Abstract
Passions were high on the Senate floor as Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman joined a long string of senators denouncing the Ninth Circuit Court's decision declaring the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional.
With apologies for interrupting Lieberman, Nevada Democrat Harry Reid asked for recognition in order to return briefly to the Defense Authorization bill and to put forward a unanimous consent request that he had waited two days to propound:
“Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin's amendment No. 4046 be agreed to; Senator Warner's amendment No. 4007, as amended, be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that the preceding all occur without any intervening action or debate.”
Sen. Jim Jeffords.
In a flash, with few senators on the floor, the Senate's extended debate over the administration's request for $7.8 billion for missile defense in fiscal year 2003 had come to an end.
The Senate had begun shadow-boxing over the appropriate level of missile defense funding for several days, even before the two amendments were offered for debate. And while senators delivered speech after speech on the virtues and deficiencies of missile defense, Democrats and Republicans were engaged in backroom negotiations to devise an acceptable compromise.
The Warner amendment, adopted without further debate or recorded vote, used dubious accounting to add money to the defense budget, restoring the entire $814 million that the Senate Armed Services Committee had cut from missile defense. It also gave the president the option of spending the funds on either missile defense programs or on combating terrorism. Levin's amendment put the Senate on record in favor of spending any new money on combating terrorism rather than missile defense.
This ambiguous outcome left no one totally happy. Missile defense critics were irritated that the president could still spend as much as he had requested. The administration was disappointed that there was no assurance that the full $7.8 billion it had asked for would be available for missile defense. As a result, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz threatened an administration veto of the entire bill.
Ambiguous though it was, the Senate outcome was a slight improvement over the House version of the same Defense Authorization bill in May. The House had enthusiastically endorsed the administration's entire request for missile defense, even adding several million dollars.
The Senate has consistently pro-duced more moderate outcomes since Vermont's Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party in 2001, handing Senate control to the Democrats. On both national security and domestic issues, the Senate has served as a modestly effective brake on the Bush administration.
With the changeover in party control, Levin replaced Warner as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Rhode Island's Jack Reed took over as Strategic Subcommittee chair. And the Armed Services Committee Democrats gained a 13-12 majority.
This less-than-secure majority includes several moderate Democrats who from time to time side with the Republicans—Connecticut's Joe Lieb-erman, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, and Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, to name three.
Yet Levin and Reed have managed to unite the committee's disparate Democrats around a series of positions in opposition to the Bush administration. The Republicans, no longer in control of votes or of the committee agenda, must try to overturn Democratic positions first in committee, then on the Senate floor. As a result, they've been forced to concentrate on their best opportunities in order to maximize their chances of success.
While the Senate GOP tackled the missile defense funding question, it left untouched several other provisions the committee adopted. Since the beginning of the year, the newly named Missile Defense Agency has maneuvered to avoid oversight within the Pentagon and Congress. In response, Senator Reed included four specific oversight provisions in his draft bill presented to the Senate, and none were challenged in committee or on the Senate floor:
On May 14, the Pentagon announced that it intended to classify details of future missile defense flight tests—public disclosure of past test details had enabled internal Pentagon critics and outside organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists to challenge the validity of the tests. Reed and Levin offered another amendment on the floor, requiring a report to Congress and the public within 120 days of each test. Again, the Republicans decided not to challenge the amendment, and it was adopted by voice vote.
The House of Representatives had included $15.5 million for the design of nuclear “bunker buster” weapons. The Senate rejection of those funds also went unchallenged.
The House also voted to speed up preparations for an eventual resumption of nuclear explosive testing, shortening the time from an administration decision to test from 24-36 months to 12 months. The Senate refused to go along.
The House recommended research into nuclear-armed interceptors for the U.S. missile defense program, a step suggested by key Defense Department advisers but not formally requested by the Pentagon. On the floor, the Senate adopted—again by voice vote—an amendment offered by California's Dianne Feinstein and Alaska's Ted Stevens barring any spending for nuclear warheads.
There were a number of other issues on which the Senate improved House provisions. For instance, the House had provided the president with the authority to waive restrictions on the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program through 2005; the Senate opted for a permanent waiver.
The Senate also adopted a provision to accelerate and expand nuclear nonproliferation programs to countries other than the former Soviet Union and to cover all radiological materials that could be used in “dirty bombs.” The House went in different directions, urging the Pentagon to enlarge the U.S. nuclear weapon reserve force and to consider the 1,700 deployed strategic nuclear weapons called for in the Treaty of Moscow signed on May 24 as a floor rather than a ceiling.
On domestic issues too, the Senate has restrained the Bush administration. It blocked administration plans to make the tax cuts adopted in 2001 permanent, to drill for oil in the Arctic wilderness, to privatize social security, and to create a faith-based initiative expanding federal funding of religious groups to provide social services.
The November 2002 elections will determine if the Senate will continue on the path it has taken since the Jeffords defection. The race for control of the Senate is extremely close, and each party has a number of vulnerable incumbents. The races for some seats now held by Republicans—by Bob Smith in New Hampshire, Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas, and Wayne Allard in Colorado—are toss-ups. So too are races for seats occupied by some Democrats—Minnesota's Paul Wellstone, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, and Missouri's Jean Carna-han. And there are more competitive races in Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
The battle for control of the House of Representatives is also close. Republicans have a slim, six-vote margin that they have effectively used to endorse the Bush agenda. Redistricting has created few competitive seats, but the sagging stock market, leading to a faltering economy, combined with widespread disgust over corporate scandals, has created an uncertain climate in which either party could win.
The Senate debate over missile defense reached a less-than-satisfactory conclusion. Despite Democratic skepticism over the direction of the president's program, Bush can still move forward with rudimentary deployment of a few interceptor missiles at Fort Greely, Alaska by 2004, as well as expand research and testing of numerous land-, sea-, air- and space-based national missile defenses. Moreover, the president is getting virtually all of his requested $400 billion military budget for next year.
Yet whether Majority Leader Tom Daschle or Trent Lott sets the Senate agenda next year, and whether Levin or Warner chairs the Armed Services Committee, does make a difference on issues small and large. It is similarly important whether the House re-elects Speaker Dennis Hastert or substitutes Speaker Dick Gephardt for the next two years. The 2002 elections will determine the direction of the country for at least two years, and perhaps beyond. •