[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 2, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4657-S4663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT TO SUPPORT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OPERATIONS IN IRAQ FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 762, which the clerk will report by
title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S4658]]
A bill (S. 762) making supplemental appropriations to
support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department
of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, before we start this supplemental, these
are difficult times so I will take this opportunity to recognize all of
those in uniform who are serving our country both at home and abroad
during these wars, the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan,
and the war in Iraq. I especially want to ask the Senate to keep in
mind those who have given their lives in the defense of our country and
in our opposition to these terrible scourges that beset us now.
We do have a war going on, and the President, as our Commander in
Chief, has asked for our help to provide vitally needed funds in the
most expeditious manner possible. I have spoken to each of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and they tell me that their money will start running
out. For most of them, that will start in May. For the Navy, it will
start in June. In any event, the only way to ensure these funds will be
available and get to the services in time to meet their needs is to
send this bill to the President before we leave Washington for the
usual Easter recess. If we do not have it done before then, I am going
to do my best to insist we stay here and forego the recess until we get
this bill done. I believe that will not be necessary, and so far I have
seen good bipartisan support to meet the objective of getting this bill
to the President so that funds will be available to our troops. I hope
that attitude will continue on the floor.
The House Appropriations Committee completed its work on the version
of this bill yesterday. They will begin consideration on the floor very
soon. We all know that they act first on a bill of this type so we will
have to wait. It is my hope I can ask the Senate to get this bill to
third reading by no later than tomorrow evening so it will be ready and
our staffs can work over this next weekend to get ready for a
conference. I will propose that the Senate actually take this bill to
the point where it is actually sent to conference as soon as the House
has passed its bill so we can go to conference early next week. It is
my sincere hope the Senate and the House will act together to get this
bill, as I said, to the President as quickly as possible.
The President of the United States asked for $74.7 billion in new
budget authority in the supplemental request he sent to us. The bill
before us provides $76.7 billion in new authority. It also contains an
aviation relief portion that will provide both new budget authority and
other benefits. The budget authority is $2.025 billion, and other
benefits are $1.475 billion. The total for this bill, including the
airline relief portion, in both new budget authority and other benefits
then totals $78.7 billion.
This supplemental responds to the immediate needs of the troops in
the field, provides important international assistance to our allies,
and tries to deal with the most vital homeland security and defense
needs facing our Nation.
We fully funded the President's request of $62.6 billion for defense
efforts in prosecuting the war with Iraq. These funds will be used to
conduct military operations in Iraq, support our coalition partners,
and replenish crucial munition and other vital military procurement
funds that have already been consumed in getting our troops to the war
zones. The President's request included $30.3 billion for costs that
were already committed or incurred. The sealift, the airlift, and
equipping our combat forces has come at great expense.
Last week in our hearing with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Senator
Byrd and others raised concerns with respect to the Department's
request that these funds be appropriated to what we call the Defense
Emergency Response Fund.
We will hear the acronym DERF on the floor. That means Defense
Emergency Response Fund. In developing the bill before the Senate,
Senator Byrd, Senator Inouye, and I have tried to strike a proper
balance between congressional oversight and providing the Department
with the necessary flexibility to prosecute the ongoing war in Iraq.
Senator Byrd, I am sure, will speak for himself with regard to the
flexibility in this bill. There is some flexibility for the President.
In this bill we provided $11 billion to the Defense Department in the
Defense Emergency Response Fund. It can be spent in response to the
Commander in Chief's directions. It is an account to give them the
enhanced flexibility they need to manage the conduct of the war. The
House has provided a larger amount. I am sure we will meet in
conference to decide what is the proper amount of flexibility necessary
for the present Department of Defense.
We also are proposing that the great majority of the defense funds,
totaling nearly $51.5 billion, be appropriated into specific accounts
for the services so that wherever possible they meet the needs
directly. We have provided $35 billion for operation and maintenance
activities; $13.7 billion for military personnel to maintain critical
operation capability and readiness; and $3.7 billion to replenish
munitions expended in combat operations.
We have also included $500 million for the Defense Health Program to
provide adequate care for both Active and military Reserve personnel
and their families.
There is another $550 million for fuel costs and $489 million for the
Department's efforts to combat the oil well fires started by the Iraqi
forces so far.
This bill appropriates $1.7 billion to cover costs associated with
classified activities undertaken in Iraq and in the global war on
terrorism.
We have also responded to the President's full request for $7.8
billion for international relief and recovery efforts in Iraq,
international support for allies in the region, and other critical
needs to continue the fight on global terrorism. The committee's
recommendation includes $2.4 billion for the Iraqi relief and
reconstruction fund. That is over $2 billion for the Foreign Military
Financing Program, which we call FMF. The bill also provides up to $9
billion in loan guarantees to Israel, $300 million in assistance to
Egypt, and $1 billion in assistance for Turkey. It includes the request
for $150 million for the U.S. emergency fund for complex foreign
crises, a new account that enables a quick response to unforeseen
global challenges.
Finally, the bill reimburses fiscal year 2003 foreign assistance
accounts that Congress authorized the President to borrow from to pre-
position humanitarian assistance for Iraq.
The bill also reflects the commitment of Congress to address homeland
defense requirements by providing $4.6 billion, roughly $400 million
above the President's request, for key homeland security requirements.
We have provided the President's request of $2 billion for the Office
of Domestic Preparedness to assist State and local governments in
federally coordinated terrorism readiness and other security
enhancements during this time of heightened threats.
The committee recommendation also included $1.1 billion for the
Department of Homeland Security for counterterrorist activities.
Secretary Ridge has given the flexibility in this account to allocate
funds both within and outside the Department of Homeland Security for
terrorism preparedness and response.
The bill also includes $580 million for the Coast Guard operations to
enhance the protection of our ports and borders and in support of the
Department of Defense activities in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Liberty Shield. We have also supported the recommendation of
$34 million to provide compensation to individuals who have sustained
injuries due to our smallpox vaccination program.
As I mentioned earlier, the bill includes a package of targeted
relief to address the dire situation facing the aviation industry.
I highlight the main provision in that package and I will speak at
greater length later. In this bill is a total of
[[Page S4659]]
$2.9 billion in relief for air carriers, the airlines. Specifically,
the bill suspends the fee that both passengers and carriers pay for the
6 months of the balance of this current fiscal year. It will suspend
this fee that is currently charged on the ticket taxes, but it is
actually currently being borne by the industry because the cost of
flying is so low due to competitive factors of the economy. It also
provides $1 billion to reimburse the carriers for the costs incurred
with the new security mandates of the Transportation Security
Administration imposed following the terrorist attacks on September 11.
These were unfunded mandates, and in this bill we fund those that have
been completed since September 11 until the end of this fiscal year.
The bill extends for 1 year the war risk provisions included in our
bill in previous years. Specifically, we passed last November a bill to
establish the Department of Homeland Security or specific insurance
provisions for war risk in that bill. The result of this provision in
this bill is we anticipate will save the airlines about $800 million.
The package also includes $375 million to address security-related
costs at our airports. I congratulate my colleague from Washington for
bringing up this issue. Those are also unfunded mandates. They were
funds expended by the airports to meet the requirements of the
Transportation Security Administration, and the funds in this bill
should reimburse airports for security readiness operating expenses and
provide additional funding for the modification of airports necessary
to the installation of bomb detection equipment for the balance of the
fiscal year.
Finally, this bill also extends unemployment benefits for an
additional 26 weeks for qualifying aviation workers who have lost their
jobs because of the downturn in the economy that affected the airlines.
I see my friend is here. I don't want to speak too long, but I
believe this bill is very important. There is no question we need the
funds to sustain our vital military operations around the world. There
are really three wars still going on: The war against terrorism, the
war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. This is a very serious problem
for those overseas and for those who manage our Department of Defense.
I think the worry over where funds are coming from to meet the
increasing demands in the three different wars is pressing upon our
military commanders and civilians in charge of the Department of
Defense.
It is my hope the Senate will be considerate in the number of
amendments that are offered and the issues before the Senate.
I thank the former chairman from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, for the
insight and advice he has given to me. I do not represent that this
bill reflects entirely his point of view, but he has been a partner,
once again, in working with me as I tried to work with him. I do think
he has been very instrumental in seeing to it that this bill is before
the Senate at this time.
I have stated to others, and I say it again publicly, one of the
reasons I am trying to get through this bill tomorrow night is I hope
to be with my good friend from Hawaii when he receives the recognition
he deserves in his home State on Saturday.
I recommend the bill to the full Senate. I urge Senators to come
forward and identify their amendments so we can see what we can work
out, if there are subjects that can be worked out. I admit readily
there may be some items we have not addressed in this bill so far. I
would very much like to do that.
I do hope as the Senate proceeds with this bill, we keep in mind the
fact that within instantaneous communication, I am informed that some
of the forces that are overseas in both Afghanistan and in the Iraqi
war watch us almost as much as we watch them. This is one bill they are
going to watch. They are very astute young people. They understand this
country. They understand the risks they are taking. They understand in
particular they want this country's economy to be healthy when they
come back.
We must keep in mind what we are doing, continuing the expenditures
that are extraordinary expenses brought upon this country by the events
of September 11. During this period, I will recite some of those
amounts that we put forward already.
There has been a tremendous strain on our economy because of these
three different types of wars, but they are wars that I personally
believe we must fight. We must provide those who are fighting those
wars everything they need to be successful and to be safe.
I recommend this bill to the full Senate and hope we will finish it
by tomorrow night.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I consider it an honor, I consider it a
great honor to be able to work with the very distinguished Senator from
Alaska, the senior Senator, the President pro tempore of the Senate, in
bringing this bill to its present status.
I laud the distinguished chairman of the committee for his
extraordinary knowledge of the subject matter here that we are going to
discuss. He has been on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for
a long time, where he has worked arm in arm and hand in hand with our
very distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii, Danny Inouye, who is my
hero. Together, these men have brought their wisdom, their dedication,
their knowledge to great usefulness, and I thank Senator Stevens for
his work. He also is a hero of mine. I am proud to serve with him.
The Senator has stated that we are fighting three wars: the war in
Afghanistan, the war on terrorism here at home, and the war in Iraq. I
support the appropriations that we are going to recommend for all three
wars. I do not support the policy that brought us where we are today in
Iraq. I have no hesitancy in saying that. I can defend that position
any time, anywhere. I am sure not everybody will agree with me, but I
have reasons for my position. So, although I do not support the policy
that puts our men and women in Iraq, I do support the appropriations
for those, for the support of and the safety of those men and women in
Iraq, and I do so wholeheartedly.
In a short time I will speak of one young West Virginian by the name
of Jessica Lynch. I will have more to say about her shortly.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, under the very able leadership
of the chairman, the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate,
Mr. Stevens, has unanimously reported the fiscal year 2003 supplemental
appropriations bill. The Senate committee-reported bill totals
$78,736,600,000 in benefits and appropriations; $4,011,600,000 more
than the President's request. In that proposal, the President sought an
unprecedented level of flexibility in the use of these funds. I was
astounded at the request that the President put forth with respect to
these ``flexibilities.'' While I understand the unique circumstance in
which the Nation finds itself, the situation is not unprecedented--not
unprecedented. We have been at war before many times.
I served in this Senate and in the House in several of these wars, so
we have been at war before. This isn't something new, the matter of
being at war. But these ``flexibilities,'' so-called, have startled me,
in a way. But I am not so startled either, keeping in mind the whole of
our experience with this administration. Yes, we have been at war
before, but the Nation never wandered--never sought to wander away from
the Constitution, never sought to impinge upon the congressional power
of the purse as we have seen in this instance.
In World War II, for example, Congress passed eight supplemental
bills to respond to the needs of our Armed Forces. This is what I said
the other day during the appropriations hearing, the Appropriations
Committee hearing on this bill, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was
before the committee. I said: Why all these flexibilities?
I called them ``flexibilities'' because the Secretary of Defense, in
his opening statement, used the word ``flexibility'' seven times.
I said: We fought previous wars. Why do we need these
``flexibilities'' now? I said: Congress can pass additional
supplementals. That has been done before.
In World War II, for example, Congress passed eight supplemental
bills to respond to the needs of our Armed Forces and there is little
reason, in my
[[Page S4660]]
view, why this war in Iraq should require more flexibility for the
administration than was granted during World War II to administrations.
This Republic rests on a system of checks and balances: three
branches, two legislative Houses, and separate powers--shared powers,
mixed powers. Our system reflects the hundreds of years of history
behind it.
I said hundreds--yes. Yes, Mr. President, you didn't hear me wrongly.
Our system reflects the hundreds of years behind it, going back to the
Revolutionary War; going back to colonial days; going back to the
history of the Englishmen who fought and bled and gave their lives in
the struggle against tyranny, in the struggle against a monarchy that
sought to gather all power unto itself.
The roots of our Constitution go back even to the Magna Carta, 1215.
This is not a Constitution that came about just in 1787. Its roots go
back 1000 years--and the blood of Englishmen is on it, as is the blood
of our forefathers here in this, our country.
In our Madisonian system, divided power may not be as expedient as
some would like. That is stating it well: not as expedient as some
would like. I say it again. I will state it more loudly: In our
Madisonian system, divided power may not be as expedient--hear me now
down at the White House--may not be as expedient as some would like,
but it guarantees the American people's liberties. Quite simply, our
representative form of democracy depends upon power divided and power
shared.
The Constitution grants to the Congress the authority to appropriate
funds and the solemn responsibility to exercise that authority wisely.
And for us to agree to the many sweeping grants of new, so-called
``flexible'' authority sought by this administration would be to
abdicate--to abdicate--that heavy constitutional responsibility. We
have a duty to the American people to exercise the authorities granted
to Congress in our Constitution, and we have a duty to those Framers,
those men who wrote the Constitution, to keep faith with them and to
honor and respect and uphold and support and defend that Constitution
against all enemies foreign and domestic.
In the case of this bill, and for the many years ahead, it will take
maximum effort to preserve the prerogatives of the legislative branch.
I hope my colleagues will understand that. I hope they will hear that.
And the Record will be there for those of our future colleagues to
read.
Let me say that again. I say it to my colleagues. I hope my
colleagues will remember: In the case of this bill, and for the many
years ahead, it will take maximum effort on the part of our colleagues
today, and those who will serve in this Chamber in the future, to
preserve the prerogatives of the legislative branch.
Now, when it comes to the executive branch, we will always find those
in the executive branch who will uphold, who will extol, and who will
seek to add to the powers of the executive branch. The same can be said
for the judicial branch. The judicial branch will always speak out for
the protection of the constitutional authorities given to it.
But what about the legislative branch? This is the one branch in the
three in which we will find increasingly--I might say, based on my 50
years in Congress--we will find increasingly those in the legislative
branch who are always ready to stand up for the executive branch for
whatever power grabs it may have in mind, and they will seek to defend
that executive branch and to push its desires. I am sorry to say, it is
usually about half of the legislative branch that is willing to do
that, depending on what party is in power and what party controls the
two Houses of the legislative branch. And I regret this.
As I look back over my 50 years here, I have seen great, great
changes in the way the Members of the legislative branch view their
role under the Constitution. Sometimes I wonder if they have read the
Constitution lately. I am sorry to say I don't think our Constitution
means a great deal to some of those who have served in this branch.
They seem to think this is a monarchy and that we have a king. I look
at the future with grave concerns, as I think about the changes I have
seen sweep over this branch of Government.
Twenty-four hours a day, 365 days every 3 years, 366 days the 4th
year, out there always is the executive branch. And it is awake. It
seeks power. It seeks to aggrandize the authorities to itself. It is
always awake. It is never sleeping.
Members of the legislative branch are here, they recess, they go to
the four points of the compass. They are not always here. They are not
always alert to the protection of the authorities of this branch of
Government. And at this time, and under this administration, I have to
say, I have seen more of that than ever before.
Members must understand their institutional role. Citizens must
understand their Constitution and value the congressional role in
protecting their freedoms. This is another thing that gives me
concern--sorrow in many ways. All too few citizens think about the role
they play and the responsibilities that are theirs under the
Constitution.
Leaders in the Congress itself must guard its prerogatives. I have
been a leader in this body. I have been majority leader. I have been
minority leader. I have been President pro tempore and chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. And I have never lost sight of the fact I
must help to guard the prerogatives, the authorities, the powers that
are enumerated in the Constitution, the powers that devolve upon this
body, its duties, its responsibilities.
So leaders in the Congress itself must guard its prerogatives and
resist succumbing to expediency, to political expediency, and to
partisanship.
While I fully support the funding in this legislation for the men and
the women engaged in battle in Iraq, I do not support additional grants
of authority to this administration, or to any other administration,
that would infringe upon the congressional power of the purse. That is
the greatest power. The power of the purse is the greatest power in
existence under this constitutional system.
As Cicero, that great Roman Senator, said: ``There is no fortress so
strong that money cannot take it.'' ``There is no fortress so strong
that money cannot take it''--the power of the purse.
Senator Stevens and I, together with the subcommittee chairmen and
ranking members, have worked, in most cases, to improve the President's
supplemental budget request.
We have eliminated or significantly reduced most of the sweeping
grants of new authority requested by this administration while still
providing very limited flexibility where appropriate.
More specifically, for defense the bill includes $62.6 billion, the
full amount of the budget request, to cover the costs related to
military operations against Iraq and to sustain the continuing global
war on terrorism. The budget request proposes that $59,863,200,000 of
the amount for national defense would be included in the unallocated
Defense Emergency Response Fund. The Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, the full Appropriations Committee, and the Congress
rejected this type of transfer account in the fiscal year 2002
supplemental, rejected it in the fiscal year 2003 Defense
appropriations bill, and rejected it in the defense chapter of the
fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill.
In this supplemental, the amount allocated to the Defense Emergency
Response Fund has been reduced from the request of approximately $59.9
billion to $11,019,000,000. The remainder of the funds, some $49
billion, have been allocated to the specific appropriations accounts.
This is an improvement over the budget request, but I call the
attention of my colleagues to the fact that on an annualized basis, it
amounts to a blank check for more than $20 billion--on an annual basis.
Because the taxpayer has a right to know how this $11 billion will be
used, this so-called flexibility gives me great concern. I hope we will
get away from these DERFs. I am concerned about them.
The administration's supplemental request sought $1.4 billion for the
Department of Defense to allow the Secretary of Defense to allocate
funds to reimburse and otherwise pay nations that have provided support
primarily for the global war on terrorism. Most of the funding is
anticipated to be for Pakistan. In the past, the Senate Appropriations
Committee has taken a position that such reimbursement could take place
only in response to
[[Page S4661]]
vouchers presented to the Department of Defense for reimbursement for
activities conducted on behalf of the global war on terrorism. This
supplemental bill again includes this provision. In addition, we
require 15-day advance notification prior to obligation.
The President sought $150 million to be paid at the discretion of the
Secretary of Defense to indigenous forces abroad. We have one Secretary
of State; we don't need two. A similar proposal was rejected by
Congress last year. It has been rejected again in this legislation.
The administration wanted to increase the Department of Defense
reprogramming authority from an annual amount of $2 billion to 2.5
percent of its total budget, a staggering sum which would exceed $9
billion. I expressed opposition to this large new grant of authority to
the Department of Defense. I expressed my appreciation and compliments
to the chairman, Senator Stevens, for the fact that he has brought us a
bill that reins in the administration, tightens up the limitation so
that rather than provide an unprecedented $9 billion transfer
authority, the legislation before us includes a $3.5 billion transfer
authority.
The administration also sought authority to expend any funds from the
defense cooperation account that may be received from other countries
for the prosecution of the war against Iraq or the reconstruction of
Iraq without first having these funds appropriated by Congress. The
administration wanted to get away from that. They wanted a free hand
with no strings attached.
During the first gulf war, Congress appropriated those funds after
they were received. Let me repeat that. During the first gulf war,
Congress appropriated those funds after they were received. The
legislation before us takes the same approach and preserves the
prerogatives of the Congress and of the people. No new authority is
granted. Any funds collected from foreign countries for reconstruction
of Iraq or for any other purposes will remain in the Treasury under
this bill, unless appropriated by law. That is the way it should be.
The administration requested similar extraordinary grants of
authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security, for the Attorney
General, and for the Office of the President. More specifically, the
Secretary of Homeland Security would receive $1.5 billion for a new
counterterrorism fund for transfer to any Department of Homeland
Security agency. The Attorney General would receive $500 million for
transfer to any Justice Department organization for terrorism-related
activities. The President would receive $2,443,300,000 for Iraq
reconstruction and relief, without even as much as a reporting
requirement. So they not only want no strings attached, they don't want
to have to make any report--an absolutely free hand in expending the
taxpayers' money.
We must all remember, we are having to borrow all this money. The
taxpayers are going to have to pay interest on all this money. When our
soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines get home, they are going to
be paying interest on the money that has been borrowed to send them
across the ocean. Each proposal, if the administration had its way,
would leave the Congress out of the decisionmaking process in the
allocation of the funds--no details, no explanation.
In the case of the Iraq reconstruction funds, the President proposes
to spend the money ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.''
With regard to the funds to be provided to the President for the
reconstruction of Iraq, the supplemental before the Senate stipulates
that funds may not be transferred to the Department of Defense, and
that all funds available under this appropriation shall be subject to
the regular prior notification procedures of at least 5 days in advance
of the obligation of the funds. The funds will be used for feeding and
food distribution, water and sanitation infrastructure, electricity,
transportation, telecommunications, and other such humanitarian
activities.
With regard to the $500 million for the Attorney General, the
legislation has been improved to require that these funds be subject to
the regular reprogramming process. Likewise, the funds provided to the
Secretary of Homeland Security also require prior approval notification
of the committee under the usual reprogramming procedures, which are
long-established and long-respected by the Congress and the executive
branch.
Overall, the President requested over $9 billion for aid to foreign
countries and for the State Department. Yet his request for homeland
security programs is only $3.8 billion, $3.8 billion for homeland
security he requested; while, on the other hand, he requested over $9
billion for aid to foreign countries and for the State Department. The
Secretary of Homeland Security has said that another terrorist attack
in America is inevitable. He has said attacks, such as the attacks of
September 11, are long-term threats that will not go away. If there is
one lesson we should learn from 9/11, it is that terrorist attacks on
our Nation can no longer be viewed as distant threats from across the
oceans. The enemy may attack our troops or citizens overseas or it may
attack civilians here at home. So we must provide all of the necessary
resources to support our troops overseas. But we must also provide
significant homeland security resources now to meet the real needs that
have been overwhelmingly authorized by Congress and signed into law by
the President for port security, airport security, border security, and
nuclear security.
When it comes to funding homeland security initiatives, partisan
politics has no place. Protecting a vulnerable nation is a duty that we
all must shoulder together. Congress knows the needs at the local
level, and Congress has tried time and time again to address those
needs. The administration's request takes a step in the right
direction, but at this time, when the Nation is acutely aware of the
increased threat of terror attacks at home, one step is not enough. We
must do more to address the critical vulnerabilities all across the
country. We live under an orange alert, a heightened concern for
terrorist attack. The American people are nervous about safety at home.
I know I am nervous about safety here at home. That apprehension
ripples through our economy. We read about it every day in the Wall
Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post. We should all
have an interest in doing what we can to secure obvious vulnerabilities
and allay citizen concerns.
To that end, I hope to work on a bipartisan effort, as this bill
moves forward, to responsibly invest in first responders, in
protections at our airports and seaports, and in other areas to better
ensure the safety of Americans at home.
Let me again congratulate the chairman of the committee, the
distinguished President pro tempore, and let me thank all the members
of the Appropriations Committee, especially the ranking member of the
Defense Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, for their cooperation in bringing
this bipartisan legislation to the floor of the Senate. I expect its
speedy passage, and I hope for its speedy passage. I join with the
chairman in hoping to complete this bill in the Senate by tomorrow
evening, or sometime tomorrow.
I congratulate the excellent staff we have for their hard work,
especially Jim Morhard, the newly appointed staff director for the
majority. Let me also thank my own two excellent staff persons, Terry
Sauvain, and Charles Kieffer, for their dedication, hard work, and the
long hours.
For certain, this legislation is not perfect and it is susceptible to
improvement. I expect and hope to assist in such improvement over the
next few days as the Senate proceeds to work its will on this important
legislation, as it goes to and returns from conference. I thank all
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MURKOWSKI). The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 435
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I want the Senate to be on notice--this
is an issue we have to face. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 435.
Sec. Section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
[[Page S4662]]
``(d) The National Debt Ceiling of the United States shall
be increased by the total amount of funds appropriated by Act
of Congress for the Department of Defense, Department of
Homeland Security or any other Agency of government to
prosecute the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan,
the war in Iraq, since September 11, 2001.
Amendment No. 436
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be temporarily set aside. I will discuss it soon. I have
another amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr.
Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 436.
At the end of chapter 3 of title I, add the following:
Sec. __. (a) Increase in Imminent Danger Special Pay.--
Section 310(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``$150'' and inserting ``$225''.
(b) Increase in Family Separation Allowance.--Section
427(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$200''.
(c) Expiration.--(1) The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall expire on September 30, 2003.
(2) Effective on September 30, 2003, sections 310(a) of
title 37, United States Code, and 427(a)(1) of title 37,
United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date
of the enactment of this Act are hereby revived.
Modification to Amendment No. 436
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there is a typing error in the first
line of amendment No. 436. It should be ``chapter 3,'' and it appears
``chapter 2.'' I ask that the typing error be amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I raise this subject of combat pay, or
pay for imminent danger. Having received such combat pay in World War
II, I have been interested in this issue. During the gulf war in 1991,
when combat pay was $110 a month, we raised that to $150 a month. Right
after that war, the imminent danger pay was made permanent at $150. It
has gone up 40 percent since 1991. We suggest it go up 50 percent to
$225 a month. With regard to family separation and allowance, it is
currently $100. We recommend it go up 100 percent to $200.
That is an expensive proposition. The cost of this for the balance of
the year is $375 million, and the cost for a full year will be $650
million. This is a reachback amendment. It covers everyone from the
time they were exposed to imminent danger. For family separation, it is
the same, from the time they were separated.
I know there is a controversy, and I have had a little discussion
with the Senator from Illinois. As I told the Senator, there are
probably--I believe this is the case--more families in Alaska connected
with the military than any other State in the Union, as the current
occupant of the chair knows.
On the other hand, the moneys we have to have for modernization, for
munitions, and for many other items come out of the same account. This
is the operations and maintenance account. This bill already contains a
massive amount, $30.3 billion, to replace in that account what has
already been spent in mobilizing the military, including, by the way,
the amount that has been spent so far for paying imminent danger pay at
the rate of $150 a month. It is an issue we should address, but we
ought to keep in mind that what is going to happen after this war is
this will become permanent. It is a new base and it is a staggering
increase in cost for personnel. I fully support it. As a matter of
fact, I wish I could say we have nothing but billionaires in this
country, and we could pay these people what they really deserve for
being overseas, what their families really deserve when one or both
parents are overseas.
As a practical matter, there has to be a reasonable balance in what
we are doing. This subject can be reviewed by the Armed Services
Committee later. We have the 2004 bill coming, and we can have this
discussion again. I believe we ought to take this action and be as
reasonable as possible in doing it.
I know there is a difference of opinion. I hope the Senate will agree
to this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be added as an original
cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator of the
Armed Services Committee to review it. I raised this at one of the
first hearings we had before the Appropriations Committee. I raised the
question of what to do about imminent danger special pay. The
Department has not given us a recommendation yet. I think they have
other things in mind right now, but we have in mind the families in
particular.
I spent some time with families in Alaska this last weekend, an
enormous number of military families. Not one of them raised the
question of imminent danger pay. Not one of them raised the question of
their family separation pay. I was with literally 200 or 300 members of
the armed services over the weekend at a special recognition in
Fairbanks, AK, for the members who serve in the armed services.
I think this is the right thing to do, and I think this is the right
time to do it, but I hope the Senate will do it right and not just have
a figure that is pulled out of the air. These are figures that
represent an increase, again, of 50 percent for imminent danger pay and
a 100-percent increase for the family allowances on a monthly basis. I
think that is very reasonable under the circumstances.
If there are additional amounts that should be provided, I welcome
the Department of Defense so informing me. I do believe the Senate
ought to agree with it without debate. As I said, if the Armed Services
Committee and our Appropriations Committee believe more is needed as we
go on, if this war goes on, God forbid, into fiscal year 2004, then we
should address it.
Again, I say, in all sincerity, we are doing a lot of things for our
military families, and I think they are all wonderful. When I was
overseas, I did not talk to my family for over 18 months. Now a
military person can call his or her family every day, thanks to Senator
McCain. They have absolute assurance of instant communication whenever
they can get to a phone.
I remember seeing one young man who was wounded, and the embedded
journalist had a satellite phone. He asked: Would you like to call home
and tell them you are all right? And we all watched him call his
family. That is the wonder of technology.
These are the realities of money, and our job is to manage the money
of the United States. The first amendment I put in was to raise the
debt ceiling of the United States because of what we have had to do
since September 11. I want people to think about--and Senators should
think about--the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money we
have spent so far because of September 11.
Let's stay reasonable as we continue to increase that spending. We
have to pass that amendment. We are going to have to raise the debt
ceiling of the United States. Other people want to pick a figure out of
the air. I say let's raise it by the amount of what we have already
authorized to be spent in these three wars and homeland security. That
seems to me to be reasonable. I will debate that one later, but right
now I think this is a reasonable request in the Senate: Increase the
imminent danger pay by 50 percent, increase the overseas allowance for
families and the family separation allowance by 100 percent. I hope the
Senate will support this move. It is a reasonable thing to do.
I call on the Department of Defense to come up with some basic
studies as to what is necessary. It may be that portions of that family
separation allowance should be bifurcated. These are all volunteers
now. In the past, we went to war with draftees. Most of us did not have
families. During World War II, it was a rare thing to meet somebody who
was a married person. Now, practically all of them are married. As a
matter of fact, in some instances, such as the families I visited over
the weekend, I remember distinctly talking to three different couples
who are both in the armed services. When they go overseas, they get two
family separation allowances, and necessarily so. This may not be
enough in some of these circumstances, but I think it is the duty of
the Department of Defense to come up with a recommendation for a
permanent solution to this problem. There is no question that the $150
we had in place has not been adjusted now since 1997, and it
[[Page S4663]]
should be. This is the time to adjust it. I think this is a reasonable
adjustment, 50 percent for the imminent danger pay, $100 for the family
separation allowance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
____________________