H.R.5631 - DoD Appropriations Act, 2007
The bill, as amended, was passed on September 7
The conference report was passed on September 29
Signing Statement by the President on H.R. 5631
Amendments 4749-4761 - August 1
Amendments 4762-4850 - August 2
Amendments 4851-4877 - August 3
Amendments 4882-4889 - September 5
Amendments 4890-4906 - September 6
Amendments 4907-4918 - September 7
Debate of August 1
Debate of August 2 Part I - Part II - Part III
Debate of August 3
Debate of September 5 Part I - Part II - Part III
Debate of Sept 6 Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV
Debate of September 7
REID Amendment No. 4795 contains exactly the same "Tax Extension Relief" material that appears in the "trifecta" H.R.5970 - Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006 bill. He discussed this yesterday starting at Page S8569. The amendment was disposed of with a point of order by Stevens.
Mr. STEVENS. I make a point of order this amendment is legislation on an appropriations bill and violates rule XVI, and it would bring about a blue slip if this is reported to the House.
The immigration issue bleeds over into the DoD authorizations bill, with a vote at 2:00 PM on a Sessions amendment, to fund some border fencing on the Mexican border.
A similar amendment was rejected on July 13th, during debate of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
SESSIONS Amendment No. 4659 was
REJECTED on a 29 - 71 vote.
Purpose: To fund building 831 miles of border fence.
GOP Nay Votes: Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Chafee, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Domenici, Frist, Graham, Gregg, Hagel, Hutchison, Kyl, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Sununu, Voinovich and Warner
Without the benefit of the text of the amendment now being voted on, speculation on the outcome is a shot in the dark - my first sense is that this amendment will also be rejected, but naysayers last time around are saying AYE now, so my first sense is wrong, again.
UPDATE @ 14:27
KYL/SESSIONS Amendment No. 4775 was
PASSED on a 94 - 03 vote.
Purpose: to provide $1,829,100,000 for the Army National Guard for the construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing, and 461 miles of vehicle barriers
Nay votes: Feingold, Hagel and Jeffords
UPDATE @ August 3
A Washington Times news report,
Senate votes to fund the fence,
characterizes this vote as "an abrupt about-face" on the part of 66 Senators.
I think a more likely reason for the dramatic change in vote is that the funding
is off-budget and doesn't impact spending for other homeland
security projects -- read, "pork for the folks back home." The Houston Chronicle's article,
Senate OKs $1.83 billion to build fence along border, notes the
off-budget quality of the spending. Sure, some votes switched due to pressure from constituents
for approving the project then denying funds - but think a minority of the switchovers
can be attributed to constituent pressure.
And lest there be a sense that the Senate is now serious about enforcement, per se,
CORNYN Modified Amendment No. 4768, to provide emergency supplemental appropriations
for border security and immigration reform, was struck from consideration by a point of order.
UPDATE @ August 3
A Washington Times news report, Senate votes to fund the fence, characterizes this vote as "an abrupt about-face" on the part of 66 Senators. I think a more likely reason for the dramatic change in vote is that the funding is off-budget and doesn't impact spending for other homeland security projects -- read, "pork for the folks back home." The Houston Chronicle's article, Senate OKs $1.83 billion to build fence along border, notes the off-budget quality of the spending. Sure, some votes switched due to pressure from constituents for approving the project then denying funds - but think a minority of the switchovers can be attributed to constituent pressure.
And lest there be a sense that the Senate is now serious about enforcement, per se, CORNYN Modified Amendment No. 4768, to provide emergency supplemental appropriations for border security and immigration reform, was struck from consideration by a point of order.
KENNEDY Amendment No. 4802, to require a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq,
DURBIN Amendment No. 4781, to appropriate 2 million dollars to the University of Chicago for research relating to traumatic brain injuries, and
SALAZAR Amendment No. 4776 were brought up, with Kennedy's being under an agreement to debate and have a vote. There was about half an hour of heated debate between Senators Durbin and Stevens on Durbin's amendment.
SALAZAR Amendment No. 4776 was PASSED on a voice vote.
Purpose: To provide that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title II for the Air Force for operation and maintenance, up to $10,000,000 may be available for an interoperable communications capability for the United States Northern Command.
KYL Amendment No. 4806, to prohibit the suspension of oil extraction royalties when the
price of oil is high, was introduced.
DORGAN Amendment No. 4805, to reduce profiteering in wartime (corrupt suppliers) was introduced and objected to as legislation on an appropriations bill. The chair ruled the objection well taken.
UPDATE @ 17:44
DODD Amendment No. 4819 was
PASSED on a 97 - 00 vote.
Purpose: To make available an additional $6.7 billion to fund equipment reset requirements resulting from continuing combat operations, including repair, depot, and procurement activities.
UPDATE @ 18:13
DURBIN Amendment No. 4781 was
TABLED on a 54 - 43 vote.
Purpose: To grant the University of Chicago 2 million dollars to perform an imaging research project regarding the relationship between traumatic brain injury and epilepsy.
GOP vote against tabling: Burns, DeWine
Senator Stevens indicated that there were 68 pending amendments, and that his plan was to submit points of order against all of them that read as "legislation on an appropriations bill." He noted that some of the amendments presently objectionable under Rule XXVI could be rewritten in a form to avoid that ground for objection, but he intends to dispense of as many as possible in the interest of completing the bill tomorrow.
KYL Amendment No. 4806, to prohibit the suspension of royalties when the price of oil is
CORNYN Amendment No. 4768, to provide emergency supplemental appropriations for border security and immigration reform, were objected to (by Senator Stevens) as legislation on an appropriations bill. The chair ruled that the objections were well taken.
UPDATE @ 18:20
A managers package, consisting of:
BYRD Amendment No. 4803 (a interim report on the management of the biometrics program),
WARNER Amendment No. 4779 (7.5 million for Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies program),
INOUYE Amendment No. 4766 (a WWII military history exhibit), and
ISAKSON Amendment No. 4798 (reports relating to environmental compliance), was
PASSED on a voice vote.
STEVENS Amendment No. 4762 (medical countermeasures procurement), was
PASSED on a voice vote.
UPDATE @ 20:00
A managers package, consisting of:
BINGAMAN Amendment No. 4814 (adaptive optics),
SUNUNU Amendment No. 4829 (unmanned underwater vehicles),
COLEMAN Amendment No. 4792 (microelectronics), and
SCHUMER Amendment No. 4783 (regarding bandages), was
PASSED on a voice vote.
A cloture motion was filed on a motion to proceed to H.R.5970 - Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006, with the cloture vote to be held Friday morning unless the Senate reaches unanimous agreement providing for a different time.
___===--- August 3, 2006 ---===___
KENNEDY Amendment No. 4802, to require a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq by not later than October 1, 2006.
The elements of the proposed required NIE are:
I'm curious as to how Senator Frist aims to have H.R.4, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, considered and voted on by the end of the week. The cloture vote on the "trifecta" bill won't take long, but I can't imagine an agreement to take up, debate and vote on H.R.4 in the time remaining on Friday. Perhaps he'll explain how pensions can be done in less than a full day, if he makes opening remarks this morning.
UPDATE @ 10:03 (Opening Remarks)
Senator Frist said the appropriations bill is expected to be voted on today or tonight, reiterates the filing of the cloture motion relating to the "trifecta" bill, now being referred to as "The Family Prosperity Act," and summarily said that "we must handle the pensions bill before we leave."
He then repeated an attempt to take the Child Custody Protection Act (S.403) to conference, this time by promising conformity with the Democrats' expectation that the Boxer/Feinstein amendment (which was unanimously passed by the Senate) be retained. Frist said that he will not support or raise a conference report that does not include the language of the Boxer/Feinstein amendment. He repeated his request for a unanimous consent request to send the Senate bill to conference. Senator Reid objected on behalf of Senator Boxer.
This obstruction makes me wonder whether, procedurally, a single Senator can hold up legislation by refusal to go to conference. More particularly, whether this type of logjam can be broken by a cloture vote. The bill has PASSED the Senate, and is just kept from going to conference by objecting to substituting the Senate language for the House language and sending it to conference.
Senator Frist spoke for 10 minutes as a proponent of the The Family Prosperity Act (the "trifecta" bill), and did not more particularly describe when or how the pensions matter would be handled.
Senator Reid engaged in some inflammatory rhetoric, "Is this like the No Child Left Behind Act, where all the children are left behind? Is this like the Deficit Reduction Act that increases the deficit?" Says Reid, "This should not be called the 'trifecta' bill, it should be called the 'defecta' bill."
He built some of his comments by referring to Robert Novak's piece, GOP deserts principles by backing 2 bills.
UPDATE @ 10:11
Senator Stevens resumes action on the Appropriations bill, first by passing a manager's package, then by noting that he will object to all amendments that the parliamentarian has ruled are against Rule XVI.
COBURN Amendment No. 4787, expenses relating to conference programs, staff, travel costs, and other conference matters, may not exceed $70,000,000. This amendment will be rejected, eventually. Stevens moved to table this amendment, and asked for a roll call vote.
COBURN Amendment No. 4784, to require internet posting of reports required to be submitted to Committees on Appropriations. Senator Obama is a co-sponsor of this.
UPDATE @ 10:37
Senator Stevens objected to Coburn's Amendment No. 4784 as being in violation of Rule XVI, to which Senator Coburn asserted a defense that the amendment is germane. The chair (parliamentarian) ruled that the defense may be raised, and that the question of germaneness is to be decided by the Senate. Senator Stevens asked for a roll-call vote on that point, and Stevens indicated that there will be a series of votes beginning at 11:00 AM.
UPDATE @ 10:45
Senator Stevens (with agreement from Coburn) amended 4784 by striking the provision noted as "Section 2" (reports other than appropriations to be made public) and withdrew his objection to 4784 on Rule XVI grounds. The vote on this amendment thereby becomes a vote on adoption of the amendment.
COBURN Amendment No. 4785, to find and eliminate improper payments for travel.
I think he will also bring up his Amendment No. 4786, to require all earmarks, directives and limitations produced during conference on this bill be included in the resulting conference committee report.
UPDATE @ 11:08
He did, bring up Amendment No. 4786 that is. A series of three stacked votes is underway, with Amendment No. 4786 NOT being voted on at this time, because there isn't enough time to get four votes done before meetings scheduled at noon. The order of votes is: on tabling 4787, then on to 4784 and finally 4785.
UPDATE @ 11:37
UPDATE @ 11:41
COBURN Amendment No. 4784, to require internet posting of appropriations reports, was
PASSED on voice vote.
Senator Stevens offered a voice vote on the improper payments for travel, with the matter to be addressed in conference. Coburn requests the roll call vote in order to indicate the degree of support in the Senate, for finding and eliminating improper payments.
UPDATE @ 12:05
Managers package consisting of ...
SANTORUM Amendment No. 4755, up to $2,500,000 may be available for the Wireless Maritime Inspection System as part of the Smartship Wireless Project of the Navy,
NELSON Amendment No. 4808, up to $5,000,000 may be made available for the Virtual Training and Airspace Management Simulation for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
REED Amendment No. 4847, up to $3,000,000 may be available for Small and Medium Caliber Recoil Mitigation Technologies, and
CHAMBLISS Amendment No. 4828, up to $1,000,000 may be available for the Automated Communications Support System for WARFIGHTERS, Intelligence Community, Linguists, and Analysts, was
PASSED on voice vote.
BOND/LEAHY Amendment No. 4827, $2.44 billion to be made available for the National Guard for National Guard and Reserve equipment is introduced. It is modified to include the Army Reserve.
Senator Bond indicates that the shortfall in equipping the reserve is closer to 23 billion dollars, and that the 2.4 billion being advanced here is not the icing on the cake, it is the cake itself.
SHELBY Amendment No. 4862, to restore funding for KC-135 tanker replacement programs, is discussed but not called up. The object being to maintain contracts without lapse and consequent delay.
UPDATE @ 12:30
Senator Kennedy changes the subject a bit, and urges the Senate to accept the pension bill when it is presented for consideration.
UPDATE @ 16:27
I note that Stevens didn't object to this amendment on Rule XVI grounds.
UPDATE @ 16:59
A managers package, comprising:
SESSIONS 4774 (1 million dollars for blast protection research),
PRYOR 4846 (10 million dollars for Future Medical Shelter System),
BOND 4849 (8 million dollars for specified intelligence activity),
BIDEN 4851 (text forthcoming),
LOTT 4761 (29 million dollars for UAV experimentation and refinement of tactics),
LEVIN 4840 (15 million dollars for for Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology),
DEWINE 4801 (23 million dollars for advance procurement of nuclear propulsion equipment),
NELSON 4864 (text forthcoming),
ALLEN 4841 (2 million dollars for roads around Fort Belvoir, Virginia),
MIKULSKI 4860 (text forthcoming),
VOINOVICH 4797 (1 million dollars for Portable Battery Operated Solid-State Electrochemical Oxygen Generator project), and
DODD 4855 (text forthcoming) was
PASSED on unanimous consent, having cleared both sides.
I wonder if Biden's amendment is the one that recites "no permanent bases, and no US interest in Iraq oil."
UPDATE @ Aug 4: Yep, it is. From
the Daily Digest, Aug 3, 2006 ...
Stevens (for Biden) Amendment No. 4851, to prohibit the use of funds for establishing
United States military installations in Iraq or exercising United States control over the
oil resources of Iraq.
SESSIONS Amendment No. 4844, 77 million dollars for Advanced Conventional Strike Capability for the Conventional Trident Modification Program. This would study the retrofit of a system designed as a nuclear warhead delivery system to use conventional high explosives and inert (concrete) loads.
Vote to be held on Sessions' amendment at 6:15 PM.
UPDATE @ 17:33
"Prompt Global Strike" capability, able to hit a target anywhere on the planet within half an hour of the order to launch. A very interesting debate on the floor of the Senate, considering the risk of a launch being mistaken (by another country) for a nuclear strike, and the benefits of being able to hit a target without launching cruise missiles, bombers or fighters.
Senator Nelson (NE) is also keen on this technology, and says an alternative won't be available for a couple more decades. I believe the alternative is the "dropping" of projectiles previously inserted into low earth orbit.
UPDATE @ 18:43
SESSIONS Amendment No. 4844, 77 million dollars to study the retrofit of the Trident
ICBM warhead delivery system to use conventional high explosives and inert (concrete)
REJECTED on a 31 - 67 vote.
GOP Nay votes (unofficial - my ears): Bond, Brownback, Burr, Chafee, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, DeWine, Grassley, Gregg, Hatch, Hutchison, Lott, Lugar, McCain, Murkowski, Roberts, Santorum, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Stevens, Sununu, Voinovich
Senator Stevens outlines the schedule as he sees it:
- Kyl amendment 4842 - cleared on both sides.
- Manager's package.
- Stabenow amendment - apt to take some time.
- Then a motion for a third reading, and vote on final passage.
Senator Reid is upset that there isn't enough time, and asks that more time be allowed for bringing and debating amendments. "Don't give us the hustle on this defense bill. ... "We're stuck on the path to legislative heaven that the Republican's brought us, to estate tax repeal." LOL - tempers are running a bit short. Senator Stevens defends his management of the bill by saying this bill has typically taken 3 days, and all he did was ask for a third reading; if there is objection then all a Senator has to do is bring it it his attention. He's prepared to stay all night tonight and tomorrow if necessary.
He then said that moving to a third reading, if there is no amendment offered, isn't a threat, it's a promise. Reid said he aims to get along with everybody (the Senate laughed at that). He figures that the defense appropriations bill could be completed with 2 days of work after the Senate returns in September. Reid's word is worthless, he's reneged so many times.
Senator Frist offers to hold the cloture vote on the trifecta bill and the pensions bill tonight, after another 4 or 5 hours on the DoD appropriations bill - then the Senate can close up for the recess. That won't happen, but it is funny to watch the offer being made with a straight face.
Reid's plan is to delay the DoD appropriations bill until September, and promises it to be done the Wednesday night after Labor Day. Senator Frist appears amenable to a UC agreement of that nature - Senator Stevens says that he thinks the appropriations bill can be done this week, " ... our service people aren't taking the month of August off. ... I think we're going to be criticized, every one of us, for choosing to go home over deciding not to finish this." This persuades Senator Frist toward Steven's point of view, and away from jumping on Reid's proposed September schedule, at least (I think) until (and conditioned on) lack of progress becomes evident later tonight.
Reid notes the importance of completing the pensions bill before Northwest and Delta airlines dump their pension plans into the federal government pension guarantee program.
And with that, the work of the Senate is returned to Senator Stevens.
KYL Amendment No. 4842 was
PASSED on a voice vote.
Purpose: To place limitations based on market price on the royalty relief granted under any lease for the production of oil or natural gas on Federal land
No objection from Stevens on the grounds of Rule XVI. Must be selective objection.
A manager's package was also passed on unanimous consent.
STABENOW Amendment No. 4875, 200 million dollars in relief to the people of Lebanon.
UPDATE @ 19:30
The Senate is getting punchy. The chair, Senator Allen, called on Senator Carper as the "Senator/Governor from Delaware." Senator Carper saluted Allen at the conclusion of his (Carper's) comments. Must be an ex-governor to ex-governor thing.
Senator Stevens objects to Stabenow's amendment, notes that the State Department has plenty of money, raises a point of order that the amendment violates Rule XVI, and the point of order is sustained. The Stabenow amendment falls.
MENENDEZ Amendment No. 4863 is introduced. It aims to improve data security in light of e.g., the theft of a laptop computer from the Veteran's Administration. Menendez calls for the yeas and nays. Stevens schedules the vote for 8 PM.
I'm wondering what happened to KENNEDY Amendment No. 4802, to require a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Oh well, it's in experienced hands (Stevens), and the disposition will eventually be a matter of record.
UPDATE @ 20:28
UPDATE @ Aug 4: The Senate stands in adjournment until 11 AM, Tuesday September 5
Kennedy's S.Amdt.4802 was passed, as modified. The modified text:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS
H.R. 5631 (ORDER NO. 532)
1.--Ordered, That on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, at 11:00 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5631, an act making appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. (August 4, 2006.)
___---=== September 5, 2006 ===---___
More amendments, etc. I have no plan to post timely reports of offerings here, unless something wild occurs and I happen to be paying attention.
Action on this bill will run through today and tomorrow, with a final vote (this will pass) most likely on Thursday this week.
___---=== September 6, 2006 ===---___
Kennedy/Reid Amendment No. 4885, to include information on civil war in Iraq in the quarterly reports on progress toward military and political stability in Iraq.
Allen Modified Amendment No. 4883, to make available from Defense Health Program up to $19,000,000 for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center.
Feinstein/Leahy Amendment No. 4882, to protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
Yesterday's debate, Part I contains Reid's rant against the GOP-lead Senate
UPDATE @ 12:33
UPDATE @ 17:10
Senator Stevens expressed frustration at extended debate on an anti-Rumsfeld resolution, an amendment that has not been entered, and the impact on completion of the appropriations bill by tomorrow. He and Senator Durbin exchanged barbs relating to obtaining a time agreement for moving along.
UPDATE @ 19:18
There is some sort of time agreement that provides for limited debate and votes on Kennedy Amendment No. 4885 and Mikulski Amendment No. 4895. I don't know which amendment is the "dump Rummy" resolution - but from the tenor and breakdown of debate it is easy to predict a party-line vote with a few exceptions. I figure Lieberman and Nelson of Nebraska will break ranks, on grounds of both "stay the course in Iraq" and deference to executive prerogative.
Oh - Boxer gives up that the GOP won't allow a vote on the dump Rummy resolution. Belay the above predictions.
UPDATE @ 19:30
Some amendment (the dump Rummy one?) was just ruled not germane. LOL. Let them talk for hours, then pull the rug out.
SA 4904. Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CARPER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. KERRY, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. HARKIN, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. DAYTON, and Mr. DODD)
During consideration of this measure today, the Senate also took the following action: Chair sustained a point of order that Reid Amendment No. 4904, providing a sense of the Senate on the need for a new direction in Iraq policy and in the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, was not germane, and the amendment thus fell.
Kennedy amendment 4885 includes the following language, which refers to a requirement on the administration to prepare a report containing ...
(G) If the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines pursuant to subparagraph (E) that there is not a civil war in Iraq, the following information (in unclassified format):
(i) A description of the efforts by the United States Government to help avoid civil war in Iraq.
(ii) The strategy of the United States Government to protect the United States Armed Forces in the event of civil war in Iraq.
(iii) The strategy of the United States Government to ensure that the United States Armed Forces will not take sides in the event of civil war in Iraq.
(iv) The progress being made by the Government of Iraq in disarming or demobilizing militias or reintegrating militias into government security forces.
(H) If the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines pursuant to subparagraph (E) that there is a civil war in Iraq, the following information (in unclassified format):
(i) A statement of the mission and duration of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(ii) The strategy of the United States Government to protect the United States Armed Forces while they remain in Iraq.
(iii) The strategy of the United States Government to ensure that the United States Armed Forces will not take sides in the civil war.
Not take sides in a civil war? That's asinine. The amendment will fall. I'm amazed it is even given the dignity of a vote.
UPDATE @ 19:55
Senator Stevens points out that the currently required (and prepared) report includes an assessment of whether or not the conflict in Iraq meets the international definition of "civil war." With regard to the "taking sides" issue, he notes that we are already supporting the elected government. Stevens is mocking Kennedy's requirement to not take sides.
Stevens' general point is that the Congress should not be directing policy via an appropriations bill, and also that foreign policy is, at some level, an executive rather than a legislative responsibility.
I half expect Stevens to move for a ruling that the amendment is not germane, but he keeps hedging with comments that indicate a vote will be conducted.
UPDATE @ 19:59
The vote is on a motion to table the Kennedy amendment ....
UPDATE @ 20:31
KENNEDY/Reid Amendment No. 4885, to include information on civil war in Iraq in the
quarterly reports on progress toward military and political stability in Iraq, was
TABLED on a 54 - 44 vote.
GOP votes with Kennedy: Chafee, Snowe
On a tangentially related subject, here is a link to the text of President Bush's speech relating to CIA detention & interrogation, and imploring Congress to pass legislation addressing prosecution of terrorists.
UPDATE @ 20:41
The vote is on a motion to table the Mikulski amendment ....
UPDATE @ 21:03
MIKULSKI Amendment No. 4895, to eliminate funding for certain activities at Walter Reed,
and to restore landscaping, etc. to federal employees instead of to private sector bidding, was
TABLED on a 50 - 48 vote.
GOP votes to keep these as federal jobs: Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Specter and Talent
UPDATE @ 21:07
Sounds as though the DoD appropriations bill will run the full day tomorrow. Stevens handled the general closing matters and turned the floor over to Senator Rockefeller. After Rockefeller's speech, the Senate will stand in adjournment until 9:30 tomorrow.
Senator Rockefeller noted the absence of Senate action on Intelligence authorization bill.
UPDATE @ 21:24
ROCKEFELLER Amendment No. 4906, striking Section 8086, resulting in an effect that none of the funds in this DoD appropriations bill could be used to fund intelligence activities. The point is to force the Senate to act on S.3237 - Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Calendar No. 476 on the Senate's Legislative Calendar.
This bill and some of the issues raised by it were cited in this post of May 28, 2006. Worth a revisit.
Here is the language of the currently pending bill, that Senator Rockefeller's amendment would strike ...
SEC. 8086. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2007 until the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.
Gotta enjoy that "deemed" stuff. Six of one, half a dozen of another. The intelligence programs will be authorized and the money will be appropriated. Rockefeller is just playing politics with the process, and the process is unfolding in a typical (not unusual) fashion.
50 U.S.C. 414 is an interesting read of its own right, just the same.
___---=== September 7, 2006 ===---___
Rockefeller Amendment No. 4906, to strike the section specifically authorizing intelligence and intelligence-related activities.
Mr. STEVENS. "Senator Conrad will be here first thing in the morning to offer an amendment."
Off the subject of the DoD Appropriations bill, there are presently two bills in competition for the task of modifying military commissions ...
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Inhofe)
S. 3861. A bill to facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes; read the first time.
By President Bush
I transmit for the consideration of the Congress draft legislation entitled the "Military Commissions Act of 2006." This draft legislation responds to the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), by establishing for the first time in our Nation's history a comprehensive statutory structure for military commissions that would allow for the fair and effective prosecution of captured members of al Qaeda and other unlawful enemy combatants. The Act also addresses the Supreme Court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the conflict with al Qaeda by providing definitions rooted in United States law for the standards of conduct prescribed by Common Article 3.
referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
The text of neither is available, and there have been reports of additional alternatives.
Senator Feinstein illuminates some of the rationale for Rockefeller's amendment, in a statement inserted into the record. Her comments dovetail with the "CIA program" part of President Bush's announcement yesterday, and also hit on the NSA Terrorist surveillance Program.
The bill [S.3237 - Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007] also requires the intelligence community to explain how it is complying with the Detainee Treatment Act and provide Congress with information on any "alleged clandestine detention facilities" that it may be operating and continues the process of intelligence reform begun in 2004.
A good example of how the system fails to work is the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was publicly revealed last December but which had not previously been briefed to the committees.
Senator Feinstein's comments may predict the direction of a significant portion of today's debate -- if not today, then sometime in the near future.
UPDATE @ 16:00
MENENDEZ Amendment No. 4909, to prohibit the use of funds for a public relations program
designed to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle East and create a
database of news stories to promote positive coverage of the war in Iraq, was
TABLED on a 51 - 44 vote.
Pure party line vote.
SCHUMER Amendment No. 4897, to make available up to an additional $700,000,000 for
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities to combat the growth of poppies in Afghanistan, to
eliminate the production and trade of opium, and heroin, and to prevent terrorists from using the
proceeds for terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and to designate the
additional amount as emergency spending, was
NOT TABLED on a 45 - 51 vote, and was
PASSED on a voice vote.
GOP Senators against tabling: Allen, Coleman, Collins, DeWine, Ensign, Snowe, Talent and Warner
ROCKEFELLER Amendment No. 4906, to strike the section specifically authorizing intelligence
and intelligence-related activities, was
Reid Reed amendment pertaining to remote-controlled aircraft is pending, according to
the C-SPAN2 voice-over.
From /balkin.blogspot.com, the detainee treatment bill the Administration sent to Congress yesterday. The commentary at Balkin is against the administration, but it is also substantive and well-cited. I recommend reading there if you are interested in the gory details.
UPDATE @ 18:07
Next vote is on the DoD Appropriations bill. Senator Frist indicated that the action following passage of the DoD Appropriations bill will be the Port Security bill, with debate tonight and tomorrow but no votes tonight or tomorrow.
UPDATE @ 18:29
Off to conference. Senate conferees have been named.
Ports Security Bill
Senators agree on ports security bill
LARA JAKES JORDAN - Associated Press
The $835 million bill, which has languished in the Senate for years, resembles plans the House approved in May. But it's not clear how Congress will pay for the security measures, including putting monitors at the nation's 22 largest ports to screen for materials to make radiological "dirty" bombs or nuclear weapons. ...
The House bill, which called for spending $5.5 billion over five years, would pay for the security with existing Customs fees. But the Senate Finance Committee has rejected doing so.
Digging up and dusting off an an old bill. By my guess, port security will be debated and passed under S.2459 - GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act, on the Senate's legislative calendar since May 5th ... or maybe it's older brother, S.2008 - GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act, on the legislative calendar since November last year.
Time to start a new post. Or not.
The Senate will be debating Ports Security under H.R.4954 - Security and Accountability For Every Port Act. No votes today or Monday.
UPDATE @ Friday, Sept 29
H.R.5631 - Conference Report Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007, was
PASSED (at 10:41) on a 100 - 00 vote.
Biden's amendment seems to have survived the conference committee.
The conferees include a general provision (Section 9012) as proposed by the House and Senate, which prohibits funds in this Act for establishing permanent U.S. military installations in Iraq or exercising U.S. control over oil resources in Iraq.
In an irony,
KYL/SESSIONS Amendment No. 4775 to provide $1,829,100,000 for the Army National Guard for the
construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing, and 461 miles of vehicle barriers, which
PASSED (on Aug 2, 2006) on a 94 - 03 vote, was
THEN STRIPPED OUT of this bill in conference.
Off to the president.
UPDATE @ Saturday, Sept 30
Signing statement interspersed with statutory langauge. Section numbers and statutory language taken from Conference Report 109-676.
Beware that Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Print) [H.R.5631.PP] has some difference in section numbering and statutory language.
Sections 8007, 8084, and 9005 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8084, and 9005 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.
SEC. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used to initiate a special access program without prior notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the congressional defense committees. -- SEC. 8084. None of the funds in this Act may be used to initiate a new start program without prior written notification to the Office of Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees. -- SEC. 9005. None of the funds provided in this title may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in fiscal years 2006 or 2007 appropriations to the Department of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, development, test and evaluation new start program without prior written notification to the congressional defense committees.
Section 8050 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007 may be used to transfer defense articles or services, other than intelligence services, to another nation or an international organization for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations, until 15 days after the executive branch notifies six committees of the Congress of the planned transfer. To the extent that protection of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed for international peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operations might require action of a kind covered by section 8050 sooner than 15 days after notification, the executive branch shall construe the section in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
SEC. 8050. (a) LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND SERVICES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to transfer to another nation or an international organization any defense articles or services (other than intelligence services) for use in the activities described in subsection (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer. (b) COVERED ACTIVITIES- This section applies to-- (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution; and (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation. (c) REQUIRED NOTICE- A notice under subsection (a) shall include the following: (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services to be transferred. (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or services to be transferred. (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or supplies-- (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be transferred have been met; and (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
A proviso in the Act's appropriation for "Operation and Maintenance, Defense Wide" purports to prohibit planning for consolidation of certain offices within the Department of Defense. Also, sections 8010(b), 8032(b), and 8089 purport to specify the content of portions of future budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch shall construe these provisions relating to planning and making of budget recommendations in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to require the opinions of the heads of departments, to supervise the unitary executive branch, and to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President shall judge necessary and expedient.
SEC. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2007, the civilian personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day of such fiscal year. (b) The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Defense as well as all justification material and other documentation supporting the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were effective with regard to fiscal year 2008. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to military (civilian) technicians. -- SEC. 8032. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the appropriations or funds available to the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an item would not have been chargeable to the Department of Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and if the purchase of such an investment item would be chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations made to the Department of Defense for procurement. (b) The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Defense as well as all justification material and other documentation supporting the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed fiscal year 2008 procurement appropriation and not in the supply management business area or any other area or category of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds. -- SEC. 8089. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2008 submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code shall include separate budget justification documents for costs of United States Armed Forces' participation in contingency operations for the Military Personnel accounts, the Operation and Maintenance accounts, and the Procurement accounts: Provided, That these documents shall include a description of the funding requested for each contingency operation, for each military service, to include all Active and Reserve components, and for each appropriations account: Provided further, That these documents shall include estimated costs for each element of expense or object class, a reconciliation of increases and decreases for each contingency operation, and programmatic data including, but not limited to, troop strength for each Active and Reserve component, and estimates of the major weapons systems deployed in support of each contingency: Provided further, That these documents shall include budget exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation) for all contingency operations for the budget year and the two preceding fiscal years.
Section 8005 of the Act, relating to requests to congressional committees for reprogramming of funds, shall be construed as calling solely for notification, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.
SEC. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary in the national interest, he may, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, transfer not to exceed $4,500,000,000 of working capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made available in this Act to the Department of Defense for military functions (except military construction) between such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be available to prepare or present a request to the Committees on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using authority provided in this section must be made prior to June 30, 2007: Provided further, That transfers among military personnel appropriations shall not be taken into account for purposes of the limitation on the amount of funds that may be transferred under this section: Provided further, That no obligation of funds may be made pursuant to section 1206 of Public Law 109-163 (or any successor provision) unless the Secretary of Defense has notified the congressional defense committees prior to any such obligation.
The executive branch shall construe section 8093, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch. Also, the executive branch shall construe sections 8095 and 8101 of the Act, which purport to prohibit the President from altering command and control relationships within the Armed Forces, as advisory, as any other construction would be inconsistent with the constitutional grant to the President of the authority of Commander in Chief.
SEC. 8093. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for integration of foreign intelligence information unless the information has been lawfully collected and processed during the conduct of authorized foreign intelligence activities: Provided, That information pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as implemented through Executive Order No. 12333. -- SEC. 8095. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be obligated to modify command and control relationships to give Fleet Forces Command administrative and operational control of U.S. Navy forces assigned to the Pacific fleet: Provided, That the command and control relationships which existed on October 1, 2004, shall remain in force unless changes are specifically authorized in a subsequent Act. -- SEC. 8101. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to transfer research and development, acquisition, or other program authority relating to current tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAVs) from the Army. (b) The Army shall retain responsibility for and operational control of the Extended Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in order to support the Secretary of Defense in matters relating to the employment of unmanned aerial vehicles.
The executive branch shall construe provisions of the Act relating to race, ethnicity, gender, and State residency, such as sections 8013, 8018 and 8048, in a manner consistent with the requirement to afford equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
SEC. 8013. (a) LIMITATION ON CONVERSION TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE- None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to convert to contractor performance an activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by more than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees unless-- (1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-private competition that includes a most efficient and cost effective organization plan developed by such activity or function; (2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers for performance of the activity or function, the cost of performance of the activity or function by a contractor would be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that equals or exceeds the lesser of-- (A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or function by Federal employees; or (B) $10,000,000; and (3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of Defense by-- (A) not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan available to the workers who are to be employed in the performance of that activity or function under the contract; or (B) offering to such workers an employer-sponsored health benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less towards the premium or subscription share than the amount that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code. (b) EXCEPTIONS- (1) The Department of Defense, without regard to subsection (a) of this section or subsections (a), (b), or (c) of section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, and notwithstanding any administrative regulation, requirement, or policy to the contrary shall have full authority to enter into a contract for the performance of any commercial or industrial type function of the Department of Defense that-- (A) is included on the procurement list established pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 47); (B) is planned to be converted to performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped individuals in accordance with that Act; or (C) is planned to be converted to performance by a qualified firm under at least 51 percent ownership by an Indian tribe, as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)), or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as defined in section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(15)). (2) This section shall not apply to depot contracts or contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469 and 2474 of title 10, United States Code. (c) TREATMENT OF CONVERSION- The conversion of any activity or function of the Department of Defense under the authority provided by this section shall be credited toward any competitive or outsourcing goal, target, or measurement that may be established by statute, regulation, or policy and is deemed to be awarded under the authority of, and in compliance with, subsection (h) of section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, for the competition or outsourcing of commercial activities. -- SEC. 8018. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code or a small business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of being allowed additional compensation under section 504 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever the prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 430 of title 41, United States Code, this section shall be applicable to any Department of Defense acquisition of supplies or services, including any contract and any subcontract at any tier for acquisition of commercial items produced or manufactured, in whole or in part by any subcontractor or supplier defined in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code or a small business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code: Provided further, That, during the current fiscal year and hereafter, businesses certified as 8(a) by the Small Business Administration pursuant to section 8(a)(15) of Public Law 85-536, as amended, shall have the same status as other program participants under section 602 of Public Law 100-656, 102 Stat. 3825 (Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 1988) for purposes of contracting with agencies of the Department of Defense. -- SEC. 8048. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal year and hereafter for construction or service performed in whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the national average rate of unemployment as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous with another State, individuals who are residents of such State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of national security.
Sections 8039 and 8064 of the Act purport to allocate funds for specified purposes as set forth in the joint explanatory statement of managers that accompanied the Act and to direct compliance with a classified annex which was not incorporated into the Act and for which presentment was not made. The executive branch shall construe all these provisions in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements of the Constitution for the making of a law.
SEC. 8039. The Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, acting through the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense, may use funds made available in this Act under the heading `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' to make grants and supplement other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference to accompany the conference report on the bill H.R. 5631. -- SEC. 8064. The Secretary of Defense shall provide a classified quarterly report beginning 30 days after enactment of this Act, to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Subcommittees on Defense on certain matters as directed in the classified annex accompanying this Act.
The signing statement says that the instructions from Congress, in those sections, lack the force of law because they point to a classified annex that is not part of the law. To "construe all these provisions in a manner consistent with the bicameral passage and presentment requirements" translates into "we're going to ignore those sections."