear the remarks, I hope they will take the time to examine them in the Record. It is a very helpful perspective about the current situation in Iraq. I found it encouraging and upbeat.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, before we started addressing the bill, the Senator from Nevada and I discussed this matter. I think we can work on this one. But the other amendment--I do not recall your mentioning that you were going to bring up a Leahy amendment.
So there will be no further addressing of that amendment until Wednesday.
But you felt the necessity to it put it down now.
I understand. I discussed it with the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, the distinguished leader made that very clear to me. It is just the Leahy amendment which caught me somewhat unprepared. I would hope I would have a chance to look at it.
I would hope so.
I am not suggesting that anyone else has been impatient. It is just the first we have heard of it. I would hope to have, as a matter of comity, an amendment from this side and an amendment from that side, and we would go back and forth and not have too many up here, gatekeepers to hold, have to lay them all aside seriatim.
The distinguished leader and I have never had a problem we could not work out. If this is a problem, we will work it out
I understand. We are prepared to address that amendment. For the moment, I will take a look at the Leahy amendment and figure out if there is a problem, and then I will bring it to the Senator's attention.
I turn now to the Senator from Colorado, his second-degree amendment. Is he prepared to address that?
I fully understand that. So that we can then have the efficiency of time, perhaps the Senator from Connecticut could then move to introduce his.
Amendment No. 3312, As Modified
Mr. President, I thank our colleague. Let me say at the offset, he has been most cooperative in working on this amendment, and he recognizes the concerns the Department of Defense had and the staff for the majority had. We have determined that the Senator has met each and every one of those concerns with a modification to his original amendment. So I am prepared to indicate acceptance of that amendment, but I wish to engage the Senator from Connecticut in a short colloquy.
This is a most unusual type of situation, Mr. President. We had the call-up of a number of reservists, units put together rather hurriedly in some instances. As the Department of Defense--most specifically the Army--stated, some errors were made, but I do not believe, as I listened very carefully to the Senator's presentation, that the total number of errors is very large.
I do not find that it was a widespread situation. I say that only to indicate to the American public that following that unusual type of amendment, which is necessary and we are prepared to accept it, but I do not want to leave the impression with the American public that our commander, starting with the Commander in Chief, the President, sent men and women into harm's way where there was a widespread lacking of the necessary equipment to give them the protections needed.
The concept of the use of body armor has been evolving over the years. It is now proven to have been very successful in the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The orders the Army had placed somewhat fell short, as the Senator said, over a period of time last fall. Our committee, indeed the other means of financing--I think some of the money in the supplemental that the Congress has adopted went to provide the necessary funds, but it was not a widespread situation. I think the Senator would concur with me on that point; would he not?
I thank my colleague for his statement. I would like to address the Humvees because our committee had a special session on that issue. We should understand the Humvee was designed at the time to meet the array of weaponry and other types of threats to it.
The proliferation, primarily in the campaign in Iraq, of the use of buried munitions in the roadway activated by a series of electronic ways, or hand operated, this proposed a challenge because the explosion came up beneath the vehicle. I think in a timely way we started to address that by putting armor on certainly the Humvees and leaving others without armor. One might ask: Well, why is that? It is because once the armor is added, the maneuverability of the particular vehicle that is armored becomes quite limited and that limits its tactical role.
Consequently, the Army thought, and I agree with the Army on this, they needed inventories of both armored and unarmored Humvees. It got to be a misperception across the land that we were not providing adequate armor for our men and women when, in fact, we were, but we had to have the two different inventories and, depending on which vehicle was being used in an operation, problems could arise.
So I am prepared on this side to accept the amendment.
Certainly the Senator has a right to request it.
I was wondering if, as we go further into the afternoon, depending on the number of votes, we could vitiate the vote, although I recognize the Senator has a perfect right to ask for the vote.
That is a prudent way to proceed.
Now we will turn to this side of the aisle for an amendment and then come back to the other side.
Mr. President, I have looked this over and I am of the opinion that it can be eventually accepted. I am wondering if the colleagues would just allow the Chair to put in a quorum call for no more than 5 minutes, and then I will be right back to the floor to address this amendment.
I am very anxious to hear that. My requirement is to depart the floor to check on something and I will be right back.
Absolutely. I have no objection to that.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.
Mr. President, I now understand that the amendment will be accepted in due course, but I am anxious to hear the perspectives of the other cosponsor. I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.
If the Senator will yield, yes, the Senator has very carefully recrafted the amendment. That is the reason we will be able to accept it on this side.
Mr. President, this side is prepared to accept this amendment.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
I see my distinguished colleague from Connecticut and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I wonder if we could ask the Senator from Connecticut if we could temporarily lay this matter to one side while we finish processing the amendment by the Senator from Colorado? It would take but a few minutes.
Mr. President, at this point in time--
I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be laid aside.
I see the Senator from Colorado. I yield the floor.
Madam President, I have looked over this amendment very carefully. We will have to oppose it for a number of reasons. There may be some parts of it on which we could have a meeting of the minds. I would like to walk through the amendment with my good friend and ask him a few questions about this amendment.
Let's go to the title:
Prohibitions on the Use of Contractors for Certain
Department of Defense Activities.
(A) Prohibition on Use of Contractors in Interrogation of
Prisoners and Combat Operations.
That and combat operations poses a dilemma. For example, as the distinguished Senator knows, in his State are a number of our submarines. At any one time, those submarines have a board of contractors who are working on the equipment, training of sailors, taking an aircraft carrier. At any one time, you have maybe several hundred contractors aboard an aircraft carrier. On a moment's notice, either of those vessels could be given a tactical order to go into harm's way.
The way this amendment is drawn--so broadly--I think the Senator had better look at it again. I could not in
any way support an amendment that says contractors are prohibited from going into harm's way, because they are forward-deployed with our units; they are aboard our vessels. At any time, on a moment's notice, they could be put into a position of being in harm's way.
That is not the way it is crafted, as I read it. If the Senator wishes to proceed on this part of the amendment, the Senator would be well advised to try to make reference to the existing law in such a way as to make it clear.
The way it is drawn, it could be interpreted that way.
My second concern goes to the question of the interrogation of prisoners. Clearly, the Armed Services Committee has had hearings on the very difficult problems that we encountered in the prisons in Iraq, and perhaps in certain areas in Afghanistan; and we, by no means, have concluded--either the Congress or the Department of Defense--our examination of these problems. As the Senator well knows, the Army, in particular, and the Department of Defense have a number of ongoing investigations with regard to these prisoner problems. It relates, as my good friend from Connecticut stated, to the use of, in some instances, interrogators who were contractors.
This is the problem, as I see it. As we do our defense planning, we do our very best to have trained and ready cadres of individuals in combat areas and cadres of individuals for medical purposes and other purposes. If we were to put this type of prohibition into law, the Department of Defense--primarily the Department of the Army--would have to put into place a very significant number of individuals who would at all times be trained and ready to go in following combat operations to do the interrogations of prisoners.
That, it seems to me, puts a burden on the Department which is not a wise expenditure of funds and use of military personnel. I don't know what the estimate would be. Let's assume that in due course our situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are secured in such a way that our forces withdraw and we hopefully return to a period where there would be more equilibrium in the use of our Armed Forces in conducting missions around the world. As this is drawn, the Department of the Army would have to have a very significant cadre of individuals who are just waiting assignment at a future time, as a
consequence of some future military operation, to perform the interrogations. That has been an area that I think in the past has successfully been performed by contractors, providing there are rules and regulations laying down the specific requirements of the training of those contractors, the expertise. They just cannot pick up individuals off the street and put them into positions of responsibility. It is that general reason--and I will go on in a moment, but I will allow my colleague to reply--that I have great concern about the intention of this amendment. Those are two points I wish to make in terms of opposition to the amendment.
Madam President, will the Senator direct the Senate to that portion where he thinks there is flexibility.
Madam President, I could not find that language. I listened carefully to the Senator's presentation. I can understand the translator.
I am on page 2.
Madam President, if the Senator will withhold, I have two amendments here, and I suspect what I was working off of was the--I thought it was the one that had been modified. I am now told this is the original amendment and that you have modified it.
Once again, if the Senator will direct me.
On the question of the interrogation, I would like to have an opportunity to revisit that. My immediate concern is maybe 90 days is short and perhaps there is some flexibility there.
If I can return to the part B, that gives me very serious concern, and that is the combat missions that require routine engagement. For example, so much of the security for Ambassador Bremer today is all contracted. Much of the security, as I understand, which is given to other members of the Iraqi government, to the extent they avail themselves of what the coalition forces--that is nonmilitary, Ambassador Bremer's operation--make available to them, I do not know how we are going to meet those needs. If you follow this to the letter, you would have to have all soldiers doing that.
Madam President, the Senator's point is well taken. He has served in this body many years and during that period of time, we have engaged in a number of military operations. This one is unique.
I made a quick reference to the existing statutes, 113 U.S.C. and others. I am fearful the Senator has thrown out a fishnet here that catches too many when he says prohibit the use of contractors as relates to combat missions. I just do not know how we would operate aboard our ships. I do not know how we would operate in a number of theaters without the benefit of contractors, and, at certain times, they are in harm's way.
So at the moment we will have to have very vigorous opposition to this amendment as it is presently drawn. If the Senator from Connecticut wants to lay it aside and take a look at it, I will be happy to do so.
Madam President, I again draw my colleague to paragraph B, United States-led combat missions that require routine engagement in direct combat, that implies that the uniformed people are in direct combat and the presence in a supporting role of contractors can often be the case unexpectedly in connection with naval vessels which are a matter of a moment's notice.
I am not sure this is drawn in such a way as to continue what I deem essential practice with regard to naval ships. I would have to study it considerably to determine how it might impede ground operations.
Is it the intention of my colleague in due course to lay this aside?
Excuse me, Madam President, but on which subject?
Let us make it clear because the Senator is mixing (a) and (b).
Will the Senator yield?
So we can accommodate Senators, I would like to propose a unanimous consent request that the vote in relation to Dodd amendment No. 3312, which is the one covering equipment for the military forces, occur today at 5:30 p.m., provided that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
I suggest we go to the vote. I have indicated a willingness to support it, so I don't think----
Fine, 1 minute each side? Let's make it 2. I can't clear my throat in 1.
I repropound the unanimous consent request to the Presiding Officer.
Two minutes to each side, not equally divided.
I failed to hear what you said. Would you repeat that?
Regulations.
Mr. President, the amendment from our distinguished colleague from Oregon will require the attention of a number of colleagues. While there was no specific agenda for the amendments today, as a matter of comity we need some time.
For the moment, I am wondering if we could put in a quorum so we can assert the availability of one or more Members who might wish to address this. If not, there are other amendments which the Senator from Michigan and I are prepared to clear. Without any procedure by which it impedes the Senate addressing the Senator's amendment, I am sure the Senator would be willing to lay the amendment aside for the purpose of clearing amendments.
In no way do I indicate it would gum up the bill. I am just trying to address the procedure so colleagues on the other side are given the opportunity to come to the Senate. I am exploring that now. It is a very serious amendment, and it deserves careful consideration by the proponents as well as the opponents.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I have indicated my support. I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 minutes.
I had asked my colleague, in the course of our colloquy, and I think he agreed with me, that so much of this purchase of odd pieces of equipment is anecdotal. You actually had a case in which you had documentation. But a lot of the other instances are anecdotal. Given the callup of so many people in the Reserves and Guard and so forth, coming loyally to do their duty, I think there had been some misunderstanding. We agreed in the area of Humvees, the Army got a bit behind on some of the modifications necessary. The Army got somewhat behind on the body armor. But generally speaking, the U.S. military has been well supplied and well equipped, and no large numbers of them were sent into harm's way--in this particular situation, two of them in Afghanistan and Iraq--without the benefit of that equipment. We concur on that.
But I am glad to assist the Senator and indicate a willingness to support the amendment in those isolated areas where in good faith citizens of our community and the soldiers themselves bought bits and pieces of equipment.
Mr. President, it is my understanding the yeas and nays have been ordered. We are prepared to move forward with the vote.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers of the bill may proceed to do cleared amendments, and for that purpose I ask unanimous consent that all amendments be laid aside.
I thank the Presiding Officer. We will be on the way here momentarily.
Amendment No. 3344
Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3435
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McConnell and Senator Graham of South Carolina, I call up amendment No. 3435 which would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey land at the Naval Weapons Station in Charleston, S.C.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Michigan would look at the preamble. It states ``and the Army Guard.'' That would be the Army National Guard.
There is no objection, Mr. President.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3229
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I call up amendment No. 3229 that would authorize up to 50 permanent or career professors at each of three service academies to be excluded from consideration under existing statutory grade limitation for officers.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. President, I would like to commend the distinguished Senator from Arizona. He serves on the Naval Academy Board. He is very familiar with the academy structure, being a graduate himself of the Naval Academy. I strongly support him in the objective he has in his amendment.
Amendment No. 3257, As Modified
Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared on this side.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3224
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Collins and Senator Levin, I send an amendment No. 3224 to the desk which would provide Federal employees with bid protection rights and actions under the OMB Circular 876 process.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3432
Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Levin and others, I call up amendment No. 3432 which would amend the short title of the Defense authorization bill in honor of the late President Ronald W. Reagan.
I appreciate the Presiding Officer's action on that. I am very proud to have initiated this. I am very proud of the number of cosponsors on both sides, and Senator Levin's strong bipartisanship.
I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Lott, Cochran,
Snowe, and Collins I call up amendment No. 3221, which ensures the continuity of search and rescue capabilities of the Federal Government.
The amendment has been cleared and is agreeable.
I urge its adoption.
I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3376, As Modified
The amendment has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3167
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I call up amendment No. 3167, which requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on potential missile defense test ranges.
I urge its adoption.
I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3296
The amendment has been cleared.
I ask to be made a cosponsor as I am proud to have served in the Korean war in the Marines.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3316, As Modified
I urge its adoption.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3164, As Modified
On behalf of Senator Gregg, I call up amendment No. 3164 that expresses the sense of the Senate that the Internal Revenue Service should provide further guidance to clarify under the tax laws the rights and responsibility of employers who generously continue payments to employees who are mobilized Reserve or Guard members, and on behalf of Senator Gregg, I send a modification to the desk and ask it be agreed to.
I urge its adoption.
I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3295
Mr. President, I call up an amendment on behalf of the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, amendment No. 3295. My understanding is it has been cleared on both sides.
I move to reconsider the vote.
There is no objection on this side.
Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of our distinguished Democratic leader. The amendment is carefully thought through. It should be given to these men and families.
I would like to be added as a cosponsor.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not think I will, I just want to clarify the situation. I would have to object now to any further amendments being laid down tonight.
Right.
Fine. I hope we are not asking for any unanimous consent to lock anything in. You are simply notifying the Senate. I would like to be cooperative to see that sequence of events transpires. So at this time there will not be a laying down of an amendment.
So we have had a colloquy in which we have indicated this is the manner in which we hope to proceed. We will have the Kennedy amendment first. Once that is concluded--presumably there will be a rollcall vote--then we will proceed to the next amendment. It is a Republican that is in the queue. It is likely to be Mr. Crapo. At that time, I hope this matter will be resolved so there can be this sequence of events.
Mr. President, that choice is entirely on your side. If that is your wish, I think, in all likelihood, it will take place.
Yes.
At this point in time the Chair is perfectly in order to recognize the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. President, does the Senator from Illinois have the number of the amendment he is likely to propose in the event the sequence of events as outlined by the three Senators here, momentarily, evolves?
I say to the Senator, thank you.
Now, Mr. President, I think that concludes the matters with regard to this bill for tonight. I believe we can now proceed to wrap-up session.