Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess in accordance with the previous order.

Mr. President, this is a difficult subject to discuss, and as the minority leader indicated, no one is more qualified to talk about this than the Senator from Arizona.

It is with some trepidation that I try to explain to him the position of the administration and with which I happen to agree. The problem is not the goal of the Senator from Arizona; the problem is the way it would be carried out under this amendment. This amendment would require that the field manual be changed. Currently the field manual has a general description of the techniques of interrogation, and it allows flexibility to determine what will be used in terms of interrogation techniques based upon the circumstances that exist. We know that terrorists train their people to deal with the techniques of our interrogation, so those techniques change under various circumstances.

One of the situations I would call to the attention of the Senator from Arizona is as we have visited with our people in the field, now we have a unique circumstance of having multinational and multiagency teams that are in the field. The question comes down to who has custody or effective control of a person. Particularly I remember one team we saw which had five different nationalities including the intelligence agencies and military agencies of those nations. If this becomes law, it is my opinion that those teams will be handled so that the United States does not have custody, does not have control, and the kind of treatment we seek will not be given to people who are made prisoners by multinational teams that are searching out terrorists throughout the world.

This is a different war now. I believe we are seeing the beginning of a crusade against freedom from the militant terrorist Islamic entities throughout the world. We see the suicide bombers. We see the people who are inflicting terrible damage from Indonesia, the Philippines, to all throughout the Central Command, and we have teams out trying to find these people.

Of course, one of their first jobs is to interrogate anyone they capture to try to see if we can find out where the rest of them are and how they are functioning. If this amendment passes, the United States will not have effective control of those people. It will be impossible to interrogate under the systems we have used in the past because we cannot list in a field manual all of the interrogation techniques that will be used. It takes thousands of pages anyway. But the techniques vary upon the circumstances and the physical location of the people involved.

I have some memory from World War II in China when I witnessed some of our people--I was just a pilot, but I was conveying some of these people from place to place who had been tortured, and I can tell you they were brutally treated by the Chinese when we were taking these people from place to place and they had prisoners. Some of them were not Chinese. They were prisoners obviously of Japan. We had freed some of them, and they were--I have memory that those who were freed were still the responsibility of the United States.

But as a practical matter, what do you do with regard to a law that says that all of the techniques must be listed in the field manual; regardless of nationality or physical location, if an individual is in the custody or physical control of the United States, they shall be subject to only the means of interrogation listed in the field manual.

I appreciate very much what the Senator is trying to do. I think most of us have gone down to Guantanamo to satisfy ourselves that what is happening down there is in accordance with our concepts. Those people are totally under the custody of the United States, and certainly from my point of view what we saw when we were down there, we were convinced they were receiving the kind of treatment and the interrogations were not such that they would be affected by this amendment.

It is the people in the field, not people really handling prisoner camps or handling interrogation of those persons who are seized by our forces and brought to a camp or brought to a place, a jail such as we all know has gone wrong in Iraq--but I am talking the people in the field now, multinational teams, and their job is to find out what these people who are captured know in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. It is a very touchy thing to deal with, I know, to really talk about it.

The administration has told us that they are complying with all the constitutional, statutory, treaty obligations that apply to U.S. interrogation practices. They are telling us that they know the Convention Against Torture requires the United States to ensure that torture is a crime whether committed anywhere by a U.S. national or to prevent any of the entities that are under the control of the United States from any acts of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. We totally agree with the efforts of the Senator from Arizona in that regard, and the President has directed the Armed Forces to treat any detainee humanely and comply with the appropriate and consistent military procedures that are consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

That is a given. But this amendment goes further. This amendment will cover those entities with multiple nationalities, multiple agencies, and because of the circumstances our people in the past have taken control of these, and some of the activities of the other nationalities involved would not be consistent with this amendment. I say what will happen in the future is we will just not take control of them. This will be a deterrent to our people from taking the leadership, and as they do, they will do everything they can to comply with the Geneva Conventions. It is those circumstances, the new type of entities we use to combat terrorism that worries the administration. So I can say--and I know the Senator from Arizona understands--it is the position of the administration that this amendment goes too far.

We will not make a point of order. There is no point of order that I know will apply to it anyway. But I do believe it is a matter that ought to be approached with caution. What does a multinational team do if they pick up a prisoner who they believe can give them information as to the location of terrorists who have committed severe acts of terrorism? The decision will be made, I am sure, that we not take custody. The custody will go to other nationalities involved in the team. We will have no control. I believe the amendment of the Senator from Arizona is going to carry, but I believe we

have to give serious consideration to the implications I have just mentioned, and I hope the Senate will keep that in mind.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this Senator doesn't agree with anything that has been said about the applicability of this provision to anyone in the military uniform. Most of the speakers have talked about men and women in the armed services. The amendment goes much further than that.

But first, the problem is it requires the field manual to list every type and means of interrogation. Thousands of pages will be required. People will be prosecuted in military courts if they don't know every single one of them, if they even cross the line by accident. This idea of listing all of the possible ways to interrogate a person is impossible. I say that should be changed. Maybe they should issue from time to time additional items to go in the field manual. But to require that no one can use a means of interrogation not listed in advance when we are involved in a war on terror and we are dealing with terrorists is wrong.

Beyond that, this deals with any person--not any military person. The Geneva Conventions were originally intended to deal with military prisoners. This is dealing with anyone who is intercepted now anywhere in the world who, regardless of nationality or physical location, is in custody or physical control of the United States because a person who is American happens to be there.

Again, I mention these teams I have met with, and I respect multinational teams. This, in effect, says that an American is responsible for anything done by any member of that team. That, to me, is wrong.

What is more, I think it is wrong to presume there is no place in this country or in the operation of this country where we should not have the ability to deal with terrorists on their own ground.

These are vicious people, suicidal people. I do not think they should be accorded the rank and treatment of men and women in uniform from other nations. That is what this amendment does. I shall oppose it. I may be all alone, but I shall oppose it because I think there is a place in our operations against individuals involved in the war on terrorism where we deal with them as they deal with us.

These are not military people. They may not even be American nationals who are working for us in an undercover way, but this says we are responsible for treating all these people according to the Geneva Conventions and according to processes listed in the U.S. Army Field Manual. That is wrong. That is all simply wrong, and I shall oppose the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am informed there are objections from Members of the Committee on Armed Services to this amendment. I urge them to come over and defend their position.

This Senator was prepared to accept the amendment. It may be subject to a point of order. I am not sure. I do believe there are detainee items in the House-passed bills that would be germane under the circumstances, but it is another example, I might say, of the problems we get into when items that pertain to legislation end up on appropriations bills.

We are not really prepared to debate the amendment. I urge Members of the Committee on Armed Services who wish to do so to debate this amendment.

My only question is--I know the Senator is an extremely good attorney--has the phrase ``unlawful enemy combatant'' been used in any other portion of our laws of the Geneva Conventions?

If the Senator will yield, has this matter been discussed in the Committee on Armed Services?

I say to the Senator, that is another question. We were prepared to accept the amendment because--I don't claim expertise in this area; it is not within our jurisdiction. It is legislation on an appropriations bill, but I don't intend to raise an objection to it.

Has this been discussed, on a bipartisan basis, in the committee?

Madam President, I believe the Senator's amendment has real merit. I find no objection to it. It has been conveyed to me by the administration. We still have a very small difference--it sounds like a big difference--on the McCain amendment. But we have no difference on this amendment. We are prepared to accept it, unless someone comes over here and finds a way to articulate an objection.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have a package we have approved as managers of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate amendments 1996, 1887, 1895, 2017, 1925, and 1889. It sounds as though I am reading birthdays.

When the Chair is ready, I will propound a unanimous consent request when those amendments are before us.

We do not want to offer them en bloc. We want to offer them one by one.

I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by Senator Mikulski for the Joint Aviation Technical Data Integration Program.

There is no objection.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I call up amendment No. 1887.

This is Senator Salazar's fallen hero compensation amendment, which we have agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I call up amendment No. 1895.

This is Senator Bingaman's amendment for field programmable gate array. I have a modification which I send to the desk.

I ask for approval of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I call up amendment No. 2017 and send a modification to the desk.

This is Senator Bennett's amendment for chemical biological defense. We have accepted it as modified.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1925.

Mr. President, this is Senator Isakson's amendment for funds for environmental management. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1889.

This is Senator Santorum's amendment for hypothermia life support. I send a modification to the desk.

I ask for consideration of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

It would be the intent of the managers of the bill to indicate to Senator Byrd that we would be pleased to accept that amendment when the time comes. We will leave up

to Senator Byrd when he wants to have the vote.

The Senator indicated he would be willing to have the amendment considered at this time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

This is similar to an amendment we have carried in the bill before. We appreciate the Senator's position. It is the position of the Senate. The President has decided otherwise, but we hope next year the regular Defense bill will include the moneys for the ongoing war on terrorism.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 7:30 today, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, provided further that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes. The first is the Warner amendment No. 1955, which is defense of germaneness; the second is Bayh amendment 1933; the next is McCain amendment 1977. Provided further that there be 6 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the above ordered votes.

I thank the Senator from Illinois.

(Several Senators addressed the Chair.)

Will the Senator yield for a procedural matter?

Just to correct an error to the Record.

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

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.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

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.

That was not my understanding.

There is still a unanimous consent request before the Senate.

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.

I would prefer the Chair rule.

Then I object. I just object.

Does the Chair understand that I object to the unanimous consent request?

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.

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.

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

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the majority leader laid out a plan for the consideration of the Defense authorization bill. It was before the Senate for 4 days or a little bit longer. There were over 200 amendments offered to that bill and it was brought down.

The Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, came to me and asked if I would object if they put their bill on this bill with a time agreement, with specific amendments with time limits on each amendment. Senator Inouye and I discussed that and we said we would have no objection.

We were then informed that was not possible. The Senator from Virginia said he would like to offer his amendment to this amendment for the purpose of putting pressure on the majority leader to make an arrangement to call up this bill.

I urged him not to do that, as a matter of fact. We met off the floor and he said he was going to do it. He indicated he was going to delete a portion of that bill as he offered it. He did not inform me that the reason for that deletion was because the Parliamentarian had advised him that the bill would be subject to a point of order on the basis of germaneness if he did it. So he eliminated the two provisions of the bill that might be subject to germaneness. The Parliamentarian has now advised that the Senator from Virginia has a right to raise the defense of germaneness and the Senate will vote on that at 7:30.

Beyond that, the concept now of bringing in 108 amendments to the bill when there are still amendments outside--I ask unanimous consent that we adopt the amendments offered by the Senator from Virginia and that no further amendments from the authorization bill be permitted to this bill.

That proves it. The Senators do not know how many of the other 200 amendments are going to come out here on this bill. I have stated time and time again this bill must be passed and sent to conference before we leave this week. We will not leave this week until we finish this bill. I have told the Senate time and time again the emergency supplemental is attached to this bill for Iraq and the war on terror and Afghanistan. Those items must be approved by the President no later than November 15.

We had a supplemental for the past fiscal year, 2005. This is the supplemental for 2006, and 2006 started October 1. We have a continuing resolution we are operating on for the basic operations of the Defense Department, but there is no continuing operation for the supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror.

This must be passed. The Committee on Armed Services knows this. The Senator from Virginia, I must correct. Never before in history has a bill been offered to the appropriations bill and been subject to amendment.

We have taken the authorization bill twice during my time on the Appropriations Committee in full, already agreed to by the committee, and taken it to conference. We have never accepted a portion of a Defense authorization bill and left it open to amendment. Why? The Senate can see right now why. The managers have not reached an agreement on their bill. The committee has not reached an agreement on their bill.

The bill is subject to amendment, and there are over 200 amendments at the desk now that were filed against the armed services bill. They have picked out 108 of them, and they have approved them. They never consulted with us on what they did, but they have approved them and offered them now as an amendment. As they offer the amendment, there are other amendments that come in now because of the circumstance of how many they have picked out and the ones they have not picked out.

Does the Senator believe Senators who offered other amendments that you will not accept will not come here and ask us to accept them? No. They know that. And Senator Levin said there may be some out there, 10 or 12. Well, how long are 10 or 12 amendments going to take when you are on the authorization bill and we are not handling that bill; they are.

I think the Senate has to realize the procedure we are in now. If we start down this road, then every time there is a Defense appropriations bill someone who has not gotten a bill passed in terms of another 1 of the 12 subcommittees--there are 13 on appropriations--is going to come in and say: We want to put our bill on your bill, but, by the way, it will be subject to amendment. You can call up your bill. We can't call up our bill because it is not ready to be called up.

Now, an armed services bill, when it comes here, is a great bill. It takes a long time. We know how long it takes. Our bill usually takes-- one year it took 3 hours. Most years it takes less than a day. Why? Because we are a bipartisan subcommittee. When this bill came out of the subcommittee, it came out unanimously. Not one Senator voted against it. When it came out of the full committee, it was unanimous. Not one Senator voted against it.

The two of us have run a bipartisan team now since 1981. This is the first year that this has been done. I hope the Senate says: We do not want to do it this way because this is opening the door to an entirely new process of using a bill that must be passed as a vehicle to take on a bill that cannot be passed. If they could pass their bill, they would have done it. They would have proved to the majority leader they had amendments, and they could have agreed to them.

That is not our problem. That should not be the appropriators' problem. We have a timeframe. We have 13 bills. We are supposed to get them all done once each year. We have had years when we did not even have an authorization bill, and we survived it. We have had many years where they passed their bill months after we passed the Defense appropriations bill, and we survived it.

But this year--this year--because we are at war, this is absolutely wrong, absolutely wrong. I hope the Senate listens to me. We have to pass this bill before we leave to go home for this recess for these holidays next week. If we do not, we do not have the ability, once we get back, to pass it and then get to conference and then get it to the President in time for the money to be available to use to support our people in the field.

Now, people say: Well, wait a minute, you can reprogram money. We are in a period of a continuing resolution.

There is no money that can be reprogrammed. You cannot reprogram money now. We do not have 2006 money to reprogram. There is no emergency money to reprogram. The emergency money is in part of this bill that has to be passed.

Now, I am getting a little mad. I do not mean to be too mad, but I mean to be very angry and disturbed at the process. The Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan know better than to do this. You know better than to do this. It is time for us to realize we have soldiers and sailors, marines, the Coast Guard in the field now. The money to support them is running out. The reason it has not run out is because we did reprogram some money before September 30 we had available then. There is no more money to reprogram to take care of this war.

Now, I do not know how I can express it any more bluntly than that. I hope the Senate will listen to us and vote against this concept that this bill is germane to this bill to start with. It is not germane. It is a whole authorization bill minus the MILCON and energy portions. But it is still the whole authorization bill, which is subject to amendment. As I said, there are over 100 amendments out there that Members have filed already against this bill.

Now, I will be pleased to take this, if there are no more amendments. That was the understanding to start with: We would take their bill if they had a time agreement, a time to vote for certain on it. I think we have gone too far.

My friend from Hawaii--I do the shouting; he does the thinking--may want to say something more. But I tell you, I am really basically deeply concerned about the future of our men and women in uniform if we treat their money portion of this process this way. This is the authorization process. This is policy. We went into that on another amendment today. I don't know much about all the precedents in terms of the Geneva Conventions and what is in the Army Field Manual. Those amendments--I respect the Senator from Arizona. The Armed Services Committee people do. We know what is in here for money.

The Senator's bill does not pertain to money. It does have some authorizations, but that is all right. They can be passed later after we pass our bill. No one is going to be harmed. But there is going to be a great deal of harm if we do not get this bill passed and sent to conference and get it to the President soon after we get back from this recess.

Now, I do not know how we can do anything more than just say, once again, the Senator from Virginia has embarked on a course that has never been done before. He said it had been done before. It has never been done. Never before has a part of an authorization bill been introduced to this bill, or any other bill for that matter, that was subject to amendment. We do not operate that way. I can remember taking a bill that stood off the floor that far because it had so many authorization bills in it that could not get through, but we took them because they were ready, complete. They were complete. They were ready to go, and they took them in an omnibus bill.

But this is not an omnibus bill. This is one bill. This is a bill for the appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 2006, plus the emergency supplemental funding for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror. Under those circumstances, I am appalled that the two Senators would proceed this way. And I tell the Senator from Virginia, our friendship is very close to the brink--very close to the brink--because I believe my job is to get this bill passed, and get it passed as a bill we know we can go to conference on, and get it done and be ready when we get back.

If we were to take this portion of this bill, the Defense bill, to conference, we could not finish the conference until they were finished. And that is definitely not proper.

I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. President, my last word on this, before we come on the 6 minutes before the vote at 7:30, will be this: There are two packages of amendments before the desk. Under any normal procedure, Senator Inouye and I would review those amendments. We have not seen them. We have not even gotten a copy of them. Normally we would have had a copy of them, at least. But we do not know how many of those are in conflict with our own bill.

The two Senators have acted as managers of a part of our bill because they offered their bill as an amendment. What procedure is this? How can we assure the Senate what is in this bill? How can we even be prepared to go to conference on this bill when we do not know what is in those two packages? There are three portions here. We know what is in the part A, which was part of the authorization bill, but these amendments, we don't know what they are. We may have already accepted some of them. I do not know.

But I think it is really a strange procedure that anyone would suggest, by offering an amendment, that control over the bill go to members from other committees and, in doing so, they clear amendments that we will have to defend in conference, theoretically, as Members of the Senate, but we do not know what is in them. No one knows what is in them. Normally, a package like that, if they had their bill out

here, the Defense authorization bill, they would have a bill in front of us, wouldn't they? As a matter of fact, I think the rules require it. But now there are amendments offered at the desk, and I do not think they have given anyone a copy of the amendments.

I think this procedure violates the rules of the Senate. I am not going to get into the problem of that yet because we are going to vote on germaneness. Germaneness does not eliminate the points of order we may have against those amendments later. But as a practical matter, this is a really odd procedure, and one that is bound to, as the Senator from Hawaii said, lead to processes in the future that will be totally unmanageable.

I urge the Senate to think about this as we approach the vote at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of Senator Shelby.

Mr. President, regarding the two amendments that were sent to the desk, I ask that they be considered en bloc.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Has the Senator called up an amendment?

Mr. President, I regret to do this, but as we have examined this amendment of the Senator, we find this requires this spending to become a part of the mandatory process of expenditures. It requires funds to come out of the Treasury to implement this section, and in effect it becomes a matter that we believe is subject to a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution of the budget. I make that point of order.

Mr. President, we will have a request for votes to commence at 7:30, but first I offer a managers' package, as we call it, with modifications.

Amendments Nos. 1914; 1972; 1962; 1979, as Modified; 1976; and 1945, En

Bloc

Mr. President, I send to the desk, for Senator Nelson of Florida, amendment No. 1914, for surface sonar dome windows; for Senator Dodd, amendment No. 1972, for countermeasures to nerve agents; for Senator Lieberman, amendment No. 1962, for defense manufacturing technology; for Senator Chambliss, amendment No. 1979, as modified, for environmental cleanup; for Senator Lott, amendment No. 1976, for lightweight ammunition; and for Senator Roberts, amendment No. 1945, for intelligence scholars. I send those amendments to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc, with Senator Chambliss's amendment modified according to my submission.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendments.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 7:30 we will start with the vote on Senator Warner's submission of the Defense authorization bill as an amendment. Is that correct?

We already have an agreement to have 3 minutes on each side on that amendment, Senator Bayh's amendment No. 1933, and Senator McCain's amendment No. 1977, is that correct?

We are working on a modification to Senator Reed's amendment. We then also have Senator McCain's amendment, which is amendment No. 1978. And we have Senator Graham's amendment, which is 2004.

I say to the Senator, are you prepared to accept that amendment now?

Amendment No. 2004

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham's amendment No. 2004 be laid before the Senate so we might consider it.

Mr. President, I withdraw that request.

Amendment No. 2033

Mr. President, is it in order for me, as manager of the bill, to move to table Senator Kerry's amendment No. 2033 at this time?

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to that amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table Senator Kerry's amendment which deals with LIHEAP and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be put into the schedule to be developed by the leadership as to the time at which that vote will occur.

Mr. President, as to the amendment offered by Ms. Stabenow, I have made the point of order. At what time would that vote occur?

Would it be all right with the Senator if we ask for it to be scheduled according to the leadership in this process this evening?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be added to the list for a vote this evening.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from West Virginia.

I suggest the absence of a quorum first.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes already scheduled at 7:30 today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments, in the order listed, provided no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes: first is Senator McCain's amendment No. 1978; the next is Senator Kerry's amendment No. 2033, for which I made a motion to table, and next is Senator Stabenow's amendment No. 1937, which is a motion to waive my point of order; provided that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the debate on each of the above ordered votes. And I ask unanimous consent that for the votes that start at 7:30, the first vote be the regular number of minutes--20 minutes, I believe--and that following that--we have six in the order--the five remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I say to the Senator, Mr. President, if I may respond to his question, we are waiting for Senator Byrd to make a statement. But he is not ready at this time, so the Senator may proceed. He should be ready in about 5 or 10 minutes.

I was not on the floor, apparently, when that occurred. We had previously indicated the Senator from West Virginia would be recognized. May I inquire from the Senator from Illinois how much time he would like?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois be recognized for not to exceed 10 minutes and then the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes, and then I be recognized following the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I would say to the Senator, we are scheduled to start at 7:30, and 6 minutes before that was equally divided between the Senator from Virginia and myself. So the Senator has probably about 3 minutes that he could proceed.

Three more minutes to the Senator.

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?

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. 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.

I ask for their consideration, please.

I thought the Senator had.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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. 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.

I ask that the Senate consider and agree to the amendments.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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. President, I ask for consideration of the amendments.

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. 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?

Defense of germaneness is available to the Senator?

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

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.

What is the pending business?

Mr. President, I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget.

Mr. President, under the previous order, this is a 10- minute vote; is that correct?

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.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

What is now the pending business?

Amendment No. 1977

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. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, if I could have a minute, I want to warn the Senate that we may be here all night. We may have to have our cloture vote after adjournment at about 11:55. We would vote about 12:55 or 1:05 on cloture. Because if we are to have 30 hours and still finish by the time some people want to leave on Friday, it has to start at that time or else we have to get unanimous consent to shorten the time. If we vote tomorrow morning at 10, we will be here until 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock Friday afternoon. Just a warning--not yet. We are still trying to work it out.

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

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

What is the pending business.

Amendment No. 2033

Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me to do so, section 402 of the House Concurrent Resolution 95 of the 109th Congress, the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution budget, created a point of order against an emergency designation on nondefense spending.

The amendment contains nondefense spending with an emergency designation.

Pursuant to that section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 of the 108th Congress, the fiscal year 2005 concurrent resolution on the budget, I make a point of order against the emergency designation contained in the amendment.

Parliamentary inquiry: If the motion is not tabled, it is still subject to a point of order?

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. 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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I announce we will have a managers' package. We will consider amendments that might be taken by voice vote after this last scheduled vote.

I have already made the point of order against the Stabenow amendment. To be sure the record is clear, I make the point of order against the Kerry amendment and I ask it be agreed to.

Is the record clear I made the point of order on the Stabenow amendment?

And I asked it be dropped, now.

Now, is the record clear about my making a point of order to the Stabenow amendment? If not, I renew the point of order under 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment requires spending in excess of the committee's 302(b) allocation for the fiscal year concurrent resolution of the Budget, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I did not hear the last ruling of the Chair.

Now, the next pending business is the cloture vote?

Mr. President, it is my understanding we will convene about 9:30 in the morning. We will be prepared to stay tonight if any Senators wish to discuss amendments following the cloture vote.

Mr. President, we have a managers' package, which is No. 6, that I send to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. I state for the record that this includes a Bingaman-Domenici colloquy on the F-117; for Senator Hatch and others, an amendment on the Air Force Depot Maintenance Program, as modified. This is amendment No. 2001; for Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton, amendment No. 2038 on the arsenal program support, which is modified; for Senator Hagel, a colloquy on supplemental security income; for Senator Bond, amendment No. 1923, for oral anthrax vaccine; for Senator Sarbanes, amendment No. 1969, as modified, for the Naval Academy; for Senator McConnell, amendment No. 2042, recognizing U.S. military personnel; for Senator Landrieu, amendment No. 1942, as modified, for Northern Command; for Senator Graham, amendment No. 2004, as modified, on combatant status review tribunals; for Senator Conrad, amendment No. 1882, as modified, on Predator aircraft.

Air Force Depot Maintenance, is it not modified? I stand corrected. That is not a modified amendment.

I ask that these amendments be considered en bloc, and I ask for their further consideration.

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.

I concur with the Senators from New Mexico that the F- 117 is of critical importance to the Nation's precision strike capability. Furthermore, I agree with the Senate Armed Services Committee recommendation that it is premature to retire any F-117s at this time.

I agree with the Senator from Nebraska. The provisions of the Social Security Act need to be addressed in order to ensure Supplemental Security Income eligibility and benefits are not inadvertently taken away from those in the armed services when they need them most.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we will resume consideration of this bill tomorrow following the opening of the Senate at 9:30 a.m. as soon as possible. It will be my intention to ask that any votes that are to be taken on this bill be stacked until approximately noon or 12:30 in order that the committees may meet in the morning. There has been a specific request for that to happen. It is my understanding that there will be a request later that the time consumed for cloture be consumed during the period of temporary recess this evening on into tomorrow morning; is that the understanding?

I am assured that will be the case.

Notice of Intent

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Colorado and Hawaii for their work on this issue. They are right. We will continue to support these systems that provide our service members with the force protection they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on October 5, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on the Kyoto Protocol: assessing the status of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a Business Meeting on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 5, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, October 5, 2005, from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic Development be authorized to meet on October 5, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on Spyware.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we would like to first examine those amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

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 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. 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. 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.

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.

What is the status of the amendments at this time?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided on this amendment before the vote when it does occur.

I say to the Senator, I will be pleased to work with the Senator from Arizona to amend this so even though it might be legislation, it urge, at least, an investigation that the Senator has mentioned. Perhaps we can work it out before the time for the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's amendment No. 1978 not be subject to a second-degree amendment, but would be subject to an amendment by the Senator from Arizona should he wish to amend the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. 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. President, as modified, this is still the authorization bill being offered to an appropriations bill. It amounts to legislation on an appropriations bill--a substantial authorization, I might add. I feel it is a violation of rule XVI. Therefore, as chairman of this subcommittee, I make a point of order that this amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia is subject to the provisions of rule XVI, and I make that point of order very plainly. I ask that it be ruled to be authorization on an appropriations bill.

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

Will the Senator permit me to interrupt? The Parliamentarian has not ruled. The Parliamentarian has stated and advised that you have the defense of germaneness.

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.

Will the Senator yield, Mr. President?

It is not for a question but for a statement.

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

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.

I will not object, but I would like to have some time on our side.

The Senator has already had 20 minutes. The time was equally divided?

I have no objection if the Senator has 4 more minutes, but I would like the time until 10 o'clock.

I am happy----

I am happy to yield to the Senator 4 minutes of our time, if he wishes.

Mr. President, as the Senator from Iowa knows, this Senator completely supports Community Service Block Grant Programs. We both serve on the Committee on Appropriations and serve on the subcommittee that deals with this issue.

I tell the Senate, on these community service block grants, for every dollar that the Federal Government puts up, more than $2 comes from outside sources. They are not matching funds. They put them up. They supply them. This reduction in the House bill was done to sort of have leverage over our committee in conference.

The Senate bill which is carried by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania already has the full amount of the request in it. All we have to do is get that bill to conference, but it has not been possible thus far. But when this continuing resolution takes effect, there will be allocated to the States the money they need.

Beyond that, FEMA has all sorts of money right now to assist the people who are involved in the hurricane areas. There is no reason to think anyone is going to be shut off in the disaster area from the community block grant concept because FEMA will provide money to this agency if they are short of money in this period ahead of us because of the delay in getting the Health and Human Services bill passed by the Congress and sent to the President.

But what happens if the Senator's amendment passes? We come to a halt tonight. We have already reprogrammed money to the Department of Defense from 2005 moneys in order to carry them over until they get the money from the Defense bill, when and if it is passed.

We know we are in a period of delay because of a lot of things, because of the two major disasters, because of the delay we have had in terms of being able to confirm the nomination of the Chief Justice. There has been a lot of delay this year, and we are late. It is not something new. We have been late before and had continuing resolutions.

This matter the Senator has brought up will not lead to people being denied assistance because the States can advance their money for this period of 6 weeks, and it will be repaid when we pass the bill. The Senate will hold the money for the Community Services Block Grants. We always have. It is one of the things we have negotiated with the House almost every year. The Senator knows this. We go to conference almost every year, and the House has reduced this item. It is sort of a little leverage in terms of negotiation with the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Pennsylvania, both of whom have done an excellent job with Community Services Block Grants.

As I said, I support it. The chairman of the committee supports it. We support the Community Services Block Grant Program. It will be fully funded. It has been fully funded in the bill that is before the Senate. To delay this bill now and delay funding for everyone else because there is a little glitch here that it could--it could--be read to be something that is taking money, as a practical matter, it carries the same language that was in the continuing resolution before when the minority was in the majority. This is exactly what happened before. It is the same thing.

And it is a continuing resolution that has to be passed. If it is not to the President by tonight, funding stops for everybody, not just a slight glitch in the Community Services Block Grant. I do not like to see people out there who really depend upon the Federal Government for assistance being told somehow or other they are going to be denied money. The money that comes from the Federal Government is less than a third of the money they get.

So we have a possibility of a slight delay in Federal money getting to them, but during that period, the non-Federal money, both from States and private sources, will meet the need. Beyond that, FEMA has money. We all know we gave them a tremendous amount of money to deal with those who are in the disaster areas.

So I say to my friend from Iowa, this is wrong. This is wrong. We will resolve this difference with the House. We have never before abandoned Community Service Block Grants in the Senate. I do not care which party has been in charge over the Senate, we have supported this program. And we will. But to threaten these people, to make it sound as though somehow or other they are going to put them out on the street and they are not going to get any assistance, that is wrong.

I tell the Senate, if we do not pass this bill without amendment, not only will the House be back here, we will be back here for days wrangling over what to do because we cannot get the House back by midnight. We go into that period of all the slush that comes after the funding runs out. And it is not an easy sight.

We all remember the time it happened once before when the Government did shut down because of a dispute between the House and the Senate. It was resolved out at Andrews Air Force Base about 9 days later, as I recall.

Now, at this time, after these two disasters, is no time to put a question on the availability of the funds for every agency. If the Senator's amendment is adopted, every agency is going to have to say: What do we do? We can't spend any money from the 2006 account. They will not have this continuing resolution, a lot of them, to spend from 2005 levels.

This is chaos. We do not deserve chaos in this country after the two disasters we have just come through. I say to the Senate, it is absolutely wrong to try to stop this continuing resolution this year. We have troops in the field. As I said, those of us on the Defense Appropriations Committee have, this last week, approved about seven different reprogrammings to make sure funds are available tomorrow morning for those people who need them who are deployed overseas. So to stop these funds, to stop this bill, would stop everything tonight.

Now, again--and the Senator has mentioned my State--my State is one of the States that needs funding of this kind. There is no question that if there is a hiatus of having Federal funds, the State is going to have to step forward and put some of their money up first. But they know we will restore this money. By the time the 2006 bill is signed, it will say that starting for October 1, they will get this money they should have had.

I tell the Senator from Iowa, there is just----

Mr. President, I will yield right now to the chairman of the committee.

Well, I say to the Senator, I know my State. My State is not going to let those people suffer because there is a temporary hiatus in Federal funding. The checks will go out from the State. The State provides the checks. I cannot imagine that would happen.

Beyond that, FEMA is there. If this agency does not have the money to meet the needs in the area of the two disasters, FEMA can step forward and give them money. And it is already doing that. That is my information.

If the Senator wants the floor, I will be glad to yield the floor to him. But I hope the Senator from Pennsylvania is not going to support this amendment. If you do so, it means we will be in real trouble as far as our committee is concerned.

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

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will you amend that question by saying we will provide in the bill that the States will be repaid for what they advance?

I yielded the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I yield time to the chairman of the committee. I was just occupying the position of the chairman until he sought recognition.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

Mr. President, is the pending business the Defense appropriations bill?

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley and my colleague, Senator Murkowski, be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have not been notified by any Senator that they wish to offer an amendment to the Defense bill today. It is my understanding later today there will be an agreement that all amendments in the first degree to this bill should be filed by 5 o'clock Monday.

Under the circumstances, since other Senators wish to speak on nongermane matters, unless there is someone who wants the floor right now to talk about defense--I am informed there may be an amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, September 30, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.